Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Unless I misunderstand how arbitration works, Pujols could simply reject arbitration, and go sign for a nine-figure multi-year contract somewhere else.  In fact, he'd probably be a fool to do otherwise.

That's correct.  Arbitration is a 2-way street.  The team doesn't have to offer it, and the player doesn't have to accept it if the team offers it.  Once the team offers arbitration, however, they are assured draft pick compensation if the player qualifies and signs elsewhere.

so if we get so far as to offer him arbitration, we get two draft picks for pujols, unless we can beat out the free market for the remaining baseball life in pujols--and unless he gives us a discount after we played brinkmanship with him, or collusion is a reality to the extent that no one else bids for him, that means we lose pujols.  i think THAT is the reason why the deal needs to get done before the season begins, because he is worth more in a midseason trade than as two draft picks, and we would simply try to trade him in july.  all of this is so horrible to contemplate that it would be better for all if the two sides could agree on a ballpark figure, and then not quibble over a few tens of millions of dollars here or there.

The trade issue is probably moot.  With the completion of his 10th season, Pujols now has full veto power over any trade.

Max wrote:

In any event, let's not get there. let's get this thing done soon.  when is the winter thing you were mentioning?

I dont think Pujols really wants to get a new contract yet.  If he wanted one he could have cornered ownership into giving him one.  The only real advantage for him in getting a contract this years is insurance in case of injury and Pujols has never been one to worry about getting hurt.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

so if we get so far as to offer him arbitration, we get two draft picks for pujols, unless we can beat out the free market for the remaining baseball life in pujols--and unless he gives us a discount after we played brinkmanship with him, or collusion is a reality to the extent that no one else bids for him, that means we lose pujols.  i think THAT is the reason why the deal needs to get done before the season begins, because he is worth more in a midseason trade than as two draft picks, and we would simply try to trade him in july.  all of this is so horrible to contemplate that it would be better for all if the two sides could agree on a ballpark figure, and then not quibble over a few tens of millions of dollars here or there.

The trade issue is probably moot.  With the completion of his 10th season, Pujols now has full veto power over any trade.

probably.  but who knows, he might approve a trade in July if things aren't going well.


In any event, let's not get there. let's get this thing done soon.  when is the winter thing you were mentioning?

I think it runs the weekend of MLK Day because it runs for 3 days, Sat-Mon.

tkihshbt wrote:

Jeter's agent is asking for a 5/$125M deal.

I linked to that a few posts up.  Apparently the first offer was 6 years at $25 million each.  The story also mentioned that his agent seems to be fixated on the $25/year issue.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

The trade issue is probably moot.  With the completion of his 10th season, Pujols now has full veto power over any trade.

probably.  but who knows, he might approve a trade in July if things aren't going well.


In any event, let's not get there. let's get this thing done soon.  when is the winter thing you were mentioning?

I think it runs the weekend of MLK Day because it runs for 3 days, Sat-Mon.

Then I will sit back and wait.  I think you are probably right that they will time this one well.  I also think, and this is just my gut feeling, that they will get this done.  The issue for me, for the past several years, is not will they make pujols a cardinal for life, but what else will the owners do to make us competitive, because one star and a cast of nobody's is a recipe for wrigleyian disappointment.  and as we learned last season, a few stars and a cast of the wrong nobody's doesn't quite get the job done either.

"Steinbrenner confident Jeter will stay with Yanks"

If Jeter swallows his pride, he will resign with the Yankees.  And it would be a big sacrifice to do otherwise, because I doubt any other team offers him anything close to the $15 million yearly salary.  A Uribe-sized contract is possible, but not much more, I suspect.

The big question for the pride of the Yankees is, what will it be like next season when the team captain has been publicly neutered by the front office?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ao9pN7cuSMlXx3qlbSVavmMRvLYF?slug=ap-yankees-jeter

windwalker wrote:

Mulligan? If you think Yankee Fan is admonishing Hal to be "less profligate" you're incorrect. In the same way the Scrubs were "incorrect" that Ernie Broglio would be better for the team than Lou Brock.  In the same way that Tommy LaSorda was "incorrect" in pitching to Jack Clark. In the same way that the Romans were "incorrect" that Hannibal couldnt get those elephants over the Alps.

Wow, it sounds like you wrote that under the same happy influence of the 750 mil single serving bottles of red wine from Walmart that I was under when I wrote my rant.

windwalker wrote:

And if "public admonition" is a reference to OTHER teams' fans, then yes, DUHH. But that's as banal as saying that the Cardinals fans' desire to see the Cubs trim their payroll to $40M represents an actual constraint.

Maybe we view the power of other team's fans differently.  I think that if the Yankees were to unleash their financial strength without regard to the rest of MLB, that there would be the risk of a pushback similar to the revenue sharing in the NFL.  So, yeah, I think the Yankees are aware that they are the six hundred pound gorilla in the room, and they are careful, not out of any altruism, but because they know that if they play their hand too aggressively, all of the 90 pound weaklings will gang up on them, pin them down, and put them on a crash diet.

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

Maybe we view the power of other team's fans differently.  I think that if the Yankees were to unleash their financial strength without regard to the rest of MLB, that there would be the risk of a pushback similar to the revenue sharing in the NFL.  So, yeah, I think the Yankees are aware that they are the six hundred pound gorilla in the room, and they are careful, not out of any altruism, but because they know that if they play their hand too aggressively, all of the 90 pound weaklings will gang up on them, pin them down, and put them on a crash diet.

I think the yankees doing what they are doing to Jeter is the first sign that they are no longer going to be willing to pay players more just because they are Yankees.  Not because they care about the MLB but just because they dont see a need to hand out free money.

I don't believe anyone thinks they'd be concerned about a change in revenue sharing out of a reverence for the National Pastime.  What they would be concerned about is a further erosion of their ridiculous advantage over the rest of the clubs.  That's what would happen if baseball went to a revenue sharing arrangement as comprehensive as that in the NFL.

Last edited by Mags (12/03/2010 9:49 am)

I think it will be interesting to see over time if the boys are as committed to winning at all costs as George was.  We all remember (as much as we may try to forget) the August Busch III ownership of the Cardinals.  Busch III didn't care about winning and ran the team in a manner designed solely to maximize profit.  I wonder if Hank and the other brother might have something like this in mind.

Of course, when you're the Yankees, "scaling back" payroll could mean reducing payroll to $150M.

I just realized I wrote what Darth said above.

My bad.

Even more from Goold.

A) I like the idea of star players receiving ownership and my conspiratorial mind leaps into action when I read that it is currently barred.

B) Interesting that Goold estimates Pujols will $35 million for 4-5 years.  That sounds like it would be a good deal for the Cards, as opposed to something like $27 million for 10 years, because the big money would come during the years when Pujols is most likely to remain quite productive.  the man deserves the highest annual salary in the history of baseball, and if he wants to ask for that, and compromise with fewer years, then the Cards should leap at it.  It would give DeWitt more ammo to argue that he is 'all in' and committing everything he can (even if it is a fallacy).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/birdland/article_b040dd6a-fe37-11df-80fc-0017a4a78c22.html

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Even more from Goold.

A) I like the idea of star players receiving ownership and my conspiratorial mind leaps into action when I read that it is currently barred.

B) Interesting that Goold estimates Pujols will $35 million for 4-5 years.  That sounds like it would be a good deal for the Cards, as opposed to something like $27 million for 10 years, because the big money would come during the years when Pujols is most likely to remain quite productive.  the man deserves the highest annual salary in the history of baseball, and if he wants to ask for that, and compromise with fewer years, then the Cards should leap at it.  It would give DeWitt more ammo to argue that he is 'all in' and committing everything he can (even if it is a fallacy).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/birdland/article_b040dd6a-fe37-11df-80fc-0017a4a78c22.html

That's not Goold's estimation, it's Fay Vincent's estimation.  I'd love to know why Vincent thinks anyone actually cares what he thinks players should or shouldn't be paid.

I didn't read it that way.  I read that Goold was discussing Vincent's suggestion that players become owners.  Then, in a subsequent paragraph, it sounds like it is Goold's estimation that Pujols might earn $35 million  per year.  I could be wrong though.  Whoever's idea it was, I think it about right if it is a short term contract.  Supposing he was offered arbitration and accepted, what would he get for one year?