AP, are we able to upload images? 

I was just able to do a baby analysis in Excel that shows that 2010's opening day payroll is still below the predicted value on the trendline and I would like to show it.  Suggestions?

Max wrote:

AP, are we able to upload images? 

I was just able to do a baby analysis in Excel that shows that 2010's opening day payroll is still below the predicted value on the trendline and I would like to show it.  Suggestions?

The image thing works goofy.  I am not sure you can post pics from your computer.

[img]3

Max wrote:

I tried to open the image in text edit and past it between the [url][/url] commands . . . without luck. 

So I suppose the only way is some work around, like uploading to Flickr, and then posting the link?

Yes there's no local file system on the forums for uploading pics so you have to reference it as a web URL from somewhere.

You could right click an email in a web article and see the "HTTP" address, and use that in between the tags I believe. Putting up your own pics though, you'll have to host them somewhere first.

And here's what it looks like if we project a $110 M opening day payroll for 2011.  In this case, 2010 is even further below the line (because 2011 pulls the line up, of course).  Do we have a better projection yet for opening day payroll?

https://picasaweb.google.com/110251882654445510453/StLouisCardinalsOpeningDayPayrollTrend?authkey=Gv1sRgCLfgst7hrcqZuAE&feat=directlink

APRTW wrote:

Burwell hits another home run. 

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bryan-burwell/article_eed60692-7026-52a5-846c-efa43e2cef1e.html

Cardinals should play hard and try to win.  Good one.

"Here's something else that I'd love to see. Now that Adam Wainwright is gone, maybe the Cards should use this sad event to liberate themselves, ditch their patient Midwest sensibilities and behave like overly aggressive Yankees on a manic shopping binge and go all out for the 2011 season."

(errr) (errr) (errr) (errr) (errr)

[We need an emoticon that rolls its eyes.  That would have been much closer to what I was trying to get at]

What does this do to the Pujols contract extension talks:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110421&content_id=18083158&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

They added "16:$19M, 17:$19M, 18:$19M, 19:$18M, 20:$16M, 21: mutual option up to $20M ($4M buyout)" to his contract.  Kind of risky, IMO.

forsberg_us wrote:

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Dewitt would be more than willing to pay Pujols $145M between now and 2020.   (grin) (grin) (grin)

my first thought was that this pulls things back a little, more toward what dewitt might want to pay. 

it sucks that dewitt didn't pounce on opportunities before.  i thought that even the howard signing set a marvelous precent in that it was just 5 years.  and if dewitt had offered pujols 5 years at something crazy, like $30 aav, with options to keep pujols a cardinal as long as he is playing well, that this would all be over and done with. 

i suppose it is foolish to think there will be any resolution until probably next november or december when, regardless of Pujols's final decision, we will have been torn in pieces upon learning that some team like the Cubs are willing to go up to $300 million for 10 years.

Last edited by Max (4/22/2011 1:27 pm)

Max wrote:

i suppose it is foolish to think there will be any resolution until probably next november or december when, regardless of Pujols's final decision, we will have been torn in pieces upon learning that some team like the Cubs are willing to go up to $300 million for 10 years.

If someone pays Pujols 10/$300M, I won't blame him for taking it, and it won't bother me if the Cardinals don't match.

Here's another interesting one from alomost two years ago "12/23/2010 8:21 am"

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

Man sometimes I'm a blithering idiot... I would not make a successful GM, but this time, I was right. After the Howard deal, I estimated 30 million a season is what it would take to keep AP around. Sad though, they could have signed him for a 10/250 before howard got that deal.

Actually Alz, Pujols told Chad last season that during the offseason (between 09-10) Pujols' agents proposed a 5/125 (the same deal Howard signed, but before Howard signed it) and the Cardinals didn't act because they thought the market was regressing.  If that's the case, their effort to low-ball Pujols may have cost them anywhere from $55-85M in guaranteed money.

alz wrote:

Well I seriously hope you're right, because it seems all quiet on the cardinal front... I don't like "all quiet" when I have the best baseball player ever without a contract.

Fingers crossed.

Chad's take was that "all quiet" was a good sign.  They'd be scrambling to get a deal done if there wasn't already a framework for a deal and the media would know.  This may be a situation where no news really is good news.  At least for a little while.

APIAD wrote:

I dont think Pujols is worth 25 million either.  At the time I think we were all blinded by the evil thought of losing Pujols.  Now that he is gone, I understand the team is better off.  If he was on this roster with that contract and the payroll wasnt raised by quite a bit this team would be in worst shape.  If they are going to throw that kind of cash around they would be better off having Hamilton on the team.  Not that they will even consider that idea.  However if I was going to have a 25 million dollar player on the team there are alot of players I would pick before Pujols.

But maybe not back in 2010.

It really depends on how they worked the extension.  If it paid for 2010-2014, it would have been a fabulous deal for us.  Someone calculated Pujols worth being up around $32 million back in the 2010-2011 period.

As for what happened, it's a shame, but it is far from certain he would have collapsed as did had he stayed here.  Read back through that old thread and I posted that I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be like Sampson cutting his hair. 

Anyway, FWIW, I am having fun looking through the old posts here and on Yahoo.  Did you know AP that you referred to a Burwell column as "Burwell hits another homerun".