gonzalez is two years younger, but otherwise is on a totally different plane from pujols. 

i will say this for the 'fiduciary duty' argument for considering letting pujols walk: the difference between the very best first baseman, and one who is good enough to play on a contender, can be huge in terms of salary.  but it isn't really necessary for fielding a winner to have the very best first baseman, or the highest paid player in the game.  there is risk in everything, and the mega-payroll teams cab better afford the risk of paying to have the 'very best' instead of just, 'probably good enough.'  so, even if the market shows that pujols is 'worth' some astronomical figure, it might not be the best baseball decision, let alone business decision, to sign him.  the biggest best reasons to sign him at this point are for the emotional reasons. 

that said, i think that the cards had their chance to sign him for a reasonable figure--something that made baseball sense, and business sense, and emotional sense--and they screwed that up, and dewitt deserves whatever demonic reputation the sport of baseball dumps on him if he doesn't resign pujols.

Max wrote:

gonzalez is two years younger, but otherwise is on a totally different plane from pujols. 

i will say this for the 'fiduciary duty' argument for considering letting pujols walk: the difference between the very best first baseman, and one who is good enough to play on a contender, can be huge in terms of salary.  but it isn't really necessary for fielding a winner to have the very best first baseman, or the highest paid player in the game.  there is risk in everything, and the mega-payroll teams cab better afford the risk of paying to have the 'very best' instead of just, 'probably good enough.'  so, even if the market shows that pujols is 'worth' some astronomical figure, it might not be the best baseball decision, let alone business decision, to sign him.  the biggest best reasons to sign him at this point are for the emotional reasons. 

that said, i think that the cards had their chance to sign him for a reasonable figure--something that made baseball sense, and business sense, and emotional sense--and they screwed that up, and dewitt deserves whatever demonic reputation the sport of baseball dumps on him if he doesn't resign pujols.

Max, I don't think there's any part of this post I disagree with. Mark the date and time.

The one sad part of this saga is that the public doesn't know about the offer that was reportedly rejected. Dewitt gets a little less villified because it's unlikely that information is ever released.

Correct. More villified if they knew. Less villified because they don't.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Correct. More villified if they knew. Less villified because they don't.

The bastard.  With or without that knowledge I give Pujols a ton of credit for keeping his cool and never complaining to a journalist, either on or off the record.  He's a class act.

You look what Jocketty did just to ease Votto's mind and build a sense of loyalty, and compare that to what DeWitt has done, and it almost makes it look like with the gift of far sight, he gave WJ enough rope to hang himself, knowing that WJ would have pushed hard for giving Pujols what he needed.

You give Jocketty too much credit.  There was no loyalty or peace of mind at work there.  They wanted to buy out his free agent years and Votto told them to go jump.  Then they came back and bought out his arbitration years to save themselves from the risk of Votto adding another MVP or something else that drove up his price.  That move was all about saving money for the team, and was very much the type of move Dewitt would have endorsed.

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

The bastard.  With or without that knowledge I give Pujols a ton of credit for keeping his cool and never complaining to a journalist, either on or off the record.  He's a class act.

You look what Jocketty did just to ease Votto's mind and build a sense of loyalty, and compare that to what DeWitt has done, and it almost makes it look like with the gift of far sight, he gave WJ enough rope to hang himself, knowing that WJ would have pushed hard for giving Pujols what he needed.

You give Jocketty too much credit.  There was no loyalty or peace of mind at work there.  They wanted to buy out his free agent years and Votto told them to go jump.  Then they came back and bought out his arbitration years to save themselves from the risk of Votto adding another MVP or something else that drove up his price.  That move was all about saving money for the team, and was very much the type of move Dewitt would have endorsed.

Correct me if I am wrong but hasnt Dewitt done that with Pujols, Molina and Wainwright.

my recollection is that those deals all included part of the FA years.

in any case, any move like this involves risk on both sides.  the reds are taking the risk if votto either turns out to be a flash in the pan, gets injured, the game experiences another downturn, or anything else that could drive down his value during his arbitration years.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but hasnt Dewitt done that with Pujols, Molina and Wainwright.

my recollection is that those deals all included part of the FA years.

in any case, any move like this involves risk on both sides.  the reds are taking the risk if votto either turns out to be a flash in the pan, gets injured, the game experiences another downturn, or anything else that could drive down his value during his arbitration years.

And if Votto posts another MVP-type season this year or next, then he left money on the table.

BTW- interesting side note. Votto and Pujols both employ the same agent. Makes you wonder if Pujols playing for below market value for several years had any effect on Votto's unwillingness to give up his free agent years.

Yes, there's risk in everything.  From Votto's perspective it would all depend on what they were offering to pay during the FA years, I would think.  In the case of Pujols, he signed way back in, what '03?  '04? when Pujols had had 'only' maybe 3 or 4 fabulous seasons, and the Cards gave him an 8 figure deal.  There was pretty large risk in that deal for the Cards, but not a lot of risk in it for Pujols, unless you are the sort who gets real picky about a few tens of millions of dollars here or there.  By the end, Pujols was playing for way below market value, but had nevertheless earned more money than he and all of his grandchildren would ever need, as he put it. I think the problem wasn't with that deal but with the subsequent one that we are still waiting on.  The Cards took a gamble on the first deal and wound up winning in spades, getting one of the top five players ever.  Instead of setting up the next deal as, 'well, if the new deal favors Pujols a bit, we still come out huge winners over all,' they took the line, 'that was then, this is now; Mr. DeWitt is looking forward, not backward, Mr. Pujols.  Prove to us you are worth what you are asking, otherwise take what we are offering . . . and by the way, we don't factor "bad" deals like the ones A-Rod and Howard got when calculating YOUR value to OUR team."

Last edited by Max (4/16/2011 2:11 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

I love how everyone thinks Dewitt should overpay since the first contract worked out to the Cardinals advantage. Players don't willingly take less money when they suck. Why should the owner pay more when the contract works to his advantage. That's just stupid.

If humans were computers, maybe.  But there are some basic human management skills that are undeniable.  My point was that if the new contract were to err on the side of generosity or frugality, the first offer should have erred on the side of generosity, and it should have been made at least a year ago, maybe two.