2011-12 MLB Offseason Thread: Tigers are really stupid

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I'm not retreating, just get tired of the know-it-all message board gurus around here sometimes. God fucking forbid anyone has a different opinion or *gasp* might know something more than someone else.

Just because Jeter didn't get 28 other contract offers doesn't mean he isn't loyal to the Yankees.

Unless one you is, inded, Derek Jeter, I fail to see how you can say he isn't loyal to the Yankees. I stand by my stance that he is loyal because nothing has happened to disprove it.

So I take this to mean your answer to "Would it have been loyalty from Pujols if he'd managed to get the Cards to go up to 260 million and stayed?" is yes?

[Rizon]

Damn, I guess the A's aren't winning the division anytime soon.

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So I take this to me your answer to "Would it have been loyalty from Pujols if he'd managed to get the Cards to go up to 260 million and stayed?" is yes?

Wanting more money and being loyal are not mutually exclusive. I don't recall Jeter holding out for more money or shopping himself around before accepting a Yankees offer but perhaps my memory is failing me.

[ISiddiqui]

So you totally forgot the hubbub about the Yankees talking about offering him slightly less money than his previous contract and Jeter (or at least his agent) talking about what a travesty that was?

[Ksyrup]

OK, now... argue the other side. Go!

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Just because Jeter signed with the Yankees doesn't mean he is loyal to them.

Unless you are, indeed, Derek Jeter, I fail to see how you can say he is loyal to the Yankees. I stand by my stance that he isn't loyal because nothing has happened to disprove it.

Nicely done!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jeter initially demanded between $23M and $25M/year from the Yankees in 2010. (source, source).

He then settled for $17M/year when he realized he was deluded. That 17M is still well north of what any other team would have given him. If the Yankees had tried to sign him for his actual value, we would have seen his loyalty be tested. The Yankees didn't get it to that point because it was already getting ugly between Cashman and Jeter's agent.

[Ksyrup]

jonmorosi Jon Morosi
Source confirms C.J. Wilson’s new deal with the #Angels is worth $77.5 million over five years.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

My feelings as well. I don't fault Pujols for trying to get as much money as he could, but I suspect he isn't considering the non-monetary elements of this deal as much as he could, or should, have. This is a contract that will inevitably see him decline substantially, and that decline would have been tolerated/understood/forgiven by Cardinals fans who remembered all the great things he had done for the team (and community) over the years. Will Angels fans be as forgiving when his decline begins? Given the lack of an established goodwill reservoir like he has with St. Louis, and the high hopes Angels fans will attach to him as their first "huge" free agent acquisition, a compassionate attitude toward declining production seems unlikely. He would have to win a couple of World Series titles almost instantly to make that happen.

More likely is that he will come to be perceived as an overpaid mercenary in a 3-4 years, resented by teammates and fans alike. My guess is that when Pujols hits age 55 or so, and gains the perspective that allows him to see what a Musial-like legend he could have become in St. Louis, he will find this to be the most regrettable decision of his career. Would you rather have $310 million in lifetime earnings and be a beloved icon in your community for the rest of your life? Or would you rather have $360 million in lifetime earnings and have your employer and fans hoping to forget you as soon as possible? I know which I would prefer.

Like I said, I don't begrudge Pujols his extra $50 million, but I question his judgment. There is much more to living a full life than money, particularly when you've already got mounds and mounds of it.

Not only this, but I always envisioned Pujols being a "John Elway" of St. Louis after his career ended. He already has one restaurant and maybe could open a few more, setup a car dealership (like Elway, it would rake in cash in St Louis) and do all kinds of local charity work with huge business support. I could even see Pujols end up in the front office at some point. The only thing that would be a wash is endorsements while playing (more chances in St. Louis, but prob more money in LA).

This opportunity won't be there in LA. Heck, he could probably walk the streets of LA un-noticed right now. I know it's not feasible, but I'd like someway to compare Pujols' earnings from now until 55 if he stayed in St. Louis vs. going to LA. When you add in higher taxes and cost of living, combined with the lost business opportunities he'd have in St. Louis, I'm not sure he comes out that far ahead. Plus, you have the "legacy" non-monetary aspect that would be there in St. Louis.

[stevew]

Basically the Halos took a great chance to make a deal with a once in a lifetime player. The money is steep, but with the cost of financing being at all time lows, they can easily spread out the risk over several decades if need be. It isn't my money as a fan. Assuming you get at least 5 years of full Pujols, and 5 more years of 3/4 Pujols, I think angels fans have a lot to be happy about.

[Ksyrup]

Clearly, the Angels are hoping Pujols becomes the guy the Yankees thought they were buying - the "real" potential new all-time HR champ. Which will be funny when, in 4 years, he tests positive for HGH.

[Dr. Sak]

Since we live in a world where we compare everything...at least Ryan Howard's stupid contract looks a little better.

[Ksyrup]

darrenrovell darren rovell
Guys @Fathead having fun with pricing on Pujols, reduce to $31.41 (age + 10 years)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by stevew

Basically the Halos took a great chance to make a deal with a once in a lifetime player. The money is steep, but with the cost of financing being at all time lows, they can easily spread out the risk over several decades if need be. It isn't my money as a fan. Assuming you get at least 5 years of full Pujols, and 5 more years of 3/4 Pujols, I think angels fans have a lot to be happy about.

That's pretty "half full". If you go under the assumption that Pujols is closer to 34 than 32, the best bet is 3-4 years of "2010 Pujols", 2-3 years of "75% 2010 Pujols" and 3-4 years of a $20+ mil DH hitting .280-25-90 at best. That was essentially the assumption I was working under when looking at the Cards deal from a St. Louis perspective. I don't see any chance of the Angels getting the .330-47-135 guy he was a few years back for more than a year or so (if at all). And, paying $26 mil a season, that's the output you are hoping for, esp at 1B.

[Ksyrup]

HA!

darrenrovell darren rovell
This. Is. America. RT @ds_33 "Angles" is trending in the US.

[miami_fan]

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

HA!

darrenrovell darren rovell
This. Is. America. RT @ds_33 "Angles" is trending in the US.

Maybe people are finally discussing the Strokes new album!

No? Crap.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's pretty "half full". If you go under the assumption that Pujols is closer to 34 than 32, the best bet is 3-4 years of "2010 Pujols", 2-3 years of "75% 2010 Pujols" and 3-4 years of a $20+ mil DH hitting .280-25-90 at best. That was essentially the assumption I was working under when looking at the Cards deal from a St. Louis perspective. I don't see any chance of the Angels getting the .330-47-135 guy he was a few years back for more than a year or so (if at all). And, paying $26 mil a season, that's the output you are hoping for, esp at 1B.

I don't understand these .280-25-90 numbers. Please translate them to WAR.

Thanks.

[Chief Rum]

I think Pujols is going to find a ton of business opportunities in CA, if that's what he wants to do. This might be an unwise deal for all parties in some way or another, but I don't think that's one of them. He's moving to the second biggest market in the country.

[Chief Rum]

My guess is that someone will devise a WBP stat, short for "Wins Below Pujols". This stat will only be applied to Pujols himself going forward, with the Pujols level being determined to be his overall WAR for the first ten years of his career.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think Pujols is going to find a ton of business opportunities in CA, if that's what he wants to do. This might be an unwise deal for all parties in some way or another, but I don't think that's one of them. He's moving to the second biggest market in the country.

Name one famous Anaheim/California/LA Angel who's well-remembered in LA society right now. I go to the area a ton on business and I don't know if 3/4 of LA could even name a player from the Angels (save maybe Reggie Jackson) over the past 30 years.

[heybrad]

It's interesting to me to see the stress over a 10 year contract as Angel or baseball fans. I'm excited about Pujols and Wilson coming and I guarantee I'll be coming to more games in the next couple of years. Beyond that... yes, they may be handcuffed with a bad contract, but in my mind the Angels are contenders at this point. That's all I can ask for as a fan. I'm excited as hell!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Name one famous Anaheim/California/LA Angel who's well-remembered in LA society right now. I go to the area a ton on business and I don't know if 3/4 of LA could even name a player from the Angels (save maybe Reggie Jackson) over the past 30 years.

Name the number of athletes who've made another 30 million (or more) from their business deals alongside those who've lost their ass putting money into businesses.

X million in hand is a heck of a good deal compared to losing it when whatever business opportunity goes under. Ask Evander Holyfield.

[AENeuman]

Do you think MLB is approaching a ceiling in payroll? When Albert is done will there be 10 year/$500 million contracts?

[Arles]

I like Moreno (UofA guy) and will root for the Angels and Pujols now in the AL. I also think that Moreno can justify the deal more than St. Louis could. If you factor in his attempt to broaden the fan base and build the team's interest level, it make some sense. I just think that Pujols could have made just as much money long term in St. Louis with a much greater legacy than jumping for LAA.

Pujols was rarely criticized in St. Louis. Even during his cold stretch in the playoffs, no one mentioned he led the league in double plays hit into and had long, bad stretches that helped put the team 10+ games back. before the all-star break, Pujols had a .820 OPS, while Holiday (.995) and Berkman (1.006) were carrying the team. In any other market, he gets hammered for that. St. Louis, though, continued to defend him and back him despite the team's struggles. I'm not sure he gets that same slack in LA, New York, Chicago or Philly.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Arles

Name one famous Anaheim/California/LA Angel who's well-remembered in LA society right now. I go to the area a ton on business and I don't know if 3/4 of LA could even name a player from the Angels (save maybe Reggie Jackson) over the past 30 years.

Chilli Davis.

[JediKooter]

Welcome to the San Diego Padres, Albert Pujols!!

That's for when he's 45. I'm just getting this in now in case I forget later.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I hadn't followed the Pujols contract stuff at all, so maybe this has already been answered: Once a 9- or 10-year deal was on the table, was there any chance someone could have signed Pujols for only 4 or 5 years? What I'm getting at is that didn't someone basically HAVE to sign him to a very long term deal to land him? I mean, I guess you can blame the Cardinals for putting the really long deal out there in the first place, but someone was going to offer it. I don't think all 30 teams would've said "His production is likely to plummet in 4 or 5 years! We can't offer any more than that!" So, unless I've missed something, if you want the 4 or 5 years of great Albert Pujols, you have to accept the other years of less-than-great Albert Pujols.

What fundamental piece of all this have I not grasped yet? For all the bewilderment of the 10-year contract, it seems like teams had some other option out there, and I can't figure out what it is. So what did I miss?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Name the number of athletes who've made another 30 million (or more) from their business deals alongside those who've lost their ass putting money into businesses.

X million in hand is a heck of a good deal compared to losing it when whatever business opportunity goes under. Ask Evander Holyfield.

John Elway sold 5 car dealerships for a bundle (~$83 mil), still owns 2 in Denver, and 2 restaurants doing well. He makes over $3 mil a year in the front office for Denver. I could see Pujols having a similar business legacy in St. Louis.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Arles

Name one famous Anaheim/California/LA Angel who's well-remembered in LA society right now. I go to the area a ton on business and I don't know if 3/4 of LA could even name a player from the Angels (save maybe Reggie Jackson) over the past 30 years.

You do realize how many people we have out here, right? You might not get 3/4 of the people in LA to know who the President is out here.

If 10% of the 30 M or so people know who Pujols is, he will still have more opportunity here than in almost all but the largest US markets. And more than 10% will know who he is out here.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I hadn't followed the Pujols contract stuff at all, so maybe this has already been answered: Once a 9- or 10-year deal was on the table, was there any chance someone could have signed Pujols for only 4 or 5 years? What I'm getting at is that didn't someone basically HAVE to sign him to a very long term deal to land him? I mean, I guess you can blame the Cardinals for putting the really long deal out there in the first place, but someone was going to offer it. I don't think all 30 teams would've said "His production is likely to plummet in 4 or 5 years! We can't offer any more than that!" So, unless I've missed something, if you want the 4 or 5 years of great Albert Pujols, you have to accept the other years of less-than-great Albert Pujols.

What fundamental piece of all this have I not grasped yet? For all the bewilderment of the 10-year contract, it seems like teams had some other option out there, and I can't figure out what it is. So what did I miss?

This is a well thought out and interesting post, Pumpy, and asking a good question.

However, you will find it difficult to break out of your stereotyped role of board jester. We are a a very unforgiving audience. Please return to Kathy Griffin and Zach Parise jokes. Thank you.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

what a Musial-like legend he could have become in St. Louis, he will find this to be the most regrettable decision of his career

Wonder, if free agency had existed back then, Musial would have retired a Cardinal?

[Chief Rum]

More seriously, I don't know who set the market at 10 years. The Cardinals? The Marlins? Pujols' agent?

In the end, it is on the teams offering for going forward with offers that long. I would imagine it did start with the Cards (at the suggestion of Pujols' agent).

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This is a well thought out and interesting post, Pumpy, and asking a good question.

However, you will find it difficult to break out of your stereotyped role of board jester. We are a a very unforgiving audience. Please return to Kathy Griffin and Zach Parise jokes. Thank you.

Kathy Griffin and Zach Parise are only jokes until the pants come off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

John Elway sold 5 car dealerships for a bundle (~$83 mil), still owns 2 in Denver, and 2 restaurants doing well. He makes over $3 mil a year in the front office for Denver. I could see Pujols having a similar business legacy in St. Louis.

He also sold them over a decade ago, and mostly for stock (rather than cash) which plummeted shortly thereafter. Pujols could just as easily turn into the next Evander just as easily. Any business is a gamble, even moreso in a struggling economy.

[Arles]

I think the Cards first offered 7 years, went to 8 and he said he wouldn't accept anything less than 9 - and that's when their 9/198 offer came out. Given he started out wanting 10/300, I'm not sure the Cards could have avoided 9 years.

[Ksyrup]

To attempt an answer to the question, the Cardinals had already set the market at 9 years. Clearly, the amount per year was what bothered Pujols. I kinda half-jokingly suggested earlier today someone should have offered him 3 years/$89M to deal with that issue. And maybe someone could have (or did) offer, say, 6 years/$175M or 5/$145M.

So, did someone have to offer or sign him for 10/$250M? No. But he wasn't getting less than 9/$200M. And it only takes 1 team to offer him both the money and the years. It's always possible every team, including the Cardinals, could have just held firm on a 6 year max deal, but then you start wondering about collusion.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Arles

John Elway sold 5 car dealerships for a bundle (~$83 mil), still owns 2 in Denver, and 2 restaurants doing well. He makes over $3 mil a year in the front office for Denver. I could see Pujols having a similar business legacy in St. Louis.

Elway also forced his way off his first team... so not at least Albert didn't do that.

[Young Drachma]

The guy was offered a great deal and he took it. I mean, he went to HS in Missouri. Maybe he was just tired of living in a medium sized city. I don't know why so people -- other than being upset -- begrudge a guy for exploring his options. St. Louis is one of my favorite places, as it's where I started undergrad..and lived for three years, but it's not Los Angeles.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He also sold them over a decade ago, and mostly for stock (rather than cash) which plummeted shortly thereafter. Pujols could just as easily turn into the next Evander just as easily. Any business is a gamble, even moreso in a struggling economy.

Of course it's a gamble. The point is are you better off in scenario A than B, esp when you consider your legacy and post-playing years:

A. Leave St. Louis and join LAA for 10/256. Make $46 mil more over 10 years, but pay higher state taxes and have a much higher cost of living per year. Lack the "market star power" you would have in St. Louis and run the risk of being somewhat forgotten when your contract ends.

B. Stay in St. Louis for what ends up being 20+ seasons for 10/210. Make $46 mil less, but have a much lower cost of living. Become the biggest star in a smaller market and end up with a legacy that rivals Stan Musial, Babe Ruth and Nolan Ryan in your current market.

You could even argue that after taxes and cost of living, $256 over in 10 years in LA has less buying power than $210 in St. Louis. With everything that appears to matter to athletes when considering their "quality of life", I'm not sure Pujols makes out better in the LAA deal over time.

[Ksyrup]

Now we know why the Marlins moved on when Pujols didn't accept on Tuesday night:

BNightengale Bob Nightengale
The Miami #Marlins actually outbid the #Angels for Pujols,offering 10-year, $275 million deal, sources confirm. Story to come.


Also, Pujols gets $254M - just beyond ARod's deal that Lozano's ex-boss, Boras, negotiated.

[lungs]

Are we underestimating the affect of LaRussa retiring? Not that Pujols thinks Matheny is a dick or anything.

[Arles]

FYI, using the common "cost of living adjustment", $26 mil a year in LA equates around $17 mil in St. Louis. So, by offering $21-22 mil a season, Pujols would actually have more buying power in St. Louis with his money

[Ksyrup]

$275M state income tax-free in Florida, too.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I hope Albert Pujols has an OPS+ of 250 over the next 10 years, and then he shoves dollar bills up everybody's ass. I'm not really sure what that accomplishes, but it would be amazing.

[Chief Rum]

Depending on their comparable state taxes (and I have no idea how Missouri and California compare), I could see the tax issue being a big chunk. But at this level of money, cost of living is a drop in the bucket. That's like saying it's not worth it to buy a $60K car over a $30K car because oil changes for the $60K car are $75 instead of $50. I mean, unless you expect Albert to go all "Brewster's Millions" or something when he gets here.

Being in LA also increases his national profile. Guaranteed this will increase his overall endorsement value and improve his overall Q rating.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Of course it's a gamble. The point is are you better off in scenario A than B, esp when you consider your legacy and post-playing years:

A. Leave St. Louis and join LAA for 10/256. Make $46 mil more over 10 years, but pay higher state taxes and have a much higher cost of living per year. Lack the "market star power" you would have in St. Louis and run the risk of being somewhat forgotten when your contract ends.

B. Stay in St. Louis for what ends up being 20+ seasons for 10/210. Make $46 mil less, but have a much lower cost of living. Become the biggest star in a smaller market and end up with a legacy that rivals Stan Musial, Babe Ruth and Nolan Ryan in your current market.

You could even argue that after taxes and cost of living, $256 over in 10 years in LA has less buying power than $210 in St. Louis. With everything that appears to matter to athletes when considering their "quality of life", I'm not sure Pujols makes out better in the LAA deal over time.

Who the fuck makes $200m and thinks "gee, but with the cost of living difference...?" C'mon dude. He's shopping a stratosphere that we plebes simply cannot comprehend. It is not part of the calculus.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Now we know why the Marlins moved on when Pujols didn't accept on Tuesday night:

BNightengale Bob Nightengale
The Miami #Marlins actually outbid the #Angels for Pujols,offering 10-year, $275 million deal, sources confirm. Story to come.


Also, Pujols gets $254M - just beyond ARod's deal that Lozano's ex-boss, Boras, negotiated.

I think he would have taken the Marlins deal had they included a no-trade and he had more faith they would have been still trying to be competitive in 4-5 years. But, I'm pretty sure he knew that was the equivalent of signing a 3-5 year ARM mortgage where in years 4-5 he would get shipped out for prospects.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Who the fuck makes $200m and thinks "gee, but with the cost of living difference...?" C'mon dude. He's shopping a stratosphere that we plebes simply cannot comprehend. It is not part of the calculus.

My point is had he really wanted to stay in St. Louis, he could have justified the $210-220 instead of $250-260 based on the market and cost of living. It's clear now that the fame of being the highest paid 1B was more important to him. And, in his defense, that's a choice he's earned given his play. I'm just not sure he's going to agree with this decision down the road when the new market is less forgiving/deifying that St. Louis was to him.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think he would have taken the Marlins deal had they included a no-trade and he had more faith they would have been still trying to be competitive in 4-5 years. But, I'm pretty sure he knew that was the equivalent of signing a 3-5 year ARM mortgage where in years 4-5 he would get shipped out for prospects.

Yep. Totally agree. And that's why they knew, with their offer so much more than anyone else's, that he was never going to accept their offer at any $$ level.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

My point is had he really wanted to stay in St. Louis, he could have justified the $210-220 instead of $250-260 based on the market and cost of living. It's clear now that the fame of being the highest paid 1B was more important to him. And, in his defense, that's a choice he's earned given his play. I'm just not sure he's going to agree with this decision down the road when the new market is less forgiving/deifying that St. Louis was to him.

St. Louis is cheaper, but it isn't four million a year cheaper. Staying would have cost him a lot of money.