Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
According to Ken Rosenthal, a source told him the Cardinals offered Albert Pujols roughly $20 million per season before contract negotiations failed to create a new deal on Wednesday. The offer was probably eight or nine seasons.
If true, there are three possibilities:
1. For some reason, management really thought it would be fun to insult Pujols and aggravate his agent, or
2. the club's really not all that interested in retaining Pujols' services after this season, or
3. the Cardinals really don't believe that Pujols just turned 31.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't think of another reason why they would even bother to offer $20 million to a player who is so obviously worth at least $30 million, both on the field and on the open market.
44 comments
Comments
$30 Million is stupid
Rob, the reason the Cardinals allegedly offered Pujols only $20 million is that sane baseball executives realize that $275 million contract given to ARod was amazingly stupid. The Yankees are going to be paying that contract until ARod is 42, likely well past his years as a productive player. At $30 million per season the Cardinals would have almost no shot at adding any worthwhile pieces around Pujols in the coming years.
Unless the Yankees and the Red Sox get in a bidding war I don’t think Pujols or any other player comes close to that ARod contract because it was such an amazingly bad idea.
by GMUPatriots on Feb 16, 2011 3:31 PM EST reply actions
I think you will be surprised.
by PriceJD on Feb 16, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
+1 Price
if Werth can get $126 million, Pujols can get $300mm
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.sbnation.com
www.minorleagueball.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Feb 16, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, agreed.
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
It is not 'stupid'
It is what he is worth on the free market and unless the Cardinals want him to leave they need to up that offer significantly.
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Can’t it be both stupid and what he’s worth “on the free market?”
by Jay on Feb 16, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
Thank You!
You said it best, Jay.
by Spencer99099 on Feb 19, 2011 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
You're Mixing Two Different Things
Pujols is currently playing at a level that justifies a salary of $30 million per year. That’s not the same thing as saying that the length of the contract should push him past ARod’s total package of $275 million.
In other words, Pujols is easily worth a contract for $180 million over the next 6 years. That would be higher per year than ARod but nowhere near the total value of ARod’s deal. The sticking point is years 7,8,9 and 10. Or at least, that should be the sticking point. I don’t know why the Cards haven’t already offered 6/180.
by moviegoer74 on Feb 16, 2011 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Problem is he can likely get value in those years on the market
I just don’t see any reason why he would take an under market deal unless the Cards get creative and offer an ownership stake or something.
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
So why offer Pujols a contract at all if they feel offering him market value is going to set their franchise back?
According to FanGraphs, Pujols has been somewhere around a $24M-$41M player in every season since 2003. I understand if a franchise thinks paying one player that much is going to set the franchise back. But I suspect the Cardinals know the market on Pujols, so why bother offering him so much less?
by Shaun Payne on Feb 16, 2011 3:49 PM EST reply actions
Anyone who is "insulted" by a $20m per year offer should pull their head out of their ass
Think it is below-market, not enough for a unique player, fine. But it is not an insult. It’s a negotiation.
by lemonverbena on Feb 16, 2011 3:49 PM EST reply actions
Do you know anything about negotiation?
You cannot claim with a straight face that you are bargaining in good faith if you are offering a player 2/3rds of his market value. Its an insult and a waste of time for everyone involved.
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
No, I do not know anything about negotiation
by lemonverbena on Feb 16, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
It'd be interesting if he was really 33, that would change everything
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
2/3 of his market value for 2011? Or for all the years of his next contract?
If Pujols really is 33 or 34, how can anyone justify paying him a $30 million AAV all the way out to his 44th birthday?
by Jay on Feb 16, 2011 10:35 PM EST up reply actions
insult
Ray Guilfoyle
www.faketeams.com
www.sbnation.com
www.minorleagueball.com
by Ray Guilfoyle on Feb 16, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
You're getting lost in the numbers.
$20m per year is an insult. He was offered 2/3 of what he is worth. Just because it’s more money than most people will ever see in their lifetime doesn’t mean it’s less a slap in the face. We’re talking baseball economics.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
I respectfully disagree on this matter of opinion
It may very well be the case that Pujols is worth $30m/year, though “worth” is not an absolute known value. It is established by what a buyer or buyers will pay in a marketplace at a given time. There are many factors that go into a negotiation, and the Cardinals surely are measuring not just his market value in a vacuum, but his age, the overall budget, their ability to draw fans with or without that one player, and so on.
Aside from all that, I just don’t agree semantically with calling a $20m/year offer an insult. It makes those of us who care about and discuss sports sound woefully out of touch with the world around us.
by lemonverbena on Feb 16, 2011 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Nothing to do with semantics
You think anyone offered $20 million should just accept it because it’s such a large number. That’s all.
If it had anything to do with semantics, you would take into account the meaning of the word ‘insult’, and then ask yourself how you’d feel if you were getting paid 2/3 of what someone in your job would get paid on the free market.
And what makes people who discuss sports sound the MOST out of touch is turning everything into some sort of morality test…THAT’S when we sound out of touch.
by Kalaska on Feb 16, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Nowhere in my comments did I say he should just accept it
Entirely different argument.
by lemonverbena on Feb 17, 2011 12:06 AM EST up reply actions
4. The Cards (wrongly) counted on getting a hometown discount.
Folksy literate type.
by birdman on Feb 16, 2011 4:17 PM EST reply actions
ha, good point
House of Sparky - www.houseofsparky.com - Go Sun Devils
by ASUBoyd on Feb 16, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe
The deal was front loaded, thus lowering the AAV. Maybe the Cardinals rightfully assumed that everyone declines and paying Albert $30 million at age 40 is pretty dumb.
He could have been offered 30 for 5 years and 20 mil for 5 years or something like that.
St. Louis Game Time Fact: Morning links are part of a well-balanced meal.
SBNSTL Writing about the Blues in more than one line is tough.
by averagejoe on Feb 16, 2011 4:23 PM EST reply actions
Here’s a fairly reasonable front-loaded, long-term deal for Albert.
30-30-30-28-26-24-20-20-17
That’s nine years, $225 million. It’s a lot more than $20 million AAV, and a lot less than $30 million AAV.
Albert will get that much, but whoever gives him more than that is pretty foolish.
by Jay on Feb 16, 2011 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
Doubtful they front-loaded an offer given their current obligations to Holliday and Carpenter
Also, and this is just speculation, but I doubt the player cares about present value when it comes to this much money. Pujols (rightfully) wants to be recognized as the highest paid player. If it’s solely about maximizing his earnings he’ll probably wait until he’s a FA and target states where there’s no income tax.
by ken on Feb 17, 2011 9:29 AM EST up reply actions
Pujols’ artificial deadline is a common negotiating tactic designed to try to push the other side to panic and make unnecessary large concessions. If the team didn’t respond by giving him a serious offer, that only means that the team didn’t fall for the ruse.
For Pujols, it would make no sense to sign now. He can always find a pretense to re-open discussions during this season, and/or he can just go to FA at the end of the year.
Which means, the last few days have been meaningless.
by Just Jake on Feb 16, 2011 5:16 PM EST reply actions
Has this ever happened
When is the last time a player said he isn’t going to negotiate during the season only to turn around and sign a contract in June?
I don’t recall this ever happening. He set a deadline. The deadline is passed. That’s going to be the end of the story until offseason-2011.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
Is anyone else getting sick
Of the “Pujols is older than he claims” story? There is no evidence that he is older than he claims. He’s been one of the highest profile athletes since 2001. He’s evidently faced these allegations since he was a teenager in KC.
And there is absolutely no evidence (that I know of) that he is older than he claims.
None of this means he isn’t lying, of course.
But this has become, like, Neyer’s mantra since leaving ESPN. I recall him mentioning it once (in a blog or chat), then leaving ESPN, and it coming up a few times since. Is this something he wasn’t allowed to discuss there, but can, now?
This is what I dislike about journalism. You can accuse someone of something without actually making an accusation. This then becomes a seed in the brains of everyone.
End of the day, I don’t know how old he is. But I know what the available evidence says. Anything else doesn’t interest me.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 5:43 PM EST reply actions
I don't think this is journalism
It’s more commentary. He’s not reporting anything, just giving his take on what is happening.
Clone Chronicles
by Mark Kieffer on Feb 16, 2011 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, rob isn't saying pujols IS lying about his age.
he’s just saying that the cards may be concerned about his actual age.
Folksy literate type.
by birdman on Feb 16, 2011 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Of course he's not
As I said, you can accuse someone of something without actually coming out and saying it. I don’t think Rob has to worry about any allegations of slander or liable.
But the end result is the same. The germ is planted in people’s minds. You repeat something often enough, and it carries weight – regardless of the actual truth.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
well damn,
so if anybody says that there’s a concern over pujol’s age, he or she is passing along slander? i don’t see it. as long as the writers underscores that this is a perception rather than a fact, i don’t have a problem with it.
Folksy literate type.
by birdman on Feb 16, 2011 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
You're confusing evidence with proof
There is evidence he’s older than he claims. There’s no proof.
by Jason Brannon on Feb 16, 2011 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not confusing anything
Though I may be ignorant.
Other than the actions of other players, what is this evidence you speak of?
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 7:18 PM EST up reply actions
Journalism is changing
The blogosphere has a very real voice with the public. Look at how many replies your average Rob Neyer “commentary” gets.
This isn’t 1960. Just because it’s not written in a newspaper doesn’t mean you can write whatever you want. It’s irresponsible to not be accountable for what you write on-line (and I’m sure Neyer would agree with that).
I think it’s fair to acknowledge possibilities. It’s fair to talk about steroid use. It’s fair to talk about athletes lying about their ages. But it’s another thing altogether to accuse someone of using steroids. Or accuse someone of lying about their age.
Rob hasn’t accused Pujols of lying about his age (that I’ve seen). But he has brought it up a number of times, which is (as I see it) a semantic difference. At the end of the day, it impacts the public’s thinking just as much.
Just my $0.02.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 6:05 PM EST reply actions
Oops
My last was @Mark Kieffer.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
I am aware a little bit about the world of blogging
Technically, perhaps it is journalism, but when I think of journalism the way you are, it is simply reporting information.
With guys like Tejada and others having lied about their age, the idea of a guy doing it isn’t crazy. As a baseball fan, it has crossed my mind, even before Neyer wrote it. I think it has for most baseball fans, hasn’t it?
Clone Chronicles
by Mark Kieffer on Feb 16, 2011 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
It hasn't crossed my mind
But I don’t work that way. I’m all for investigative journalism. I also have no problem with theorizing about what could be, or what might be.
I don’t even have a problem with Rob mentioning it, here. It very well may be a reason for why the Cardinals were so reluctant to give him 10 years. That’s a valid thing to ask.
My problem is that this has been brought up a number of times in this space. And the only evidence provided is that it’s happened with other Dominican guys, and that there are “people in the know” who have their doubts about his age.
Sorry. I’m tired of hearing about it. I don’t recall Rob ever bringing it up, really until recently. That doesn’t mean he didn’t, but he “seems” to be bringing it up a lot lately. And if there’s nothing new to offer, I think it’s irresponsible.
I don’t think it’s any different than mentioning “steroids” every time you talk about how great Jeff Bagwell was. Eventually, the two get connected.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
You don't have a problem with Rob mentioning it...
…. but your “problem is that this has been brought up a number of times.”
So he can mention it once, but not more than that? What’s the acceptable number?
by Jason Brannon on Feb 16, 2011 6:30 PM EST reply actions
The problem isn't that he mentions it
…because it very well may be something the organization is worried about. That’s a valid thing to bring up when wondering why the organization offered such a lowball contract.
The problem is continually bringing it up when there’s no evidence of truth. It reached a point where the cumulative effect of seems more like character assassination than it does analysis.
My concern is that it’s going to be an accepted part of who Pujols is, when it’s no better than wild guessing based on the actions of other people.
I’m not a fan of witch hunts. Whether people are going after suspected steroid users, or players suspected of lying about their age.
Is it understandable to wonder if he’s older? Sure. I don’t think it’s understandable to refer to it time and again, however, unless there’s some new evidence.
by stophittingyourself on Feb 16, 2011 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Ignoring the fact that this conversation has moved on to a more interesting topic...
$20m isnt insulting, it’s just plain stupid…
…there’s no doubt in the present market he’s worth $30m, the only question is how many guaranteed years. As another poster said $30 × 6 years feels right, I dont know why the Cards didnt star at $30 × 5 years (maybe with a couple of team options added on) and negotiate from there.
by As_Reb on Feb 16, 2011 8:58 PM EST reply actions
Who else can / will pay 30 million?
yanks and red sox have no need
phillies have their money tied up in their pitching
mets are a mess, financially
twins are probably tapped out b/c of their existing payroll
Detroit has Cabrera
I have cubs, white sox, mariners, and Angels as possibles. None of these teams have been extra aggressive in bidding for players. orioles and braves, but 30 million would represent more than 1/3 of their total payroll figures.
i think cards can gamble on being conversative
by John Keenan on Feb 16, 2011 11:03 PM EST reply actions
Rangers and Braves too
They are both giving young players a shot at 1B this year, and Texas has no income tax…
The bottom line is someone will probably step up and give him what he wants but that doesnt make St Louis wrong for taking a stand here. How many teams can shoulder a 40 year old making $30M?
I like that the Cardinals ae considering the long-term health of the franchise here instead of panicking. Just because there are other teams (like the Na’s in the Werth deal) who are going to continue to be financially reckless doesn’t mean the Cardinals need to. There seems to be a mindset in MLB now that 30-something players are entitled to these big deals to get paid for past performance (like Jeter) when they have little hope of sustaining that performance over the life of their proposed contract.
by ryanajr on Feb 17, 2011 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
The Cubs have a ridiculous amount of money coming off of the books after 2011
And a pressing need at 1B. I would still say it’s 80% he resigns with the Cardinals, but you’ve got to put pretty good odds that if it’s not the Cardinals, it’s the Cubs.
by bdlugz on Feb 17, 2011 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed