Skip to content

Report: Cardinals made low-ball offer to Albert Pujols

Feb 16, 2011, 3:47 PM EDT

Yadier Molina, Albert Pujols

Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com has the first report on St. Louis’ final offer that Albert Pujols turned down and … well, it’s pretty shocking.

According to Rosenthal the Cardinals wouldn’t go to 10 years and proposed an annual salary that would make Pujols somewhere around the 10th-highest paid player in baseball.

That’s great money of course–Rosenthal speculates that the average annual value was between $19 million and $21 million–but when you offer the best player in baseball the 10th-highest salary in baseball you’re basically asking him to reject it.

Last spring Ryan Howard inked a five-year, $125 million extension with the Phillies and two offseasons ago the Yankees signed Mark Teixeira to an eight-year, $180 million deal as a free agent. Those deals pay $25 million and $22.5 million per season respectively, and there’s absolutely zero reason for Pujols to accept a contract that pays him less per season than two excellent but clearly inferior players at the same position.

And that’s without even bringing Joe Mauer‘s eight-year, $184 million deal with the Twins or Alex Rodriguez‘s ten-year, $275 million deal with the Yankees into the discussion. Heck, both Derek Jeter and Manny Ramirez snagged contracts that paid $20 million per season a decade ago. Pujols giving the Cardinals some sort of “hometown discount” would be one thing, but for the best player in baseball to accept the third- or maybe even fourth-highest annual salary at his own position is well beyond any notion of loyalty.

Assuming that Rosenthal’s report is correct, it’s awfully tough to blame Pujols for turning St. Louis down and it’s awfully easy to wonder what the Cardinals are thinking.

  1. phukyouk - Feb 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

    My boss just walked up to me and offered me a 3 yr 59 Mil Contract. I got pissed at him for lowballing and told him to Fu*k off.

    • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

      YOU, should have taken it.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM

      Is your boss Kevin Youkilis?

      • feartherallythong - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

        Actually, all of us Jews are filthy rich tightwads, just as you imply – but we got that way by low-balling in negotiations just like this one…

      • phukyouk - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:53 PM

        Who implied that?

    • paperlions - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

      If you were the most important member of your company and you were offered the tenth highest salary to stay on, when you (and your boss) knew competing companies would offer you much more…yeah, you’d get pissed about the low ball offer.
      .
      Of course, because you can’t even construct a realistic analogous example, my scenario clearly is straining the bonds of verity.

    • laterounddraftpick - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

      How much do you make a year? Lets break this into better numbers for you…

      You are the best at your job, everyone knows it, and even your bosses tell you so.

      Its time for a raise and your boss offeres you 80K. Well thats not shabby, there are people without jobs.. but when you think about it, there are guys that you consistantly out preform daily and yearly who make 100-15K, heck even some that make almost double what you make now.

      Is the offer a slap in the face? You know it. Dont let the size of the check fool you, its all about getting paid what you are worth. If Alberto goes on the free agent market, there is no doubt he would comand top dollar, if not tons of money, at least top 5, not top 10…

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

      Instead of focusing on what the Cards may have offered Pujols, let’s look at what they are asking him to forgo. Would you accept any contract that you knew was worth $50-100 million dollars less than you could get elsewhere? Would you turn down $50-100million if you knew you had one opportunity to make it?

      I didn’t think so.

  2. Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    “Assuming that Rosenthal’s report is correct, it’s awfully tough to blame Pujols for turning St. Louis down and it’s awfully easy to wonder what the Cardinals are thinking.” If I could get any more accurate with my comments throughout this whole process, I’d be Jesus.

    Now Tony L., how are you going to spin this into it was the Union’s fault?

  3. The Baseball Idiot - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    I’ll even agree to that. If that’s what it was, Pujols was right to turn it down.

    But remember, it is a negotiation. He starts high, they start low, and hopefully they meet somewhere in the middle.

    The Cardinals might have started a little too low, but they probably think Pujols started a little too high.

    • Dan in Katonah - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:41 PM

      In negotiations you also need credibility and the desire to negotiate from reasonable starting points. I don’t think the Cards should start at a historically high number (unless they are keeping it at 5 or 6 years), but to come in at $19-20M/yr is clearly a non-starter. Not only will Pujols understandably refuse, but it will leave a real bad taste in his mouth that may undermine any “hometown discount” the cards were hoping to get later on when the “real” discussions would begin. I can only take away that perhaps the Cardinals are deliberately shooting themselves in the foot so that can bow out later and save the cash. Otherwise, 6/155 would have made better sense.

  4. BC - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:02 PM

    That’s ridiculous. They HAVE to at least start at Howard’s number. Great job, chipwiches. PO the best player in the game.

  5. uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

    Cardinal fans might want to prepare themselves for seeing Albert in a Cubs uniform in 2012.

    • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM

      UYF, he wants to win, and that is not going to happen in Chicago, even with his presence.

      • Tim's Neighbor - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM

        Why?

      • uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM

        spudchukar – As I posted below, I wouldn’t be to quick to discount the Cubs. I’m not sure and please correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you post on another Pujols question a couple of days back that Pujols didn’t want to DH? If I’m correct about your comments I have a hard time figuring where exactly you think Pujols might wind up if not with the Cardinals. Under those circumstances you can discount virtually every AL team with the exception of possibly the Rangers. But I think his salary demands eliminates them. Especially when you consider what their anticipated payroll is going to be come 2012 and 2013 without him according to baseball reference. That only leaves the NL teams. You can forget the Phillies. The Braves they are contenders but they aren’t going to take on a $30M payroll for 8 to 10 years. The Giants? Possibly but again their payroll according to baseball reference is estimated to hit about $125M in 2012 without Albert. Are they going to take on an additional $30M for the next 8 to 10 years? Probably not, when you consider Lincecum, Cain and a few others will hit FA in the next couple of years that they will need to resign. That pretty much covers the traditional contenders. I really do see the Cubs as a viable alternative to the Cardinals, especially if they “belly up to the bar” as the saying goes.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        uyf has a good argument. Besides, we all remember the last mega-deal the Giants thought they won with. Sure, that guy and Pujols are way way different, even during the time of the signing, but that kind of money being sucked down the drain leaves a mark with any ownership group.

      • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:06 PM

        UYF, my bud, you are quite correct to recall my assertion that Pujols will not accept a DH role. That was in reference to the many Yanks/Red Sox scenarios fantasized in these posts. But just because you head to the AL, doesn’t mean you must DH, at least not for the next 7 or 8 years. Personally, the 2 teams I see most likely jumping into the fray are Toronto and Baltimore, with both the Rangers and Angels as possible contenders. Many people discount the O’s because they didn’t pursue Texeira with much conviction. Since, their attendance has plummeted. And Pujols is far superior to Texeira, who they found enough cash to at least tease. Angelos does have a history of forking out big dollars, and may realize the current approach is not working. The park they play in and a pretty good nucleus of young talent might intrigue Albert. Plus they need a 1B. So does Toronto, who now have loads of cash, dwindling attendance, and again a relatively young group potential stars.
        The Rangers need a 1B, but they need pitching more and may have enough offense, and the Angels are blocked at 1B, but not insurmountably.

        As to the Cubs. They are old and full of head cases. Knowing Pujols and knowing that he also knows this, I say he wouldn’t consider it. Lets examine. 2B, Dewitt, gritty, passable, nothing to get excited about, SS Castro, the one true bright spot, but has already been disciplined twice for lackadaisical play. 3B, Ramirez, talented, old, extremely injury prone with an attitude problem. RF, Fukadome, old, limited power/productive, inconsistent, invariably benched in the second half. CF, old, not an adequate CF defender, with some injury history of his own. Average. RF, Soriano, OLD, a miserable defender, inconsistent, prone to injury, serious attitude problem, notoriously history of long slumps, no longer a speed threat. C, perhaps a bright spot but the inconsistent defense, and up and down years are a concern. SP Dempster, old, serviceable, trade bait, not a bad #3, but likely to get the opening day start. Garza, a marked improvement, potential ace, but that has been said before in Minnesota and Tampa Bay. Tough guy, but awfully temperamental. Also a fly ball pitcher, who won’t be pleased on those days the wind blows out, or with the defense. Zambrano. To repeat head case is both unfair to heads and cases. Finished strong, also trade bait. Who knows? Wells, once a viable #3 or #4 but he has regressed, only moderate stuff. Has the league caught up to him? Silva. An accident ready to happen. Good start last year, but needs to overcome an awful lot of baggage and history. Closer. Marmol. Lights Out, Lights Out, Lights Out, Implodes.

        Not a place I would entertain as a viable contender.

      • uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:22 PM

        spudchukar, my friend. I agree just because it’s an AL team doesn’t mean he has to DH. But to be perfectly honest the 2 teams you mention Toronto and the Orioles are hardly serious contenders for the post season and certainly not in the immediate future. No disrespect to their fans. I’ve already stated my case against the Ranges and you point out their need for pitching more so then hitting. As for the Angles I just can’t see them pulling the trigger on the type of deal it would take to sign Pujols. That takes us back to the NL teams. I see where you are coming from with your comments but I still feel the Cubs are a very viable destination for Pujols. That’s just my opinion.

  6. Professor Longnose - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

    There are any number of ways to compare salaries, but people are rarely consistent about it, and they tend to pick the method that makes their point. Comparing how good different players at the same position is one way. Comparing market value is another. It is possible that the Howard and Teixeira contracts would lessen Pujnols value, because they tend to take two big-market teams out of the discussion for first basemen (I think the Yankees would be interested anyway, as a DH, but maybe not, and even if so, it changes value anyway). I doubt very much that what Derek Jeter or Manny Ramirez made ten years ago will enter into the discussion.

    My take is that Pujols was right to turn down almost any offer, because the market will probably push his value up, and that the Cardinals were probably also right to low-ball him because he is unlikely to accept anything but an extremely high offer and there is no reason to push his value up before he even hits the market.

    • Jonny 5 - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

      I’ve been saying that longhonker. “They may save money by allowing him to become a free agent.”
      Of course I figured they’d find middle ground, but they didn’t. It appeared he wanted 10 years 30 million per, which I’m pretty sure he isn’t worth that much. And I didn’t think he’d accept much less without testing the waters. No team will give him that contract imo.

      • Professor Longnose - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:32 PM

        You may well be right. The Cardinals really only have 2 choices: either make an insanely high offer themselves, or let Pujols hit the market and see what happens.

        And also, the Cardinals are a very good organization. If Pujols walks, they likely will be able to make good use of the $300 million that leaves them with over the next 10 years.

      • xmatt0926x - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM

        I think your right longnose. There has to be a segment of Cardinals management that envisions what else they can do with $30 million a year in comparison to the abilities of 1 player, no matter how great he is. They might be praying that the Yankees blow their doors off in negotiations next year.

    • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:33 PM

      UYF, the O’s may be not be ready to challenge now, but I believe you underestimate the Jays. As they say, that is why they play the games. Always good to read your stuff though.

  7. saints97 - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM

    That sounds like some serious spin from the Pujols camp. I can’t imagine any team offering him that amount. Both sides play games when assessing publicly the value of a contract.

  8. thingsmyitguysaid - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM

    I love the people who think Pujols would play for the Cubs. He has said repeatedly that he wants to play with a team that can compete year in and year out… The Cubs are the stupidest organization in baseball… Yeah, he wants to go to an organization that can’t finish higher than 4th in the NL Central year in and year out.

    He’ll play with St. Louis. This is standard contract negotiation.

    • normb11 - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

      Finsh last 4 years:
      Cubs: 1,1,2,5
      Cards: 1,2,3,4

      • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

        The last time the Cubs won a post-season game was 2003. Since 2000, the Cubs have finished 6,3,5,1,3,4,6,6,1,1,2,5. (the latter number being 2010). The Cards: 1,2,1,3,1,1,1,3,4,1,2. It is easy to cherry pick numbers to make your team look better than they are.

      • normb11 - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

        @spudchukar, WTF cares what happens 3 years ago? 5 years ago? Under a different Owner?
        What happens when Albert Pujols joins a team? Cards went 2 playoff appearances in 14 seasons to almost every other year with him..

        History means d1ck. What happened in 2005 doesn’t matter in 2012. What happend pre-Pujols, doesn’t matter to what happens post-Pujols.

      • uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 6:28 PM

        To spudchuker – I agree with normb11 although perhaps a little less graphically. The Cubs are under different ownership and have a different on field manager. It’s not fair to judge their future success based on the past. Having said that I would like people to consider the Cardinals standing for the 10 year period BEFORE Albert joined the team.
        From 2000 backwards to 1991. They finished 1,4,3,4,1,4,3,3,3,2. Not exactly the picture of a consistent “contender”. To quote Scrooge from Dickens “Christmas Carol”….”are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they the shadows of the things that may be”. The past without Pujols may foretell the Cardinals future without him.

      • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:14 PM

        Norm, if I were a Cub fan I would try to discount history as much as possible too. Gotta remain sane somehow.

    • uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

      Just maybe Albert would make the Cubs better even competitive. Because there is no doubt without Albert the Cardinals won’t be as good. Besides if the article is correct what better way to show the Cardinals how much they might miss him then to go to a rival team in the same division and just a few hours drive up the interstate. I’m not a Cubs fan but don’t be so quick to discount them.

      • Alex K - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM

        Without Pujols the Cards division finishes probably would look very, very different since 2000.

    • bowens3181 - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM

      You can moan and groan and deny it all you like, but I’m sure most people can agree that most of the teams that could outbid the Cubs are already set at 1B and won’t be willing to pony up the type of cash that the Cubs will be willing to part with simply to play Pujols at DH. I doubt highly that it is simply a coincidence that the Cubs signed Pena for ONE year instead of going after a bigger fish with a multi-year deal. And you can spout numbers and figures about how the Cards are perennially better than the Cubs, but first of all that isn’t true (Cubs finished first in the division in both 07′ and 08′) and second of all don’t you think that all of the sudden the Cards would become a much worse team minus Pujols and the Cubs a much better team with Pujols. Talking about how Pujols wants to go to a winning team is irrelevant because Pujols can make whatever team he is on a winning team simply by signing. He will go where the money takes him, and at this point, while things can change, that appears to be the Cubs.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:45 PM

        I feel like people are already spending Ricketts’ money for him.

      • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM

        You neither know or understand Pujols. He is about winning. That is an attitude that would be unrecognizable in Chicago. All the money in the Windy City, won’t alter the fact that the organization is a mess, the team loaded with attitude problem, injury-prone, aging veterans. 2 Pujols’ couldn’t straighten out the mess the Cubs currently call a team. They need to dump, Zambrano, Dempster, Silva, Samardzija, Fukodome, Byrd, Ramirez and Soriano, rebuild, and then spend some top dollars for a quality character guy who might show them the route to success begins with effort.

  9. indyralph - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

    I don’t blame him at all for turning it down. And I ask this question as a die-hard Cardinals and Pujols fan: in 8-10 years is he going to be one of the 10 best players in the game? Everybody’s logic is: he’s the best, pay him the most. It’s just not that simple.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM

      In 8-10 years, how much will the 10 best players in baseball be earning? Probably more than $30M. I’m not saying his production will equal the contract, but the gap probably won’t be as wide as your statement makes it seem.

      • indyralph - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

        Of course that may be true, but that wasn’t exactly my point. It’s a simple question that is just one example of the many, many things that the Cardinals front office has to consider beyond the “he’s the best, pay the man” argument.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

      It IS that simple. You pay him as the best or you lose him. Now, which would you, as a Cards fan, prefer? Either choice shows benefits but I’d think Cards fans would be pretty pissed to lose him. I’d certainly be upset losing him. I think people are actually underestimating how good he really is, which I never thought would be the case…especially from his own team.

    • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:29 PM

      If not him who?

  10. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM

    I wonder if Boston will hold off on Gonzalez long term deal during the season if Pujols doesn’t have a contract. Why should Theo shell out huge bucks for the second best player available?

  11. phukyouk - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM

    all jokes aside there is NOONE in the world in ANY profession worth half of what this offer was. seriously! why the hell do you have to be the highest paid? you are already one of the best in the game isnt that enough? i mean its not like they offered you the league min. they offered you RETARDED money to hit a gddamn ball. and yes i get that you put a$$es in the seats and make them money but still i mean its more money then this guy would spend in 5 lifetimes. all this bulls*it really pisses me off. and no its not just him.. its Jeter and Arod and Manny and Lee and everyone else that honestly believes that they deserve even 10% of their actual salaries.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM

      The idea is that they deserve a significant % of the massive revenues baseball is bringing in these days. If someone is going to make that money, why not the players? Why let the Jeff Loria’s and Peter Angelos’ keep the money they made from the game Pujols is actually playing?

      I really think every baseball team should be forced to give most of their revenue to the school system in the city where they play, but instead cities give baseball teams billions to build new ballparks. Billionaires on welfare…Unreal.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:56 PM

        If employees of a company are due a share of the revenue from the money they bring in, the fry guys at McDonalds are due for a massive raise.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM

      This is an argument for how revenue should be shared or spent as an organization. No matter what you believe the MLB will make billions. Would you rather that the money just go into a handful of owners’ pockets or be spread slightly more reasonably among the players too? Now if you spread the wealth among the players, don’t you pay the better ones more money? Well, then there you are.

      • phukyouk - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:29 PM

        yes…. to a point. at some point its got to be enough. how much money does one person need? im not in favor of a salary cap on teams but i am on players and owners. at some point the money should go to the city or the schools or us schmucks that pay for the billion Dollar + Stadiums.

    • aaronmoreno - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM

      While you’re delving into aspects of human nature that have been debated for millenia, I think one hypothetical may be useful.

      Someone offers you a hundred dollars. They may be stupid to offer it. However, you’d also be stupid not to take it.

      Long story short, I don’t think you or Albert Pujols turns down raises or walks past twenty bucks lying on the ground.

    • Dan in Katonah - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:10 PM

      So they don’t take market value and leave money on the table for whom??? Why should they not act in their own best interest and take the salary that is available if the situation is right for them?

      Yes, they are paid ungodly sums of money. Yes, teachers, police, firefighters, military and a host of others who do not engage in such childish pursuits should be paid more than what they get. But the arguments are unrelated and infantile. You deserve what you can get. They are entertainers in a multibillion dollar industry. Maybe we should have government regulators set the price and give the excess to the needy. Maybe the owners should collude to keep the salaries at a level that you, John Q. Public, think is reasonable. Sorry, here in America you earn what you can get. Get over it.

    • bowens3181 - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:52 PM

      While I’ll admit it’s absolutely insane to even offer a man $20MM to hit a ball with a stick and then run around in circles, the fact that Arod got $28MM and is worse at hitting the ball and running around in circles simply dictates that Pujols deserves ATLEAST Arod money. While it may not make logical sense to pay that much money to a man who plays a sport for a living rather than give it to someone who saves lives, Pujols is simply abiding by the fundamental rule of business, supply and demand dictate that price of something. When the supply is low players of his talent level (he’s the only one) and the demand is high (which it will be), the price sky rockets, not to mention the precedent set by all of the outrageous contracts that teams like the Yankees have offered to much lesser players over the years.
      Funny how everything thats wrong with baseball can be somehow linked back to the Yankees like that….

  12. kenbuddha - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM

    Even if they think they are going to let him become a free agent the Cards should at least make themselves look good by offering the largest contract in history but not so large that he’d take it. At least then when AP turns it down they can say they didn’t low ball him.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM

      If they offered him the largest contract in history he would have taken it by definition b/c that is pretty much exactly what he was looking for.

      • kenbuddha - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:21 PM

        Isn’t the current largest in history around 10 years $250 mil? If so, and that’s what was offered AP would have turned it down because he and his agent think AP is worth more.

  13. Richard - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM

    Ten years is way too long for a player that is 31 and has a history of injuries. While last season produced good stats, Albert did not come through in many key situations. Of course, Albert is a great guy and a great player. I’m just saying the price is too high and any team that pays it will soon wonder why they did it.

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:55 PM

      NONSENSE! History of injury? Please source that one b/c it is just false. Last season’s stats were “good”? How about great or fantastic or typically (for him) amazing? Next, name two “key” situations that he didn’t come through. How about the Cards never came through for him? He played great, not good, and the team did not for the majority of the year. His price is high b/c he’s the best. This is not an argument, it’s fact.

    • aaronmoreno - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:00 PM

      Well, he does have an injury history. He’s also played through a lot of that at a Hall-of-Fame level of performance.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:02 PM

      Albert did not come through in many key situations.

      Really? which were these? here’s his OPS and sOPS (OPS vs league average, 100 is equal)

      2 Outs, RISP – 1.208 – 235
      Late & Close – .971 – 183
      Tie Game – .892 – 144
      Within 1R – 1.040 – 186
      Within 2R – 1.061 – 190
      Within 3R – 1.069 – 191
      Within 4R – 1.013 – 176
      Ahead – 1.028 – 173
      Behind – 1.115 – 210

      So he hit 135% better with 2 outs and RISP and 110% better when the team was behind. What more could he have done to “done better”?

  14. lanflfan - Feb 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Good for the Cardinals. One man does NOT make a team, and locking into a ridiculous contract to appease an ego would screw them for those 10 years.

    We now know what Albert is all about. Money. Home town discount, family man…nah, just an act to make more $$$$. I don’t care if he is the best, that is no reason to throw millions of dollars at him.

    Let’s see how those great baseball fans in St Louis take this.

    • Travis Quigley - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:36 PM

      So, if being the best isn’t a reason to give someone money, and in lieu of that you seem to propose a low ego, willingness to give a discount, etc as the things to value…that means the only way the Cards should offer Pujols a big contract is if he would accept a small contract?

      Because that’s a thing that makes sense.

      • lanflfan - Feb 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

        Let’s say St Louis signs him for 30mil per. Congrats, your the best player in baseball and earn the most money. You also play for a third place team as they can’t afford to sign enough complimentary parts. Kiss the playoffs good bye, and rest on your one ring (which is more than a lot of players have).

        I’m not saying low ball him (that IS an insult). But backing up the armored car, and screwing your ability to sign free agents for 10 years, hardly seems like a good business decision for anyone not in Yankee or Red Sock land. There is a middle ground, where both sides give. Apparently, players in ALL sports forget that. It’s all about the ME and the $.

  15. dickclydesdale - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    Pujols will get more then A-frauds $275 million.

    • paperlions - Feb 16, 2011 at 8:28 PM

      Both?

  16. thejokewriter - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:44 PM

    Hey Albert,

    Your table at “Mi Tierra “in Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood is ready.

    Peter

  17. uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 5:58 PM

    How’s this for a little side note to the Albert FA possibility. If Albert walks at the end of the season how thrilled will the Cardinals management be that they still owe Matt Holliday $17MM per for 5 more season (2012/2016). Without Albert in the Cardinals lineup Holliday’s contract is a waste.

    • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:11 PM

      Good point UYF, as to the Cubs see above.

      • bowens3181 - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:31 PM

        Do you think it’s possible that you simply don’t want him to sign with the Cubs and not that you don’t think it’s going to happen, because I honestly can’t see how anyone can dismiss the chances of him signing there so easily since it makes so much sense money-wise for Pujols and need-wise for the Cubs…

      • spudchukar - Feb 16, 2011 at 7:55 PM

        Yes, the Cubs are our traditional rivals. But I don’t hate the Cubs. Pity maybe. My belief that he won’t choose Chicago is not based on some emotional pain it might inflict. I would much rather he land there than many other places. I do not want him to squander his talent, character and drive in a place that has nothing but problems in the foreseeable future.

    • astrozac - Feb 16, 2011 at 9:32 PM

      Why? they’d have another $15-20 or whatever they’d pay for Albert to spend their resources on. More better pitching, and improved roster spots from #1 to #25…

      I’m a Cards fan, but at this point I’d rather see Pujols walk, because it doesn’t match his talk. Yeah, he wants to play for a winner, he loves St. Louis and is revered in Cardinal Nation and he wants the Cards to build a good “team,” capable of winning. I’m a firm believer in free market capitalism and if someone is dumb enough to pay you that much take it.

      That’s fine if he desires it, but don’t talk out both sides. The Cards ownership has made the right decisions most of the time and don’t believe in overpaying veterans no matter how big or small…The Cards were decent before Pujols and can be a good team without him. You notice after the Cards signed McGwire they had a dry spell until 2000, when they started putting pieces together…

      • uyf1950 - Feb 16, 2011 at 11:00 PM

        You just don’t replace a perennial All Star, MVP, Silver Slugger. A career .331BA, .426 OBP, .624 SLG%, 1.050 OPS, 172 OPS+ player. Who has also averaged 40+ HR’s per season and 123 RBI’s per season. How much do you think $30MM gets a team in today’s market? It’s not like the Cardinals are going to be able to sign 5 or six players with that money. Just look at the blogs this evening. Weeks signs a contract with the Brewers $10MM per. Bautista is going to sign with the Jays $13MM per. That’s $23MM per for 2 players that combined have had one good year each and aren’t a quarter the player Pujols is.

  18. astrozac - Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20 AM

    You put the right pieces together you can put together a better team. Plus will they likely be able to resign Wainwright, Molina, Garcia and other younger talent they have in the future with this massive contract, if it happens? That was my point in my previous comment, Albert seems to want it both ways, making massive amounts of money and expecting them to field competitive teams every year.

    I don’t want to see him in another uniform, but don’t like the attitude…

  19. macjacmccoy - Feb 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM

    This is exactly the reason why I laugh when people start talking about a Ryan Howard for Pujos trade. The only reason Pujos will leave St Louis is if they dont offer him the money he wants. So if they wont pay him why would they trade for a guy who already has a huge contract and isnt as good as Pujos? If they are going to spend that kind of money then they are gonna spend it on Pujos. The money Howard is getting paid would be just as detrimental to the teams budget as extending Pujos.

  20. astrozac - Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

    ^The Cards wouldn’t do something stupid like that. They don’t want to overpay for anybody and if they would trade, they’d make a good trade…

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Three legends off to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Tulowitzki (3175)
  2. R. Howard (3037)
  3. C. Headley (2890)
  4. H. Ramirez (2749)
  5. Y. Puig (2563)
  1. M. Trout (2546)
  2. B. Belt (2514)
  3. C. Lee (2361)
  4. H. Street (2252)
  5. J. Soria (2202)