Skip to content

Albert Pujols signs 10-year, $254 million contract with Angels

Dec 8, 2011, 10:01 AM EST

St. Louis Cardinals v Cincinnati Reds Getty Images

Last night the buzz coming from the winter meetings was that Albert Pujols wasn’t anywhere near making a decision, but either that was wrong or things changed dramatically overnight.

Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports reports that Pujols has agreed to sign with the Angels, getting a 10-year contract worth between $250 million and $260 million.

Wow. It didn’t take Jerry Dipoto long to make a huge splash as general manager.

Until now Alex Rodriguez was the only player in baseball history to secure a contract in excess of $200 million and according to Brown the massive deal also includes a full no-trade clause, which was something the Marlins reportedly were never willing to give Pujols.

Making that sort of investment in a 32-year-old first baseman is obviously tremendously risky and it’s tough to blame the Cardinals for not wanting to commit $25 million per season through age 41, but certainly Angels fans aren’t focusing on 2021 right now.

UPDATE: And the Angels weren’t done spending with Pujols, handing out another huge contract to C.J. Wilson.

UPDATE: The final tally on Pujols’ deal is $254 million and apparently that wasn’t even the highest offer.

177 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. canucks18 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM

    Let the SELL OUT !!! Chants begin

    • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM

      Okay. I call him a mercenary and a hypocrite after saying he wanted to be a Cardinal for life. He’s a damn sell out.

      • ilpackerfan - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:26 AM

        As a Cardinal fan, I hate to see him go, but it would have hurt the Cards bad to have re-signed him. Yes I know he was underpaid for so many years, but you can’t mortgage your future on one player for 10 years with that much money. The Cards do have a higher payroll than a lot of teams, but to put $22-25 million towards one player that long would hamstring them.

        I just wish it would have happened sooner so they could have gone after Buehrle, or other talent.

      • Detroit Michael - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM

        If Pujols ever said something like “My desire to be a Cardinal for life is so strong that I’m willing to leave tens of millions of dollars in the owners’ pockets instead of mine (or eventually the charity of my choice),” then I’d be interested in someone posting a link to that kind of quote. Otherwise, I’m going to assume that Pujols isn’t a hypocrite, that his previously-stated desire to remain a Cardinal didn’t reflect the context of today’s decision.

        Congratulations to Arte Moreno for investing so heavily in improving the Angels. Not sure it’ll end up being cost-effective, but still congratulations for plowing money into improving the on-field product.

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM

        What he said was that it would be about more than just the money. I have yet to see any evidence that it was about anything but the money. I have no problem with it being about the money….but just be honest about it.

      • pjmarn6 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM

        : “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, Texas spent $250 on Rodriguez and it broke them. The Yankees gave Rodriguez $32.5 million last year and he rewarded them with a .276 batting average and 66 RBI. Quickest way to spoil a player is big money and a guaranteed contract. When they know they don’t have to put out every year, it is down, down, down. Pujols production has been down every year for the last 3-4 years. And most players only last 5 years or less in the big years. Even the huge stars like Dimaggio, Ruth, Berra, Bonds, Mays all retire or are fired by 35 or show diminishing returns 35 of after.
        It is your money that fuels this idiocy. The owners and general management should be lumped with the congressmen and all politicians. They love to waste our money.

      • mikeinthevine - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM

        No one should be surprised. Jim Thome did the same thing with the Indians. He said he wanted to spend his whole career with the Indians but when the Phillies offered another year on his contract, he was gone like a fart in the wind. I don’t have a problem with them chasing the bucks, just be man enough to say it. Even Albert Belle had the guts to do that.

      • pjmarn6 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM

        If you look at Pujols stats and remember what the baseball pundits said that 75% of the players were using illegal substances, it is not a wonder that once they came off the drugs, their numbers would go down. They know who they are and it is common sense to know that humans deteriorate physically with age. And it is common sense to know that owners and general managers usually don’t know what they are doing and are idiots to give guaranteed contracts and not performance contracts. If players knew that their weekly paycheck depended on their weekly performance every pitch and swing would be exciting.
        If a salesman worked for you and every week/month his sales got worse you would fire him. If your mechanic told you a $1000 to fix your car and he wanted it ahead of time and no guarantee it would be fixed, you wouldn’t pay him. Here you have players that get a guaranteed contract and no guarantee they will perform. STUPID ISN’T IT? The owners have to pay but there is no guarantee that the players have to perform to any degree.
        Rodriguez last swing in the playoffs cost the Yankees $9,000 and he struck off. Either there were men on base or he could have been the tying run himself. He has a history of choking. 2011 Angel payroll was $143 million with Hunter receiving $18 million and at 35 having his worst year in the last 7 years. The seats are filled, 3rd best with 3 million. So Hunter will gone soon and Pujols will drop to Hunter’s level in 4 years and what do the Angels have a bloated payroll with aging players. Haren is 30 and will not last another 5.
        Baseball is not baseball anymore. It is a child’s game played by child in an adult’s body, run by idiots and madmen. Statistics show that 78% of these newly minted baseball millionaires will be bankrupt less than 5 years after they leave the game.

      • Detroit Michael - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:31 PM

        I’d love to see a citation for that 78% statistic in this last sentence of the prior post.

      • vaquero01 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:44 PM

        not sure how anyone can be mad. I’m die hard Cardinals fan (whole family bleeds card red) but to be fair the Cards never paid him market value once in his career. The Cards front office wanted to play this out in the media and make it look like Albert was greedy this time so they could save face. The Cards could have signed him to an extension before last season for considerably less, but wanted to go cheap and see what would happen. Now we know.

      • rkb555 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:50 PM

        pjmarn6 – Dec 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM

        : “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, Texas spent $250 on Rodriguez and it broke them. The Yankees gave Rodriguez $32.5 million last year and he rewarded them with a .276 batting average and 66 RBI. Quickest way to spoil a player is big money and a guaranteed contract. When they know they don’t have to put out every year, it is down, down, down. Pujols production has been down every year for the last 3-4 years. And most players only last 5 years or less in the big years. Even the huge stars like Dimaggio, Ruth, Berra, Bonds, Mays all retire or are fired by 35 or show diminishing returns 35 of after.
        It is your money that fuels this idiocy. The owners and general management should be lumped with the congressmen and all politicians. They love to waste our money.
        ——————————-
        I’m not sure what u meant by bonds on the decline after 35. He played some of his best ball later in his career and was still pretty dominate. So it’s very conceivable that pujols could continue at a high level late in his career.

      • lovesmesomeme - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM

        HaHa All you suckers who hitched your wagon to a human being who was offered a contract worth an extra $35 million. You crybabies who call him a sellout are the sameones who would quit your $50k a year job for a chance to make $75k. Boo fieakin hoo. His alligator tears will appease some of you. Take solace on the fact that you can go visit his statue

      • bdlancaster - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:33 PM

        Here is the link to the story stating he told the St. Louis press he wanted to be a Cardinal for life.

        http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-what-else-can-pujols-want/article_31828a7c-af37-519e-9d6c-ac34299b95fc.html

        About 10 graphs down.

      • sjwitte - Dec 9, 2011 at 7:57 PM

        “Do I want to be in St. Louis forever? Of course. People from other teams want to play in St. Louis, and they’re jealous that we’re in St. Louis because the fans are unbelievable. So why would you want to leave a place like St. Louis to go somewhere else and make $3 million or $4 more million a year? It’s not about the money. I already got my money. It’s about winning, and that’s it.”

        Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/bernie-save-the-blame-game-it-s-just-business/article_c202431e-5c7f-5432-8aab-1648fbafc151.html#ixzz1g5ZWQB7f

        Basically answers Detroit Michael spot on….btw I was there when your pathetic team lost to the Cardinals on 10/27/2006

      • pjmarn6 - Dec 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM

        rkb555 – take away the steroids and what did you see? A steady decline. What are you expecting more to see Bonds in the Hall of Fame or behind bars?

    • randygnyc - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:34 AM

      I’ve been saying it for awhile that there was something broken in the relationship between the cards and AP. It was as if he was determined to sign elsewhere. I have no opinion on his leaving other than 10 years at the end of a players career, for this much money, is a huge risk that could financially destroy a team like the angels if things go bad.

    • blakeden - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM

      Ouch…..Can you imagine the Angels ownership group having fits each time he is intentionally walked……That just cost us $ 66,000.00

    • blakeden - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:43 AM

      OUCH……Each intentional walk will cost the Angels $66,000.00 LET THE CRYING BEGIN

    • marshmallowsnake - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:49 AM

      Let the Overpaying of Matt Holliday hating begin. That is what lead to this. How do the Cardinals let him get away?

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM

        Marshmallow: Who do you root for? My guess…Cubs…Reds…or Brewers. Get over yourself. I am thrilled to have Matt Holliday. The ONLY thing I am “hating” is the fact the Organization specifically stated (at the time of the Holliday signging) that they had Albert’s pending free agency in mind and they felt they could get it done.

      • marshmallowsnake - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM

        Who I root for has nothing to do with the fact that the Matt Holliday contract is what allowed Pujols to leave St. Louis. The organization can say all they want, but the truth is, bidding against themselves for Holliday is what caused them to no have the cash (which they probably do anyway) to retain the best player on the planet…who would have been the best player in the Cardinals history, had he resigned.

        In all seriousness, I feel badly for the fans because he was that team…and I would not have been happy to see him go. Oh, and I grew up in Massachusetts, so I root for the Red Sox…but living in Phoenix, I also follow the D’Backs…

    • marshmallowsnake - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM

      Cardinal fans, would you be pointing out the negatives had Pujols resigned? Your negativity makes me wish he signed with the cubs.

      • thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM

        @marshmallowsnake

        “Cardinal fans, would you be pointing out the negatives had Pujols resigned?”

        Yes.

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:57 AM

        Marshmmallow: Negatives? There wouldn’t be any negatives to point out had he resigned with St. Louis as they have already benefited from the fruits of his labor for the last 11 years (at a bargain of a price no less). Therefore, his resigning would have been more of a “payback” so to speak on the Organizational side of things without hurting them nearly has much. Simply put…the Angles are now paying for what he did the previous 11 years.

      • marshmallowsnake - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM

        Falcon, I gave you a thumbs up for your honesty.

      • marshmallowsnake - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM

        @StLouis: I agree with you. I think that had he resigned, there would not be any negatives. I have done the same with free agents…just, the modern day equivalent of a baseball god was not on my team.

        All the ribbing aside…I cannot believe that he moved on from a Championship team for 30 Million…when he already has made over 100 million.

    • Cris E - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM

      It’s not a sell out when the money is so overwhelming that no one on earth would turn it down. It would be one thing if he’d been barking at other guys when they signed big deals or talking loudly about lifetime commitments, but he’s a quiet guy and we’re talking $50m. There’s no way anyone walks away from $50m.

    • Coaching for Champions - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM

      Wow! this may be the Angel’s year!!

    • mlblogsblee132325 - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM

      As a lifelong Cardinal fan of 64 years, I am VERY sorry to see Albert leave, but I totally respect his decision. I loved every minute of his 11 years playing for us, and I will enjoy following the remainder of his storied career. I would be sad that he’s in the American League, but since I live about an hour from Minute Maid Park, I will get to see him playing for the Halos beginning in 2013.

      Nothing can change my love for the Cardinals, but I will also
      continue to love and respect Albert both as a ballplayer and a man, and I know my Cardinals will find a way to go on without El Hombre, although our team will suffer without his bat and glove in the lineup and his spirit on the field, in the clubhouse, and in and around St. Louis.

      Here’s wishing you the best, Albert, and “Thanks for all the Wonderful Memories”…

    • pjmarn6 - Dec 12, 2011 at 1:55 AM

      Detroit Michael Just plug in Baseball and Steroids and you get everything from 50% from the Mitchell report which is conservative to 85% from Jose Conseco’s book. Then there are sites with the individual teams, and lists showing 200-300 names and stories from individual players who name names. And there are so many examples of players who just all of sudden take off with the stats who aren’t named in the reports. Of course players who experimented, kept quiet and stopped missed being named.
      Steroid uses got the really giant contracts and traded the use for a shorter life span and health problems.
      The 78% was before testing and when steroid use was not considered illegal. The owners, gms and managers winked at it, as long as it filled the seats.
      Look at Adrián Beltré. Before 2004 he had never hit more than 20 home runs or driven in more than 80 runs in his career, nor had he hit over .450 (which represents the total number of bases divided by the player’s at-bats – essentially how much power production the player has). So Beltré ­wasn’t a power hitter, until 2004, that is, when he ­became a free agent and had his one shot at big-time money. This was also the last year that the MLB didn’t test for steroids. That year he hit 48 home runs and drove in 121 runs, with a batting average of .629. Beltré signed a five-year, $64 million contract. In 2005, however, MLB started testing for steroids. Beltré went right back to his 20 home runs and 80 RBI, and his slugging percentage dropped 200 points to .432.

  2. drmonkeyarmy - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM

    Wow….I’d like to take this opportunity to say sorry to the HBT contingent of Cardinal fans. Hell, I still hold a grudge against Jayson Werth, I can’t imagine what you guys must be feeling.

    • 78mu - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:13 AM

      Pujols always made more sense for an AL team because of the DH even though he said he wanted to play 1b. But in the last 3 or 4 years he’ll be most valuable as a DH and unless the NL adopts the DH I’m glad the Cards aren’t going to have those last 5 years.

      It would be nice to have him just to get a chance at another WS or two but I wish him the best in Anaheim.

    • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM

      Well, this just make Pujols a great player that once played for the Cardinals. If he had stayed his entire career, he would have been a legend in StL….now, he’s just a guy that was great for 11 years and then left.

      I wouldn’t boo him, that’s just the mid-westerner in me, but I won’t ever cheer for him again either. I am a Cardinal fan, and he isn’t a Cardinal anymore.

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM

        Paper: I agree with your post 100%. As a fellow Midwesterner…I am typically not wired that way either (booing and whatnot). In this case however, let me state that I am actually incredibly dissapointed that I will NOT have the opportunity to not only boo him…but be thrown out of Busch Stadium upon his return. Unless of course he returns for a World Series matchup. If so…I will have to contain myself to the booing only.

    • mattjg - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:59 AM

      Out of curiosity, why do you hold a grudge against Werth? It’s not like he came up through the Phillies system, he was offered a ridiculous amount of money by Washington, and to top it off his performance last year would have made whatever the Phillies would have paid him look like too much money. I’m grateful for what he did in a Phillies uniform, but I can’t begrudge him taking a higher paying job.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM

        I know….it is a completely irrational grudge. I hold grudges against most players that leave the Phillies. It is what it is. I mean, I’m not going to throw batteries at him but I get a bit of joy when he plays poorly.

  3. thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM

    Wow. Have fun with that LA.

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM

      Call me bitter, but I do hope he sucks balls and gets booed mercilessly every night.

      • newpairofsox - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        You’re bitter.

      • thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM

        @newpaitofsox

        Yes…very, very much so.

        I ’twas just an 18-year old back in the Spring of ought one, turning on the television machine to watch the Cardinals play the Rockies. I was furious when I saw my favorite player, Ray Lankford, was not in the lineup, but instead, some guy named Pujols was in left instead….

        On one hand, it’s for the best. Signing a 32 year old first baseman to a 10 year, 220 million dollar deal would have been bad news. On the other hand, it would have been pretty awesome to watch him play his whole career in St. Louis. But the Angels went completely nuts and overshot the Cardinals by about 30 or 40 million dollars…so that’s that. :(

      • kiwicricket - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

        Mr/Mrs Bitter

      • bozosforall - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM

        We already knew that before the deal happened, loser.

    • clydeserra - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

      anaheim

  4. uyf1950 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM

    WOW !!!

  5. Jonny 5 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM

    Tiffany must be super excited…. We demand her input on this situation!

  6. mvp43 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM

    No 1 player is worth that kind of money…………..In the big picture, this is best for the Cards.

    • presidentmiraflores - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:11 AM

      Certainly, no player is worth that kind of money in his early 40s, from this far out when we have no idea if he will be healthy and productive even in his late 30s. And though you can’t really replace an all-time great, you can afford multiple players to fill different holes in a rotation, lineup, and bullpen for the salary the Angels are going to pay Pujols, so though it’s going to hurt like hell for a little while, I think the Cards will be better off than matching that contract.

    • 78mu - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:16 AM

      The Cardinals didn’t win every WS when they had the best player in baseball. He won’t be the best player for the next 10 years so the Angels are paying a lot for what he did with the Cardinals.

      But since the NL doesn’t have a DH, he’d be more valuable to the Angels over the life of the contract.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:18 AM

      Last 10 years by WAR

      bWAR – 81.8
      fWAR – 80.3

      At $4M/WAR:

      bWAR – $327.2M
      fWAR – $321.2M

      That’s at a low estimate of $4M/WAR, which probably is boosted to $5M this year.

      • presidentmiraflores - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

        So do you pay him for what he did between the ages of 21 and 31, or what you expect him to do between 31 and 41? Some teams can afford to pay an aging player for what he did in the past, even make up for the player having not been properly compensated with his previous contract, but some teams decide they can only afford to pay a player for what they believe he is likely to do during the length of the contract they are offering. Obviously, the Angels are one of the former and the Cards decided they are one of the latter, even if it can be argued they owe AP some back pay for over-performing on his last deal.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

        No, you don’t, but if you are the Cardinals he’s already provided surplus value beyond what you paid him, so you can’t have it both ways. He was grossly underpaid before, they shouldn’t turn around and underpay him again because he’s not going to put forth six to eight more 8+ WAR seasons.

        As for the Angels, they are probably banking on two things: one, last year’s “dropoff” wasn’t a sign of the immediate future. If he can go back to being a 6-7 WAR player for 3-4 years, that’ll provide plenty of surplus value in the later years. Two, dollar per WAR calc keeps increasing due to inflation. Last few years it’s been $4.5M/WAR and next year it figures to be around $5M.

      • 78mu - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM

        There is little chance he will produce in the next ten years as he did for the last ten years.

      • presidentmiraflores - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM

        I agree with most of your reasoning, but I want to make two points.

        In a way, I think it’s harder for the Cards to make a deal with him, because they did get a lot of production at a bargain before, so to Pujols it probably seems they should pay him more than anyone else, because they owe him that back pay. With another team, they can only be expected to pay him for some combination of what he’s done before and what they think he can do in the future, without having to hold the bag for the Cards underpaying him. Obviously, once another team offers significantly more than the Cards, they’re kinda blown out of the water, unless he really was some big softy who just wanted to finish his career in St. Louis, in which case he wouldn’t have had this big production in the first place.

        The other thing is that unless this deal is frontloaded, and I doubt it is, paying AP ~$25mil per year in those last 4-5 years is still going to make it harder for the Angels to make other moves, re-sign elite players, etc., regardless of the fact that they may have gotten some surplus value in the first half of the contract. I suppose an argument could be made that as Pujols is approaching and surpassing some all-time records in those years, it will help increase revenue, but I don’t know how much stock I put into that sort of thing.

        As a postscript, there is also just something kinda fundamentally crazy about giving a 10-year deal to a guy in his 30s.

    • halo5280 - Dec 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

      IMO you are NOT looking at the big picture. AP is going to be a marketing machine for the Angels. Even if it’s only for 4-5 years. The Dodgers are tanking right now and there is a battle for the LA Orange county market. +1 for the Angels. This signing just moved Dodgers fans over to the Angels. This just sold additional season tickets. This will help increase the dollar value of the TV contracts they are about to renegotiate. Advertising on Angels Radio stations just went up. Merchandise sales just went uup, etc., etc I couldn’t disagree more. Arte Moreno is a business man first. In 4-5 Years Arte’s return on this investment will have paid off. It already is starting to with all the buzz this is creating.

      • lanflfan - Dec 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM

        halo your exactly right regarding a “return on investment” for Arte Moreno from signing Pujols. Despite the fact he bought a team in Anaheim (Orange County), Mr. Moreno still goes after the large LA hispanic population, and this signing might influence more people his way. The Angels could absolutely see a large part of that contract offset by an increase in revenue.

        However, as one Dodger fan, I would never root for the Angels over the Dodgers. Most Dodgers fans I know tolerate the Angels, but would never root for them. You might find some fans “on the fence” that switch, but fickle/bandwagon fans like that will quickly change sides again with the next big signing.

  7. sportsdrenched.com - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM

    I hope he can scrape by on that.

    • Tyree Studio - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:11 AM

      I guess the Angels will “respect” him more than STL did. :sarcasm:

      Cardinals are better off not signing him to a 9-10 year deal.

  8. 12strikes - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM

    Glad my Phillies won’t have to see him again.

    Wonder if the Angels asked the Rangers how 10/250 no trade contracts work out?

  9. proudlycanadian - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM

    Vernon can now relax. He no longer has the worst contract on that team.

    • Ari Collins - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM

      He no longer has the biggest contract. Pujols contract is still much much better, though.

      • phukyouk - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:13 AM

        come on.. even you have to admit that this is a pretty bad contract.. this is arod all over again…

      • clydeserra - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:17 AM

        Alex ROdriguez’s contract was so bad, the yankees renegotiated to give him MORE money and more time.

      • yankeesfanlen - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:21 AM

        Leave ARod Alone!

      • Ari Collins - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:26 AM

        No, I think this is a fine contract. He’s likely to be so great over the next five years that he’ll make up for the next five years.

        A-Rod was easily worth his first contract. It’s his second contract that was insane.

      • bozosforall - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM

        The Yankees saved the Rangers’ bacon when they took that albatross of a contract off of Tom Hicks’s hands. Only the Yankees could afford to do such a thing. Also, only the Yankees could afford to give ARod the new contract that he got, so the rest of the league should be kissing the Yankees’ asses for donating the extra cash that no other team could begin to afford.

      • uyf1950 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM

        clydeserra – A-Rods contract was so bad that that the following year after renegotiating the Yankees went on to win the 2009 World Series and A-Rod won the post season MVP (with A-Rod and CC the main reason the Yankees won it all that year.

        A contract is only bad (in my opinion) if it prevents the team from doing something else that would make them better (for example: Mauer and Morneau in MN). That obviously wasn’t the case with A-Rod since the Yankees the very next year went on to sign CC, Tex and AJ (combined contracts at the time $400MM plus).

        Let the thumbs down begin.

      • JBerardi - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:35 AM

        “The Yankees saved the Rangers’ bacon when they took that albatross of a contract off of Tom Hicks’s hands. Only the Yankees could afford to do such a thing. Also, only the Yankees could afford to give ARod the new contract that he got, so the rest of the league should be kissing the Yankees’ asses for donating the extra cash that no other team could begin to afford.”

        No one buys championships like the Yankees.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:42 AM

        Only the Yankees could afford to do such a thing

        The Rangers were kicking in about $10M/year of that contract after he was traded to the Yankees. Anyone could have afforded that (until Arod opted out and the Rangers were free from their obligation).

        But again, don’t let facts get in the way of your rant.

      • uyf1950 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

        The Yankees were still paying approximately $16MM of A-Rods $25.2MM annual salary. So I’m not 100% sure that the comment “Anyone could have afforded that…” is completely accurate. Probably several teams could have prior to the 2004 season, but “anyone” might be a bit of an exaggeration.

  10. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM

    Should make for some awkward moments at the ADG if TLR comes back to manage it.

  11. El Bravo - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM

    Holy pooballz

  12. canucks18 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    Best for the Cards? To lose the best hitter in the game? You do know they still play baseball right?

    • presidentmiraflores - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

      I suppose if losing the best hitter in the game existed in a vacuum, where no other factors existed, I’d have to agree.

      • sportsdrenched.com - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

        Right, part of my real job involves alot of negotiating. Some times the best deal is the one you DON’T make.

        W/o knowing the details we can assume $25-$26 Million a year. A significant persentage of any teams payroll. The opportunity cost is huge here.

  13. ukcardsfan - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    Devastated. He really must have fallen out with Front Office to do that to us…

    • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:45 AM

      I’m trying to figure out who took a leak in his Cheerios. Seriously, what the hell?

  14. pitperc - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:13 AM

    YES YES YES YES YES!

  15. umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:15 AM

    WHAT?! WTF?

    Dude better take that damn statue they put up at his restaurant in St. Louis with him, I have a feeling it’s not going to be in good shape shortly…

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM

      42: It’s probably already tipped over.

      • foreverchipper10 - Dec 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM

        There was a security detail posted to it.

  16. yankeesgameday - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:16 AM

    It’s always the shy ones who are the biggest freaks. Congrats angels.

  17. sportsdrenched.com - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:17 AM

    So, What about Mark Trumbo? WTH is he thinking right now?

    • 78mu - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM

      He’ll put his 1b mitt away and break in his OF glove.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM

      Maybe if he learned to get on base better than a .291 [OBP] clip he might still have a job?

    • foreverchipper10 - Dec 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM

      Or Kendrys Morales.

  18. wiggy8544 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM

    They can have him for that much! A contract like that would kill the Cards for the next 10 years. I’m a HUGE cards fans, but happy they didn’t overpay this much for him!

  19. Ari Collins - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM

    Angels now the favorites for the division? What do you guys think?

    I say it’s even right now. 10 games back last year, the Rangers (presumably) lose Wilson and two or three wins by (essentially) replacing him with Feliz, then the Angels gain four or five wins over their current 1B and a couple wins with Ianetta instead of Mathis.

    Pretty elementary analysis, but still. Very interesting division now!

    • JBerardi - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:33 AM

      This is before the Rangers go out and sign Price Fielder, of course.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM

      ExpW-L via Pythag:

      Rangers – 100-62
      Angels – 85-77

      So 15 game difference. Trumbo to Pujols assumes 4-5 win (2 oWAR from Trumbo last year rounded up). Wilson is worth another 5 wins so we’re already 2/3 of the way there. I don’t hold much hope for Feliz mainly b/c he hasn’t pitched more than 100 innings since ’09. No way he holds up for the entire season.

      Roughly 5 games to make up across the entire team. Could happen as it’s an even year and no way does Wells replicate that .248 OBP (!) this year, right?

  20. savocabol1 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM

    Pujols = The Lebron James of MLB.

    Sorry St. Louis, but welcome to Cleveland’s reality.

    • whatthehellisansky - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:29 AM

      well sir, you have a good ol fashioned HBT flogging coming to ya

    • ducksouped - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:29 AM

      Yea, ok….only slight difference there is cardinals just won a championship with its star player…2 actually, so not exactly Cleveland situation, Cleveland still much much worse

    • El Bravo - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM

      Cleveland blows dude. That’s In ALL sports, so I don’t even need to be specific. St. Louis has crazy talent and could win it all again next year w/o Albert. Metaphor fail.

      • Tyree Studio - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM

        STL is not winning it again next year.

        I bet they win a WS before Angels but they aren’t repeating this coming season. Albert bolting is leaving a huge crater in the Cardinals offense.

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM

        It will hurt, but last year he was the 3rd best hitter on the team. I’m sure he’ll be good for most of the next 5 years….but the hitter he was 3 yrs ago is gone. Time is the only aspect of physics that is unidirectional, and it is not kind to baseball skills.

    • southbeachtalent - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM

      Aren’t you guys upset about how LeBron went about it? Not what happened? That’s what you guys have been saying since day one..

      Pujols did it the right way, and he will still be hated.

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:15 AM

        Nah, he won’t be hated by StL fans….as group, we will be disappointed, some will always love him, some will act like they were personally scorned, but he won’t be hated.

      • savocabol1 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM

        Couldn’t agree with you more southbeachtalent. Pujols did it the right way. Crazy how easy it was. I have no connection to St. Louis and have no clue what the reaction will be. But early signs seem to indicate they are pissed.

        I was half heartedly kidding when I posted this. The meaning is still there though. A star player turning his back on a town that gave him the key to the city.

    • dannymac17 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:26 PM

      LeBron never won anything. Terrible comparison

  21. Chipmaker - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM

    Aw… the Angels don’t play the Cards in 2012.

  22. uyf1950 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    Can’t wait for the news on who get’s CJ Wilson.

  23. dadawg77 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    Guess his agent can pay back ARod now. Also a quarter of a billion dollars over ten years, good enough reason to stick with a sleaze ball.

  24. msuwebmanager - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    Not surprised Albert took the bucks. I’ve been a Cards fan for 48 years and we had a great run with him (especially this past post season). At least we won’t have to see him step in the batter’s box against us very often (interleague and WS only possibilities). I hope he thrives as an Angel. Now we can move on and spread some real money across several positions. GO CARDS!

    • foreverchipper10 - Dec 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM

      Interleague will be year round due to realignment so it may be more times than you might think.

  25. Chris Fiorentino - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:23 AM

    Wow…now THAT blows the Cardinals deal completely out of the water LOL. Congrats to the Angels. I believe there was one thread back in June where I said he would be signing with the Angels because that guy spends money like crazy and he hates the fact that the team in his division went to the World Series(now it’s been two in a row LOL).

    Cardinals fans…you guys got two World Series titles under Albert. Don’t be bitter at them or at Albert. At the very least, enjoy 2012 as the reigning Champions. I wish the Phillies were there.

    • Jonny 5 - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:26 AM

      I’m pretty glad it wasn’t the Phills, even though it would have been awesome for some time… That contract is just tooooo loooong.

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM

      Chirs: With all due respect…don’t tell me who to be bitter at. In this case…it’s AP’s punk ass.

    • phukyouk - Dec 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM

      2?

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM

        2006

        2011

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (4586)
  2. M. Kemp (3665)
  3. M. Cabrera (2881)
  4. J. Kang (2613)
  5. M. Morse (2580)
  1. J. Upton (2513)
  2. A. Rios (2206)
  3. C. Headley (2171)
  4. W. Middlebrooks (2134)
  5. C. McGehee (1955)