Jump to content

Good Move or Bad Move by St. Louis


Winning_Season

Recommended Posts

So I think I am in the majority in saying that I am dissapointed to see Pujols leave the Cardinals. That being said, should St. Louis have ponied up the money and matched the Angels offer??

Personally I their mistake was not making a deal with Pujols before he hit free agency, not failing to match the Angels offer. 10 years and 200 million is too much to pay any player whose best years are in all likelihood behind him. Pujols had his worst year statistically this season, while he will still be a perennial all star for years to come, I don't think he is going to be consistently among the three best players in baseball for many more years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think I am in the majority in saying that I am dissapointed to see Pujols leave the Cardinals. That being said, should St. Louis have ponied up the money and matched the Angels offer??

Personally I their mistake was not making a deal with Pujols before he hit free agency, not failing to match the Angels offer. 10 years and 200 million is too much to pay any player whose best years are in all likelihood behind him. Pujols had his worst year statistically this season, while he will still be a perennial all star for years to come, I don't think he is going to be consistently among the three best players in baseball for many more years

I'm sure your right on Pujols entering the second half of his career and for this reason it was probably the best decision for the Cardinals to go in another direction. Yes, they absolutely should have locked him up when the price would have been somewhat reasonable. That said, given the Angels new TV deal, signing Pujols to this contract is, financially, a very good move for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone was going to overpay for Pujols it made the most sense for it to be St. Louis. The declined value of him in the later years of his contract would have been offset by his performance early on as a Cardinal in relationship to his salary.

In 2003 he was a 10.9 WAR player, and was only making $900k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone was going to overpay for Pujols it made the most sense for it to be St. Louis. The declined value of him in the later years of his contract would have been offset by his performance early on as a Cardinal in relationship to his salary.

In 2003 he was a 10.9 WAR player, and was only making $900k.

It don't work that way, hoss. All good players are underpaid early in their careers, that's what gives small market teams some chance to compete. I can guarantee you the Cardinals weren't banking his excess value/revenue so that they could overpay him from 2012-2022. They kept him as long as it made fiscal sense, and will use those resources somewhere else now that it doesn't. All teams pay players according to their projected value, not their previous rate of return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a smart move by St. Louis to not sign him (for ten years). It will be painful for them to watch him for another year or two, tops. After that his decline will be in full effect and the Angels are going to look really dumb for giving him ten years.

Hypothetical: Pujols leads the Angels to two WS championships in the first 5 years, but trails off in the second half of his contract, would it be worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the worst part about it is that they Cardinals lost Albert Pujols and will not get any compensation other than a draft pick.

Not true. He helped get them a World Championship ( 2 actually) just a couple months ago. I infer you were suggesting that they should have traded him and gotten something, but I think keeping him earned them something much much better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the worst part about it is that they Cardinals lost Albert Pujols and will not get any compensation other than a draft pick.
Not true. He helped get them a World Championship ( 2 actually) just a couple months ago. I infer you were suggesting that they should have traded him and gotten something, but I think keeping him earned them something much much better!

Exactly. Albert Pujols provided them years of the best player in baseball, mostly at well below-market salaries. What they got from him was great baseball at a great price!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical: Pujols leads the Angels to two WS championships in the first 5 years, but trails off in the second half of his contract, would it be worth it?

For the Angels I sya yes because they have alot of talent and seem to always have a good squad. So even if they have to use Pujols as a DH (which will most likely happen later on in this contract) They won't be sweating on depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...