Would you give Pujols 10/300?

[Roll Tide]

The Orioles wont pay him $300 million and thats all that matters.

[SammyBirdland]

We would have to sign him to 20/600 to beat the Yankees' offer.

[SrMeowMeow]

Pujols has never approached Ruth's career averages, and you disagree? Conversely, what would Ruth do to this league if he played today, and took advantage of the training programs available (I know big if).

Also, take a look at Bonds compared to Pujols. Bonds has him right now, and Pujols hasn't even got to the downslide in his career.

I just don't think it's impossible.

[waroriole]

I just don't think it's impossible.

OK, agree to disagree.

[scOtt]

I'd do 30 per, but only for 6 or 7 years.

[olehippi]

Yes, without thinking about it.

He's so grossly underrated as a player. He's more of a franchise-changer than any of the other recent 1B have been, and compared to those contracts, he's worth the difference. He would completely remake the O's both to their fan base, and to potential free agents.

If there's one player you blow a big hole in the bank for, it's that one.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that Pujols is "underrated" as a player, especially grossly so. Actually, he probably one of the most hyped players in MLB.

[SilentJames]

We would have to sign him to 20/600 to beat the Yankees' offer.

Where are they going to play him? Are they going to give him 300 million dollars to DH?

[Frobby]

I believe I would do it. It sounds pretty outrageous now, but relative to total payroll, 10/$300 mm from 2012-2021 is a much smaller chunk than ARod's 10/$270 mm was when he signed his deal running from 2002-2011. The median team payroll was $61 mm in 2002 and it was $84 mm in 2010.

[scOtt]

I believe I would do it. It sounds pretty outrageous now, but relative to total payroll, 10/$300 mm from 2012-2021 is a much smaller chunk than ARod's 10/$270 mm was when he signed his deal running from 2002-2011. The median team payroll was $61 mm in 2002 and it was $84 mm in 2010.

Kind of like Tejada the first time. 6/72 was a lot when he signed, but toward the end it was one of the best contracts in baseball.

[DrungoHazewood]

Something I never realized until today about Pujols was that he was drafted in the 13th round. The Orioles passed on him sixteen times.

He was the Cardinals' 16th pick in the 1999 draft. The Cardinals passed on him 16 times.

Not a chance. His best years haven't approached Ruth's career averages.

Ruth's lifetime OPS is 1.164 (206 OPS+); Albert's best year is 1.114 OPS (190 OPS+). For comparison, Ruth's best year was 1920 1.379 OPS (255 OPS+)

From 1919-28, Ruth had a 1.227 OPS (218 OPS+). Albert is phenomenal, but he's not even close to Ruth.

Not even close? If you consider the AL of 1914-1935 the equal of 2000-2010, I guess that's a reasonable statement.

From age 21-30 Pujols has been worth 84 wins. From 19-30 Ruth was worth about 85 wins.

Ruth's argument is that he was worth more in individual years. Pujols has never had a 14-win season, for example. Ruth had two of those. But the other side of that argument is that the American League in Ruth's time wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. There weren't nearly as many good players, and the replacement level was certainly much, much lower.

In 1923 Ruth may have had his best year. He played on the pennant and World Series winning Yankees. On that team he was the only player with more than 10 homers. He was the only player with more than 30 doubles. Their starting SS had a .591 OPS. Their first baseman, Wally Pip, had a .704 OPS. Less than 40% of the players in the majors were 6' or taller, and 4% were 200 lbs or heavier, compared to nearly 90% and 75% today.

It's just much easier to lap the field when you're playing in probably the equivalent of the Japanese Leagues or AAA today.

[Sparkwinder]

As a fan, you've got to make this deal.

As an owner, if you've got the money, you've got to give it a close look.

As a GM with finite resources running a mid-market team and assuming that your goal is to win games? No way you go near it at that price.

What would be interesting is to get the owner, the GM, and the entirety of the Baltimore fan base in a room together and see what cranks out.

Put the money toward finding the next Pujols or Ripken. And with the money left over, buy 2 all-star caliber players. And with the money left over after that, lower the price of a dog and a beer at the game by 50%.

[SrMeowMeow]

He was the Cardinals' 16th pick in the 1999 draft. The Cardinals passed on him 16 times.

Not even close? If you consider the AL of 1914-1935 the equal of 2000-2010, I guess that's a reasonable statement.

From age 21-30 Pujols has been worth 84 wins. From 19-30 Ruth was worth about 85 wins.

Ruth's argument is that he was worth more in individual years. Pujols has never had a 14-win season, for example. Ruth had two of those. But the other side of that argument is that the American League in Ruth's time wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. There weren't nearly as many good players, and the replacement level was certainly much, much lower.

In 1923 Ruth may have had his best year. He played on the pennant and World Series winning Yankees. On that team he was the only player with more than 10 homers. He was the only player with more than 30 doubles. Their starting SS had a .591 OPS. Their first baseman, Wally Pip, had a .704 OPS. Less than 40% of the players in the majors were 6' or taller, and 4% were 200 lbs or heavier, compared to nearly 90% and 75% today.

It's just much easier to lap the field when you're playing in probably the equivalent of the Japanese Leagues or AAA today.

See, this is what I wanted to say.

[TiredofLosing20]

IMO, not even close. I don't think anyone ever could approach Ruth. After Ruth, you have guys like Mays, Bonds and Williams. I could see him being in that category if he continues to play like he has.

It is so hard to compare eras. Certainly Ruth was dominant in his era and I think it is fair to say he was more dominant in his era than Pujols has been in his but you have to ask what era is more competitive.

I think you could make the argument that Ruth pitched and that certainly has to be factored in.

[waroriole]

I believe I would do it. It sounds pretty outrageous now, but relative to total payroll, 10/$300 mm from 2012-2021 is a much smaller chunk than ARod's 10/$270 mm was when he signed his deal running from 2002-2011. The median team payroll was $61 mm in 2002 and it was $84 mm in 2010.

But, there is a huge difference in the % of payroll taken up by the Yanks with ARod's contract than there would be with us and Pujols' contract. I think the Rangers showed that only the MFY can afford that kind of absurd deal.

[TiredofLosing20]

Also, take a look at Bonds compared to Pujols. Bonds has him right now, and Pujols hasn't even got to the downslide in his career.

I simply can not consider Bonds