Pujols Contract Extension Thread

[SamHell]

The City of St. Louis doing its part to keep Albert.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video ... kin,18749/

 

[elmalo]

The Yankees have no where to put him. Same problem they have with Montero. ARod will be their DH in 2012. The Cardinals are not gonna take on Tex's contract. So, unless Pujols can play 3rd, unlikely, or a corner outfield spot, also unlikely, there is nowhere to put him. Unless it is some kind of multi team trade, but even with that, how many teams can take on Tex's contract? It just isnt gonna happen.

 

[craiger122003]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Nice I love it

The City of St. Louis its part to keep Albert.
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video ... kin,18749/

 

[craiger122003]

Give Albert 30 per year for 7 years
Add Holliday makes 47
Carp will be gone after this year
Raise tickets a couple a piece

 

[carrsallstars]

I felt that all of the suspense was taken out of the Pujols extension issue when the cards signed Matt holliday. Signing Holliday to that contract and not keeping pujols would mean the entire front office should and would lose their jobs. Pujols will be signed before the season starts. See: Joe Mauer. Twins fans were all nervous about him leaving- he signed his extension on March 22nd 2010. Pujols' agent has to drag things out because that is his only leverage in the negotiations if Pujols has told him he wants to stay.

And as far as the Yankees and Rdd SOx or any other team "not needing Pujols" because they have big contracts at 1B? Puh-lease. That is the most narrow minded thing I've ever heard. Tex, take your multi million dollar contract and move over to DH as you are nto one of the top 10 batters in teh history of the game. I woudl like to think that the Red SOx front office would do the same with Adrian Gonzalez in less than the blink of an eye. But they'll never have the chance.

Who said any team didn't need Pujols? So if the Yanks move Tex to DH what do they do with A-rod in 2/3 years?

They were actually saying exactly that during the "where would pujols fit" conversation I heard on xm MLB radio yesterday. Not Boston, nope. Not NYY, nope. Uggh.

And I woudl think the Yankees would just keep trotting out Arod at 3B like they have with Jeter at SS and Posada at C. Defense be damned as long as they can still hit.

 

[Ryan The Orange]

Well, it's his birthday today.

A nice big contract seems like it would make a good birthday present.

 

[Adamsince1981]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/article_9e6fb0a4-2199-11e0-ae79-0017a4a78c22.html



* the article mentioned that both sides have said that the talks are positive.
** the article mentioned a possible time frame in regards to the Cardinals Fan Fest.
*** Albert is seemingly irritated that people are interested?

 

[MacK]

If Pujols is gone, so am I.

Here i come Phillies!

Wow. There's more to this team than one player who everybody believes is a god send.

 

[Super Mario]

The Cardinals would NEVER trade Pujols. Him walking on his own accord after exhausting all options of re-signing him is one thing, but if they traded him the fanbase as a whole would never forgive them.

 

[Adamsince1981]

The Cardinals would NEVER trade Pujols. Him walking on his own accord after exhausting all options of re-signing him is one thing, but if they traded him the fanbase as a whole would never forgive them.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

The fans will be just as or more mad if we simply lose him to free agency.

 

[hofautos]

Albert should take what cardinals offer him...everyone knows if you trade for the $, you lose your respect and burn a hamstring.

 

[maxpower]

Honestly, I'd rather sign him for $175 million over 5 years($35 mil per is insane BTW) than $30 million per over 8 years.

If Albert demands a record yearly amount AND a long (8 years) term at the same time, then he was not being honest when saying winning is the most important thing.

Wow, accusing Pujols of dishonesty? I think he's shown way more than enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's done nothing, but play hard, play the right way, and win for the St. Louis Cardinals. To say that it has something to do with his desire to win is a reckless accusation.

If Cardinal ownership decides they'd rather pad profits than re-sign a truly once in a lifetime player and all-around good guy, that's on them and not on Albert. I'd rather ownership see a lower profit margin (don't think for a second that they'd be losing money on the Cards, even if they did sign Pujols to a record deal), than lose Pujols to another team. You could easily find another billionaire to come in and take over ownership, but you're far less likely to ever replace Pujols.

 

[maxpower]

Albert should take what cardinals offer him...everyone knows if you trade for the $, you lose your respect and burn a hamstring.

Hahahah. The flipside is that everyone also knows that if you let your best player walk, you go from best in conference to worst in conference in one season

 

[George_Calfas]

The Cardinals have been tight with money as long as I can remember. The fans fill the stadium everyday and the money is there, give Albert his money now and look forward to ST.

 

[maxpower]

This would be my initial offer to Pujols:

Years 1-5: $30 mil per ($150 Million)
Year 6: $25 mil with incentives possibly worth $5 mil
Year 7: $20 mil with incentives possibly worth $10 mil
Year 8: $15 mil with incentives possibly worth $15 mil
$210 Million guaranteed (possibly worth $240 million)

Tons of cash for Albert and structured in a way that would keep the Cardinals competitive.

This is not a terrible deal, but I think the Cards would be silly to lose Pujols over $30 million 6-8 years from now. In 6-8 years, that's going to be relative chump change.

Even if the Cards have to overpay for those last three years, that doesn't offend my sense of fairness. They got Pujols for more than $30 million less than his performance value in years 2001-2003. If they overpay by $30 million in his last three years, it just evens things out.

 

[Adamsince1981]

I'm not accusing Albert of being a dishonest person.

I was simply making a mild point that you can't want to play for a winner while financially crippling that team.

Sure the Cardinals CAN raise payroll, but there has to be a stopping point.

Honestly, I'd rather sign him for $175 million over 5 years($35 mil per is insane BTW) than $30 million per over 8 years.

If Albert demands a record yearly amount AND a long (8 years) term at the same time, then he was not being honest when saying winning is the most important thing.

Wow, accusing Pujols of dishonesty? I think he's shown way more than enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's done nothing, but play hard, play the right way, and win for the St. Louis Cardinals. To say that it has something to do with his desire to win is a reckless accusation.

If Cardinal ownership decides they'd rather pad profits than re-sign a truly once in a lifetime player and all-around good guy, that's on them and not on Albert. I'd rather ownership see a lower profit margin (don't think for a second that they'd be losing money on the Cards, even if they did sign Pujols to a record deal), than lose Pujols to another team. You could easily find another billionaire to come in and take over ownership, but you're far less likely to ever replace Pujols.

 

[maxpower]

The Cardinals have been tight with money as long as I can remember. The fans fill the stadium everyday and the money is there, give Albert his money now and look forward to ST.

Amen. I've been following the Cards since the days of Tommy Herr and Jose Oquendo. Ownership has seen fat profits from a very loyal fan base, and they've rarely stretched themselves as far as payroll is concerned. Pujols is no ordinary player though, and even if you bring in another player who can replicate his performance, you cannot replace his presence.

 

[George_Calfas]

The Cardinals have been tight with money as long as I can remember. The fans fill the stadium everyday and the money is there, give Albert his money now and look forward to ST.

Amen. I've been following the Cards since the days of Tommy Herr and Jose Oquendo. Ownership has seen fat profits from a very loyal fan base, and they've rarely stretched themselves as far as payroll is concerned. Pujols is no ordinary player though, and even if you bring in another player who can replicate his performance, you cannot replace his presence.

Fans have been too loyal at times, failing to really get upset when players are not kept or gone after. As a fan I would be more than fine by spending 240+ over 8 years.......the money is there for Albert and then some.

 

[maxpower]

Understood, but you seem to be assuming (or speculating?) that paying Pujols a market rate salary would indeed financially cripple the team.

My contention (based on knowing how well the Cards are supported in StL, plus having seen the financial documents of other MLB clubs leaked on Deadspin), is that paying Pujols WON'T cripple the team.

Ownership might have to be content with a $15 million yearly profit rather than a $30 million yearly profit. To me, that doesn't rise to the level of 'financially crippling'.

I'm not accusing Albert of being a dishonest person.

I was simply making a mild point that you can't want to play for a winner while financially crippling that team.

Sure the Cardinals CAN raise payroll, but there has to be a stopping point.

Honestly, I'd rather sign him for $175 million over 5 years($35 mil per is insane BTW) than $30 million per over 8 years.

If Albert demands a record yearly amount AND a long (8 years) term at the same time, then he was not being honest when saying winning is the most important thing.

Wow, accusing Pujols of dishonesty? I think he's shown way more than enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's done nothing, but play hard, play the right way, and win for the St. Louis Cardinals. To say that it has something to do with his desire to win is a reckless accusation.

If Cardinal ownership decides they'd rather pad profits than re-sign a truly once in a lifetime player and all-around good guy, that's on them and not on Albert. I'd rather ownership see a lower profit margin (don't think for a second that they'd be losing money on the Cards, even if they did sign Pujols to a record deal), than lose Pujols to another team. You could easily find another billionaire to come in and take over ownership, but you're far less likely to ever replace Pujols.

 

[Adamsince1981]

The Cardinals have been tight with money as long as I can remember. The fans fill the stadium everyday and the money is there, give Albert his money now and look forward to ST.

George,

You know what the crazy part of this is? Every person (Pujols, Mo, the owners, fans, analysts, writers, etc.) agrees on the following: Record Breaking Contract.

The insane part? Even knowing the yearly figure is around $30 million, the 2 sides might end up being too far apart.

Just nutty!