Albert Pujols Rumors: Sunday

Joel Sherman of the New York Post typically covers New York's baseball teams, but in today's column he acknowledges that many of the sport's biggest stories are taking place outside of the Big Apple. His number one story to watch as Spring Training gets underway? Albert Pujols' contract negotiations with the Cardinals. An AL executive told Sherman that the Cards' nightmare scenario involves not only failing to extend Pujols, but seeing him end up in a Cubs uniform in 2012. The three-time MVP winner "would be to the Cubs what [Barry] Bonds was to the Giants, but with a nicer face and nine games a year at Busch Stadium," said the exec. Here are the rest of the latest stories on the negotiations:

  • Agent Dan Lozano has told multiple teams that the Cardinals have "no chance to sign [Pujols]" before free agency, tweets Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
  • The Cards' star slugger turned down the club's offer about two weeks ago, a source told ESPN's Buster Olney (via Twitter). 
  • Pujols has turned down the latest offer from the club and unless a dramatic change is made, he will announce Tuesday that he's shutting down contract talks for the rest of the season, a person close to Pujols told Bob Nightengale of USA Today
  • St. Louis GM John Mozeliak declined comment on whether the team has made a formal offer to Pujols. Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch hears that no official offer was on the table as of early last week, with the club "expected to present a bid" closer to Pujols' deadline.
  • Whether or not an agreement is reached, the Cardinals plan to publicly address the negotiations on Wednesday, Strauss adds.
  • Bernie Miklasz of the Post-Dispatch views the Spring Training deadline as merely the "first checkpoint" in extension discussions, calling it "essentially bogus."
  • A GM for a larger-market team weighed in on the topic while talking to Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe: "[The Cardinals] should stick to a number that makes sense for them, and if it’s not good enough, then you walk away." However, the GM went on to say that he thinks a deal will get done. "They probably have to do it," he said. "Because not doing it would create chaos and possible loss of revenue."


Leave a Reply

177 Comments on "Albert Pujols Rumors: Sunday"


Member
Fifty_Five
4 years 4 months ago

Cards are in quite the pickle.

Member
The_BiRDS
4 years 4 months ago

I would agree and also the Cards wont be the only team hurting from this deal. Pujols is the best. Right now. But your also setting the tone for years to come. Any team willing to pay Albert 30 mil for 10 years will be affecting the league. Im not saying he doesn’t deserve it but the only reason he does deserve it is because of past, outrageous contracts; A Rod, Werth, Howards.
That being said, any future player close to the numbers these guys are putting up will just drive the offers up based on past superstar contracts.
Mike Trout, Bryce Harper are both going to be amazing players, who will eventually get paid more than they are worth because of ridiculous contracts.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

You say that like these guys don’t deserve the most money possible? Owners have been cashing in for decades and now in the past 11 years, players finally start making money. It always seems like fans tend to forget that teams are owned by billionaires who are quite savvy when it comes to business. If the organization does not see potential return on their investment, they don’t land the player, end of story. STL has already made boatloads of money on Pujols first contract, and now he wants a piece: What’s the problem with that?

I like that Bonds is refernced in this piece, because it’s true: his record breaking season, he got payed 15.3mm… Two of the baseball’s caught in the stands combined for over a mill in auction sales! The Giants cashed in. Ya, he had some trash on his name, but people packed the stands just to boo and witness history. While you may not think this is applicable, I think it is.

If you could get a “ridiculous contract” in your own day job, due to ownership seeing value in you as an asset, you would be singing a different song about Pujols negotiations.

Always keep in mind that The Organization and Ownership saw value in offering the contract and nobody held a gun to their heads.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

What are you doing here Scott Boras?

Member
4 years 4 months ago

Scott Boras: funny how his name is brought up in a negative manner, but the guy has figured out that the money belongs to the players. Ya, he gets his 5%, but the guy fights for the players we love to watch, not for ownership who have been exploiting baseball profits for decades. He is the hands down best at what he does. First agent to negotiate a 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm contract = for the PLAYERS. Contracts prior to him were designed to benefit the owners more than the athlete.

Example: in 98, NYY said they would not pay more than 60mm for Bernie Williams, yet they payed 87.5. For the PLAYER.

While you joke, just do some research about the name you use as a joke and pay Albert accordingly.

Member
johnsilver
4 years 4 months ago

NYY and cave on negotiations go hand in hand.. Find another team please. Boston set a trend with Ramirez back in 2000 with an 8 year deal, but other than that it’s been NY for the last 35 years with the trend setter deals.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

7 years for Kevin Brown. Also, the Rockies have given some long contracts… Hampton comes to mind… Yes, the Yanks are the obvious names to throw out for long contracts

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Your logic is flawed. Yes ownership is signing the check, but what you don’t mention is that if a player gets paid 30mil a year and others get paid 15mil and several with 5+mil, it all adds up, looks like the cardinals payroll this year is slightly over 100mil. if players get paid more, ticket prices go up. ownership isn’t losing money, the fans are. what good is having the “best player in baseball” if you cant afford the team that plays around him. if pujols doesnt want to take the offer, thats fine, he can move on. babe ruth (arguably the greatest player in baseball) made at most $125,000 in a single season, which is just over 1mil in 2010 dollars. and he did what no other team as a whole could do, hit 60 home runs. stan musial (arguably the greatest player in cardinal history) made 100,000$ in a season during his career ($750,000 in todays dollars). i agree the better the player the more money he gets, and i agree with most when they say pujols is better than a-rod and should get paid more than him, but a-rod got over paid when he went to the rangers and then got even more when he went to the yankees, but you know what? he plays for the yankees, they can afford that kind of money, st louis cant. i dont care if he goes to chicago, they still wont win. if pujols wants to be on a winning team and stay in st louis (like he has said before) he will be reasonable with his contract, i wouldnt offer him more than 18 mil/yr for 7 years (126mil for 7years), compare that to hollidays (120/7yrs) and see what he’s like at that point. if you want a winning team you need a group of good players, not just a couple.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

No, my logic isn’t flawed. Baseball as a business in whole has expanded. Again, if owners don’t see value in the contract, then they won’t offer it. Most of these billionaires didn’t just get that way without some business savvy.

You are using eras in baseball that didn’t support higher salaries, and if they did, the owners were still cashing in on below cost talent. This isn’t rocket science, it’s business. Now agents are standing up and using business and logic to get their talent more money, what’s the problem? Pay the man.

Stop using the Yanks as a cop out too, they have won just as many WS in the past 10 years as STL with 199mm extra in their budget.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

you more or less focused on the 2nd part of the response, my main point to want you said was the part about the owners not losing any money in the deal, owners would raise ticket prices to pay the higher salaries, fans pay the players salaries.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

I feel like we are both saying the same thing, but you are saying it more concise. Yes, contracts trickle down to the fan. I get what you are saying.

Member
edwadeskoolaidstand
4 years 4 months ago

Not to mention the fact that if prices are too high, fans won’t come, owners will lose money, and players will get offered less.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

Everyone complains about prices NOW, but still attend. What’s Fenway’s sellout streak at now?

Member
bjsguess
4 years 4 months ago

Last 11 years? I’ve been a baseball fan for 25 years. Don’t recall players ever lining up at the soup kitchen to get some chow in their tummies. Baseball players have always been ridiculously paid.

Take a guy like Clemens. He earned $2.6m in 1990 (21 years ago). The median income in the US was under $40k. What is that? Seventy times the average of the median income in the US? The average ballplayer was above $800k. A mere 20 times more than the median US income. Ballplayers have been doing just fine. No need to lose sleep over their whether they have enough money.

So who gets hurt when payroll goes up? Just for comparison … in 1990 the average ticket price was $8/seat. In 2010 the Yankees average seat was $89. The Angels had the cheapest at $24. Incomes have risen fractionally over the past 20 years yet for Yankee fans their ticket price has risen 10 fold (or so).

The fact is paying Albert Pujols won’t cost his owner anything. He’ll just raise the cost of the ticket/parking/concession, etc to cover the cost of the contract. It’s not like he’s writing a personal check for Albert. And that’s fine BTW. Albert is a great player and fans will pay to watch him. Let’s just not pretend that a players paycheck somehow doesn’t impact the fans experience.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

last 11 years, yes. Kevin Brown in 99. Yes, that could be 12 years…

While the income was lower, so was everything else. Cost of living was lower as a whole as it should be if the median income is lower. The 2010 median income was 49k last year, yet baseball didn’t suffer from attendance. People still live in America and have the right to prioritize their own money and attend $25 baseball games. Hell, Petco Park still offers $6 entrance. It’s priorities. There is a reason thqt fans will pay the prices for entrance to Yankee Stadium because they know what they are getting. We all act like the Cardinals organization has been struggling, but like the Dodgers, eventually you have to put some stars on the field because the fan base supports it.

I see what your point is, but you used Clemens as an example who makes a strong argument as the greatest pitcher ever in baseball… just saying…

Also, just food for thought, Nolan Ryan had been making over a mill since 1980…

Member
4 years 4 months ago

If Pujols isn’t willing to sign, it really sucks he won’t be willing to accept a trade. I find it hard to believe that 1 Year of Pujols is more valuable than 6 years of Mike Trout, basically giving up on 2011 and using saved money to sign Prince Fielder or possibly Adrian Gonzalez

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

Adrian Gonzalez? Oh man, cue the Red Sox Nation shock troops. They should be here any minute to call you a troll.

Member
Fifty_Five
4 years 4 months ago

I’ve heard a couple people mention Trout in a trade with him but I definitely don’t think that would actually happen. But yeah, I see what your saying. They would have been able to to get a couple can’t miss prospects if Pujols was willing to cooperate like that.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

It’s doubtful it would happen, as Pujols will likely veto any trade, and the Cardinals doubtfully would be willing to give up on their franchise player. I just think it would be the right move.

Member
twenty1thirteen
4 years 4 months ago

Hate to break it to you Joel, but most of the stories take place outside of the Big Apple, you just over dramatize everything to make it appear that way. The world only revolves around New York in New York.

Member
acyikac
4 years 4 months ago

Shock troops? Not really. I just don’t understand why babawhitesox would think for a moment that Adrian Gonzalez would be available. Technically, he’s only under contract for 2011, but no teams is going to ship 3 of its top 10 or so prospects on a one-season rental. Just because the Red Sox are jobbing the luxury tax by announcing an extention (7 years, $150 mil?) after the start of the season doesn’t mean he’s available. He’s about as available as Teixeira.

Member
twenty1thirteen
4 years 4 months ago

I think you just proved his point.

Member
acyikac
4 years 4 months ago

Didn’t realize stating facts makes me a shock trooper. That he said it at all makes me question his baseball acumen and his understanding of trades, contracts, the luxury tax and the like.

Member
4 years 4 months ago

He’s not likely to be available, no. But there is a chance. I’m not expecting it to happen, but as you said, technically, he’s not under contract. Also, I don’t get why everyone is harping on my mention of A-Gone. That was not even the point of my post. I was trying to say it’s unfortunate they cannot trade him, which (in my opinion) would be the best move if they can’t resign him, as I really can’t see the Cardinals doing much in a National League that’s tougher than ever.

Guest
4 years 4 months ago

ayy theyve only got 3 more days….whether they tell the media or not, they ve better get it done…after reading many posts i dont want pujols coming to the mets…hel be 42 at the end of his contract….if only he was looking for a 4-5 year deal..then hed be worth the 30 mil each year…but players start to get bad, even pujols… this is why i want the cards to get him so we dont have to even think about spending that much money