Fallout From The Albert Pujols Signing

Needless to say, people will be talking about the Angels' blockbuster contract with Albert Pujols for years, if not decades, to come.  We published one batch of reactions to the signing yesterday, and now here are some fresh perspectives about the impact of the already-legendary deal…

  • The Angels have agreed to a 20-year TV contract with Fox Sports worth at least $3 billion, reports Bill Shaikin and Kevin Baxter of the L.A. Times.  With the Dodgers' deal with Fox struck down in court and the Lakers moving to Time Warner Cable, the Angels had a clear line to this huge new deal and revenue stream.  As Shaikin and Baxter put it to Halos fans, Pujols was "brought to you by Frank McCourt and Kobe Bryant."
  • Dave Cameron of Fangraphs looks at how major signings rarely lead to long-term boosts in attendance.
  • There is no truth to rumors the Angels and A's were discussing a trade involving Mark Trumbo and Andrew Bailey, reports Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle.  Slusser's source calls the rumor "total fiction."
  • During labor talks, Arte Moreno was critical of other owners signing players to expensive, long-term contracts, reports Joel Sherman of the New York Post.
  • Adrian Gonzalez's seven-year, $154MM contract with the Red Sox "looks rather incredible now," writes WEEI.com's Alex Speier.  "There is a good chance that Gonzalez will be a better player than Pujols for the next seven years. But even if he is not…the difference will not be as wide as a nine-figure contract chasm would suggest."


107 Responses to Fallout From The Albert Pujols Signing Leave a Reply

  1. Lunchbox45 4 years ago

    “There is a good chance that Gonzalez will be a better player than Pujols for the next seven years. But even if he is not…the difference will not be as wide as a nine-figure contract chasm would suggest”
     
    Ding Ding Ding.

    • Ta-Kuan Fuan 4 years ago

      However, unless the contract is either front-loaded or back-loaded, Pujols will be getting paid roughly $175 million over the course of the same 7yr span. It’s only a difference of $3 million a year, which is pocket change considering the stature, merchandising and marketing that you could do with Pujols but not with Gonzalez. As good as a player that Adrian Gonzalez is, he simply doesn’t measure up to Pujols in terms of marketability (despite his Mexican heritage) in the Southern California market. Pujols will make casual fans tune in as well as show up at the gates.

      • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

        ummm no?

        first of all merchandising filters into revenue sharing, so moot.

        secondly you cant discount the last 3 years of the deal to say oh Pujols will be getting the same..
        The major difference is that the red sox don’t have to pay a 39-40-41 year old 20+ million a year. You can’t just eliminate the length of the contract to misconstrue a point.

        • andrewyf 4 years ago

          The original point was that even over the first 7 years Gonzalez is a better deal. That’s debatable at best.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            No, it wasn’t. 

            “There is a good chance that Gonzalez will be a better player than Pujols for the next seven years. But even if he is not…the difference will not be as wide as a nine-figure contract chasm would suggest.”

            It’s two separate points.

            Point 1: There are good odds that Adrian Gonzalez may be better than Albert Pujols over the next seven years.
            Point 2: Even if he isn’t, Pujols won’t be so much better that he’s worth the monumental disparity in contract terms.

            Effectively speaking, while Pujols is easily the best player in the MLB right now, this contract makes Gonzalez look like an absolute steal.

          • In the last 3 years, Pujols is chasing records. For a franchise like the Angels with little to no history (save Ryan), this is HUGE. Also, Fox threw millions more into the TV deal after the signing. Factor that in and the contract is paid for.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            I won’t argue that it’s the wrong move, because it’s the right move for the Angels. I’m just saying one could easily make the argument that Gonzalez may be a better value in the end than Pujols, just as Bautista may be a better value in the end than Gonzalez (The latter is more likely, though)

          • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

            True but lets be real..It doesn’t really matter what Pujols got..He could have gotten 300M or 100M for Arte it’s like $10 to $30 and Pujols will give Angels bank..I mean the Jersey already is worth $150 and people are buying it like donuts..now plus the Tv deal and wait till the season starts..it is going to be sold out a lot this year.. Arte is turning this Team to a whole different level and i love it!

          • Mike Remmerde 4 years ago

            No, it’s not $10 or $30 to Moreno.  Forbes estimates Moreno’s net worth at $1B as of March 2011.  (About half of that is the team.)

            So it’s like middle class person who is worth $300k giving the yard maintenance guy a $120k/yr, 10-year deal.

            It’s a lot of money even for a billionaire.

          • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

            Ya but that middle class guy isn’t getting any sort of profit out of his yard maintenance guy..I’m just saying you give Pujols 254M and he will give you a lot more money in return.. So Pujols has to be one of the best players to invest on..It’s like killing two birds with one stone..He has the ability to give you money and he has the ability to give you championships. Arte and his staff are finally using there brains.

          • Mike Remmerde 4 years ago

            Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the deal has a good chance of paying for itself just in increased franchise value by 2021.

            But I just wanted to point out that it’s a high priced capital investment relative to Mr. Moreno’s net worth.

          • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

            Well the guy becamea Billionaire for a reason and im very confident he can create this team to the Elite category for many years to come

          • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

            Ya but that middle class guy isn’t getting any sort of profit out of his yard maintenance guy..I’m just saying you give Pujols 254M and he will give you a lot more money in return.. So Pujols has to be one of the best players to invest on..It’s like killing two birds with one stone..He has the ability to give you money and he has the ability to give you championships. Arte and his staff are finally using there brains.

          • OCAngels 4 years ago

            You would have to be here to understand. I was in LA wearing my Angels jacket yesterday and  there must of been 6-7 people stop and want to talk. They were all positive about this.  There’s a battle between the two teams. Last year was the first year The Big A had more attendance than Dodger stadium, and Arte will do anything to keep it that way. It’s ALL REVENUE building. You gotta kick LA while they’re Down. LOl

          • OCAngels 4 years ago

            Let the Haters Hate.  Anyone who thinks this deal wasn’t good is just hating. 

          • Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

            I agree and now i have to carry the Lakers heat that i always get from day to day about them being the Yanks in Basketball.. And if everything does work out and Angels become Elite for years to come im going to have to take that heat to..Which i would love to take it on better than getting the Vernon wells for Napoli crap and other things Regains did..Good luck Angels..I HOPE FOR THE BEST!

        • andrewyf 4 years ago

          The original point was that even over the first 7 years Gonzalez is a better deal. That’s debatable at best.

  2. start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

    Suddenly the Angels making a run at Pujols makes more sense. They’re not just planning on making a run at th World Series for the next several years, they want him as an LA icon for the next decade.

    • Joe Schroeder 4 years ago

      ONLY a World Series Banner will achieve the icon status for him in LA.

      • Not really true. McGwire was an icon in St Louis without winning a championship. At least before the andro controversy.

        • Sure but the situations aren’t the same, St Louis is a town where the Cardinals are king. The Angels aren’t even the biggest baseball attraction in LA and both the Angels and Dodgers are behind the Lakers.

          • No situation is ever the same if we are honest.

            And Kobe won’t be playing 10 more years, and there are still a lot of Kobe haters in LA anyway. Moreno made his money in advertising and marketing. Don’t think he can’t market the crap out of Pujols? Especially as he breaks records?

            And I was just using one example. Another example: Nolan Ryan was an icon in LA and never won a championship. Wayne Gretzky as well.

          • Well he isn’t a Dodger so i don’t see why he will be of any importance to LA.  He will become an icon and a legend in Orange County even if his contract is a little on the long side.

          • Anaheim, and Orange County, is in the LA media market. You don’t think that considering all the Dodgers issues there won’t be some who jump ship or at least pay attention to the Angels because of Pujols? Your naive if you don’t think so.

            The LA-OC argument is tired and bogus.

          • OCAngels 4 years ago

            few know this… Orange County is the second most populated county in CA.  Arte is a genius!! And the LA county line is five minutes away from the BIG A.

          • I know there will be, i hope there will be…i’m a vendor at the Big A, and i will be making money off of Pujols and the new fans he’ll be bringing to the stadium. Its just that i am so tired of hearing LA, i live 10 mins from the stadium and an ugly 30mins-2hours(depending on traffic) from LA and i hate being thrown under that hideous umbrella.

          • As OC Angels pointed out, the LA County line is a measly 5 minutes away from the Big A.

          • No situation is ever the same if we are honest.

            And Kobe won’t be playing 10 more years, and there are still a lot of Kobe haters in LA anyway. Moreno made his money in advertising and marketing. Don’t think he can’t market the crap out of Pujols? Especially as he breaks records?

            And I was just using one example. Another example: Nolan Ryan was an icon in LA and never won a championship. Wayne Gretzky as well.

  3. NathanielS 4 years ago

    Do those TV deals have a series of opt out options?

    • cubs223425 4 years ago

      IDK, but I think it’s kind of crap that the Angels would get theis TV deal when MLB vetoed McCourt’s deal with Fox. It’s the same contract that the Dodgers were to get, no?

      If that’s the case, then I call BS. Whether McCourt was a slime ball or not, telling HIM he can’t make that deal then letting the Angels do it is blatant favoritism, which shouldn’t be allowed.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        Completely apples to oranges.

        The Dodgers are one of the MLB’s premiere franchises in terms of history AND monetary value and McCourt was selling the TV rights well below what the market value for them should’ve been to try and get money to pay off his ex-wife.

        The Angels, while a top team, don’t have nearly the history, gravitas and overall franchise value of the Dodgers, so the market value for a TV deal for them would be substantially lower. The Dodgers may be in complete disarray right now, but they’re still worth substantially more than the Angels in terms of marketing. Additionally, Moreno isn’t making the deal to pay off personal expenditures, he’s making the deal to help finance the team.

      • Whole_New_World 4 years ago

        You do understand what McCourt does with his assets, right?

        He borrows against their future value. He has already pulled out $150 to $200 million from the Dodgers. What do you think he would do with a $3 BILLION TV contract?

        He would have immediately borrowed against the future value of the contract, paid off his wife for the divorce (including buying her out of the Dodgers) and paid into the Dodgers organization to make it solvent and get MLB off is butt. We’re talking in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars or more.

        Sound great, right? Yep, right up until the point that you want to invest your TV revenue into your team (See Moreno, Art). At that point, you have to service the debt (pay back principle and interest) instead of investing into your team.

        Because of this, he would be devaluing the team. Also, like all people who are drowning in debt, McCourt would take whatever he could get to stay afloat. It was pretty universally agreed that the Dodgers should get a much larger TV contract than Fox was putting on the table. Fox was low-balling a desperate slimeball.

        So, yeah, MLB stepped in before McCourt could do any more damage to the future value of the Dodgers.

        This is not to mention the ancillary damage caused by the Dodgers being in turmoil and the benefit (slight fanbase shift and increased TV contract) it is providing the Halos.

        Honestly, I don’t know why anyone would want to defend this guy.

      • With the new Time Warner network starting, taking the Lakers from Fox West/Prime AND the possibility that the Dodgers can follow, the Angels are worth a hell of a lot more to Fox

  4. AlexTG 4 years ago

    So how good does the Jose Bautista extension look?

    • Ok lets get this straight Bautista is a Roider lets not compare his extension to legitimate star’s like Pujols or Gonzalez who earned their extension’s it’s only a matter of time before his first 50 game suspension.

      • InLeylandWeTrust 4 years ago

        show your work

      • InLeylandWeTrust 4 years ago

        show your work

      • Frank Drebin 4 years ago

        No way Ed. Much like Brett Boone, Brady Anderson….hell, we know all the names, Jose simply “changed his approach.” *nudge nudge, wink wink*

      • AlexTG 4 years ago

        Did you see the pictures of him from a resort down south?  He is skinnier than I am!  I REALLY doubt he’s roiding.

      • haha, Bautista on steroids? Here is a pick of him at a resort. Still think he’s on ‘roids?

        • Kevin Yochim 4 years ago

          Steroids don’t necessarily make you more “jacked”. They can decrease muscle response time, thereby giving hitters better coordination (assuming the ability to make adjustments after this change). 

          • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

            you just made that up.. Thats 100% not true

            nothing can give a hitter better coordination, and decreasing muscle response time can only take affect with physical changes (by default)

            please dont pass BS as fact 

        • The_BiRDS 4 years ago

          Why do you have a half naked picture of Bautista?

      • GoAwayNow 4 years ago

        The biggest slugger of the latter half of the steroid era, from the Dominican, didn’t do steroids, but this other guy did.

    • Ok lets get this straight Bautista is a Roider lets not compare his extension to legitimate star’s like Pujols or Gonzalez who earned their extension’s it’s only a matter of time before his first 50 game suspension.

    • Frank Drebin 4 years ago

      You’re comparing Jose frigging Bautista to Albert Pujols?

      • AlexTG 4 years ago

        Yes, that is something people do you know, compare one player to another.

    • Frank Drebin 4 years ago

      You’re comparing Jose frigging Bautista to Albert Pujols?

  5. AlexTG 4 years ago

    So how good does the Jose Bautista extension look?

  6. slasher016 4 years ago

    $150M/year for TV rights.  They could have no one show up for the games and still have plenty of money to spend.

  7. slasher016 4 years ago

    $150M/year for TV rights.  They could have no one show up for the games and still have plenty of money to spend.

  8. Jason Klinger 4 years ago

    LOL at Arte ripping teams for signing players to mega-deals. If you can’t beat ’em…

    • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      Eh, if you include in the $3B TV deal that the Angels are getting pretty much because of Pujols then the deal looks far more sane than most 9 figure deals. It’s the same argument as why did the yankees bid against themselves to resign Arod, he was a media investment.

      Even if Pujols regresses to simply an above average player instead of a legendary one, in the final analysis the Angels clearly are winners with this deal.

    • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      Eh, if you include in the $3B TV deal that the Angels are getting pretty much because of Pujols then the deal looks far more sane than most 9 figure deals. It’s the same argument as why did the yankees bid against themselves to resign Arod, he was a media investment.

      Even if Pujols regresses to simply an above average player instead of a legendary one, in the final analysis the Angels clearly are winners with this deal.

    • Pujols I think can be an exception based on the kind of draw he is. When it comes to Carl Crawford, one has to think a bit more and that alone should be a red flag when considering a 7 year $142 million dollar offer.

  9. KINGMOJO 4 years ago

    the trumbo for bailey trade would be the stupidest trade ever… how about wells and trumbo for,bailey, chris carter and jamille weeks lol

  10. BrocNessMonster 4 years ago

    Trumbo isn’t a Beane type of player.

    • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

      he’s the opposite of a beane type of player lol

  11. BrocNessMonster 4 years ago

    Trumbo isn’t a Beane type of player.

  12. AirmanSD 4 years ago

    So the Commissioner approved the Angels deal with Fox Sports West, but still won’t for the Padres? Seriously people wonder why smaller market teams have problems.
    The Padres have had an agreement in place (reportedly) since July to move their coverage to FSW yet no approval from MLB.

  13. KINGMOJO 4 years ago

    padres should try a tv deal with military channel for there camo uniforms lol, but seriously i love those uniforms

  14. andrewyf 4 years ago

    “There is a good chance that Gonzalez will be a better player than Pujols for the next seven years.”

    Yes, if ‘good’ means roughly 15%. Pujols’s overall talent level is two tiers higher than that of Gonzalez, who is a very good 6-WAR player, but will never, ever approach the kind of numbers Pujols is capable of outputting year-in and year-out. Sure, Gonzo’s got the better contract, but in a vacuum anyone in their right minds would trade up to Pujols in a cocaine heartbeat. To pretend otherwise is the same old Boston “we’re cleverer than you” homerism that finally seems to be going out of style.

    • Their WAR ratings are not even comparable. Pujols was only a 5.4 in 2011 but he is normally between 7-10. AGon I think has yet to even reach a WAR of 7.

      • xcal1br 4 years ago

        Only proving that WAR is a pretty useless stat.  Congrats.

        • Taskmaster75 4 years ago

          The stat doesn’t prove your point, so you just dismiss it, congrats.

          • xcal1br 4 years ago

            Umm, I didn’t have a point.  First post in this thread.  All I hoped to point out was that WAR is a fairly useless stat in determining a player’s value.  It seems to be the go to stat for fans of advanced statistics, yet it is only a number.  If anyone believes that Pujols is that much more valuable than ANY player with a lower WAR, then they simply don’t understand baseball, let alone sports in general.  Pujols is amazing and a valuable piece of any team, but to put such an emphasis on a made-up stat is strange.

          • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

            oh
            so you don’t understand it, so you just dismiss it,

            congrats

          • xcal1br 4 years ago

            Unlike basic grammar for you, comprehension of the statistic is not a problem.  Understanding why people choose to rely so heavily on a single stat is what eludes me.

          • alxn 4 years ago

            probably the same reason why you have yet to muster up an argument against it consisting of something other than “people who value it don’t understand baseball.”

          • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

            another solid argument.

    • mwagner26 4 years ago

      You had me up until you said “cleverer”.  :/

    • JustinEarle 4 years ago

      Not to mention the Value of the prospects that Boston gave up to get Gonzalez. They have yet to do anything in the big leagues, but when they do, they will be cost controlled production, and that value can’t be denied.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        To be fair, though, those minor leaguers bought them a season of Gonzalez at roughly six million.

        Not to mention the insane amount of money Gonzalez would’ve gotten if he hit the open market this offseason.

        Honestly, in retrospect, had he gotten the opportunity to test free agency, I could imagine the Angels probably would’ve snagged him instead of Pujols.

        All told, while I hated giving up Rizzo and Kelly, it’s worth it after seeing this week play out.

      • alxn 4 years ago

        This. Comparing these two deals is completely ridiculous. Boston got a better deal because they signed him to an extension before he hit free agency. Who knows what his number would have gotten to in a competitive market. They had to give up valuable prospects to get that opportunity. 

    • 0bsessions 4 years ago

      The article is about going forward. No one in their right mind would claim that Gonzalez is a better player, careerwise, than Pujols. There’s no rational comparison.

      One CAN, however, claim within reason that there IS a legitimate shot that the two will be close enough comparables going forward that Gonzalez for seven years and $154 million is a better value than Pujols at ten years and $254 million. At this point in their respective careers, Gonzalez is likely going to give you a .405+ wOBA and stellar defense going forward, with room for growth until around age 32 or 33 before he starts to face his decline. Pujols is likely good for maybe a .420+ wOBA and likewise stellar defense before facing his decline at a similar age.

      The caveat there is that Pujols will be at that magic age of 32, while Gonzalez has two more seasons before reaching that point. This contract will give one, maybe two prime years to the Angels compared to another eight potential decline years versus another three, maybe four prime years for Gonzalez contrasted by a potential three to three or four decline years.

      By no means is it a given, but there are very good odds that Gonzalez’s contract will be a better one when all is said and done. He’s younger AND signed to a shorter contract meaning the Red Sox are less likely to have to eat lost years at the tail end while getting those all valuable prime years.

      • Ta-Kuan Fuan 4 years ago

        That point is well received. However it’s missing the off-field impact of the Pujols signing. The Yankees and Red Sox are both household name brands. The Yankees without A-Rod or Jeter will still be the damn Yankees. The Red Sox with Big Papi or A-Gon will still be the Red Sox. The Angels, despite how far they’ve grown under Moreno’s ownership tenure are still a distant second in their own SoCal market and despite reaching the playoffs 6 of the last 10yrs, they’re hardly a national team. Pujols transforms the entire organization, not to mention the large latino community that he’ll be heavily marketed to. You can’t put a price tag on that.

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          Speier was talking about on field production vs contract (because that’s the only quantifiable way to judge a players value).  It doesn’t mean Pujols was a bad idea for the Angels, just that it makes the Gonzalez deal look a lot better, particularly for Boston (because even Pujols couldn’t do for the Red Sox what you, rightly, say he will do for the Angels).

  15. You know why Adrian’s was a steal? using a projection system, a WAR calculator, and Jeff Zimmerman’s contract spreadsheet, Adrian should be worth 172 million over the next 7 years. 172-154 is 18, Adrian should have a net 18 million. And people talking about the prospects they gave up, well he had a net 24.5 million last year, that should be worth more than prospects, 42.5 net million dollars. But back on subject, using this method, Albert is worth 235 million over 10 years. 235-252 is -17, Albert Pujols should be worth a net -17 million. Now even though his projection is better than Adrian, it probably should be a little better because he got unlucky with BABIP last year. Albert is better than Adrian, but him being older and costing 100 million more, the Adrian Gonzalez contract was a steal

    • WasianCU 4 years ago

      Completely ignoring any branding or revenue possibilities, this argument actually makes sense.  However when you consider the whole scope of what Arte Moreno was trying to do with the signing instead of just on field production, Pujols’ contract could be a steal.  In either case, both Gonzo and Pujols are great players and hopefully we will see them matchup in the playoffs a few times over the next 7-10 years.

  16. Kevin Yochim 4 years ago

    Also, signing Gonzalez to a $22M AAV deal ($20M AAV if you consider the one year at $6.3M) compared to Pujols or Fielder at $25M+ is very important for the Red Sox in terms of the luxury tax.  $3-5M may not seem like much to a team with a large payroll, but it can actually mean a lot.  

  17. Jim McGrath 4 years ago

    How about Trumbo to the Red Sox for Ranaudo and another reasonable Red Sox prospect?

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      Why would the Red Sox want Trumbo?

      • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

        umm he finished 2nd in ROY voting!!

        I’d trade gonzalez and start him at 1b

      • Jim McGrath 4 years ago

        Trumbo is listed as a RF as well as a 1b. Being a major league minimum payroll player it’s an important consideration for the Red Sox

        • MaineSox 4 years ago

          Have to admit, I didn’t realize that Trumbo had played any RF, and if he can really handle RF everyday then it may actually make some sense for Boston.  But he only played 32 games in RF in the minors and 11 games there in the majors, so it’s stretching to say that he is by any means a right fielder.

  18. chee1rs 4 years ago

    wow , $150M/year for TV rights

    Means YES and NESN and vastly undervalued , and Yankees and Red Sox can make even more $$$

  19. Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

    Trumbo for Bailey..I like if Morales come’s back 110% and unless Trumbo can play 3rd..Hope Jerry saves Trumbo for the trade deadline

  20. Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

    and just to vertify if Angels confirm this along with Fox confirming this new tv deal..They will be getting 150M per yr? If i did the math right?

  21. Wouldn’t it had made more sense to compare Pujols with the monster contract given to Carl Crawford?

    Oh wait…This is a pro-Boston article

    • OCAngels 4 years ago

      HAHAHAHAHA

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      Why would it have have more sense to compare the contract for a large, slugging, 1B to the contract for a speedy, base stealing, outfielder instead of the one to another large slugging 1B?  Particularly since the dollar figures for the two 1B are closer anyway.

      Oh wait…This is an anti-Boston troll.

      • Dean McCann 4 years ago

        Seems like everything is an anti-sox troll anymore, regardless of the topic.  Let the Angels have Pujols, Sox still have a far better line-up.  I’d take Lester or Beckett over CJ anyway.  Beckett pitched less games with a little less K’s but a lower ERA and WHIP.  CJ is a tool anyway, he belongs in Cali.

  22. OCAngels 4 years ago

    You would have to be here to understand. I was in LA wearing my Angels jacket yesterday and  there must of been 6-7 people stop and want to talk. They were all positive about this.  There’s a battle between the two teams. Last year was the first year The Big A had more attendance than Dodger stadium, and Arte will do anything to keep it that way. It’s ALL REVENUE building. You gotta kick LA while they’re Down. LOl

  23. Salmon4Coach 4 years ago

    I also want to add about this Gonzo thing..So to get started..Stan Musial retired when he was 42 and when he was 41 he hit 19 Bombs with 82 RBI’s with a .330 BA and .416 OBP along with the geeky stat of a WAR of 3.5..Now Albert i would say is a way better hitter than Stan was and just a little comparison Stan had a career of 475 bombs and Albert already has 445..So when Albert reach’s 41 and gives Angels similar stats of what Stan gave the Cards when he was 41 Angel fans should still be very content. I know i will, especially if he gives us Championships..So Gonzo and the King..No comparison at all

  24. Mike Remmerde 4 years ago

    There’s a lot of MLBTR commenters who should attend a local university MBA class on the day they talk about the concept of brand equity. Not every business is valued on a purely linear revenue/profit metric.

    And the Pujols deal brings a lot of brand equity with it.  $254M dollars worth?  That’s debatable, but it’s well, well north of zero.  The Pujols signing probably is 2nd most significant day in franchise brand equity increase (behind only the WS win in 2002).

    And you can bet a business guy like Mr. Moreno understands that and has added that into his mental ROI calculation.

    • MaineSox 4 years ago

      That’s all true, but it wasn’t the point of the article.  The article was about the production the player gives you on the field vs the money they are being paid.

      Plus the fact that Pujols’ brand wouldn’t have made much of a difference to Boston; not like it will for the Angels.  So while Pujols will likely be a good signing by the Angels because of the additional revenue he can bring them, it still makes the Gonzalez deal look better for Boston.

    • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

      and you should take a class that involves reading comprehension..

      No one is denying the significance of the signing for the branding of the LAA.

      it was a simple comparison of a team that choose to  acquire a player and extend him before free agency, and a team that acquired a comparable player through free agency..

      that’s pretty much it.

  25. Dean McCann 4 years ago

    Since 2008 Pujols has dropped 30 points…almost 20 points and almost 15 points in BA. Since 2009 he has dropped 5 home runs each year and drove in 99 RBI’s this year compared to 135 two years ago.  Decline much?  BUT Gonzo’s BA has gone from .277…298…338.  RBI’s 99 up to 117 and OBP up 17 points.  You Cali guys are complete baseball morons to warrant your contract argument.  Gonzo was a steal for the Sox compared to pujols who will be over the hill and still in a uniform.  You talk about revenue and marketing…last time I heard you don’t hang banners in your stadium for revenue. 

    • Dean McCann 4 years ago

      Not to mention the protection Gonzalez has in the line-up but that’s a different topic

  26. It also has to do with the type of draw that player is. Pujols will bring a ton of extra revenue in and the investment will get it’s return.

  27. Average annual value for Pujols – $25.4 million

    Average annual value for Gonzo – $22 million

    Really? He’s making HALF of what Pujols will be making? I’m no math whiz, but the disparity seems to be, upon intense calculated analysis, a paltry $3.4 million.

    Since you’re looking at the entirety of each contract, Pujols is only making 64.93% more (man, I’m getting better and better with this math stuff!) than Adrian Gonzalez. Half would entail Pujols making $30.8 million each year for ten years.

    You need to take the first 7 years of Pujols’ deal and juxtapose it with that of Gonzo’s. 

    7 years of Pujols – $177.8 million

    7 years of Gonzo – $154 million. 

    ***SPEIER ACKNOWLEDGES AS MUCH IN HIS FREAKING COLUMN***

    The superior productivity only represents half of the equation. Gonzalez is a wonderful player, no doubt about it, but Pujols is a brand. Boston had a national (hell, even quasi-global) presence before Gonzo arrived in Beantown. The signing of Pujols allows the Angels to expand as a brand as well. He’s one of 2-3 players that warrant dropping everything just to get a glimpse of his every at-bat.

    Time will tell if the WAR disparity necessitates the extra money, but can’t possibly assess this until seeing the numbers Pujols puts up as a Halo.

  28. MaineSox 4 years ago

    You’re completely ignoring the most important part of the two deals.  Gonzalez is a 7 year deal and ends when he’s 36, Pujols is a 10 year deal and ends when he’s 41; there is significantly more risk involved in Pujols’ deal.

    Plus the fact that he said even if Gonzalez isn’t better than Pujols over the next 7 years the difference wouldn’t be great enough to overcome the difference in contracts, which would include the entire contract (all 10 years of it).

  29. Lunchbox45 4 years ago

    Way to write a full page and not even come close to addressing the argument

  30. Lunchbox45 4 years ago

    its really sad that you even have the take the time to explain something so logical to people.

  31. MaineSox 4 years ago

    and not just once but like 5 times on one page…

Leave a Reply