pujols

In article <FKZNb.99$p07.4285@eagle.america.net>,
"Austin Kirby" <kirby.DeleteThis@mycitycable.com> wrote:

> I saw where he filed for arbitration I wonder how much he will
> get??......any ideas??

Six million probably is a nice guess. The Cardinals and Pujols should be
discussing long-term contracts however.

--
There are only three things that America will be known for 2,000 years from now
when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball.
-- Gerald Early
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

On 1/18/04 4:52 PM, in article
robert_haneberg-BD8C54.16522618012004 DeleteThis @newssvr28.news.prodigy.com, "Rob
Haneberg" <robert_haneberg DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I am an arbitrator, then I give Pujols the Cardinals number. That is
> a 40% increase over the record for players with three years' service.

I think that's the way it has to be. The benefit of being in a union is
that you get the benefit of collective bargaining. The cost is that
seniority plays into decisions like this, and sometimes you end up being
paid far less than the open market rate. You can't have it both ways.

One of the reasons Pujols would be valued at more than either number on the
open market is that the six year reserve system keeps players like him off
it.

There's nothing wrong with Pujols bucking for a long-term contract, and I'd
say that in the current environment the Cardinals' offer was pretty fair.


--
David Geiser - remove the vowels in my name and add the a in yahoo to email

"Especially when it's nine below zero and it's three o'clock in the
afternoon." -- Bob Dylan
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

> >> I would hate to see Albert Pujols leave St. Louis, but if it gets to
> >> the point that they're forced with the reality of paying 15-20% of
> >> their payroll to one player, then you have to start considering other
> >> options.
>
> > You mean such as Matt Morris earning $10.5 million in '03, and
> >same-higher for '04 (?) which is a minimum of 12.5% of total payroll and
who
> >won only 11 games and who also is not an everyday player?
>
> Well, yes, I think they need to consider that with regard to Morris as
> well. [BTW, wins are a bad way of measuring a pitcher's performance,
> Roy.]

Unless the Cardinals have some young pitchers come up over the next few
years that are solid contributors, they may have no choice than to let
Pujols go to free up $$$ to pick up some good starting pitching. You can
have the best player in the league, like Texas, and lose every year or you
can attempt to get the most out of the money spent from year-to-year
avoiding tying up too much money in too many long term contracts.
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:12:44 -0600, "Eric Margheim"
<NOSPAM_MEericm.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote:

>> >> I would hate to see Albert Pujols leave St. Louis, but if it gets to
>> >> the point that they're forced with the reality of paying 15-20% of
>> >> their payroll to one player, then you have to start considering other
>> >> options.
>>
>> > You mean such as Matt Morris earning $10.5 million in '03, and
>> >same-higher for '04 (?) which is a minimum of 12.5% of total payroll and
>who
>> >won only 11 games and who also is not an everyday player?
>>
>> Well, yes, I think they need to consider that with regard to Morris as
>> well. [BTW, wins are a bad way of measuring a pitcher's performance,
>> Roy.]
>
>Unless the Cardinals have some young pitchers come up over the next few
>years that are solid contributors, they may have no choice than to let
>Pujols go to free up $$$ to pick up some good starting pitching. You can
>have the best player in the league, like Texas, and lose every year or you
>can attempt to get the most out of the money spent from year-to-year
>avoiding tying up too much money in too many long term contracts.
>

Of course, the Rangers and Rodriguez isn't a very good example of
tying up too much money in long-term contracts. If they were paying
Rodriguez nothing, they'd still have the 3rd highest payroll in the
American League. Texas's problem isn't the money they're spending on
Rodriguez, it's the money they're spending on people like Chan Ho
Park.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

>
> Of course, the Rangers and Rodriguez isn't a very good example of
> tying up too much money in long-term contracts. If they were paying
> Rodriguez nothing, they'd still have the 3rd highest payroll in the
> American League. Texas's problem isn't the money they're spending on
> Rodriguez, it's the money they're spending on people like Chan Ho
> Park.

They're the poster child then. Even without Chan Ho Park they still have
a ton locked up in ARod and I doubt they are proud of the fact they have the
3rd highest payroll and don't want it to be that way. They probably
thought they could do like other teams and buy a championship for a few
years and then trade away their over indulgence later. I don't know.
Just a thought.
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

Eric Margheim wrote:
<snip>
> Unless the Cardinals have some young pitchers come up over the next
> few years that are solid contributors, they may have no choice than
> to let Pujols go to free up $$$ to pick up some good starting
> pitching. You can have the best player in the league, like Texas,
> and lose every year or you can attempt to get the most out of the
> money spent from year-to-year avoiding tying up too much money in
too
> many long term contracts.

A-Rod might not help Texas, but he's only $25 million out of what, $90
million? It's the other $65 million that hurts them.

For the most part, the Cardinals have spent fairly wisely on high
priced players. Paying a lot for Rolen is smart, because he's a great
hitter for his position. Same for Edmonds. OTOH, spending a ton of
money for Tino didn't make sense, because decent hitting 1b are a dime
a dozen. Signing Tino wasn't a bad move, just overpaying him was.

Similarly, the money the Cardinals save by trading Pujols could be
spent wisely, but it likely won't be. Walt overpays by far on average
players, and signs a lot of players that have no business being in the
majors. If he would stop doing that, the Cardinals could have Pujols
and still afford pitching.

I mean, why on Earth should Matheny be making $3 million a year? Or
Tavarez $2 million? I could go on, but it just makes me angrier.
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

In article <2i8o00th3ercsasfdaa5v33bcreso52pt5.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
Lance Freezeland <lbfjd.DeleteThis@altamont.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:18:38 GMT, "Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> gave us
> this:
>
> >"Lance Freezeland" <lbfjd.DeleteThis@altamont.net> wrote in message
> >news:pb1n0097i4oi0dk82rs8r4uocpkkb8dk84@4ax.com...

> > You would have made more sense in saying Morris should be traded instead
> >of Pujols if the object is merely to save money.
>
> *I* didn't say either of them should be traded, Roy. But Eric and Rob
> are right in saying that if Pujols gets too expensive, they need to
> consider moving him.

I would go a step beyond that and say they should trade him a little
_before_ he gets too expensive. Otherwise they could limit their trading
partners. A Pujols trade obviously would require a great deal of thought
and a great deal in return, but in light of recent developments it is
must be an available option. I do not fault Pujols for saying "it's
business" -- in fact, I agree with him -- but turnabout is fair play.

Ten million for a fourth-year player? Geez.

--
There are only three things that America will be known for 2,000 years from now
when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball.
-- Gerald Early
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

Eric Opperman wrote:
<snip>
> He's already asking for $10 million in arbitration and has
apparently
> turned down a 5-year, $55 million offer. Again, how much is too
much?
> And I'm not just talking about 2004 as I say this.

Well, bear in mind, we don't know the specifics of the 5 year offer.
Maybe it had a lot of deferred money or was backloaded. I don't
entirely trust the Cardinals or the PD.

Anyway, they should probably now wait a year (they probably should
have offered him a long term deal a year ago, but they didn't, I
guess) and see how arbitration goes.

To a certain extent, Pujols hasn't made any real money yet. After
taxes, he's probably not a millionaire. After this year, he should be
incredibly rich, so perhaps that will make his demands more
reasonable.

Like when you're really hungry, you want to order a really really big
pizza, as opposed to a better one (like say, Little Caesar's vs
someplace on the hill). In this case, perhaps once he buys everything
he wants, he'll perhaps realize that a few million won't matter one
way or the other.
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

Rob Petrie wrote:

> Anyway, a couple of years ago, would *you* have turned down Ba. Bonds
> if he was available for $12-13 mil./ year?

Probably not, but it depends on the situation. If the Cardinals had a
better record of spending their money wisely, it wouldn't be a big
problem to have him making as much as 14-15 million out of an 85-million
payroll. But when you can count on Jocketty wasting anywhere from 5
million to 20 million of that, you're really running into some problems.
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

>Subject: Re: pujols
>From: "Jeremy Reaban" jer.RemoveThis@connectria.com
>Date: 1/20/2004 4:11 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <100pvl2t539n018.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>
>
>Eric Opperman wrote:
><snip>
>> He's already asking for $10 million in arbitration and has
>apparently
>> turned down a 5-year, $55 million offer. Again, how much is too
>much?
>> And I'm not just talking about 2004 as I say this.
>
>Well, bear in mind, we don't know the specifics of the 5 year offer.
>Maybe it had a lot of deferred money or was backloaded. I don't
>entirely trust the Cardinals or the PD.
>
>Anyway, they should probably now wait a year (they probably should
>have offered him a long term deal a year ago, but they didn't, I
>guess) and see how arbitration goes.
>
>To a certain extent, Pujols hasn't made any real money yet. After
>taxes, he's probably not a millionaire. After this year, he should be
>incredibly rich, so perhaps that will make his demands more
>reasonable.
>
>Like when you're really hungry, you want to order a really really big
>pizza, as opposed to a better one (like say, Little Caesar's vs
>someplace on the hill). In this case, perhaps once he buys everything
>he wants, he'll perhaps realize that a few million won't matter one
>way or the other.
>
>
That's a great analogy!

....... "Yes, Dear, there's a whole dead cat in every bar of DEAD CAT SOAP!"
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: pujols 

Eric Opperman <ericopp.RemoveThis@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message news:<bul7l3$j0csh$2@ID-75654.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Rob Petrie wrote:

>
> > And if it is 6 years, then what can a player do after 5 years except
> > accept the offer for one more year with the team and then he can file for
> > free agency?
>
> Take his ball and go home?

It's worth noting that one of the very few things that MLB got right contractually
is the way that this is defined. It's all _service time_ (IE time on a major league
25 man roster or the major league DL).

It's one of the two principal reasons that baseball players simply don't hold out.
(The other being that the arbitration system protects a young player's interests
fairly well)
 >> Stay informed about: pujols