Albert Pujols : Will he get the $300 Million ?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

While I was away the world kept spinning. And it seemed like the talk was ...MONEY....MONEY....and more MONEY. From the NFL labor deal and that $9 billion dollar pie. To the NBA deal over trading Anthony to the Knicks or Nets and him signing an extension for 3 years and $65 million.

But it was Albert Pujols who shocked me.


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g205/Bojanglesmn/Photos/MLB/Saint%20Louis%20Cardinals/STLalbertpujols.jpg

Pujols plays for the Cardinals in MLB . He is a pretty big time player and has been for a number of years. Currently he is in the last year of his deal that pays him $16 million a season. And its a pretty low deal currently.

So of course he needs a deal that will pay him more than what he's making currently. To show he is one of the best players in MLB . Pujols seems to understand this as well as does his agent. Of course...what Albert Pujols wants is big time ....

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/basir08/money.jpg

So your thinking at 32 Pujols would be worth maybe $22-$25 million a year and maybe 6-7 year deal to take him near his 40's. Well...get the fuck outta here !

Pujols salary demands are this:

1.) He wants a 10 year contract. No ifs , ands or buts. 10 Years and he will be 42.

2.) He wants more than what A-Rod currently makes each season. A-Rod signed a 10 year extension with the Yankees at 32 that paid him $27.5 million a season ! Pujols has claimed he wants $30 million a season.

3.) If not done by start of spring training , fuck you .

Personally I can't fault a guy who wants to cash in. Its like my hero here.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj180/scottymonger/1Gordon-gekko.jpg

"Greed is ...good."

Pujols just wants to show what we all know. Greed is good. It makes things happen. And its clear living on $16 million a season is chicken feed to the big deal of $30 million for 10 seasons.

And its to beat A-Rod and the Yankees deal. I mean if the evil fuckin Empire can do this. Surely the Cardinals can break the cap , get rid of all its good players and pay Pujols his deal. Hell , he even admits he wants to make sure the Cardinals keep competing for World Series rings !

But one obstacle could stop Pujols dream of a $30 million a season deal. The MLB owners are pointing to Pujols salary demands of whats hurting the game and when their CBA expires this November , are walking in with a hard stance at a Hard Salary cap.

That small market teams can't compete with teams who pay shitloads to players like A-Rod and Pujols. That they want these small market teams to compete on a level playing field . Albert Pujols $30 million a year dream could crash faster than the housing market .

[Kylun123]

If the Cardinals can't afford to meet his demands I can think of several others who can . . . I don't think this is about "greed".

[rsante]

I'm a St. Louisan and a Cardinals fan. I've been a huge fan/supporter of Pujols since he came up. However, holding the Cardinals hostage like this is big league bullsh*t.

This isn't the Yankees or the Red Sox. St. Louis is a mid-market city and if wants to be on a team that wins he has to come to terms with the fact that he's not the only one who should be paid.

The Yanks have no need for a 1st baseman as they already have one, and the Red Sox GM has already said that NO player is worth that much money.

I'd hate to say this, but I hope is performance this year suffers and his demands come down to earth. The Yanks were stupid to pay A-Rod what they did, but any team that pays more than that is even more stupid. If it comes between paying 30M a year for one player or letting him go and putting a well-rounded team together that can at least compete...well let's just say I'll help Albert pack his suitcase.

His stance in this whole matter has really dimished my impression of him and that's true for a lot of Cardinals fans. He'll never find a better city that St. Louis to play for.

[FanboyStranger]

He is the best everyday player in baseball, so I have no problem with him wanting to have a deal that reflects that. He's also, in my opinion, one of the all-time greats and a probable lock first ballot Hall-of-Famer. I live in Chicago and sort of root for the Cubs (really a Red Sox fan, but the Cubs are on every night), but I want Pujols to play his whole career with the Cardinals because he is as identifiable with that franchise as Stan Musial and Bob Gibson. I think it's the years that are the real sticking point right now, but I suspect they will come to some kind of agreement eventually.

[LtMarvel]

The Spring Training deadline has come and gone. It's not that big of deal. He can get signed at anytime.

Right now, the apparent loss of the St. Louis ace starter is a bigger deal...sigh...

[FanboyStranger]

The Spring Training deadline has come and gone. It's not that big of deal. He can get signed at anytime.

Right now, the apparent loss of the St. Louis ace starter is a bigger deal...sigh...

That does suck for them. Wainwright has been very dependable over the past few years. He and Carpenter, when healthy, were a very formindable one-two punch.

[Aubergine~!]

He is the best everyday player in baseball, so I have no problem with him wanting to have a deal that reflects that.

Yep. The amounts MLB players are earning nowadays are insane, but frankly if anyone deserves to be overpaid its Pujols.

Dude's the best everyday player around, and has a case at being one of the all time greatest, he should be one of the highest paid guys in the game.

[GozertheGozarian]

With the owners expected to demand a hard salary cap come November, this could be the last megadeal for a very long time.

[Kylun123]

If it comes between paying 30M a year for one player or letting him go and putting a well-rounded team together that can at least compete...well let's just say I'll help Albert pack his suitcase.

The "beauty" of baseball is that those things aren't mutually exclusive.

[rsante]

Yep. The amounts MLB players are earning nowadays are insane, but frankly if anyone deserves to be overpaid its Pujols.

Dude's the best everyday player around, and has a case at being one of the all time greatest, he should be one of the highest paid guys in the game.

But doesn't it bother you that it's $30M a year....to PLAY baseball? A game? It's not like he's solving the US oil dependency issue or stopping global warming...something I think someone should be paid $100M for! No, he hits a ball hard with a stick and catches balls at first base.

I love the sport of baseball, mind you. I even coach girls softball and hope that my love of the game rubs off on them. But it IS just a game, and greedy players are pushing the everyday fan further away from the ballpark with every bloated paycheck they demand. In the end it's the fans who have to pay for those players.

[jdwrocks]

With the owners expected to demand a hard salary cap come November, this could be the last megadeal for a very long time.
I can't see the MLBPA ever giving in to a hard cap, even w/o Fehr at the helm.

[Nick Soapdish]

If the Cardinals can't afford to meet his demands I can think of several others who can . . . I don't think this is about "greed".

Several others?

The Yankees and Red Sox can, but they're already the two highest spenders. The Nationals and Marlins have a very low payroll so they probably could, but won't. Probably the Padres, but they're also cheap. The Dodgers could, but they're mired in divorce hell and unlikely to be able to make big moves right now.

That basically leaves the Mets, Cubs and maybe ChiSox. Everybody else would be going into the red unless they make big cuts.


He is the best everyday player in baseball, so I have no problem with him wanting to have a deal that reflects that. He's also, in my opinion, one of the all-time greats and a probable lock first ballot Hall-of-Famer. I live in Chicago and sort of root for the Cubs (really a Red Sox fan, but the Cubs are on every night), but I want Pujols to play his whole career with the Cardinals because he is as identifiable with that franchise as Stan Musial and Bob Gibson. I think it's the years that are the real sticking point right now, but I suspect they will come to some kind of agreement eventually.

I agree, but ... the Yankees.

They don't behave according to normal market dynamics so they'll overpay for players. Getting paid about as much as A-Rod by any other team is about the same as getting paid way more by the Yankees. And he's not going to be the best everyday player in baseball when he's 42.

If he gets paid $30 million a year, the difference in value between his contract of last year and that would be enough to send them into the red by last year's budget. I think that they could get up to about $27 M (everything else remaining equal) and break even.

He may simply be too expensive for them. They need to make upgrades at other positions (particularly with the number of injuries that they've been taking) to able to compete.

[Hiromi]

With the owners expected to demand a hard salary cap come November, this could be the last megadeal for a very long time.
AFAIC its LONG overdue.

[GozertheGozarian]

I can't see the MLBPA ever giving in to a hard cap, even w/o Fehr at the helm.
I'm already expecting a short season, if at all, next year.

[Ben Charles]

With the owners expected to demand a hard salary cap come November

Coming from a fan of a team in the AL East other than the Empire or the Bosox please make this so.

[Slugger]

No. It is absolutly fucking madness. $30 million dollars a year. You play baseball, Albert. You just came off a $100 million dollar contract and always talk about God and how money doesn't mean anything, yet you demand the largest contract ever?

The Rangers ruined baseball salaries with the A-Rod deal, even then, a player like Pujols would probably get $20 million a season tops.

Here we are, 8 years later and it's spiked $10 million? Pujols' image has already been taking a beating because of this and he's proving he doesn't give a shit about St.Louis or the Cardinals.

"Who will pay me #30 million a season? OK, it's God's will for me to go there."

Yes, Ryan. But Pujols is the best hitter of this generation by a long shot and could end up being one of the best hitters of all time!

Of course. There's a great possibility this could happen. If anyone deservers this kind of money hitting a ball, it's Albert. People naturally point to A-Rod's contract as the measuring stick. Well, outside of NY (and even still some do) everyone hates A-Rod. He became public enemy # 1 signing the massive deal, then opting out for even more money during the '07 WS.

People despise Alex. He's exactly what's wrong with the game, admits to steroids, breaks the code from time to time on the diamond, and obviously makes a mind blowing amount of money.

Is this the kind of company Pujols wants? How can he POSSIBLY justify wanting this kind of money?

Look, I'm gonna bleed Blue Jays blue until I'm 6 feet under. But I've always admired the Cardinals franchise. One of the more classy; traditional; historically rich franchises around that play in the NL, which hammers home that vibe, opposed to the Hollywood-esq AL.

In closing. If Pujols gets a contract that average $30 million a season, especially if it's back loaded, the CBA needs to do something IMMEDIATLY for the health of the game.

Fuck you, Albert. Greedy ****. <--- (that was the 'c' bomb)

[Kylun123]

What I don't understand is that Carmelo Anthony just signed an extension with the Knicks that gives him 36% of the team's salary under the cap.
Mind you the team already has Amare taking the same cut.

In a league like MLB where there is no salary cap what difference does it make that Pujols makes so much money.
I understand on "principle", the lunacy of a player making $30 million to play baseball, but why is that so different than making $25 million, or even $20 million?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The NBA's CPA expires in June and the owners there too wanna reign in spending . As one analyst said the idea that rich loaded teams can get 3-4 superstars on each team to dominate kills competition .

So the NBA , MLB and NFL are all saying "Enough is enough. Something has to change."

[Nick Soapdish]

What I don't understand is that Carmelo Anthony just signed an extension with the Knicks that gives him 36% of the team's salary under the cap.
Mind you the team already has Amare taking the same cut.

In a league like MLB where there is no salary cap what difference does it make that Pujols makes so much money.
I understand on "principle", the lunacy of a player making $30 million to play baseball, but why is that so different than making $25 million, or even $20 million?

The difference is that a lot of teams aren't much above breaking even already and those $5 - $10 million can be used to pick up another quality player or two. There isn't one salary cap in baseball; there are 30. Some teams, like the Marlins or Nationals are nowhere near their cap, but most of them are pretty close.

As to the difference between making $30 million versus $20-25? I dunno. If I was making $5 to $10 million more a year, it'd be pretty different. If my salary was 50% higher than it currently is - or even just 20% higher, it'd be pretty different. The numbers are beyond boggling, but we can still equate them to something we know.

And finally, the difference is that it's the next big round number to hit. It was mind-boggling when A-Rod got $25 million a year, but now that we've seen it for a few years, it's not as shocking.

[Slugger]

And finally, the difference is that it's the next big round number to hit. It was mind-boggling when A-Rod got $25 million a year, but now that we've seen it for a few years, it's not as shocking.

We haven't though. Only 6 players made $20 million or more last year. A-Rod is the only one over $25 mil.

[Nick Soapdish]

We haven't though. Only 6 players made $20 million or more last year. A-Rod is the only one over $25 mil.

I meant that A-Rod's contract was old news, not that other players are making as much.

[Kylun123]

As to the difference between making $30 million versus $20-25? I dunno. If I was making $5 to $10 million more a year, it'd be pretty different. If my salary was 50% higher than it currently is - or even just 20% higher, it'd be pretty different. The numbers are beyond boggling, but we can still equate them to something we know.

1. Really? What could you buy with $30 mil that you couldn't afford with 25?

2. I don't think it's relative at all to the salaries you and I make. Our salaries being 20% higher make a significant difference in our abilities to consume or save, I don't believe an extra 5 mil above 25 mil per year makes that kind of relative impact.


We haven't though. Only 6 players made $20 million or more last year. A-Rod is the only one over $25 mil.

But if there are only 6 players making this much money why is it such a big deal? How would it impact internal salary caps so drastically if only the best 5-6 players in the game are making that large an amount.

1 way would be that only the Yanks & Red Sox (& teams that can afford to spend like them) will be able to afford the game's Top 5-6 players, but I'm not sure it's that much different than the way things are now.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I do find it weird in a way that all 3 major sport leagues have CBA's expiring in 2011. And each one has owners saying , "Things need to change NOW."

Part of me wonders if Pujols knows that the US is crawling from a recession ? I mean a lot of people are losing their homes and he's been blessed to make more than what I or many will see in a lifetime already . And there has to be a push to make 3 times that amount ?

Personally I wonder if players should go spend a day picking garbage or doing what many of us do for a $ and see if they'd approach life the way they do. Would they be happy to make $100 million dollars already ?

[Slugger]

1. Really? What could you buy with $30 mil that you couldn't afford with 25?

2. I don't think it's relative at all to the salaries you and I make. Our salaries being 20% higher make a significant difference in our abilities to consume or save, I don't believe an extra 5 mil above 25 mil per year makes that kind of relative impact.



But if there are only 6 players making this much money why is it such a big deal? How would it impact internal salary caps so drastically if only the best 5-6 players in the game are making that large an amount.

1 way would be that only the Yanks & Red Sox (& teams that can afford to spend like them) will be able to afford the game's Top 5-6 players, but I'm not sure it's that much different than the way things are now.

Because it sets the bar.

"Well, look what I've done the last 2 years, very Pujols like, I deseve at least $25/YR."

If someone does it 5 years, then they get Pujols money. If someone does it for 9 years like Pujols has then they should be getting $35-$40 a year.

It's a slippery slope that needs to be contained. Since when did $12 million a year become a bargain?

Jayson Werth signing a 7YR/126MIL deal? That's fucking hilarious, the guy has never driven in 100 RBI (a trivial stat, but still) Only had over 500 AB's twice, and this is a .280/.360/.500 kind of guy. A very, very nice player indeed, but not one that should be making over $20 million a year.

He's a complimentary player being paid like a face of the franchise player, which is absurd because there's players a hell of a lot better than Werth that will become FA's in the next couple years that will base their salary request off of Werth's contract.

If this shit isn't out of hand yet, then it will be within a year.

You can bet when Fielder walks this year, he'll be looking for something like 8YR/$200MIL deal AT LEAST.

[Kylun123]

Personally I wonder if players should go spend a day picking garbage or doing what many of us do for a $ and see if they'd approach life the way they do. Would they be happy to make $100 million dollars already ?

The problem with this approach is that all it means is that filthy-rich owners get to keep/make more money.

Why should the owners make an extra $5mil when the player can make the extra $5mil?


Because it sets the bar.

"Well, look what I've done the last 2 years, very Pujols like, I deseve at least $25/YR."

If someone does it 5 years, then they get Pujols money. If someone does it for 9 years like Pujols has then they should be getting $35-$40 a year.

Except that A-Rod broke the $25mil per season mark in 2000. It's 10 years later and only 1 player was earning that much last season . . . and it was A-Rod himself.


It's a slippery slope that needs to be contained. Since when did $12 million a year become a bargain?

Jayson Werth signing a 7YR/126MIL deal? That's fucking hilarious, the guy has never driven in 100 RBI (a trivial stat, but still) Only had over 500 AB's twice, and this is a .280/.360/.500 kind of guy. A very, very nice player indeed, but not one that should be making over $20 million a year.

The problem with Jayson Werth making $20 mil is that players of his caliber can now make $20 mil.
I don't think that's necessarily related to Pujols' contract.

[Slugger]

The problem with this approach is that all it means is that filthy-rich owners get to keep/make more money.

Why should the owners make an extra $5mil when the player can make the extra $5mil?



Except that A-Rod broke the $25mil per season mark in 2000. It's 10 years later and only 1 player was earning that much last season . . . and it was A-Rod himself.



The problem with Jayson Werth making $20 mil is that players of his caliber can now make $20 mil.
I don't think that's necessarily related to Pujols' contract.

My point isn't relating his contract to Pujols, it's other players relating their financial wants to Werth's contract. Because you said "Why's it a problem?"

[Kylun123]

My point isn't relating his contract to Pujols, it's other players relating their financial wants to Werth's contract. Because you said "Why's it a problem?"

Right, but the issue of Werth's contract doesn't compare, in my opinion, to the issue with Albert Pujols.

How many players in this league can honestly approach the negotiating table with "I should be making the same as Albert Pujols and won't settle for anything less" ?

[Slugger]

Right, but the issue of Werth's contract doesn't compare, in my opinion, to the issue with Albert Pujols.

How many players in this league can honestly approach the negotiating table with "I should be making the same as Albert Pujols and won't settle for anything less" ?

Oh, there is none right now. But Fielder will want something close this offseason, and in a few years players making over $25 mil won't be unheard of.

Especially if Adrien Gonzo signs long term in Boston.

[FanboyStranger]

I do find it weird in a way that all 3 major sport leagues have CBA's expiring in 2011. And each one has owners saying , "Things need to change NOW."

Part of me wonders if Pujols knows that the US is crawling from a recession ? I mean a lot of people are losing their homes and he's been blessed to make more than what I or many will see in a lifetime already . And there has to be a push to make 3 times that amount ?

Personally I wonder if players should go spend a day picking garbage or doing what many of us do for a $ and see if they'd approach life the way they do. Would they be happy to make $100 million dollars already ?

I wouldn't blame this entirely on Pujols' ego. These top players get a lot of pressure from the union/other players to seek the highest possible contract they can get, thereby raising the standard for all other players. Then in factor the agents that not only want their cut but bragging rights for gettting it.

[Nightstar1441]

I think all the salaries in baseball are over-inflated but if anyone deserves a big contract - it is Albert - it's just sad he's been put in this position as he's a pawn for the union and an example for the owners.

[LtMarvel]

Before you complain about the $30/million figure, the Cardinals (and presumably every other team in baseball) are more than willing to pay that...just not for ten years.

[Nick Soapdish]

1. Really? What could you buy with $30 mil that you couldn't afford with 25?

You misread my post. $5 million more than I make would be a dramatic difference on what I make.


2. I don't think it's relative at all to the salaries you and I make. Our salaries being 20% higher make a significant difference in our abilities to consume or save, I don't believe an extra 5 mil above 25 mil per year makes that kind of relative impact.


So you're arguing that there is no reason for Pujols to be making that extra $5M? I won't disagree.



But if there are only 6 players making this much money why is it such a big deal? How would it impact internal salary caps so drastically if only the best 5-6 players in the game are making that large an amount.

1 way would be that only the Yanks & Red Sox (& teams that can afford to spend like them) will be able to afford the game's Top 5-6 players, but I'm not sure it's that much different than the way things are now.

If there was a hard salary cap, it wouldn't matter. Pujols would make $30M and the other 24 players might only make $70M, averaging less than $3M per player. It's kinda happening in the NBA when one player makes 36% of the whole team's payroll. And it was starting to happen for a few teams in the NFL when they were jammed up against the cap. They'd sign a few stars and then need to fill the rest of the roster with scrubs.


The problem with this approach is that all it means is that filthy-rich owners get to keep/make more money.

Why should the owners make an extra $5mil when the player can make the extra $5mil?


The owners are filthy rich, but most of them aren't treating their major league team as a hobby. It's a business for them and they are in it to make money or at the very least, not lose money.

And almost all of them are making money. (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html) Look at the Red Sox, the team with the second highest net income. (I'm ignoring the Marlins because their owner is a notorious cheapskate and an excellent argument for a bottom salary minimum.) They earned $40M in a single year on an investment worth $870M. That's about a 4.5% return on their investment. Pretty decent, but not overwhelming.

But the more pertinent example is the Cardinals. They earned nearly $13M in 2009 when Pujols was getting woefully underpaid at just $16M. (No, I'm not being sarcastic.) If they sign him at $30M a year and with the same earnings as last year, they'll go into the red next year unless they cut other players. The Cards routinely have one of the best attendance in the majors so that isn't going to change and the TV contract is already signed, but they'll probably raise ticket prices and manage to get more through merchandising so it's not going to be stagnant. But St. Louis doesn't have a whole lot of money to play with and that $5M may be the difference between getting a 1% return on the investment or not getting anything.

Just as Pujols isn't going to settle for getting to make a living "just" playing a game and treat it like a business, so will the owners.



The problem with Jayson Werth making $20 mil is that players of his caliber can now make $20 mil.
I don't think that's necessarily related to Pujols' contract.

They don't. But contracts aren't negotiated in a vacuum. When Joe Mauer was negotiating a new contract with Minnesota, his agent started off by looking at A-Rod's contract. He wound up signing for "only" $23M a year, arguably giving the hometown Twins a bit of a discount. Incidentally, he had also set a deadline of before the spring training which got missed, but signed anyway. His object (and presumably Pujols) is to make sure that it doesn't linger throughout the season because it will probably be a distraction for him and the teammates. It might be as much of a distraction if they knew that he'd be a free agent at the end of the year, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that isn't going to happen and that he'll get something pretty close to $30M a year for a long term deal.

But the impact of the top line contract isn't just for the superstars. Other players don't say that they're just as good as Pujols, but they'll argue that they're at least half a Pujols or 2/3. He (probably) sets the new baseline for elite. That's why the middle echelon like Werth is getting so much more, too.

If Pujols makes an extra 20%, it'll trickle down and the new contracts will also be getting an extra something. Probably not the full 20%, but maybe an extra 10%. So if the Cards give up the extra 20%, the rest of their salary (as they sign new players of relatively the same experience) which currently totals about $75M could cost them about $83M. And that's assuming that they aren't resigning their own players because their salaries will be rising on their own just as a factor of getting more years under their belt.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The problem with this approach is that all it means is that filthy-rich owners get to keep/make more money.

Why should the owners make an extra $5mil when the player can make the extra $5mil?

.

I think Nick laid it out best here. A lot of sport teams are having money problems. The NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars wanted to fire Jack Del Rio last season. But the owner claimed he couldn't afford to pay Del Rio's salary and the new coach.

The Jags are facing tough economic problems and reports are they may end moving.

But the Jags aren't the first team to face problems. Nick laid it out the Cardinals , Red Sox and others in MLB are facing tough times. They are spending more ...way more than they bring in. Owners are starting to realize that they wanna make more than what little they make.

Right now the filthy rich teams are getting ahead and the non-rich ones are losing.




I wouldn't blame this entirely on Pujols' ego. These top players get a lot of pressure from the union/other players to seek the highest possible contract they can get, thereby raising the standard for all other players. Then in factor the agents that not only want their cut but bragging rights for gettting it.


Tony LaRussa 2-3 weeks ago called out the Union on Pujols. Saying they are pushing him to get the most ever. That its wrong and you can tell it winged Pujols who denied it pretty quick.

[Aubergine~!]

But doesn't it bother you that it's $30M a year....to PLAY baseball? A game? It's not like he's solving the US oil dependency issue or stopping global warming...something I think someone should be paid $100M for! No, he hits a ball hard with a stick and catches balls at first base.

Oh, I think the money they're earning is ridiculous, but those are the norms now, and I can't blame Albert for wanting to be rightly compensated.

Call it greed if you like, but if a bunch of people who do the same job you do but are clearly worse than you are nevertheless making significantly more cash than you are, I bet you'd be asking for more yourself.


I love the sport of baseball, mind you. I even coach girls softball and hope that my love of the game rubs off on them. But it IS just a game, and greedy players are pushing the everyday fan further away from the ballpark with every bloated paycheck they demand. In the end it's the fans who have to pay for those players.

Because if the superstars weren't paid so well, all owners would definitely lower ballpark prices!

Again, I'm not a fan of the ridiculous wages players are earning, but I'd rather the money go into the pockets of players than into the bank accounts of billionaire owners.

[Nick Soapdish]

Because if the superstars weren't paid so well, all owners would definitely lower ballpark prices!

Again, I'm not a fan of the ridiculous wages players are earning, but I'd rather the money go into the pockets of players than into the bank accounts of billionaire owners.

So do you think that the owners are just going to eat the additional cost of higher player salaries or do you think that they'll raise the ballpark prices further?

Look at the link above. Most of the owners (Loria from the Marlins being a big exception) aren't making much of a return on their investment. Pohlad made about a 6.25% return in 2009. By way of comparison, the stock market went from about 9K to 10.5K, a return of about 17%. And he did better than average. If you go back a year when the market crashed, MLB would've been a much better investment, but the stock market routinely does much better than that 6.25%.

Oh, and "only" 10 *8 people, 2 corps) of the owners are billionaires with Pohlad being the richest among them with a worth of $3B. Well, that was what Carl Pohlad was worth, but he died and his sons have the wealth now. I'm not sure how much they have.

[Aubergine~!]

So do you think that the owners are just going to eat the additional cost of higher player salaries or do you think that they'll raise the ballpark prices further?

Honestly? Profit-maximizing owners should already be setting ballpark prices at the levels that'll maximize their profits, so I doubt it.

If they can't afford the higher player salaries, they'll need to look for alternative sources of revenue (tv deals, sponsorships) or just not sign the superstar and deal with it. It isn't fair, but that's how capitalism works sometimes.

And FWIW, I do agree that a cap needs to be introduced.


Look at the link above. Most of the owners (Loria from the Marlins being a big exception) aren't making much of a return on their investment.

Again, do you think that if player salaries went down they'd lower ballpark prices, having been able to (presumably) sell a good number of them at higher prices?

How much they earn is their business. There are, however, teams like the Yankees who can afford to pay the exorbitant wages and still turn a profit, and players have every right to move to these high paying clubs. I want Pujols to stay in St Louis too, but I'm not going to condemn anyone for choosing not to give up around $5m/ season (or whatever the number is).

[RatFace]

If the Cardinals can't afford to meet his demands I can think of several others who can . . . I don't think this is about "greed".

How is it not about greed? That's all it's about.


I'm a St. Louisan and a Cardinals fan. I've been a huge fan/supporter of Pujols since he came up. However, holding the Cardinals hostage like this is big league bullsh*t.

This isn't the Yankees or the Red Sox. St. Louis is a mid-market city and if wants to be on a team that wins he has to come to terms with the fact that he's not the only one who should be paid.

The Yanks have no need for a 1st baseman as they already have one, and the Red Sox GM has already said that NO player is worth that much money.

I'd hate to say this, but I hope is performance this year suffers and his demands come down to earth. The Yanks were stupid to pay A-Rod what they did, but any team that pays more than that is even more stupid. If it comes between paying 30M a year for one player or letting him go and putting a well-rounded team together that can at least compete...well let's just say I'll help Albert pack his suitcase.

His stance in this whole matter has really dimished my impression of him and that's true for a lot of Cardinals fans. He'll never find a better city that St. Louis to play for.

Since when have the Yankees and Red Sox been worried about need?

[Nick Soapdish]

Honestly? Profit-maximizing owners should already be setting ballpark prices at the levels that'll maximize their profits, so I doubt it.

If they can't afford the higher player salaries, they'll need to look for alternative sources of revenue (tv deals, sponsorships) or just not sign the superstar and deal with it. It isn't fair, but that's how capitalism works sometimes.

And FWIW, I do agree that a cap needs to be introduced.

Again, do you think that if player salaries went down they'd lower ballpark prices, having been able to (presumably) sell a good number of them at higher prices?

How much they earn is their business. There are, however, teams like the Yankees who can afford to pay the exorbitant wages and still turn a profit, and players have every right to move to these high paying clubs. I want Pujols to stay in St Louis too, but I'm not going to condemn anyone for choosing not to give up around $5m/ season (or whatever the number is).

Even the high attendance clubs like the Cardinals don't get a sell-out every game so raising prices is a gamble for them and every time that they do it, they'll hear an outcry. Sometimes, it's empty rhetoric and sometimes, it hurts. But having a high payroll, particularly if it's partly due to a very high profile new contract, mutes that outcry a bit. Since each club has its own market dynamics and a different product (quality of team and stadium), they can't base their ticket prices too much on what other clubs are charging. After all, they aren't competing there, just on the field. So they're having to make ticket price changes based on a small amount of data.

I'm not going to condemn Pujols for going for big bucks. I think that he's worth a lot more than A-Rod. But I'm not going to condemn the owners either. They may be filthy rich (like the players except only filthier), but they are still entitled to expect a reasonable return on their investment and most of them in baseball* aren't gouging the fans or players. It means that Pujols has a pretty slim market at the price that he's asking, possibly none although I wouldn't rule out the Cubs especially because it also puts the screws to a rival.

What I'm expecting is that the Cards will wind up signing him for something averaging around $28M over 7 years. Maybe a bit less per year if it goes the whole ten.

*Football may be a different story because they aren't opening their books. And they are definitely gouging the players when it comes to health care. They only get health care for 5 years after their career finishes, despite often getting lifelong disabilities from their playing days. The players are also gouging themselves by not including that as a union benefit or trying to bargain for it. Instead, they just focus on the immediate benefits.

[LtMarvel]

FYI, the Cardinals have switched to flex pricing this year. So prices will vary to what a computer program thinks demand is.

[Aubergine~!]

Even the high attendance clubs like the Cardinals don't get a sell-out every game so raising prices is a gamble for them and every time that they do it, they'll hear an outcry. Sometimes, it's empty rhetoric and sometimes, it hurts. But having a high payroll, particularly if it's partly due to a very high profile new contract, mutes that outcry a bit. Since each club has its own market dynamics and a different product (quality of team and stadium), they can't base their ticket prices too much on what other clubs are charging. After all, they aren't competing there, just on the field. So they're having to make ticket price changes based on a small amount of data.

All true, but again, I don't think claiming that they'll need to raise prices if they give Pujols a big contract is a valid argument, as if they think they can increase total revenues by raising prices they likely will regardless of any increases in payroll.


I'm not going to condemn Pujols for going for big bucks. I think that he's worth a lot more than A-Rod. But I'm not going to condemn the owners either. They may be filthy rich (like the players except only filthier), but they are still entitled to expect a reasonable return on their investment and most of them in baseball* aren't gouging the fans or players.

Same here. I'm not blaming anyone for this, though I do think the league needs to do something to curb the spending.


What I'm expecting is that the Cards will wind up signing him for something averaging around $28M over 7 years. Maybe a bit less per year if it goes the whole ten.

I'd guess 30m for 7 years, if it's with the Cards. With other teams he just might get the 30m for 10.

[Deathstroke]

If he gets 300 million dollars then whoever signs him for that amount is a fool.

[Aubergine~!]

If he gets 300 million dollars then whoever signs him for that amount is a fool.

Yes, unless it's the Yankees. Because they're the Yankees.

[akumasan]

The problem with Jayson Werth making $20 mil is that players of his caliber can now make $20 mil.
I don't think that's necessarily related to Pujols' contract.
I think his point though that average players shouldn't make 20 mil. I looked at his stats for his career

Batting average: .272
Home runs: 120
Runs batted in: 406

That's it? Are you fucking serious and he is deserving 20 mil? Why were the nats that stupid in paying him that money? Ryan Zimmerman is a far better player on that team and his stats are better and he played less seasons than Werth. Zimmerman at one point was the only threat they had and he was producing since his major league debut.

[Kylun123]

That's it? Are you fucking serious and he is deserving 20 mil?

No, I don't think Jayson Werth deserves $20 mil, but I don't think it factors in to whether or not Pujols "deserves" $30.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

No, I don't think Jayson Werth deserves $20 mil, but I don't think it factors in to whether or not Pujols "deserves" $30.

Well it does in a way. Pujols and his agent can argue if "average" players like Werth can command $20 million in todays market , he as a superstar player should get $30. Its playing in a lot right. The superstars will want more than what an average player makes. Their numbers they can point to.

[Michael P]

I would argue that none of these assholes deserve even 1 million dollars.

[Aubergine~!]

No, I don't think Jayson Werth deserves $20 mil,

I don't think anyone outside Nationals management does.


but I don't think it factors in to whether or not Pujols "deserves" $30.

It shouldn't, but it does anyway.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I would argue that none of these assholes deserve even 1 million dollars.

If yesterdays players were around today , they would be suprised. Hell back in the 1950's and 60's NFL players had to take 2nd jobs after the season ended . Some like Ernie Ladd and Wahoo McDaniel would become pro wrestlers in the off season to make money and would after their NFL careers ended , would become wrestlers full time.

[akumasan]

Well it does in a way. Pujols and his agent can argue if "average" players like Werth can command $20 million in todays market , he as a superstar player should get $30. Its playing in a lot right. The superstars will want more than what an average player makes. Their numbers they can point to.

Yep that is my point. When the original poster brought it up I wondered the same thing. This Werth guy is about the same age as Pujols, joined in the league around the same time but Pujols numbers are just far superior to him and also one of his teammates Ryan Zimmerman but he gets 20 mil? It is almost impossible for his agent to use that as an argument. This is the same guy that was one of the Orioles scraps. I mean HELLO THE ORIOLES SCRAPS! LOL

[Nick Soapdish]

BTW, $126M over 7 years is $18M. Probably doesn't make much of a difference and it's backloaded which means that he'll probably be getting $20M a year when he's 37.

[FanboyStranger]

Yep that is my point. When the original poster brought it up I wondered the same thing. This Werth guy is about the same age as Pujols, joined in the league around the same time but Pujols numbers are just far superior to him and also one of his teammates Ryan Zimmerman but he gets 20 mil? It is almost impossible for his agent to use that as an argument. This is the same guy that was one of the Orioles scraps. I mean HELLO THE ORIOLES SCRAPS! LOL

I hate Werth with a passion, but he was the Phillies' everyday MVP last season. The Nats definitely overpaid for him, but on the strength of last season, he was still going to make some serious dough wherever he went. The Nats are the type of franchise that need to make a splash in any way they can. Except for last season, they had been the laughing stock of the MLB since they moved from Montreal. This gets Nats fans talking, although it also puts an incredible amount of pressure on Werth.