An Albert Pujols Poll
by Matthew on Dec 9, 2011 10:44 AM PST
in Seattle Mariners Polling
Email
PrintIt might be too much for me to hope for a non-emotional response, but I am curious about one particular subset of the many whirling factors that is Albert Pujols signing with the Angels. Specifically, given the contract signed, assume that if the Mariners had offered the exact same terms Pujols would have accepted, do you wish they had? If the Mariners came to you and gave you no other information other than this: Albert Pujols for 10 years for $254 million; yes or no? How would you respond?
I'd prefer if you vote first and then read the previous thread on nearly this exact same question here, and see if that changes your mind at all.
118 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The very idea of Albert Pujols aging like Edgar Martinez scares the crap out of me.
I know it’s unlikely, but it’s still a possibility.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Dec 9, 2011 10:46 AM PST reply actions
Edgar put up an .895 OPS at age 40 in his next to last season.
The Angels would probably love Pujols to age like that.
No matter where you go, there you are.
I think Edgar was on the juice...
by Eric Wedge's Mustache on Dec 9, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Wow, if you're serious, have fun dealing with the responses to that accusation.
No matter where you go, there you are.
What? Nigga what the fuck is juice?
Edgar wants that Purple Stuff!
by SuperDopaLiciousFunkStar on Dec 9, 2011 12:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 7 recs
Is..Is Edgar Martinez gonna have to choke a bitch?
I don’t believe it, Edgar Martinez is gonna have to choke a bitch!
Pujols as DH
The Angels have to be thinking that in 5 or 6 years they will have the best DH in the league since, … well, since Edgar retired.
It's been a pleasure as a fan of baseball to watch Pujols play
and I cannot imagine the joy watching him in Mariner blue would give me. However, I’ve seen Hall of Fame talent on my team. I want a championship. So I chose “barely no”.
by TheBishop on Dec 9, 2011 10:47 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
That first part was exactly my reasoning.
I voted barely no, just because it is Albert Pujols. And that would be amazing to root for.
by WestCoastBias. on Dec 9, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
I don't know why
this fanbase seems to prioritize the prospect of a competitive team in 2018 over one in 2014.
by _Hutch_ on Dec 9, 2011 10:48 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Because even with Pujols they wouldn't necessarily be competitive.
The M’s finished 29 games behind the Rangers last year, if they had been within 10 I’d be all for signing a big name guy to put them over the top, but right now the entire roster is mediocre to bad and until the young guys show something the team can’t tie up that kind of money in one guy (unless of course they are willing to drastically increase payroll in which case, sure, sign him).
But as has been pointed out,
Felix is really the only big contract on the books past 2013. Assuming the organization does the responsible thing and lets 2012 be Ichiro’s curtain call, you’re really talking about Fielder taking over as the one “big” contract on the team’s payroll.
And for the record I’m talking more generally and about Fielder. The scale of the Pujols contract is patently absurd, but I think it’s silly that some of the fanbase is so risk-averse that they feel the same way about a 27-year-old Fielder on a 6-7 year deal.
Look how well it's working for the Eagles!
When you mortgage the farm and you don’t win it all, you’re left with a mortgaged farm.
italics make it special
True.
Although i’m not sure how signing a free agent mortgages the farm (unless you’re talking in a more abstract way in that you might not be able to pay for your prospects when/if they’re due a raise).
Somewhere between barely and easy yes.
If the Mariners signed Pujols for this much, it would mean that they’re serious about winning in the next few years and are willing to add significant payroll to do so. We’d be better this year, and it would be a sign pointing to more FA signings and trades to get things done in the 2013-2014 seasons.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
No, because the franchise doesn't have the revenues to support that kind of deal
It would mean a short-term spike in payroll followed by a fire sale not long thereafter.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 9, 2011 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I'm so tired of this "serious about winning" shit
They’re always serious about winning, but they’re also realistic about the probability of competing now for a championship and competing when they have the talent to actually win.
by Clown baby on Dec 9, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
If they increase their payroll significantly, it will help them win more now and in the future.
If they signed Pujols, it would be a sign of them increasing payroll significantly.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
But it would likely be the only move to increase payroll.
i think Matthew intends it to be analyzed in a vacuum, hence the “gave you no other information”.
Even if Pujols is the only move to increase payroll, it will make the Mariners better than any combination of moves that keeps them at their current payroll.
I don’t think he means “in a vacuum” either. Just using current knowledge and seeing the Mariners sign Pujols for that contract, how would you react?
I would react positively, because it makes the Mariners a lot better and shows signs of potentially ramping up payroll to compete in Felix’s last couple years of his contract.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
I don't agree that signing Pujols
“will make the Mariners better than any combination of moves that keeps them at their current payroll.” But I also don’t think that’s the best comparison. To me, I want to compare this move to spending 25 million this year on other pieces. I think we could at least come close to Pujols’ value, given the number of starting players on our current roster that are well below average. (Dave Cameron had a couple posts early in the offseason that demonstrated this). And we would avoid the long-term risk that this contract requires.
I would be excited to sign Pujols. He has been my favorite player for about 8 years now. But I don’t want the Mariners to base their decisions on emotional responses. That’s just the engineer in me, I guess.
So in my mind there are two alternatives.
1. The Mariners don’t sign Pujols and we have somewhere around $15-20m to spend on players this offseason, depending on if we offload any arb-eligible players, etc.
2. I wake up and hey, the Mariners sign Pujols for a giant contract spending more money on payroll than I would have expected at all!
- makes the Mariners better right now and makes me feel better about the team wanting to bring in enough talent over the time we have both Felix and Pujols to make a legit run at the playoffs in 2013 and 2014, while having a more enjoyable team to watch in 2012.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Well I guess if I created a false dichotomy, that might change my perception of the deal.
But those aren’t the only 2 possibilities, so obviously my logic isn’t going to work the same as yours.
That's what the question is asking, though, at least how I interpret it.
You know what you currently know about the Mariners
Suddenly they do a move that you would have assumed was out of the realm of possibility due to budget constraints.
That would make me pretty happy.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
So you're assuming some kind of ownership position along the following lines:
“Okay, Jack, here’s 254 million for Pujols. But if you don’t sign him, we’re going to want that money back.” But there’s just no reason to think that the ownership group would tie a payroll increase to Albert Pujols, is there?
No, I'm assuming I either wake up and we have Pujols for that amount or we don't.
If we do, suddenly I’m aware of that increased payroll and say “awesome!”
If they don’t, I feel like I currently feel, which is very little.
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
I mean if they sign him I'm not thinking
“aw shit, they should have spent that $25m on Vazquez, Kelly Johnson, and Josh Willingham instead”
M's fan newly relocated to SF My homepage
Had to go with "don't understand" because there was no option for "God is dead"
by Chris_FB on Dec 9, 2011 10:51 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
If Pujols were left handed I would have said barely yes, but he's not
I’m not sure why I have such a mental block against right handed hitters, but his handedness makes me say easy no
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Jose Lopez, Kenji Johjima, Adrian Beltre, Richie Sexson.
That is most of why I have issues with right handed power.
Oh hey yeah I forgot that every single right handed hitter we've acquired via FA since Boone has hit terribly upon arrival in Seattle
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Man we're doing some weird retconning of Richie Sexson's career here
His career high OPS+ came with the Mariners.
by Graham MacAree on Dec 9, 2011 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
Richie was great a first.
But with the way he fell off at the end, and the other right handed disappointments we’ve seen since Safeco opened I think we can all understand why some of us are a little gun-shy here.
He fell off at the end because of his age
Not because he was right handed. Being gunshy about right handed hitters because of Richie Sexson is an incredibly odd stance to take.
by Graham MacAree on Dec 9, 2011 1:00 PM PST up reply actions
The gun-shyness I get from the Sexson situation IS the age related fall-off.
There is a cliff. We all know it’s there. I’m not comfortable with my favorite team betting hundreds of millions that any baseball player won’t reach it until after age 40. Even Pujols.
Easy yes for 2012-2016. But overall, easy no.
I fear we’d spend the second half of the decade back in the cellar again, with $25 million committed annually to a league average bat or worse. And with only one or two playoff appearances to show for it. Two if we’re lucky.
I voted "Easy No" as a gut reaction.
Then I checked the old thread and notice I voted “Easy Yes.” I thought I presented a decent argument at the time which makes me reconsider my “Easy No” answer. But then further down there’s katal strong argument at the time that has me thinking that I would still consider it an “Easy Yes.”
I should’ve voted “Easy Yes” for two reasons. One, for the duration of the contract he’ll be the main position player on the payroll so he wouldn’t be a serious major drag (Ichiro’s payroll commitment will be long completed). Two, he provides the production as he does then likely retires as a Mariner. That would be pretty sweet.
To be fair
The previous poll/thread took place before Pujols had his worst offensive season.
I voted “barely no” on this one, though I admit there might be an element of sour grapes.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 11:12 AM PST reply actions
I was a "barely no"
Too much money over too much time, but then again it is Albert Pujols. Ranking up there with the PED scandals, fully guarantted contracts is one of the worst things baseball has going for it. This is absurd the idea of paying somebody for X amount of years regardless of production. Teams should be allowed to cut ties with players without paying the full contract out like the NFL. A few bad signings a team can be in a hole for years.
That was pretty much my reasoning.
I mean, if the M’s had signed Pujols, sure, I’d be all “woo-hoo! Pujols baby!” But essentially the Angels are paying for about 50 WAR here; Pujols produced only about 5 last year, in his age-31 season. Any bounce back to previous levels and it’s a great deal; any continued decline and it’s an albatross. And of course if there are significant injuries, which become more likely with age, it becomes a disaster. A bit too much of a risk.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
And as mentioned elsewhere, an added risk is the measure of uncertainty regarding his age.
Sure. Maybe the fake-birth-certificate rumors are bullshit, and he is the age the document states. But for a quarter of a billion dollars, you have to factor in the risk that he might already be 34. You don’t have to believe it. Just consider it.
I voted barley No.
It would great to have some like Pujols on the roster. He’s great player. He would get people out the games. But, the M’s have so many problems, and I’m not sure Pujols alone would help them turn the corner. That kind of contract would like leave the M’s little money to fill the other holes.
I look at like a house. You should always make sure your foundation, roof, and windows are in order before you start spending all your money on fancy granite counter tops and stainless steal appliances.
I voted yes of some sort on the last one but did some reading up on him in the time between that.
I would not do it now simply because he has had problems with his knees recently and he has had a drop off the past two years. Seems like a deal set up for failure.
10 years for a 33-year-old with several recent injury issues...
it just seems ludicrous. HE HAS ELBOW PROBLEMS. he needs elbows. to, you know, swing the bat.
italics make it special
I voted Easy No
But mainly because I don’t think he fits in with a rebuilding team like the Mariners. It seems to me that a lot of those years would be wasted because we still need quite a few pieces to either develop or be acquired. The price is just too high for an organization in that situation.
I do think acquiring a guy like Fielder would be a good move assuming that the contract would be cheaper. His age and the fact he bats left handed make him the perfect Safeco player in my opinion.
I voted 'easy yes' because I'm irrational.
I’m tired of losing…and even if the contract was detrimental to the team in the future, boy would I love to have me some Pujols to watch for a few awesome years. The excitement would be back. We’d likely be in playoff contention for the next several years.
Now we’re swimming in mediocrity with the moves other teams in the AL West have made.
I worry the perception is Z is sitting on his hands and not doing enough to help move this team forward. However, we all know the success he’s had with the minor league system and the growth from within. If Texas lands Fielder, I fear there will be calls (idiotic calls) for Z to be fired. Blech.
I fucking hate you Mariners
It isn't.
It is irrational to pay him $25 mil every season until he’s 42. That would only make sense if he’d already helped your team become successful out of nowhere, and won you two WS championships.
This contract only makes sense if you’re the Cardinals.
italics make it special
The way I see it, the Mariners aren't the Angels. If something did go wrong, they can't just absorb the contract and move on.
Doug Fister is Dexter. R.I.P. Dave Niehaus
Call me stupid if you want, but I do not believe Pujols is 31.
Pujols is a once in a generation player who will probably hit 700+ home runs. For the next 2-4 years, and on those big number celebrations, LAA fans will have some thing to really root for!.
However, the years of watching a declining star be paid 3-4 times what he is worth is really going to disturb a great deal of fans. Look at Griffey on the Reds for his last few years there. Look at A-Rod in New York now! This contract is going to end badly.
The LAA fans most excited right now will be the one’s booing the loudest at the end.
Pujols graduated from an American High School.
His whole family legally immigrated to the United States in 1996. He played high school baseball for two years in the United States before graduating. He was never known to be associated with any Dominican agent, and he was so over looked by American scouts that he fell to the 13th round of the draft. In short, we have every reason to believe that he immigrated with his family and was just a kid who could play baseball; the is no evidence that he ever imagined falsifying his age to get a good contract, and would have had to do so two years before he was even draft eligible.
by philosofool on Dec 9, 2011 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Thank you so much for this information.
I did not know this. I had heard some rumors, years ago, that sounded convincing at the time. I did not look forth into it. Thank you very much for taking to time to correct a misunderstanding.
I voted easy yes because I was a bit more than a barely yes and just rounded up.
There were a couple of assumptions though. One is that he is the age he says he is. I have no reason to think otherwise, so Albert Pujols turns 32 in January as far as I’m concerned. Another is that he ages much better than a guy like Fielder. There will be a drop off towards the end of the contract, no doubt, but he’s not going to fall off a cliff.
I didn’t mind Ichiro’s extension when it was signed and he was in his age 33 season at the time. Giving Pujols $7 million more per season at a younger age is fine with me. I’d be ok with the risk towards the back end of the deal knowing the DH will help get more value out of him as he ages.
No matter where you go, there you are.
I don't know how anyone gets to "easy yes" with 10 years.
Even if you like it, there’s nothing “easy” about it. You have to think long and hard about that one. To say nothing of the fact that 29 GMs seem to disagree.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 1:14 PM PST reply actions
But the contract is $254/10.
I don’t see how a $120/6 applies. Unless of course you are saying that a $254/6 contract is reasonable. In which case I would say you’re nuts.
Yes, but the commenter said "don't know how anyone gets easy yes with 10 years."
A number of people seem to think that all ten year contracts are crazy. I only point out that they’re not.
Obviously, and I shouldn't even have to point this out,
this was in response to the poll question. Which says $254/10.
Yes, I’d sign him for a thousand years if it’s for a dollar a year, but that’s a silly strawman to be discussing.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
What do you think the "easy yes" line would be for Pujols and a ten year contract?
Just out of curiosity. If Pujols averages 4 WAR over the 10 years, it would seem that 200 million would be a reasonable floor, assuming that wins cost about 5 mil/year (and that should increase over time). I think 4 WAR makes sense if I think 2 8-win seasons, 2 6-win seasons, 2 4-win seasons, 2 2-win seasons and two seasons lost to injury.
The more I think about this, I’m thinking I want to change my vote to “barely yes”
Not sure but that's yet another variable
Which is better, 5 WAR each year for 10 years, or the declining scale from 8 to 2 that adds up to 50 in total over the same 10 years? I can think of arguments for either. Consistency and reliability are always nice, but if the goal is to take a shot at the World Series then maybe it’s better to have greatness, the ability to carry a team on his back, for a few years and then the hangover in the later years.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
The problem is that your use of "anyone" is ambigous.
I took “anyone” to refer to mean “any player”; you meant, however, “any voter in this poll.”
by philosofool on Dec 11, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
You're right, I did mean "any voter in this poll"
Sorry for any ambiguity. So my question is: how does any person say they would “easily” sign Pujols to a 10-year contract, with the assumption that the annual salary is his approximate market value, or at least not an obvious bargain.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 12, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
Every time a player signs, the other 29 GMs seem to disagree.
It’s impossible to think that every contract is crazy for the reason that all 29 other GMs disagree.
Also, many reports suggest that the Marlins did offer more money than the Angels, but were unwilling to give a no-trade clause and this was important to Pujols. Money isn’t everything.
There is a wide gap between "crazy" and "have to think long and hard about that one."
Yet another silly strawman to be discussing.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
To me this question hinges on what the M's payroll will be in 2015.
If the answer to that question is ~$90 million its an easy no. If its back into the ~$120 million range it was at 5 years ago then I’d be a lot more ok with it.
by wetzelcoal on Dec 9, 2011 1:21 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
One thing is for sure...
My dreams of having a team featuring a Fister-Pujols lineup is long gone.
italics make it special
Who cares about future dollars?
Not sure I remember accurately, but when Dave Winfield signed his big contract, everyone took it as a sign of the apocalypse. But by the end of some of these contracts (even A-Rod’s), sometimes the amount is no longer thought of as being that high. In ten years we may be seeing 400 million dollar contracts.
So I am not so sure that the later years may be as bad as we think.
The Alex Rodriguez contract is not looking great right now.
And it would look even worse if the lower-budget Rangers were still paying it, rather than the Yankees, to whom money is no object.
The contract the Rangers signed Alex Rodriguez would have expired this offseason
If we assume that he’d have produced the same WAR with Texas as with the Yankees (a conservative assumption, since he’d have stayed at shortstop for longer in Texas*), we end up with more than 70 wins in those ten years, with production only dropping off for the final two seasons. That’s a very reasonable $3.48M/win over the lifetime of the contract.
*Also standard caveats because WAR isn’t that good a tool and measuring defence is hard etc etc etc.
by Graham MacAree on Dec 9, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Wow.
That would’ve worked out really well for Texas.
Didn't even make that big a difference, since I rounded down from 72 wins
Regardless, that’s a really good deal no matter how you slice it
by Graham MacAree on Dec 9, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
If the M's were a .500 team last year, this would be a barely no.
But adding Pujols now would make us fringe contenders at best. For that reason, easy no.
I actually think the new CBA is going to drive some inflation in the market and that $/WAR will reach $7m or $8m in ten years.
Are we supposed to assume that the payroll is static with or without Pujols?
Cause I don’t think it would be, so in the sense it’s proposed, it might be less money, because the team may increase payroll to accomidate for Pujols that it might not for Nick Punto.
Unofficial Sounder Fan Club President - South Dakota Division
Cause if the ownership raise the payroll specifically for this move for something like $10m/year
Its a very easy yes.
Unofficial Sounder Fan Club President - South Dakota Division
But the Barely Yes poll was before the worst season of his career.
(Individual season, that is. His team did okay.)
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 9, 2011 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
Easy no.
But only with the information given. Shedding salaries (Figgins, Olivo, Vargas, and League) and adding payroll to add another name or two around Pujols and it’d be closer to barely no (depending upon how much payroll was to be added).
The Vote
I voted no, but if you had another poll if the Angels would sign him, I’d vote Awww… HELL no.
Easy no.
I’m a Cards fan too, and I wouldn’t have been comfortable with St. Louis offering him that.
Barely no.
I honestly think the talent for the price is a good deal, but I like what GMZ has done with acquiring cheap talent. If Pujols had been a free agent in 2013 or 2014 and we were missing that last piece, then I would have voted ‘Easy yes.’
For now, the Mariners are not on the cusp of winning the division. Texas is stacked and the Angels were missing the last important piece (and got Wilson to boot). I am going to enjoy watching Ackley and Smoak mature. Hopefully Hultzen will join that list. I hate the idea of settling for what we have, but free agency is perpetual and there will come a time when we are ready to sign a big fish. This was not the year.
Is there a way to go back and see how I voted on the first poll?
I can’t remember what I selected and I can’t figure out if there’s a way to view my selection?
Easy Yes
As I read through the comments, I must admit I don’t understand the “no” perspective. If the Mariners were to sign Albert Pujols, they would be a better team. Much better. In order for the answer not to be “easy yes”, you must be assuming that somehow the amount of money they are paying for him will hamstring them such that they will not be a better team. Why would you assume that? Do you not trust Jack Z? You could just as easily assume the opposite – that, if they’re willing to sign Pujols, they’ve decided to dramatically increase payroll. Maybe next they’re going to trade for Hanley Ramirez and sign Carlos Beltran to a one year, $12mm dollar deal. Maybe I should have voted “I don’t understand.”
Just because you "can" afford to pay something, doesn't mean you should.
by Patrick Stites on Dec 10, 2011 7:48 PM PST up reply actions
I'm a fan. I'm not paying Pujols anything.
It would be the Mariners doing the paying and they have a lot more information on the “should” part of the equation, as it pertains to them and their finances, than you or me. And more importantly, I, the fan, would get to watch Albert Pujols for 10 years. He would likely retire a Mariner. He is awesome. The Mariners would immediately be a better team, and for them to be worse in the long run for the signing requires you to make a lot of assumptions about payroll, revenues, inflation, etc., that I’m not sure how you can make. Maybe money spent on future hall of famers doesn’t count towards their budget or something. It just seems so simple. If you woke up in the morning and learned that the M’s signed Pujols, wouldn’t you just say, “YES!” and let Jack Z and the Mariners worry about the price?
"We have $X, would you spend it on Albert Pujols?" is a very different question than "We just signed Albert Pujols for $X, are you happy?"
In the latter case, the organization has already made the decision, and the fact it has says a lot about whether it’s a good decision for the organization or not. Also, the very announcement that we have $40mm in free payroll would itself make me extremely happy. “Easy Yes” to that one…
Yes, I know there's a reply button
But I forgot. Anyway, my point is really this (and sadly, I’m starting to sound a bit like Geoff Baker). I’m surprised that such a large percentage of LL readers would respond to an Albert Pujols signing with, “Well, he’s a very good player. Let’s see how this pencils out. Hmmm. I don’t think that’s enough value over a ten year period, considering age and risk. Perhaps if I we assume a different inflation rate…” To me, the obvious response is “HELLZ YES! PUJOLS IS A MARINER! FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS!” And again, it’s a very different question than: “You have $25mm to spend. How would you like to spend it?”
Do you remember 2009-2010 Ken Griffey Jr?
Do you want to pay him $25 million a year? That’s what you’d be getting in the last two or three years of the Pujols deal.
I'm not being objective
But Pujols has been my favorite player in all of sports until Felix signed his extension and I could comfortably root for him as my favorite player. The idea of both of them playing on the same team… my team, makes it an easy yes. I know the contract isn’t a good one in the long term, I know all the objective reasons to not want it and how it would hurt our future, but for me, Pujols is worth it. The reason why I loved the idea of Pujols and hated the idea of Fielder is that Fielder never had that connection for me. The idea of having to root against Pujols for the next 10 years sickens me. This is even worse than the Beltre signing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
