Should the St. Louis Cards sign Albert Pujols, or risk losing him to the Cubs?

5375721853_0824b93603.jpg


looks good to me
 
Hawkeye11en1 said:
So you want a 35 yr old, injury riddled starter? I'd say 2 years is about all he has left. Sounds about right for the Cubs, I guess. If the Cards get 5 more good years out of Pujols, that will be 5 more good years than the Cubs got from Soriano. So we get a pretty good player for 5 more years who is still making the club massive amounts of money....I will take that.

Now if you stole Wainwright after 2013, this would make sense.
Click to expand...

I meant wainwright, my fault. Also he wouldn't cost nearly 10 million/year which is much easier for me to stomach. Though I don't think that happens anyway.
 
DuffMan said:
While that's certainly true your argument only holds water if the Cards have only two options 1) Spend 300 million on Poo-holes or 2) Don't spend 300 million.

The reality is there resources are most certainly somewhat limited and thier payroll ceiling is likely to be fixed (in the neighborhood of 100 million) regardless of whether or not they sign him.

One could certainly argue that financially they would be better off using that 30 million to sign 3 quality players and continuing to win versus spending 30 million on Albert, 70 million throwing up a relatively inexpensive lineup around him, and playing consistently loosing baseball.

Go ask the Texas Rangers if selling a bunch of A-Rod jerseys made up for the fact thier average attendance plummeted from 2.8 million in 2001 (which was only up roughly 30,000 from 2000) in A-Frauds first year to 2.3 million in 2002, and 2.0 million in 2003 (revenue losses of 14 and 24 million respectively if you figure an average of $30 in revenue per fan) when the fans knew they weren't going to field a competitive team because thier salary was all tied up with one player.
Click to expand...

Completely different fan bases with different stadiums and attendance records (look at the Rangers last year. They were solid and attendance was really not that great). Not really fair to put them in the same boat. The Cards have a solid foundation with Pujols, Holiday, Carp and Wainwright. They will be competitive with that team for at least the next 3-4 years. The Rangers had nothing like that.
 
As a Cardinal fan I can only see this playing out one way. Whatever the Cardinals decide to do it will work out to be the best move in baseball and they will win another championship, and no matter what the Cuds do they will find a way to screw the pooch. Either way I’m not worried about the Cubs doing anything right.
 
hawkfarmer said:
I meant wainwright, my fault. Also he wouldn't cost nearly 10 million/year which is much easier for me to stomach. Though I don't think that happens anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Except if he has 2 more years of what he is doing, he will cost 10 mil a year (still nothing compared to Pujols 30 mil).

If the Cubs got Pujols or Wainwright, I would throw up. Just seeing that jersey made me lose my appetite. I am sure the Cubs will make a run at both of them, though.
 
DuffMan said:
While that's certainly true your argument only holds water if the Cards have only two options 1) Spend 300 million on Poo-holes or 2) Don't spend 300 million.

The reality is there resources are most certainly somewhat limited and thier payroll ceiling is likely to be fixed (in the neighborhood of 100 million) regardless of whether or not they sign him.

One could certainly argue that financially they would be better off using that 30 million to sign 3 quality players and continuing to win versus spending 30 million on Albert, 70 million throwing up a relatively inexpensive lineup around him, and playing consistently loosing baseball.

Go ask the Texas Rangers if selling a bunch of A-Rod jerseys made up for the fact thier average attendance plummeted from 2.8 million in 2001 (which was only up roughly 30,000 from 2000) in A-Frauds first year to 2.3 million in 2002, and 2.0 million in 2003 (revenue losses of 14 and 24 million respectively if you figure an average of $30 in revenue per fan) when the fans knew they weren't going to field a competitive team because thier salary was all tied up with one player.
Click to expand...

The Rangers were going the wrong way because of terrible management, not because of A-Rod. Their attendance was plummeting because their team sucked. His salary wasn't preventing Hicks from adding other players, they were just adding the wrong ones. They somehow managed to finish below average offensively having some pretty good players, and their pitching was even worse.

The options you lay out are: have Pujols at $30mm or 3 other players at $30mm total. Provided you are able to add the right 3 players, that's not a bad option. However, Pujols is a legitimate 7-9 win player whereas it's very difficult to get 3 guys at $10mm each to equal what Pujols brings to the team. Maybe the Cards won't be able to justify spending $30mm on 1 player, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth at least that much.

For reference, A-Rod got his first big contract as an 8-9 win guy. Ryan Howard is a 2-4 win guy and just got $25mm. One of these 2 players earned the money they got. One of them will never come close. Pujols will earn it.
 
Hawkeye11en1 said:
Completely different fan bases with different stadiums and attendance records (look at the Rangers last year. They were solid and attendance was really not that great). Not really fair to put them in the same boat. The Cards have a solid foundation with Pujols, Holiday, Carp and Wainwright. They will be competitive with that team for at least the next 3-4 years. The Rangers had nothing like that.
Click to expand...

But they aren't two completely different situations. In 2001 (the year they signed A-Fraud) they were in a relatively new ballpark (built just 7 years prior) just like the Cardinals, had been winning just like the Cardinals (they had won 3 the division in 3 of the previous 5 years), and had been drawing good crowds (on average 600,000 above the MLB average) in the previous fives seasons.

Actually when you compare the two situations they are eerily close.
 
DuffMan said:
But they aren't two completely different situations. In 2001 (the year they signed A-Fraud) they were in a relatively new ballpark (built just 7 years prior) just like the Cardinals, had been winning just like the Cardinals (they had won 3 the division in 3 of the previous 5 years), and had been drawing good crowds (on average 600,000 above the MLB average) in the previous fives seasons.

Actually when you compare the two situations they are eerily close.
Click to expand...

Situation wise, yes you are right. But in reality? Ownership, players and personnel are far superior than were the Texas Rangers at that point. At no point will the Cardinals attendance drop to below 2 mil after (or during) Pujols' tenure. Just don't see it happening.
 
ShadasRevenge said:
The Cardinals can't afford to pay Pujols the 300 million he wants because for whatever reason, they decided that Matt Holliday was worth 120 million over seven years. Not even the Yankees could afford to invest 420 million in two players, and if they can't the Cardinals sure as hell can't.

There are really only 4 teams that would be able to take on his salary in 2012, and those are the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and (assuming they get their finances worked out) the Dodgers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong the not even the yankees can afford to invest that money in 2 players. AROD is making 275, CC is making 161 and Tex is making 180. Those are all contracts within the time frame of Pujols and Holliday. Arod/Tex= 455, Arod/CC= 435. And the yanks have sources that said they wont entertain Pujols offers at all.
 
GravyJones said:
The Rangers were going the wrong way because of terrible management, not because of A-Rod. Their attendance was plummeting because their team sucked. His salary wasn't preventing Hicks from adding other players, they were just adding the wrong ones. They somehow managed to finish below average offensively having some pretty good players, and their pitching was even worse.

The options you lay out are: have Pujols at $30mm or 3 other players at $30mm total. Provided you are able to add the right 3 players, that's not a bad option. However, Pujols is a legitimate 7-9 win player whereas it's very difficult to get 3 guys at $10mm each to equal what Pujols brings to the team. Maybe the Cards won't be able to justify spending $30mm on 1 player, but that doesn't mean he isn't worth at least that much.

For reference, A-Rod got his first big contract as an 8-9 win guy. Ryan Howard is a 2-4 win guy and just got $25mm. One of these 2 players earned the money they got. One of them will never come close. Pujols will earn it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue that the Rangers were superior to the Cards organizationally but they were hardly a train wreck prior to A-Fraud. They won back to back divisions in 98 and 99, their lineup included Pudge Rodriguez and a very productive and chemically aided Rafael Palmero.

They didn't become a consistent cellar dwellar until A-Fraud came to town.

I won't argue that St Louis is a much better baseball town and is far more likely to support their team through thick and thin compared to Texas, but they have a lot more in common than they are different.
 
ShadasRevenge said:
The Cardinals can't afford to pay Pujols the 300 million he wants because for whatever reason, they decided that Matt Holliday was worth 120 million over seven years. Not even the Yankees could afford to invest 420 million in two players, and if they can't the Cardinals sure as hell can't.

There are really only 4 teams that would be able to take on his salary in 2012, and those are the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and (assuming they get their finances worked out) the Dodgers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong the not even the yankees can afford to invest that money in 2 players. AROD is making 275, CC is making 161 and Tex is making 180. Those are all contracts within the time frame of Pujols and Holliday. Arod/Tex= 455, Arod/CC= 435. And the yanks have sources that said they wont entertain Pujols offers at all.
 
Ahawkalypse said:
Sorry but you are wrong the not even the yankees can afford to invest that money in 2 players. AROD is making 275, CC is making 161 and Tex is making 180. Those are all contracts within the time frame of Pujols and Holliday. Arod/Tex= 455, Arod/CC= 435. And the yanks have sources that said they wont entertain Pujols offers at all.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. They're the Yankees, a team that has 250 million wrapped up in CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett. The Cardinals are making a huge gamble here in that they think he won't be able to get the kind of money he wants anywhere on the open market and will come back to them this fall with a lower price.
 
Hawkeye11en1 said:
Agreed. Except if he has 2 more years of what he is doing, he will cost 10 mil a year (still nothing compared to Pujols 30 mil).

If the Cubs got Pujols or Wainwright, I would throw up. Just seeing that jersey made me lose my appetite. I am sure the Cubs will make a run at both of them, though.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm struggling today. I meant that he's not 30 mill and he would be worth 10.
 
DuffMan said:
I'm not going to argue that the Rangers were superior to the Cards organizationally but they were hardly a train wreck prior to A-Fraud. They won back to back divisions in 98 and 99, their lineup included Pudge Rodriguez and a very productive and chemically aided Rafael Palmero.

They didn't become a consistent cellar dwellar until A-Fraud came to town.

I won't argue that St Louis is a much better baseball town and is far more likely to support their team through thick and thin compared to Texas, but they have a lot more in common than they are different.
Click to expand...

So they took the same basic (aging) core of the team, added the best player in the game (in his prime), and that's what made them worse? You do realize that, steroids or not, Alex Rodriguez has been one of the best players in the history of the game, right? Their offense, as a whole, regressed, and their pitching regressed even more. It was terrible roster management, not the addition of an elite talent. They had around $20mm tied up in the rotting corpses of Juan Gonzalez and Rusty Greer.
 
GravyJones said:
So they took the same basic (aging) core of the team, added the best player in the game (in his prime), and that's what made them worse? You do realize that, steroids or not, Alex Rodriguez has been one of the best players in the history of the game, right? Their offense, as a whole, regressed, and their pitching regressed even more. It was terrible roster management, not the addition of an elite talent. They had around $20mm tied up in the rotting corpses of Juan Gonzalez and Rusty Greer.
Click to expand...

And if they didn't have 252 million (not sure what his yearly rate was) tied up in A-Rod, maybe they'd have been able to sign some talent play alongside him. Contracts like his make it very hard for teams (even in big markets) to go after and get additional talent. We're seeing this right now with the Soriano deal in Chicago. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that it wasn't until after they got rid of A-Rod that Texas began to rebound.
 
GravyJones said:
So they took the same basic (aging) core of the team, added the best player in the game (in his prime), and that's what made them worse? You do realize that, steroids or not, Alex Rodriguez has been one of the best players in the history of the game, right? Their offense, as a whole, regressed, and their pitching regressed even more. It was terrible roster management, not the addition of an elite talent. They had around $20mm tied up in the rotting corpses of Juan Gonzalez and Rusty Greer.
Click to expand...

Don't you think thier pitching might have been improved if they had been able to sign 3 starters for 10 million per year, or perhaps two starters for 10mil and 2 bullpen guys who could get outs for 5 million per? Part of the reason thier pitching was abysmal was because much of thier money was tied up with one player.

I'm not saying they could have 3/5 of an all star rotation for that but 20 million in 2011 would get you Ted Lilly and Carl Pavano. Those are two pretty solid inning eating starters.
 
DuffMan said:
Don't you think thier pitching might have been improved if they had been able to sign 3 starters for 10 million per year, or perhaps two starters for 10mil and 2 bullpen guys who could get outs for 5 million per? Part of the reason thier pitching was abysmal was because much of thier money was tied up with one player.

I'm not saying they could have 3/5 of an all star rotation for that but 20 million in 2011 would get you Ted Lilly and Carl Pavano. Those are two pretty solid inning eating starters.
Click to expand...

Do you know who they had pitching? They had guys like Kenny Rogers (old) and Chan Ho Park (terrible) making big chunks of money. They let Kenny go because he was really, really old and let Park go because he was really, really bad. They brought in cheaper options who were also terrible, but the main reason they were cheaper is because they were younger.

We should have this debate in person. Maybe over $1 beers or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top