Should Pujols give a home team discount?

[Hornsby]

If the Cards are willing to give him $30M per then there's really no reason to do it now other than PR. If they are willing but they wait, there is a chance he finds out, without the Yanks and Red Sox, there just isn't $30M per on the free agent market and the Cards might save a little bit of money.

But, are the Cards ever gong to be willing to give him $30M? Is their only hope his best offers fall in the $22M-$25M range, and he decides his preference is to just stay put for that money?

I don't know where the Cards fans fall on this, but I tend to think the Cards are playing this the right way. They may realize they cannot give $30M to one player and still field a competitive team, especially when that one player is probably 34 and seeking a 10-year contract that will take him into his 40's. Everyone wants to call ARod's contract an albatross that will come back and haunt the Yanks, but if that kind of contract can haunt the Yanks then it can kill the Cardinals. I really think if I was a Cards fan this is exactly how I would want the Cards to play it. I want them to bring back Albert, but only if they are able to do it in a way that allows the team to stay competitive, and the only way the Cards can do it on their terms is if the market's just not there for Albert after the season.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that Pujols is probably 34? Because I keep reading that, and nobody can ever back it up...he played Legion ball here, graduated from a Missouri HS, and went to college. At SOME point early on, I would think that people would have questioned his age, but apparently it never came up until he became a star in the majors.

[Hammer]

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that Pujols is probably 34?

I read it on that internet-thingy.

[Erik]

Pujols has played 3B and LF in his career, remember. So I don't think that necessarily rules out teams that already have first basemen. 3B might be a bit of a stretch for him at this point, but LF wouldn't be.

[TopChuckie]

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that Pujols is probably 34? Because I keep reading that, and nobody can ever back it up...he played Legion ball here, graduated from a Missouri HS, and went to college. At SOME point early on, I would think that people would have questioned his age, but apparently it never came up until he became a star in the majors.

No, just long standing rumors, circumstantial evidence, and the eye test. Whether the Cardinals know the truth or not, I still suspect it's playing some sort of role in their decision making.

[TopChuckie]

Pujols has the profile and track record of a guy who will continue to produce for a long time. He deserves to be the highest paid player in MLB and I'm not really sure it's all that close. Dude might end up being the best hitter of all time (or at least in Ruth and Williams territory) when all is said and done. IMO, he's a better gamble to give a long contract to than a guy like A-Rod who has a lot of his value tied up in defense and speed (which tend to slip as a player ages).

So ARod is less valuable because he is a more complete player? Let's not forget ARod was well on his way to the All-Time HR record, coming off an MVP season, with no hip injuries or steroids concerns when they resigned him. He was also 31 at the time and if the Yankees regret that contract it won't be because he isn't stealing as many bases or winning gold gloves at 3B.

[Hornsby]

No, just long standing rumors, circumstantial evidence, and the eye test. Whether the Cardinals know the truth or not, I still suspect it's playing some sort of role in their decision making.

OK, what's the circumstantial evidence? The eye test? Because he was balding at an early age? I went to HS with a kid who was almost completely bald by the age of 19...it means nothing. Because he was built like a man when he was 21? Again, totally meaningless...go to any gym and you'll see a dozen guys under 20 who are built like the proverbial brick sh!thouse.

I suspect the only thing playing in the Cardinals decision (and I think that they'll eventually sign him), is if they can afford to pay him and still stay competitive.

[TopChuckie]

I am saying that the likelihood that whoever gives Pujols the same deal will regret it is far less, given his profile and that of players as they age.

I disagree, in 2007 there was no more evidence ARod's hitting ability would tail off than there is Pujols' will now.

[TopChuckie]

OK, what's the circumstantial evidence? The eye test? Because he was balding at an early age? I went to HS with a kid who was almost completely bald by the age of 19...it means nothing. Because he was built like a man when he was 21? Again, totally meaningless...go to any gym and you'll see a dozen guys under 20 who are built like the proverbial brick sh!thouse.

I suspect the only thing playing in the Cardinals decision (and I think that they'll eventually sign him), is if they can afford to pay him and still stay competitive.

Yeah, all that, the fact he's Hispanic and there is a long list of Hispanic players who have lied about their age when coming to America, he just happened to come at age 16 "just in time" to play baseball in high school, he went to a JUCO with a shady history, his JUCO coach is adamant his age is correct but "what difference does it make...just try to get him out", he dates older women, etc.

Look, I have no idea what's true, but I'm certainly not the only one who's not sure. Cardinal Nation isn't sure: http://thecardinalnationblog.com/201...tions-persist/, look at the poll of Cardinals fans, Rob Neyer says "There are still some reasonably intelligent people with reasonable doubts about Pujols’ age." The Hardball Times and their commenters aren't sure: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...e-early-years/

When $300M is involved, it is an issue.

[TopChuckie]

You're still not getting it. OK, moving on then.....

No, you aren't getting it, maybe this will help. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6...f-the-mountain

[Erik]

Uh, the Bleacher Report is the last thing you want to cite if you're trying to prove a point in an argument.

[senorsheep]

He absolutely should not give the Cards a discount because he's always deep down in his heart wanted to be a Cub and bring that franchise its first WS title in over a century.

That'd give the old Cards-Cubs rivalry a jumpstart, eh?

And we'd get to see how much of a Genius Tony LaRussa really is without Pujols pulling his cart...

[DMT]

That'd give the old Cards-Cubs rivalry a jumpstart, eh?

And we'd get to see how much of a Genius Tony LaRussa really is without Pujols pulling his cart...

I'm giddy in anticipation...went to school in the 'Lou so know dozens of Cards fans. Yes, us Cubs fans get giddy in anticipation because reality so rarely affords us that opportunity.

[TopChuckie]

I'm giddy in anticipation...went to school in the 'Lou so know dozens of Cards fans. Yes, us Cubs fans get giddy in anticipation because reality so rarely affords us that opportunity.

Would you be comfortable with them giving him $300M/10? Sincere question. I can see how Cubs fans would be the most willing, because if he did bring that World Series in just one of those 10 years, it would be worth every penny. Almost any other team though, I think I'd be afraid his salary will cripple them for most of the contract, assuming teams' budgets are anywhere near what they are actually able to spend.

[DMT]

Would you be comfortable with them giving him $300M/10? Sincere question. I can see how Cubs fans would be the most willing, because if he did bring that World Series in just one of those 10 years, it would be worth every penny. Almost any other team though, I think I'd be afraid his salary will cripple them for most of the contract, assuming teams' budgets are anywhere near what they are actually able to spend.

Honestly, it's not my $ so I could care less how much it costs to bring on the best player of our era (and possibly of all-time).

[TopChuckie]

Honestly, it's not my $ so I could care less how much it costs to bring on the best player of our era (and possibly of all-time).

No, it's not your money, or a fan's money, but it could hamstring your team to the point they can't put a competitive team on the field around Pujols, and that a fan should care about. The Cubs should generate enough revenue to afford Pujols, but I think a lot of fans of a lot of teams who wish their team would sign Pujols aren't considering the big picture. Also, even if the Cubs could push their payroll to afford Pujols and all the necessary complimentary pieces, it doesn't mean they will. They may be willing to sign Pujols but still insist on maintaining a certain payroll.

In other words, are you ok if your team becomes the next Texas Rangers of the early 2000's as long as you have Pujols?