Should Pujols give a home team discount?

[Hornsby]

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.

Ahhh, more internet speculation. Now that's solid gold...

When you actual evidence that he's older than he claims he is, please let us all know, will you? Until then, it's nothing more than crap. And yes, based on his consistent production, I'd happily give him a 10 year deal.

[DMT]

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?

I get your point but I really don't think the new Cubs ownership would blow that much on Pujols and then turn stingy. But even if that were the case, he'd still be worth it just to stick it to the Cards and their "best" fans. I spent four years in St. Louis and I saw a lot of empty seats from 1994-1997.

[Gregg]

It would be like the Cubs trading Fukudome, Silva, and Pena for Pujols. And still saving 4.5 million dollars.

Pujols takes over for the Pena, Wells for Silva, and Colvin for Fukudome. Yeah I think we could make that deal and still be very healthy to build a team around him.

[wilbur wood]

My $0.02

#1 The age. I tend to accept it more at face value. A ton of Latin players have already been "busted" on the Age Issue. Albert has not. He also went to U.S. high school which is another bureaucracy that accepted his age, aside from MLB, so he's had a bit more scruitiny than most other Latin players who were just signed out of the Dominican when they were "16".

#2 The Cards have already reaped a humongours "home town discount" on Pujols services. He has been paid ~ $90M over his 10 year career. Go and place a "fair market value" on the production that Pujols' actually generated for the Cards over those 10 seasons (using BP or any of the other "methods" for converting production into "earned value"). My seat of the pants guess is that Pujols' production has been several multiples of $90M over the past 10 years. So paying him $30M per season for the next 8 years may be an "overpay" for years 7 and 8 of said contract but it still wouldn't come close to "balancing the books". This is just how the game is set up and Pujols didn't maximize his earnings earlier in his career. Still even at $30M per year for the duration of his career the Cards will have come out the "winners" over his 18 to 20 year career

#3 To me the Cards are stupid to not have done this now because they could have included the 2011 season into the new contract. So a 9 year/$270 deal or 8 year/$240 deal that includes the 2011 season is less likely to be a loser in any given year than having to provide the same contract after the 2011 season (with 2012 being the first year under the new contract).

[TopChuckie]

My $0.02

#1 The age. I tend to accept it more at face value. A ton of Latin players have already been "busted" on the Age Issue. Albert has not. He also went to U.S. high school which is another bureaucracy that accepted his age, aside from MLB, so he's had a bit more scruitiny than most other Latin players who were just signed out of the Dominican when they were "16".

#2 The Cards have already reaped a humongours "home town discount" on Pujols services. He has been paid ~ $90M over his 10 year career. Go and place a "fair market value" on the production that Pujols' actually generated for the Cards over those 10 seasons (using BP or any of the other "methods" for converting production into "earned value"). My seat of the pants guess is that Pujols' production has been several multiples of $90M over the past 10 years. So paying him $30M per season for the next 8 years may be an "overpay" for years 7 and 8 of said contract but it still wouldn't come close to "balancing the books". This is just how the game is set up and Pujols didn't maximize his earnings earlier in his career. Still even at $30M per year for the duration of his career the Cards will have come out the "winners" over his 18 to 20 year career

#3 To me the Cards are stupid to not have done this now because they could have included the 2011 season into the new contract. So a 9 year/$270 deal or 8 year/$240 deal that includes the 2011 season is less likely to be a loser in any given year than having to provide the same contract after the 2011 season (with 2012 being the first year under the new contract).

I don't think #2 is relevant because I don't think there's any question in the Cardinals' mind that he is "worth" $30M, maybe even $40M. They aren't trying to reconcile his worth, they are trying to reconcile what they can afford to give him, and not have it turn out counterproductive because they can't afford to surround him with a competitive team. I don't think they are trying to play hardball with him to try and get a bargain so they can come out "winners", they are trying to make signing him as painless as possible so they can still afford to do other things and be real winners. Also, if they sign him for too much for too long, the day will come when not only are they are one-man team, that one man will no longer be giving them $30M worth of production.

[Erik]

Also, if they sign him for too much for too long, the day will come when not only are they are one-man team, that one man will no longer be giving them $30M worth of production.

They won't be a one-man team if their farm system produces talent that can produce at much higher levels than what they're paid. Any team aside from the Yankees that signs stars to megacontracts needs this to happen. So the Cards' confidence (or lack thereof) in their farm system might play a big part in the negotiations as well.

[wilbur wood]

I don't think #2 is relevant because I don't think there's any question in the Cardinals' mind that he is "worth" $30M, maybe even $40M. They aren't trying to reconcile his worth, they are trying to reconcile what they can afford to give him, and not have it turn out counterproductive because they can't afford to surround him with a competitive team. I don't think they are trying to play hardball with him to try and get a bargain so they can come out "winners", they are trying to make signing him as painless as possible so they can still afford to do other things and be real winners. Also, if they sign him for too much for too long, the day will come when not only are they are one-man team, that one man will no longer be giving them $30M worth of production.

I think that it is relevant for the question really asked in this thread. Should Pujols give a "home town discount"? He has given the Cards a huge discount (compared to someone like Longoria who got an eight figure contract as a rookie and might get FA contract right at year 6), probably the biggest aggregate "discount" to true value in the game today. So his willingness to do anything other than make his current team pay max value is less (or at least it would be with most people who have been significantly underpaid by their employers for a decade).

[DMT]

I get your point but I really don't think the new Cubs ownership would blow that much on Pujols and then turn stingy. But even if that were the case, he'd still be worth it just to stick it to the Cards and their "best" fans. I spent four years in St. Louis and I saw a lot of empty seats from 1994-1997.

Wilbon on board, but I think the more logical player to compare him to is the Babe, since he was the best of his era and switched teams whereas the Iron Horse did not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon/110218

It's not often that the refrain "Wait 'til next year" actually means something of consequence for the Chicago Cubs, but it does now. Of course the Cubs should move heaven and earth to sign Albert Pujols, precisely because this could be their best chance to transform not only the team, but the brand. Please don't bother me with what might happen when Pujols reaches 40 or 41 years of age and whether he'll be overpaid by then. Don't bother me with predictions of gloom and doom when the alternative is stealing away your hated rival's best-ever player and putting him into your lineup in the prime of his life.

[OaklandA's]

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?

Just wanted to point out that it wasn't A-Rod's contact that hurt the Rangers, it was everyone else they signed. During the three years from 2001-2003, A-Rod was paid $66M and was worth about 24 Wins. The problem with the Rangers is that the other $232M they spent over those three years only produced around 49 WAR.

[DMT]

I told ya...

http://bleacherreport.com/tb/b9slH