PDA

View Full Version : Pujols' season is ovah


DumpJerry
08-19-2013, 09:27 PM
Out with foot injury (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/los-angeles-angels-say-slugger-albert-pujols-done-for-season-torn-plantar-fascia-081913).

So far, that contract has been a bust.

DeadMoney
08-20-2013, 10:15 AM
Out with foot injury (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/los-angeles-angels-say-slugger-albert-pujols-done-for-season-torn-plantar-fascia-081913).

So far, that contract has been a bust.

And to think these were the two least expensive years...
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M

ND_Sox_Fan
08-20-2013, 10:27 AM
And to think these were the two least expensive years...
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M

With all of the crying and gnashing of teeth over Dunn's contract, this should put things into perspective relative to how bad one could have been.

Moses_Scurry
08-20-2013, 10:46 AM
If he gets back to his old form, then this year and last will be nothing more than blips. It's a big "IF" though.

doublem23
08-20-2013, 11:04 AM
If he gets back to his old form, then this year and last will be nothing more than blips. It's a big "IF" though.

Albert turns 34 years old before the start of the '14 season so it's almost a guarantee that we have seen his best days come and go. At least for his sake, he is now in the American League so hopefully he will be able to split some time at DH to preserve his body, but it's not a good sign he's dealing with foot injuries.

amsteel
08-20-2013, 11:14 AM
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M

Hahahahahahaha. Who's their GM? Richie Rich? i never knew how terrible of a contract that is.

I wonder if the Angels will be able to vilify Albert enough to get Bud to toss him and void his contract.

aryzner
08-20-2013, 11:17 AM
They are paying Josh Hamilton big money until 2017 as well. It's looking like a rough future right now.

Foulke You
08-20-2013, 11:41 AM
Both the Pujols and Hamilton deals were head scratchers. Pujols is going to get insane money until he is 42 years old. Assuming he ends up as a DH later in his career, he will still likely be a shell of his old self by then if not sooner. As far as Hamilton, he was so fragile mentally that it made little sense for Anaheim to add another expensive outfielder. Consider that they already had Pujols, Trout, Wells, and Bourjos for outfielders as well. It's like they signed Hamilton just to keep him away from Texas.

doublem23
08-20-2013, 12:03 PM
Both the Pujols and Hamilton deals were head scratchers. Pujols is going to get insane money until he is 42 years old. Assuming he ends up as a DH later in his career, he will still likely be a shell of his old self by then if not sooner. As far as Hamilton, he was so fragile mentally that it made little sense for Anaheim to add another expensive outfielder. Consider that they already had Pujols, Trout, Wells, and Bourjos for outfielders as well. It's like they signed Hamilton just to keep him away from Texas.

I can't think of any way at this point that Pujols's contract won't be the worst in MLB history by the time it expires.

DumpJerry
08-20-2013, 02:03 PM
Don't forget, this is only one of two contracts Pujols signed with the Angels. The second one is a ten year Personal Services Contract which kicks in for ten years after his current player contract ends. It states that he cannot be seen in public, in pictures, video, etc. wearing any logos or other identifying "marks" from any other MLB team. This means it will as if he never played for the Cardinals. It, too, is a very lucrative contract to ensure his compliance (if he wears a Cubs hat in public, the contract is immediately voided).

shes
08-20-2013, 02:16 PM
Don't forget, this is only one of two contracts Pujols signed with the Angels. The second one is a ten year Personal Services Contract which kicks in for ten years after his current player contract ends. It states that he cannot be seen in public, in pictures, video, etc. wearing any logos or other identifying "marks" from any other MLB team. This means it will as if he never played for the Cardinals. It, too, is a very lucrative contract to ensure his compliance (if he wears a Cubs hat in public, the contract is immediately voided).

Surely he can wear a StL hat at the HOF, no?

Rocky Soprano
08-20-2013, 02:26 PM
They are paying Josh Hamilton big money until 2017 as well. It's looking like a rough future right now.

Don't forget Vernon Wells.

WhiteSox5187
08-20-2013, 02:50 PM
I can't think of any way at this point that Pujols's contract won't be the worst in MLB history by the time it expires.

I think that it was a bad contract, but Alex Rodriguez's contract is looking like it will be the one to beat for "worst contract in MLB history."

DumpJerry
08-20-2013, 03:01 PM
Surely he can wear a StL hat at the HOF, no?
Apparently not. He sold his soul to the Devil 100%.

Irishsox1
08-20-2013, 03:24 PM
Did Albert ever take "Legal Action" against Jack Clark for his PED allegations?

Ex-Chicagoan
08-20-2013, 04:15 PM
Surely he can wear a StL hat at the HOF, no?

I believe that's up to the HOF to decide, not the player or his contract. Wade Boggs had it in his contract to go in as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray, and they ignored that.

amsteel
08-20-2013, 06:40 PM
The fact the Angels have 105$M committed to 5 players in 2016 makes me think we're closer to a lockout than anyone thinks.

Even with the 234523456234663$ TV contract the Angels signed, that's just stupid spending.

shes
08-20-2013, 09:10 PM
Apparently not. He sold his soul to the Devil 100%.

Wow, and I just looked it up and it's only $10M for 10 years after this contract ends. I just can't understand that at all.

DSpivack
08-20-2013, 09:15 PM
The fact the Angels have 105$M committed to 5 players in 2016 makes me think we're closer to a lockout than anyone thinks.

Even with the 234523456234663$ TV contract the Angels signed, that's just stupid spending.

The Dodgers have plenty of crazy contracts, too, the difference is that their players are both good and not all on the wrong side of 30.

doublem23
08-21-2013, 09:27 AM
I believe that's up to the HOF to decide, not the player or his contract. Wade Boggs had it in his contract to go in as a Tampa Bay Devil Ray, and they ignored that.

The hat his plaque has is ultimately up to the HOF (the player, from what I understand, can ask for a certain team, but the HOF has the final decision). Albert just can't wear a Cardinals hat at his HOF induction himself.

Hitmen77
08-21-2013, 12:08 PM
And to think these were the two least expensive years...
2012:$12M
2013:$16M
2014:$23M
2015:$24M
2016:$25M
2017:$26M
2018:$27M
2019:$28M
2020:$29M
2021:$30M

Wow! :o:

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.

Don't forget, this is only one of two contracts Pujols signed with the Angels. The second one is a ten year Personal Services Contract which kicks in for ten years after his current player contract ends. It states that he cannot be seen in public, in pictures, video, etc. wearing any logos or other identifying "marks" from any other MLB team. This means it will as if he never played for the Cardinals. It, too, is a very lucrative contract to ensure his compliance (if he wears a Cubs hat in public, the contract is immediately voided).

Incredible. The Angels are paying $10M a year for 10 years for this? Why would they care if a 50 year old Pujols walks around with a Cardinals hat? Is it worth that much to them to make sure that doesn't happen?

Noneck
08-21-2013, 12:14 PM
I must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.





Thats why it annoys me when people talk about saving a couple million here and there. Its all chump change to these owners, they have to be raking it in hand over fist.

DeadMoney
08-21-2013, 12:46 PM
Wow! :o:

Just like the Yankee$ signing A-Rod through age 42 at $30M a year, these teams can't be shocked when these guys in all likelihood start fading or breaking down around age 32-35 or so and that the last 7 years of the contract will be terrible.

It must go to show you how much money some of these owners are raking in if they can hand out crazy contracts like these.


It gets even better when you look at their distributions to only six players (those 2015-2016 years will be fun; especially since it's AFTER Trout hits Arbitration)...

Yr(dwn)-1----2-----3----4-----5-----6---
2012: $12M------$14M $10M $4.5M-------
2013: $16M $15M $16M $11M $8.7M $8.5M
2014: $23M $15M $16M $16M $9.4M $8.5M
2015: $24M $23M $18M $18M $9.5M $8.5M
2016: $25M $30M $20M $20M-------$8.5M
2017: $26M $30M
2018: $27M
2019: $28M
2020: $29M
2021: $30M
1. Pujols
2. Hamilton
3. Weaver
4. Wilson
5. Kendrick
6. Aybar

SouthSideMike
08-21-2013, 02:00 PM
Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.

mzh
08-21-2013, 02:48 PM
Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball.
I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.

SI1020
08-21-2013, 02:52 PM
Can't understand how contracts like these keep getting handed out in an era where stats are so much more precise and mathematically sound.

It should be known by everyone now that declining skills of players in their 30s is pretty much a given based on the evidence out there. And sometimes the decline is very rapid. Obviously there are exceptions, but there's really no way of knowing whether the player you're signing will be one of the exceptions to the rule.

Yet still we see these massive contracts to guys in their 30s based on past performance and not future value.

This is the reason people like Hawk, i.e. the anti-stats/anti-math crowd, just need to get out of baseball. Really?

SouthSideMike
08-21-2013, 03:40 PM
I don't see what this has to do with math or advanced stats. I'm pretty sure anybody who's ever watched a game of baseball (or any sport for that matter) could tell you that a player probably won't be as good at 35 as he was at 25.

That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.



Really?


Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?

asindc
08-21-2013, 04:07 PM
That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.






Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?

I fail to see the correlation between Hawk's view of baseball and LAAAAA's signing of Pujols. Even if advanced metrics were not utilized in their analysis (a far-fetched assumption, I think), there is very little in the way of traditional scouting that would lead anyone to believe LAAAAA will get even close to their money's worth with that contract.

WLL1855
08-21-2013, 06:21 PM
Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically?

You go make love to your numbers. I'll be over here trusting what my eyes can see.

soxnut1018
08-21-2013, 07:08 PM
You go make love to your numbers. I'll be over here trusting what my eyes can see.

You know you can use both, right?

amsteel
08-21-2013, 07:19 PM
You know you can use both, right?

Unacceptable. This is the internet. You have to pick one side and unrelentingly defend it.

SI1020
08-21-2013, 07:23 PM
That's being very simplistic. What about rate of decline by position? In football, a running back has a lot less longevity and more rapid decline than say a QB due to the physical abuse they take. Catcher is a more physically demanding position than say first base.

Stats give you the ability to quantify things and compare every possible variable for an informed decision.






Yeah, really. Baseball is still full of people who use sentimental evaluation criteria like leadership, hustle, or even physical appearance as part of their evaluation of a player.

Wouldn't you rather make a decision on a player based on data you can put your finger on rather than a hunch or something that's not able to be rendered mathematically? I'll just refer you to what asindc posted in reply to you. I also fail to see how you can connect the Pujols signing and Hawk or anyone else's opinion of modern baseball metrics.