Pujolsapalooza: Multiple Reports - 10 Year Contract with Angels

[Big Z]

He's 25 million cheaper.

Like I've said before, I love Pujols and he is one of my favorite players in the league, but he's expensive as fuck.

[Valid]

I think Gaby can get the job done at 1st base. Let's boost up our rotation and forget about Pujols.

Pujols would do much more for this team than merely adding a decent pitcher would.

[lou]

Second half last year: .225/.320/.359, 19 XBH total (3 HR). Gaby probably shouldn't be anyone's first choice.

As much as I believe in progression of younger guys (side note, yea Gaby isn't super young, but he has only 2 years in the MLB. Maybe he doesn't have ceiling, but he's still young in MLB terms and getting used to the league for progression purposes) and that second half stats do matter, I don't think Gaby is a poor choice. You also can't summarily discount the first half and his prior year. I think Gaby is a first choice for a lot of teams right now. Longterm for 3-4 years? Probably not because he doesn't have the 30+ HR upside and what we all like to think as a prototypical 1B, but Gaby could very well be a solid unspectacular starter moving forward. Among qualified 1B, Gaby was 12th in WAR (3.0) in 2011, and that includes Carlos Santana who isn't exactly a 1B. That's ahead of some very notable guys like Howard, Pena, and Trumbo. In 2010, he was 14th (2.3 WAR).

At club controlled and probably first and second year arbitration prices, this is a very beneficial baseball player to have and a team gets a lot of value out of him.

Now this is the second time today we've come up to this point, but what the hell is wrong with a completely average starting player? I sure as hell want a star or potential star at every position moving forward, but that isn't realistic unless you're the Yankees and buying everyone and drafting above average. Maximizing the team's assets is possible though, and I have a hard time in thinking a guy who profiles as a top 12-18 1B at $430,000 isn't maximizing the current team's resources versus spending $200 million for 8 years for Pujols. Albert has been worth 7 more wins than Gaby the previous two seasons. Over the next two years, Albert will likely make at least $45 million dollars than Gaby. That seems like a lot of money for 7 wins over two seasons, where if you say add Reyes for $15 million or so a year, you probably get 5-6 wins per year with gains at SS/Hanley to 3B. And you can afford Buerhle/Madson/Cepedes/whatever on top of that which adds even more wins for what Pujols annual salary is. I mean we can take this farther and also assume you can trade Gaby and something else comes back from that, but it's just so hypothetical and problematic. The simple choice is fix the areas of need with the payroll you have. Don't upgrade the average until problems elsewhere are addressed. (of course, if Loria wants to open the bankroll to $120 million, screw it and do it, but I think we all know that's a dream and end of the day it will be a more 'responsible market correction' number).

I'm not crazy about Gaby, but just like Buck, I appreciate him and think he is a really good fit for this team right now. In fact, he's kind of perfect because ideally he is the starter 2012-2013 and providing solid production at great value, Logan shifts over to 1B in 2014, and Yelich takes over LF. That's got to be the longterm idea with those spots with the teams assets. Keep Gaby while he is cheap and affordable, move in the higher upside options when they are realistic replacements.

Then you look at the team, devoid of anything in CF now and longterm (I like Bonifacio and consider him an average starter pretty much anywhere which is a compliment to him, but I only really consider him a longterm answer at 2B/SS, and the team obviously isn't ready to commit either of those to him at this time or play him at either of those spots), no legit 4 and 5 starters now and no SP prospects coming that profile above a 4 (and all three rotation holdovers have had major arm surgeries), and Dominguez might never hit. I know you and others are not directly advocating ignoring these spots so I'm not intending to put words in anyones mouth here, but that's kind of what is going to happen for Pujols because I can't imagine payroll goes to a significant number over $100 million to accommodate fixing the "problem areas" and starting to upgrade the solid options the team does have.

What would happen is just what happened in Texas with ARod. It would be awesome to have him, but not make the team significantly better with ignoring other parts of the team. Albert is the luxury, not the offseason. They need to get a big bat for wherever Bonifacio isn't, and add at least 300 innings, preferably 400 to the staff. If Loria has money leftover, by all means Pujols would be amazing, but not fixing the rest of the team first just for the sake of Pujols blows the short and longterm strategy for the team.

He's amazing, but he's just not the right fit unless Loria really ups the payroll and have already 'fixed' all the problems the team has now. Gaby isn't a top 5 problem on this team right now. Free agency money needs to fix these problems first. Best bang for the buck.

Or they play Pujols or Gaby at 3B and everything works out (I am kidding).
--------------------

Pujols would do much more for this team than merely adding a decent pitcher would.

See above, but he really wouldn't. The team would get 2-3 players for his salary and upgrade positions with players comparatively 'worse' than Gaby. I think Reyes/Buerhle/Upgraded Backup Catcher/Gaby is considerably more valuable than Pujols/What you trade Gaby via trade.

And I'm just talking 2012-2013, not the atrocious backend 20s of millions of dollars you would owe Pujols 6 years from now.

[Jay]

Lou we'll just trade Buck for Lackey and have Gaby catch if we sign Pujols.

[Miamarlin21]

He was a catcher at one point...

[Swifty]

My problem is striving merely to be average. If you keep getting back to the what's the matter with "a completely average starting player" the answer, of course, is that we have too many of them.

I have never been a fan of Gaby's that is no secret. If you can upgrade, you do it, I think his is a very easy position to upgrade be it with LoMo or Pujols.

I also have a hard time seeing the "terror" of Pujols that some do; quite simply, if the Marlins are handing out "serious" offers to the trio of Buerhle, Reyes and Pujols, it indicates to me that the franchise knows something about their revenue streams being beyond the assumed levels. I really could care less about the future if the first two years of our ballpark are filled with awesome. Then I'll worry about Jose's hammys and Pujols being 58 years old. Not now. I'd much rather go for broke in the first year of the new park and end up with an enormous tab in three years than continue to muddle around being average.

Shit, look at Philadelphia, they were reckless going into Citizen's Bank, they had a pretty expensive also ran but fans kept coming out because the ballpark was nice and the team was filled with stars. I'd rather that plan than the Pittsburgh/San Diego one.

[Bobbob1313]

It's not about "striving merely to be average."

It's about accepting where we have value in house, and adding from there.

If you have an in-house average 1B making the minimum, money would be better spent filling a position where you don't have an in-house option.

[Swifty]

Then this is merely about your perception of "value."

[Mainge]

Then this is merely about your perception of "value."

More than half of Pujols' production at just under 2% of his cost is good value.

That's not perception, that's fact.

[dim]

Don't know if this was posted yet, but the offer to Pujols reportedly was a nine year contract.

That's one hell of a offer that apparently is just for show, according to stupid executives

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...y_young_111511

The Miami Marlins aren’t messing around. Their standing offer to Albert Pujols(notes) is believed to be for nine years. With a competitive average annual value (say $25 million), that’s $225 million, minimum, and that’s more than what the St. Louis Cardinals are believed to have offered in the spring. Is it possible that two weeks into November Pujols could already have what will be his best offer?

  Spoiler:

WGSH

[Swifty]

More than half of Pujols' production at just under 2% of his cost is good value.

That's not perception, that's fact.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Slicing a good player's production in half is not desirable, right?

[Ramp]

Don't know if this was posted yet, but the offer to Pujols reportedly was a nine year contract.

That's one hell of a offer that apparently is just for show, according to stupid executives.

good lord

[Swifty]

Hummina hummina

[Big Z]

Wow, 9 years? that's no joke. I'm guessing the offer is in the low 20's maybe 23?

[Ramp]

has to be atleast $25mil I would think, as the Cards original offer was 9/210 or $23.3 per