FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Didn’t see a mention of Bourjos who seems assured of being the starting CF given his defensive value.

    Comment by Justin — December 8, 2011 @ 11:20 am

  2. Nevermind, you said corner OFs. (oops)

    Comment by Justin — December 8, 2011 @ 11:21 am

  3. Girardi: “CC, I’ve been thinking, maybe we shouldnt walk Albert here, I mean, do we really want to risk a baserunner with Vernon Wells up next?”

    Comment by JDanger — December 8, 2011 @ 11:21 am

  4. i agree it seems like a lot of downside risk for the angels without a lot of room for surplus value. the one way i could see rationalizing it, is if the team sees pujols as the difference in reaching the playoffs 2 or 3 times over the next 5 years. the marginal value of those playoff appearances could make him worth it.

    Comment by dudley — December 8, 2011 @ 11:23 am

  5. As a Mariners fan, thank you Dave for talking me off the ledge. The M’s weren’t going to win in 2012 anyway, so this move might actually benefit them in 2013 if the Angels don’t up their payroll and have to let a bunch of their good pieces go.

    Comment by Patrick F — December 8, 2011 @ 11:26 am

  6. can they put together a deal for hanram involving santana or some other pitcher?

    Comment by jesse — December 8, 2011 @ 11:27 am

  7. I did the math last night and 250 mil in 2021 money (real inflation at 3.5%) is, if 1 WAR continues to inflate at 10% a year, what 50 wins are worth. Mind you, 25 million in 2021 is not 25 million today, particularly if inflation continues to trend as it has in the past 50-75 years, so the contract actually works out to less that 250 million 2011 dollars- (and I think that’s where you were getting your 40 wins? right?). 250 million in 2011 dollars will be worth 340.7 mil in 2021 money

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 11:27 am

  8. The Angels’ TV contract goes from $50M to $150M a year starting next year, something that changes the equation a bit financially. And internal faith in Morales’s foot healing correctly seemed shaky at best from official accounts. They’ve always seemed to dance around the issue, as if they don’t expect much.

    Comment by Christo P. Ney — December 8, 2011 @ 11:29 am

  9. You are forgetting: a huge reason why this is awesome for the Angels is because the LA market is theirs to take right now with the Dodgers’ troubles. And with their new media contract coming into play, they can afford it.

    Comment by Joshsaysgomo — December 8, 2011 @ 11:29 am

  10. on second thought, with albert’s declining walk rate, iso, defense, and base running, the angels are going to be seriously hating this contract five years from now unless they win the world series.

    they’re paying him like he’s still the 8 win, 25 year old guy, rather than a 5-6 win guy in his 30s who doesn’t seem to be aging particularly gracefully.

    Comment by dudley — December 8, 2011 @ 11:31 am

  11. I think it’s a brilliant business move and worth the risks. The Dodgers are floundering, and Artie Moreno has just given the more fair-weathered baseball fans in SoCal a reason to support the Angels. Ticket sales, merchandise sales, and revenue from local media rights will all increase due to this signing. I think a player like Pujols is far more valuable to a franchise like the Angels, who have always had to play in the Dodgers shadow, and now have an opportunity to substantially increase their share in baseball’s second largest market.

    Comment by Greg — December 8, 2011 @ 11:32 am

  12. Exactly. This is a HUGELY aggressive play for the LA market at a time most ripe for such things.

    Comment by Christo P. Ney — December 8, 2011 @ 11:36 am

  13. Did Kendrys Morales’ foot fall off or something? What the hell is taking him so long to recover???

    Comment by Pat — December 8, 2011 @ 11:38 am

  14. Lucky they didn’t bet the future on me.

    Comment by Chone Figgins — December 8, 2011 @ 11:44 am

  15. Dave: They’re not necessarily betting on Pujols aging better than expected. They could be betting on huge salary inflation over the next decade. The Tulo and Braun deals from earlier in the year suggest that teams were already expecting high inflation, and the new CBA should also further inflate free agent salaries going forward.

    It’s definitely a risky deal, but it’s also very possible it ends up working out for the Angels.

    Comment by Jono411 — December 8, 2011 @ 11:44 am

  16. You have fallen into a trap. Pujols struggled for less than two months. The rest of the season, he was the same Albert Pujols he has always been, except he wasn’t drawing intentional walks because Holliday and/or Berkman were hitting behind him.

    You are predicting future performance based on about 200 plate appearances and ignoring what Pujols did from late May through the postseason, as well as a decade of work.

    Comment by Greg — December 8, 2011 @ 11:46 am

  17. This deal is about a LOT more than on-field value.
    Pujols is going to add revenue to the team. The ballpark is already packed, but it will only get more crowded (and more expensive), meaning more income. This is also capable of elevating the Angels – Rangers rivalry to one of the major dramas in baseball.

    The team will sell more merchandise. There are marginal value issues with this – the added value comes when fans who would not buy Weaver jerseys (or already did) buy Pujols jerseys. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Pujols will add a lot more jersey purchases, considering the Angels have no players in the same stratosphere as Pujols.

    Race plays a HUGE part in adding to Pujols value. If you think I’m overstating this, you probably haven’t been to Angels or Dodgers Stadium lately. The Angels’ only player who is even close to Pujols in quality and popularity is Weaver, a blonde surfer kid who will never be as popular as Pujols with Latino fans. Signing Pujols while the Dodgers are in trouble also helps crowd on their market.

    This deal is a lot like the Vladimir Guerrero signing before 2004. Moreno paid a lot for a Latino superstar and future Hall of Famer. Vladi helped increase the team’s value, which has skyrocketed since Moreno purchased it, and Pujols is likely to do the same.

    DiPoto has gotten off to an exciting start. Now it’s time to see if he can do something with 3-4 extra position players to get a reasonable 3B. (We know the Mets want Bourjos for Wright. Can’t get rid of Bourjos, but the Angels have a glut of relatively valuable middle infielders.)

    Comment by J — December 8, 2011 @ 11:47 am

  18. I see this as a $50 million or so overpay.

    Comment by ken — December 8, 2011 @ 11:47 am

  19. [img][/img]

    Comment by Jason Hanselman — December 8, 2011 @ 11:47 am

  20. just to put numbers to it:

    if you assume Pujols is a 6 WAR player for 2012 with 0.5 WAR decline per year, and that the price per win starts at $5 million and inflates by 10% per year, he’d be worth $270 million over 10 years. and that’s assuming a slightly front-loaded contract where he gets paid what he’s worth each year – if it were flat or back-loaded, that number probably jumps to $280-$290.

    those are definitely aggressive assumptions, but not unrealistic at all.

    Comment by Jono411 — December 8, 2011 @ 11:48 am

  21. Oh good: Ron Washington will have more opportunities to intentionally walk Albert Pujols with the bases empty.

    Comment by Raff — December 8, 2011 @ 11:50 am

  22. This is bad info. Curse me for listening to sports radio. With Pujols, the final TV contract could exceed $100M but $150M is a stretch to say the least.

    Comment by Christo P. Ney — December 8, 2011 @ 11:52 am

  23. Err

    This assumes 3% inflation for both PV and $/WAR, while a 4/3/2/1 Marcel yields 7.0 WAR first year with 10% decline each successive year. The surplus compares PV to Value instead of FV which is more commonly cited.

    Comment by Jason Hanselman — December 8, 2011 @ 11:53 am

  24. mind you I lump summed that 250. It looks different if you grade it out.

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  25. Arte Moreno paid $180M for the Angels and they’d fetch $500M or more right now. He has the money, wanted to make a splash and did.

    Comment by Eric H. — December 8, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  26. I wonder if other people are falling into the trap you are Greg, and they’re just discounting the first two months of the season as if they didn’t happen. I don’t expect him to be a 5 win player like he was last year – I think he’ll bounce back to some extent – but I wouldn’t completely through out those 200 plate appearances and assume that he’s an 8 win player for the next several years.

    Comment by vivalajeter — December 8, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  27. I much preferred the Pujols creates contenders article to this one. A team with World Series ambitions and a small window shouldn’t be content with the whiffs of Trumbo or that broken jumping-bean returning.

    Comment by Aase — December 8, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  28. I thought it was pretty accepted that WAR inflated at a10% rate?

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 11:59 am

  29. None of these charts that people are putting up breaking down his value have any kind of allowance for injury. What happens to his value over 10 years if he misses even just 100 games? The impact is maximized if it happens next year obviously, but any injury it seems to me could tip this contract towards a net loss, and serious injury could tip seriously into the red.

    Comment by Oliver — December 8, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

  30. Heap big buyer’s remorse.

    Comment by Mat — December 8, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

  31. Steinbrenner-esque

    Comment by john — December 8, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  32. Dave, I seem to remember you saying that you’d pay 10/$250MM for Pujols in a chat session.

    Also, you don’t really talk about the off-the-field value that Pujols, as not only one of the two or three greatest first basemen ever but also as one of the top 20 players of all time, brings to the franchise. Not only that, but he’s the greatest Hispanic player ever in a huge Hispanic market, playing for a team owned by a Mexican.

    The revenue possibilities are enormous, even if Pujols only “earns” $200 million on the field.

    Comment by jonnybardo — December 8, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  33. You are falling into a trap as well. You are throwing away data for no reason other than “Albert Pujols is too great to suck for 200 plate appearances”. Obviously I don’t think those 200 plate appearances measure his true talent but if those occurred somewhere in the middle of the year, then you wouldn’t be able to throw those away so quickly. i think you need to look at all the data.

    Comment by Los — December 8, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

  34. Dave Cameron, Mariners fans and notable Angels hater, is bitter and in search for ways to help himself sleep better at night, knowing deep down that his Mariners are going to be irrelevant for a long time, and it will be all about the Angels and Rangers in the AL West in the forseeable future. Sweet Dreams, Dave.

    PS Don’t speak about the Angels and this deal thinking and acting like you have any kind of clue what you are talking about. The Angels didn’t sign Pujols for just his numbers. This was a business decision that goes beyond anything you are able to comprehend while in this bitter and agitated state.

    Also, what will you to say when the Angels get their new TV deal that will blow their current one out of the water, allowing them to spend, spend and spend?

    Comment by BitterDave — December 8, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

  35. Also, what he did from May to the WS was with a BROKEN ARM that he had miraculously healed in like the 1/3 of the normal time. Pujols is not a human, he’s a machine, or a genetic ubermensch that defies the standard age and health protocols.

    Comment by Big Erv — December 8, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

  36. The inflation rate for WAR if you go 5 Million a win gets pretty nuts.5 WAR a year over the next ten years is worth close to 500 million dollars in 2021 money (again, assuming regular ole inflation hovers around 3.5%).

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

  37. As a jays fan I’m worried

    Comment by Wnromely — December 8, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

  38. I still think it is too long of a deal for someone Pujols’ age, but at least the Angels have the option of making him a full-time DH in 4 or 5 years. He could end up as a Vlad Guererro-type player. All of the other suitors were NL teams and did not even have that option (except for during our beloved interleague games).

    Comment by Craig — December 8, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

  39. WAR is situation dependent (depends on R) and what I get from this article is that Pujols WAR is even lower than one might otherwise expect. That is, unless they manage to trade someone off for a good price. If they get a bum deal because of the firesale, then you have to knock that off Pujols WAR as a LA fan (though not as a baseball fan).

    Comment by Barkey Walker — December 8, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

  40. Half way through this contract the Angels are going to view Pujols the same way the Yankees now view A-Rod. Oy vey! What were we thinking?

    Comment by maqman — December 8, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

  41. This whole thread seems to be a series of traps

    Comment by Admiral Ackbar — December 8, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

  42. You can tweak it however you like as far as rates go, but it’s my feeling that the inflation rate should be pegged to the discount rate. This probably isn’t reflected in reality, but theoretically they should be similar. This is just my take. If everyone used this form with their own tweaks the consensus would probably be much closer to reality than any individual take.

    Comment by Jason Hanselman — December 8, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

  43. exactly. with long-term deals like this, the #1 factor in how it looks in retrospect is salary inflation.

    if the price per win goes up to $12 million by 2021 (ie 10% inflation per year), then it’s pretty tough for this to look bad for the Angels. if it only raises up to $6.5 million by 2012 (ie 3% inflation per year), there’s almost no way it looks good for the Angels.

    Comment by Jono411 — December 8, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

  44. Why is the price per win inflating by 10% a year? That’s astronomical….we really think a win is going to be worth $10 million in 2020?

    Comment by Adam — December 8, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

  45. As an A’s fan, I can not type much more without a stream of cursing.

    Comment by TheGrandslamwich — December 8, 2011 @ 12:22 pm

  46. with your decay statistic though, we essentially agree though that the Angels are making money here, right? I definitely agree with how you see his WAR curve going

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  47. Spot on.

    Comment by Rays Daze — December 8, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

  48. I think they will based on this, but this is strictly a model. There’s a thousand things that could happen that could sink this deal so it might look great on paper, but there is still a ton of risk here. Teams with deep pockets can assume that risk and know that there’s a good chance that they’ll do well and if they don’t they can still spend. No small market team could have taken this on even if you guaranteed the deal to make money for the franchise in the short and long term.

    Comment by Jason Hanselman — December 8, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

  49. I’m thinking they’re betting on some significant salary inflation over the next ten years.

    I mean, they basically just forced that to happen with this deal. Ryan Braun and Matt Kemp, you guys had the wrong agents!

    Now that I think about it, anyone who could have waited, should have waited for Pujols to sign. It’s a good day for Prince Fielder.

    Comment by noseeum — December 8, 2011 @ 12:32 pm

  50. Now this seems like a promising thread!

    OMG, it’s a…

    Comment by Admiral Akbar — December 8, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

  51. I’ll try and build a risk assessment model that excludes catastrophic outcomes- but just eyeballing it the reward justifies the risk even if you take the pure EV

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

  52. Forbes had the Angels valued at $554M this year. With a new TV contract and Pujols, that number just increased significantly.

    Comment by Christo P. Ney — December 8, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

  53. There it is!

    Nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, and a swarm of -1 votes by Cameron whenever someone criticizes him.

    You’re a brave soul, BitterDave!

    Comment by Flounder — December 8, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

  54. Personally, I’d still say they overpaid- that’s what. ;)

    But considering how much they’re shelling out for Wells, maybe the Angels just have a very different valuation for either WAR or inflation than the rest of the market?

    Comment by B N — December 8, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

  55. Now it’s being reported that the Marlins actually offered the highest dollar amount, $275 million, but were rejected because they didn’t give a full no trade clause.

    Comment by Matt — December 8, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

  56. I’m glad Pujols is out of the NL, better for my Giants.

    Comment by Hurtlockertwo — December 8, 2011 @ 12:53 pm

  57. Don’t mind me….. I’m not even here.

    Comment by TRAP — December 8, 2011 @ 12:53 pm

  58. Does Pujols have a shot at the HR record? If so, that’s a ton of revenue and publicity there.

    Also, I was under the impression that the Marlins actually offered more money than did the Angels. But, I guess we will see once more details are released.

    Comment by ineedanap — December 8, 2011 @ 12:53 pm

  59. And, of course, a flood of bitter comments any time Dave posts anything — I swear, the man could say the sky is blue and he’d get complaints — by would-be wits who are only half right; followed by the same person posting approving comments under a number of aliases.

    Honestly, some of you really need to get a life. So he didn’t agree with you on the org rankings two years ago — so get over it, it’s boring.

    Comment by The Ancient Mariner — December 8, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  60. I know just when the WC berth looked more easily attainable and declining Angels wake up with Pujols/CJ Wilson.

    Comment by tdotsports1 — December 8, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

  61. I actually like Pujols to the Angels for $250 more then to the Cardinals for $220 for a couple of reasons.

    First off, I figure the last part of Pujols game that will deteriorate is his batting eye. So even if he’s only hitting 20 homers and batting .280, he will still be a decent offensive player just based off the fact that he knows the strike zone. I could see him having some years similar (maybe not quite as good) to the very end of Bonds’ career, where he was still leading the league in OBP, but nothing else. Like bonds though, I could see Pujols’ legs going out in the next six years or so, and just unable to play first base every day. Going to the AL instead of staying in the NL opens up the opportunity to keep his bat in the game for more games at the end of the contract.

    The other reason I like it more for the Angels is that signing Albert really does make them a contender the next couple of years. Sure, he would have helped the Cardinals a lot too, but I think that the Cards still have a solid shot at the playoffs even without Pujols. Especially if they use some of the money they would have given to him to shore up the middle infield. For example, think of these two options:
    Option 1: Pujols at first, Berkman in right, Craig on the bench, and Theriot at short.
    option 2: Berkman at first, Craig in right, Rollins at short, plus enough money left over to add some pitching help.

    Comment by JayT — December 8, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

  62. Well someone is bitter here and it’s not Dave, who has more important challenges in life than to waste time naming a team.

    Hope you can some day find enough peace of mind with yourself that you don’t lash out at others.

    Comment by rotofan — December 8, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

  63. As predictable as Dave’s Mariner fan ass-lickers coming to his defence?

    Comment by Bill — December 8, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

  64. while i don’t agree with the fanboy cameron hating, it is perceptive that the tone certainly has changed since the age deception post and yesterday’s “This is how long term deals work – you accept that the player is going to be overpaid at the end to get value at the beginning.”

    seems like the angels are at the right spot on the win curve for this deal to make sense, especially if revenue (and therefore payroll) expansion in 2012 and 2013 is true.

    Comment by hmm — December 8, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

  65. Another valuable perspective on this: Even if the franchise loses money on the deal, it is worth it for the psychic benefits. (see

    Angels fans, including myself, have never been so excited for the next season. Spending like this on Pujols and Wilson (when we already had a decent team) changes everything. The Angels are no longer the Dodgers’ little brother. It’s been coming for a long time, but it seems clearer than ever today that in LA, the Angels are the Yankees, and the Dodgers are the Mets.

    That has a LOT of value to Moreno. Imagine how much the Mets would pay to become the Yankees.

    Comment by J — December 8, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

  66. Looks like you got trapped by spelling errors and slow keyboard trigger time…

    Comment by Tizzelino — December 8, 2011 @ 1:04 pm

  67. Obviously the angels have money to burn. Should we start analyzing the angels moves like we do the yankees?

    Comment by adohaj — December 8, 2011 @ 1:10 pm

  68. 10 year deal for a 32 year old (in January)?

    How does that make sense?

    Comment by Sean — December 8, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

  69. There’s a ton of downside risk here. I think one factor that is underrated is that there is a bit more to Pujols than simple WAR. He’s his own brand; TV ratings should improve from last year, even if they end up with the same win total. The Pujols brand should allow them to market themselves more effectively.

    Comment by piratesbreak500 — December 8, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

  70. Angels have a LONG way to go before they reach the Dodgers level in popularity.

    Comment by Michael — December 8, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

  71. The Angels aren’t even a “Los Angeles” team

    Comment by iafca — December 8, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

  72. If anything, this period of Dodgers history is probably equivalent to the Yankees in the 80s-early 90s, when New York was a Mets town. Once they get a owner that treats them like they should be treated then they’ll be powerhouses again.

    Comment by Michael — December 8, 2011 @ 1:28 pm

  73. I wonder what Prince Fielder will get now and who is interested in him?? I haven’t a single thing about Fielder and he should be getting the big bucks too.

    Comment by Hurtlockertwo — December 8, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

  74. How much $$$ do you think Albert made himself during the World Series playoff run?

    People seem to forget that he put up the worst line of his career in the regular season, not exactly a harbinger for prolonged success.

    What type of contract does he get if the Cards don’t make the playoffs on the last day of the regular season?

    Comment by Sean — December 8, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  75. What doesn’t make sense to me is that the deal was so much higher than other reported offers for Pujols.

    I see the deal, along with the Wilson signing as Moreno trying to position the Angels as the Yankees West. They have about as big a market as the Yankees, with the potential TV revenue. They both share the market with a dysfunctional National League team with profound financial woes. And they both will have an aging superstar on their roster at age 40+ making more than 25 million a year. They both have an elite division rival that will keep fan interest high throughout the season.

    Comment by Kazinski — December 8, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

  76. I don’t think option 1 will work after they failed to sing Pujols. If it does… deal of the century for the Cards.

    Comment by Barkey Walker — December 8, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

  77. It should, but there’s still inherent downside risk in the marketing piece. If he puts up 4 seasons of 6-7 WAR maybe the initial fan-mania will stick, but he could be viewed as ARod part 2 if the decline starts soon – over-paid money sucker not helping his team. He’d still be a carnival attraction in St. Louis in four years if he was hitting .260 with 20 HRs.

    Comment by Keith — December 8, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

  78. A minor, but important note: The Angels probably won’t keep Kendrick and Aybar beyond 2012 because of one Jean Segura, a former 2B who is being converted to SS. Segura was considered a five-star prospect by Kevin Goldstein before last year (which he missed much of due to injury) and projects to be a .290/.370/.450, 40+ SB type…better than Aybar, in other words, and maybe better than Kendrick.

    But the point is, the Angels have cheaper options and a better farm system than many (Fangraphs) think, especially at the lower levels. After Wells is gone (after 2014, maybe sooner if he sucks), the only expensive position players will be Pujols and Kendrick (or Aybar); everyone else will be young, under club control, or just on the verge of getting bigger contracts (some variation of Bourjos, Trout, Trumbo, Segura, Cron, Conger, C Ramirez, Cowart, Grichuk, Calhoun, Amarista, etc).

    Comment by jonnybardo — December 8, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  79. you win fangraphs today

    Comment by jim — December 8, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

  80. Amen. At best it’s usually a preface “fyi these numbers don’t inlude injury risk, BUT…”.

    The odds of Albert missing 1 year worth of gametime over his 10 is probably fairly sizeable. Obviously there’s more risk as he gets older, and you’d only be missing out on the 2 WAR player or w/e he’d be near the end. But, I’d be amazed if he didn’t miss a material amount of games while he’s still 35 and still dropping 5 WARs on the league.

    Comment by Keith — December 8, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

  81. I haven’t determined how many traps I have fallen into, but there is not a single MLB player in his 30’s worth $25 million a year for 10 years. Nor can anyone make a plausible business argument for doing so. The signing of Pujols is a very risky bet against the future. If the Angels wanted to make a big splash to secure increased in-park, tv, etc. revenues, 3 years at $30-35 million (with option years) would have received the same air play for less than half the financial risk. Look at the charts of players in their 30’s and how quickly their skills erode. This was a dumb move.

    Comment by Mark Houston — December 8, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  82. Good article Dave.

    Comment by vivaelpujols — December 8, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  83. really? would the angels have passed up on pujols if they’d signed figgins? or would they have passed up on vernon wells? i’d much rather be paying pujols and figgins right now than paying pujols and wells so that mike trout can stay in AAA.

    Comment by tom s. — December 8, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

  84. Can you imagine how much beter this deal looks if they didn’t mkae the Vernon Wells trade, and gave Napoli a chance to play? Wow.

    Comment by Eminor3rd — December 8, 2011 @ 3:09 pm

  85. Pujols didn’t just miss out on intentional walks, he was swinging at everything and basically only getting walks of the unintentional-intentional variety. I personally think he was pushing to get his batting average and RBI totals up, though nobody around him would ever admit that.

    Comment by cpebbles — December 8, 2011 @ 3:09 pm

  86. Wrong. The Angels played in Los Angeles before the Brooklyn Train Dodgers came to LA.

    Comment by Erik J — December 8, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

  87. The discount rate shouldn’t only include inflation, but also the rate Moreno’s going to be earning on the money he hasn’t paid Pujols yet. I believe that billionaires typically have access to relatively safe investments that pay at a higher rate (which is totally fair and fine: if you need $2 billion quickly you pay a four billionaires 7% interest instead of trying to put together a couple million smaller investors at 4%). I was assuming 3% inflation and 7% return, but Dan Szymborski didn’t like it so I dropped to 3%+4%. At those numbers, and depending on how backloaded Pujols’s deal is, I put the NPV between $165m and $180m in 2011 dollars. That works out to only around 35 wins at the 2011 rate, which strikes me as a likely number for Pujols to clear.

    Comment by byron — December 8, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

  88. As an Angels fan, the way I look at it is this…a 41 year old Pujols making $25 million couldn’t hit any worse than what a 32 year old Vernon Wells making $24 million last year did

    I think I’ll manage. And obviously, with this new TV deal about to get inked + bringing Pujols….the Angels may very well be capable of sustaining a payroll around $160-$170 million. In that case, they shouldn’t have a problem having somebody like Pujols taking up $25 million of it. They have Weav and Wilson for 5 years at some pretty good deals….they’ll have guys under club control like Bourjos, Trout(god it will be sexy to see him and Pujols hitting back to back), Segura, Garrett Richards and others

    Kendrick may be tough to bring back…but thats where Segura steps in. Aybar won’t cost much, even if they WANT to bring him back. They have Conger to eventually replace Iannetta. The only problem is what will they do at 3B for the future and continuing to fill out the rotation(since I don’t know if they’ll be able to keep Haren once he’s a FA in 2013)

    Angels are in good shape and I think with the situation the Dodgers are in + PUjols in town, the ANgels will make soooooo much more money in merchandise sales, tv ratings, etc.

    Comment by sausagemcbiscuit — December 8, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

  89. But Pujols wouldn’t have signed a three-year deal, so the Angels would have been making a splash in an empty pool.

    The problem with using average players, or even very good players, as comps to predict how Albert Pujols will age is that Albert Pujols isn’t like anybody else. He is the best hitter of his generation. He is perhaps the greatest right handed hitter the game has ever seen. And so using lesser players as comps is highly problematic. To do so, you have to conclude that Albert Pujols is like everybody else. You have to buy into a fiction.

    The two hitters in the Post-War era closest to Pujols in ability, reputation, and consistency of performance are Henry Aaron and Barry Bonds. No one, not even Frank Thomas, can boast of an 11-year run like Pujols has had from the start of his career. And if Pujols ages like Aaron or Bonds, then the Angels got a bargain.

    I am fine with one concluding that based on probability, Albert Pujols will decline rapidly through his 30s, and the Angels may have $25 million/year going to an aging unproductive player. But nothing Albert Pujols has accomplished in his career has fit in line with probability. I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that he, like Aaron and Bonds, will defy the odds and continue to evolve and adapt as a hitter and be very productive until he’s 40.

    Comment by Greg — December 8, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

  90. If i were an Angels fan (im not) this deal would actually piss me off. Sure its great to get Pujols but this team sat on its hands at the trade deadline during a pennant race and pretended it was tapped out financially. Meanwhile Texas made a slew of deals and still stuggled down the stretch.

    Comment by jpg — December 8, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

  91. It’s a trap!

    Comment by David — December 8, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

  92. $250 to $260 million range over the next 10 years, nearly 13 percent higher than the next best reported offer

    10% is the current California tax rate and your basic full gross-up goes like this: ($22.5m+($22.5m*(10%/(1-10%)))= $25,000,000. Those involved in this deal probably factored in the creditability of other states’ taxes and the deductibility against the Fed Tax.

    On a personal note, this is my first mathematical contribution after several years of posting useless comments. And I’ve been an Angel fan since I can remember remembering. The kids got chocolate and ice cream for breakfast to celebrate.

    Comment by Steve Balboni — December 8, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

  93. You are ignoring the business aspects of this deal. The Angels will easily make the $250M back with merchandise, endorsements, ticket sales, the new TV contract, etc. So even if they take a small hit on the field, it is totally worth it for the Angels.

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 5:32 pm

  94. I was trying to think of big guys who had recently had long careers, and came up with Thome, who seems to have aged pretty well. But he’s nowhere near 40 WAR – he’s at 24.9 past age 32, using bWAR (because they have better search/database tools). Of course, Pujols is much better than Thome over the beginning of his career, but he also has a swing that torques his core more and might be harder to maintain as he ages.

    Edgar Martinez is the only non-Bonds recent guy to top 40 WAR from his age 32 season onward. And he’s basically Pujols without power (or fielding). But he’s also a smaller guy (listed 6 foot, 175 pounds) and so he’s built to put less strain on his body than Pujols (listed 6’3″, 230, and possibly weighing more these days?)

    Of course that’s non-Bonds. And maybe you want to compare him to the other best-of-generation guys than the other guys of the same size or other recent guys.

    Comment by DCN — December 8, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

  95. I have a hard time believing you’d be pissed if your team got Pujols lol if so, you need to remember back to when you were a kid and start enjoying the game again. The guy’s the best hitter in the sport. Even if they overpaid, it’s exciting for the fans for this upcoming season and the next few. And besides, as I commented below, you can’t ignore the business aspect. The Angels will make that $250M back with merchandise, ticket sales, etc., so this will be a good deal in the end.

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

  96. Houston gets a year off from facing Pujols.

    Comment by Chris S. — December 8, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

  97. The last time Edgar Martinez weighed 175 pounds he was still living on the island. The man was thick through the legs and hips like Albert Pujols. And he was almost certainly a bit shorter than his listed height. Edgar probably played at about 215 on about a 5’10” or 5’11” frame in the latter part of his career.

    Comment by Greg — December 8, 2011 @ 6:13 pm

  98. As a Ranger’s fan, the article seems pretty dead on. It opens a 2 year window for the Angels to go at a ring, then it puts them in a serious bind, then a lot of regret, that grows year after year after year after year, etc.

    Pujols has almost assuredly peaked, and elite players tend to have a steeper decline than normal players.

    CJ is probably a good deal, but again, 5 years is a lot for a SP his age.

    Comment by TexPantego — December 8, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  99. I didn’t realize that St. Louis put Albert on the trading block last July. No wonder he signed with the Angels.

    Comment by Greg — December 8, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  100. Bingo! First respondent to mention the full no-trade. That’s what will turn this stone into a noose after about year 4 of this contract. I agree that the Angels have a window to become the premier ball club in southern California, but this contract will keep them from signing their home grown stars to longer contracts for quite some time. Think Giants when Barry was around – Angels will be in the same boat, always good enough to get close but not good enough to win it all..

    Comment by fergie348 — December 8, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

  101. Used to partner with my brother-in-law in a fantasy league. Had some real interesting ideas. Would draft a team’s backup closer to monopolize that team’s saves. Would draft a busted arm closer with the full expectation that the guy would get his job back when he returned for the last two months of the season.

    The other thing was the guy was “name”-crazed. Figured if a guy was a household name must have put up bout a decade’s worth of stud stats. Since wouldn’t know a stat from a hole in the ground ONLY way to figure. Wouldn’t touch a rook because a rook never done nuttin. So would trade anything, the whole freakin team for the “name”. Since the team wasn’t worth nothin, usually that was when the “name” was dead and buried.

    I don’t know…guess this stuff is irrelevant.

    Comment by vilhelm — December 8, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

  102. for what its worth…the difference between a TV contract and the Yankees TV contract….the Yankees OWN their TV station. They don’t pay percentages to anybody. They don’t owe anyone anything. While the NYY are worth 1.5 billion, their TV station is worth 3 billion. No team in any sport could find a TV contract like that unless they owned their own network…thats what sets the Yankees apart from everyone else….they basically print money with their TV station.

    The Angels can have a new TV contract. But they still won’t have a TV station….therefore they will never bring in the money that the Yanks do. Not even close.

    Comment by ocyankee — December 8, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

  103. or what its worth…the difference between a TV contract and the Yankees TV contract….the Yankees OWN their TV station. They don’t pay percentages to anybody. They don’t owe anyone anything. While the NYY are worth 1.5 billion, their TV station is worth 3 billion. No team in any sport could find a TV contract like that unless they owned their own network…thats what sets the Yankees apart from everyone else….they basically print money with their TV station.

    The Angels can have a new TV contract. But they still won’t have a TV station….therefore they will never bring in the money that the Yanks do. Not even close.

    Comment by ocyankee — December 8, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

  104. You almost had it perfect…

    But if there is a lefty behind Wells… he walks BOTH Pujols and Wells as lefty-lefty matchup trumps everythingin Girardi’s binder.

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

  105. Morales had to have a second surgery this year, so it’s taking him at least twice as long to recover.

    Comment by marshen — December 8, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

  106. Alex Rodriguez is just as comparable to Pujols as Aaron.

    Comment by Richie — December 8, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

  107. The merchandise thing has been debunked time and time and time again. More Pujols jerseys will mean fewer Trout jerseys, fewer Wilson jerseys, and so on. A very strong substitution effect exists there.

    Comment by Richie — December 8, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  108. If we really want to debate the effect a signing like this has on attendance, merchandising, etc. wouldn’t the effect of a Pujols, or a Halladay signing be unique from market to market? Teams like Seattle or Houston have large markets that are currently underutilized more or less because the team sucks, and thus would benefit greatly from the expectations generated. However the Yankees or Red Sox signing a similar player is so par for the course that I would guess the isolated financial effect (after adjusting for the relative size in fan base) would be less pronounced. What I’m getting at is the consistent rise in popularity the Angels brand has experienced since it began aggressively rebranding itself about 6 years ago. How do you sell more tickets if you’re already selling out games? If LAA really intends to position itself as the Yankees of the west or whatever, a possible consequence of that could be that the financial gains from the Pujols signing may not be as great as one would typically anticipate.

    Comment by Larry Bernandez — December 8, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

  109. This has been debunked time and time and time again. For so long as baseball free agency began back in the 70s.

    Comment by Richie — December 8, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

  110. There are also assumptions that Pujols will keep playing as he produces .5 WAR. I don’t see that happening.

    Thome and Edgar are good comps. Thome has produced 4 WAR over 650 PA in the last two seasons. You won’t have to platoon AP5.

    I also think there’s quite a bit into this for making a big play to take over the LA market. There’s much more at play than just the standard average WAR calculations and inflation.

    I have a feeling that each year we’ll be talking about the eventual demise of the Angels, like Philly, and they’ll continue to contend. IMO, projections of the Angels demise will fall into the realm of wishful thinking.

    Texas will be the team that drops in success. LAA will likely win the division quite a few times over the next decade, conceding that none of us really have any idea of what’s likely to happen after the next few years. LAA has been good for a decade now, and they just got better for the next few years at least.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 8, 2011 @ 7:38 pm



    Comment by Henry — December 8, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

  112. They didn’t.

    Comment by Joe — December 8, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

  113. As a Cards fan I don’t get this move from Pujols but I’m actually oddly okay with him leaving. A couple of things to consider from his point of view that don’t make sense to me and I hope the more astute members can help me: the tax rate in Cali is 9.33% but only 6% in Missouri. Doesn’t that drop the value of dollars right there? Second, the cost of living in Cali is 50% higher (according to so doesn’t that also lower the dollar value of the contract? And finally, does Fangraphs believe the decline of the last three years is sustainably easy or does it become more precipitous each year?

    Comment by CardinalsFan — December 8, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

  114. The Yankees don’t own the YES network. The ownership of the Yankees is a part owner of YES.

    If Tom Hicks was part owner of an oil company would you say that the Rangers owned their own oil company?

    Granted YES is tied fairly directly to the Yankees but don’t confuse the ownership situation and assume the cash flow is all one big entity and directly controlled and owned by the Yankees.

    Comment by Tom — December 8, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

  115. Write it down. Dave Cameron and other Mariners fans predict that the Angels having Pujols on their roster in 2013 and 2014 hurt their chances to contend.

    If the Halos were just to lock up Aybar, Kendrick, and Haren for a little longer, this 86 win team will be back in 95 win territory even without significant increase in offensive output.

    Yep. Have to love a partisan’s advice.

    Let’s record this for posterity:

    “I don’t know that spending $25 million per year on Pujols is actually going to provide a better return than using that money to lock up some combination of Aybar, Kendrick, and Haren, and if the Angels have to let several of those players go to keep their payrolls at reasonable levels, it’s not clear that they’ve actually improved their ability to contend during the time when Pujols still projects as an elite player.”

    Aybar, meet Jean Segura.
    Kendrick, meet Alberto Callaspo and Maicer Izturis, and the young pitching prospects you’ll be traded for.
    Dan Haren, meet the replacement your 14M annual salary buys.

    Whatever happened to fungible assets? Why should the Angels view Kendrick and Aybar as eight figure players?

    Only Cameron knows.

    Comment by Turk's Teeth — December 8, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

  116. okay, i get it…”research knows best.”

    i still bet Albert is different.

    southern california is vanity central. so many ‘casual’ dodger fans will want to go with the trendy team.

    makes sense that last year someone was deciding ‘between’ a Hunter jersey and a Wells jersey. that’s an existing fan.

    i believe they will gain fans, and those fans will buy merchandise.

    Comment by Jimbo — December 8, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

  117. Putting my house up for sale, should be out of town shortly

    Comment by Jack Z — December 8, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

  118. Funny, though Hunter is a more formidably (and likely) clean up guy.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

  119. Kendrick was worth 4.3 rWAR and 5.8 fWAR. He’s certainly worth extending, and probably will be. I can see them paying Haren too. I think that is where you trade Santana.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 9:45 pm

  120. He broke his leg in the worst way possible

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

  121. ” There are more radical plans – release Wells, move Trumbo to third base ”
    ditching Wells would be fantastic, but if youre the Angels and are actually thinking about moving Trumbo to 3rd base, then why not just let Pujols play there for a season until you can sign/trade for a real 3B?
    if he can be anywhere near average defensively at third, it would make a lot more sense, and would be a better way to use resources imo

    Comment by cs3 — December 8, 2011 @ 9:53 pm

  122. Vlad based at least part of his game on speed and much of his game on leg strength – legs that were prematurely shot because of the Stade Olympic concrete. Very different kind of decline cycle.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

  123. Difference is that Albert can be played at DH later on in the contract. If Albert becomes David Ortiz with better base running, he’s still a 5 win player. Think about that.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

  124. Incorrect. The Angels were founded in 1961. Dodgers moved in 1958.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

  125. Said effect didn’t exist with Manny in L.A.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

  126. You also have to consider that his salary is only taxed in California on a pro-rata basis based on number of games played (obviously, he will play the most in CA). MO’s top rate is 6% (CA is 9.3, not 10).

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

  127. One issue with the way the PV factor is calculated in the .png files:

    It’s taking the present value of the salary and subtracting it from the future value of the benefit (expressed in future WAR x future $million/WAR pt).

    There is a mismatch here. It’s appropriate to use future benefit – future salary to determine the future net benefit. Then you present value the net benefit. Using this method matches the time period of the benefit received with the cost incurred. Doing it the other way artificially reduces the cost.

    Back of the envelope assumptions present valued at 3% using a mid-year convention:

    a) 6.5 yr 1 WAR declining by 0.5 per year through year 8 (WAR = 2.5). Then a drop to 1.5 and 0.5, which is basically consistent with about every elite HOF player.

    b) $million/WAR of $5 million in year 1. Increasing 10% in year two, and then stepping the increase down 1% per year until it levels at 3% (the discount rate).

    c) $25 million per year for first five years, and $26 million for next five. Assumed payable over the season.

    NPV = + $6.1 million.

    Not a lot of margin for error for the Angels, and the downside is much lower than the upside as far as the WAR projections go. My hunch is if you probability-weighted various WAR scenarios, theNPV is a bit negative.

    Comment by Nat76 — December 8, 2011 @ 10:36 pm

  128. but this contract will keep them from signing their home grown stars to longer contracts for quite some time.


    Did you see the part where two big contracts come OFF the books after 2013?

    Wouldn’t that be about the time longer extensions would be offered to guys like Trout and Borjous if they showed they were going to perform as expected?

    We need to stop looking past 2014 as if we have any idea of what any team will be like 4 years from now.

    Who won’t the Angels be able to sign because of the Pujols deal?

    How many here would have said that the Wells contract would have prevented a 10y contract to Pujols? My guess is “all of us”. Let alone signing Wilson to a favorable contract. There was an article here titled “Don;t Sleep On The Angels” and pretty much everyone is assuming Texas is going to walk away with the division for years to come because of the LAA’s bad contracts.

    Not to toot my own horn (Beep Beep), but I was the only one that mentioned that CJ Wilson had not yet resigned with TEX. That he signed with LAA is just ironic or coincidental, I forget which.

    LAA gained about 6 WAR with these 2 upgrades, while removing 3-5 WAR from TEX. One day, 9-11 WAR swing.

    All of these predictions of what affect Pujols contract is going to have on the Angels years down the road are pretty much blind guesses because we don’t know much about the 2015 Angels or the 2015 anything.

    You don’t think Mike Trout would sign a long term extension for Vernon Wells annual contract? I’m guessing the money from Wells + Hunter would allow LAA to sign any 3 of their prospects to long-term extensions, if they wanted to.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 8, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

  129. Not only did Miami offer him more money but they also offered him the opportunity after 2 seasons to play for another organization based on which one would give the marlins the most prospects in return.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 8, 2011 @ 10:57 pm

  130. Edgar also had horrible knees, which prematurely aged him.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 10:58 pm

  131. Took another quick look at what I said and changed a few things:

    a) 2.5% inflation/discount rate, which is actually more in line with history after the early 80s. This drops the NPV a bit.

    b) probably a little conservative on future production so 6.5 WAR at 10% per year decay. NPV is now + $10.9 million.

    c) probability-weighted this scenario at 70%. One was a career resurrection where he produced at 9 next year, declining 10% per year therafter. NPV of $121.7 million. Weighted at 10%. The other was a missed year in year 4, and then modest production at 0 WAR to 2 WAR for the last 5 years of the deal. NPV of -101.0 million.

    Weighted, they came out at essentially zero (-0.5 million). The off the field financial benefits aren’t factored into this, and those will likely be huge. The only way they aren’t is if Pujols takes a total dive for a year or two. His marketing power in a new home with a subpar season or two might actually produce negative franchise goodwill in that scenario.

    Comment by Nat76 — December 8, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

  132. I agree. All of the great and wonderful things this site says about an age 37-40 Edgar Martinez could easily be said of Pujols.

    Similar hitters/type on lots of levels, outside of Pujols being, well, y’know, a lot better.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 8, 2011 @ 11:00 pm

  133. CJ doesn’t have as much mileage on his arm as most SP his age.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 11:00 pm

  134. 1) The state is California, not Cali (like the city in Colombia).

    2) Remember that MLB players pay state tax on a pro-rata basis based on how many games they play in each different state. That Pujols will play a double schedule in Texas (no state income tax), which will help defray the tax rate. Further, Pujols gets to deduct state tax from federal tax.

    3) Pujols will see his endorsement income rise.

    4) The cost of living for the super rich doesn’t change much from place to place.

    Comment by AA — December 8, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

  135. They will gain fans so long as they win more than they’ve lately won. Once they start losing with a badly overpaid 1st baseman, they will then lose fans,.

    Comment by Richie — December 8, 2011 @ 11:52 pm

  136. I was in LA for 2 years. The people there are little vainer than anywhere else. The place is also spread-out huge, so they just won’t gain that many (attending) fans from the northern and eastern parts of the town.

    And the town is very loyal to the Dodgers. They’d have to absolutely stink for 10 years with the Angels concurrently being good for those 10 years for the Angels to seriously slash away at their fan base.

    Comment by Richie — December 8, 2011 @ 11:57 pm

  137. If Pujols at age 23 (coughcough) had been average defensively they never would’ve moved him. He has as much business starting at 3rd this coming season as you or I do.

    Comment by Richie — December 9, 2011 @ 12:00 am

  138. Cardinals fans all riding the….
    | WAMBULANCE |||””‘|””\__,_
    | _____________ l||__|__|__|)

    Comment by Chone 'Figlet' Figgins — December 9, 2011 @ 12:28 am

  139. Figlet, that wasnt funny in any of the other articles you posted it in either.
    Hope you didnt actually waste the time to make it yourself

    Comment by cs3 — December 9, 2011 @ 12:34 am

  140. In this entire thread, not a single mention that the Angels could be the wild card. God forbid that the Red Sox and the Yankees don’t have 2 playoff spots to split amongst themselves.

    Comment by Gary — December 9, 2011 @ 2:01 am

  141. “without power (or fielding).”

    Martinez hit over 300 hr in the big leagues. I think you meant to say LESS power. Pujols has a career slugging % 102 points higher.

    EM could also field ok, but was moved to DH primarily to keep him healthy, because he kept re-aggravating a hamstring injury and missing games. Had he been in the NL he probably would have done what Pujols did, moved to 1b. Actually Pujols moved to the easiest available defensive position in his age 24 season, while EM did it at 32.

    Not to say EM is Pujols’ equal because he isn’t close. AP’s worst season as measured by OPS+ is still higher than Martinez’s career mark of 147. But a lot of people seem to undersell Martinez for some reason – probably because he played for some bad teams up in the corner of the country, but he was a top shelf hitter. His HOF chances aren’t helped by the misconception that he was “without power or defense.” And yeah, he wasn’t anything close to 175 pounds for the second half of his career.

    Comment by Alaska Pete — December 9, 2011 @ 5:02 am

  142. How many guys are there in the top 60 wOPA players at the age of 36 and older?

    Comment by Joey B — December 9, 2011 @ 10:53 am

  143. Not sure if it was much of a consideration for Pujols or his agent, but speaking of states with no income tax…don’t forget the Mariners in Washington. Not to mention that the Astros will be joining the AL West in 2013, putting 3 out of 4 division opponents in no income tax states.

    Comment by Taxman — December 9, 2011 @ 10:58 am

  144. How about you post your name, address, and phone number so that when you are inevitably enjoying paying Pujols $25mil/yr to sit on the bench with a pulled muscle and complain about the lack of appreciation for his talents, or watching his batspeed swirl around the toilet bowl over the next three years, the rest of us can either call or show up at your door to laugh in your arrogant face. Beat Texas first, then maybe you can start to talk…until then, you’re just another moron sycophant.

    Comment by Rangers12 — December 9, 2011 @ 11:48 am

  145. Cocaine is a hell of a drug…..

    Comment by — December 9, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

  146. Actually AA, the Angels were in LA way before that. Just not in the Majors. The PCL was gaining popularity, so MLB absorbed it and made it a minor league and also moved the Dodgers and Giants to the west coast to squash the competition.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — December 9, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

  147. The Angels have a history of successful attendance and high spending. The Phillies don’t. The Angels also have a lot less locked up . Hunter’s 18M is gone next year and then 2 years after that, Wells’ 21 or whatever is gone. Plus the Angels have a much better farm.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — December 9, 2011 @ 3:52 pm

  148. Trumbo could be pretty good trade bait now too right? You figure the Angels have a lot of money coming off the books in the next 3 years with Hunter and Wells, they can easily resign the extremely talented young players they have and/or sign other players. Trade trumbo for a 3B and their team will contend this year. They’ll get better by adding pieces with the 40M coming from Hunter and Wells leaving that will offset Pujols’ decline the next 3 years. IMO, Weaver’s contract is potentially worse than Pujols’.

    Comment by Antonio Bananas — December 9, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

  149. No one is worth 10yrs. at 254mil. Think Yankees are happy with being stuck with A-Fraud for many more years.

    Comment by Don — December 9, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

  150. Does anyone else suspect that BitterDave, Rays Daze, and Flounder are the same jerk under 3 different names?

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:22 pm

  151. The Angels could buy a truckload of talented players with that quarter billion. At best, they put all of their eggs in one basket. At worst, they’ve burned money at a record rate.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

  152. Now this jerk has posted under at least 5 different names.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

  153. Joe, the market value for wins has not gone up at all in the last few years (stabilizing around $4-4.5M). 10% annual inflation for the next 10 years is a figure that only a person defending an indefensible position would make up.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

  154. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

  155. Thank you, Alan, for the only sensible comment in this absurd thread.
    The others have proved that you can prove anything if you make absurd assumptions, though even then, just barely.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

  156. Your estimate is in the ballpark.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

  157. It’s a good thing he has the money, now, Eric, because at the rate he’s going, he won’t have it for long.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  158. True, Oliver. They have also not considered the possibility of Pujol’s performance taking a sudden drop for any other reason besides injuries, that has happened in many, if not most, other big money contracts. See “Zito, Barry.”

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 9:06 pm

  159. Has “off-field value” not already been factored into the dollars per win assumptions?

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

  160. Along with all the other errors all these geniuses like Joe make in trying to prove what they want to believe (no consideration of risk, absurd assumptions, comparing present cost to future benefits, etc.), they also fail to mention that Pujols is not really replacing a replacement-level player, but one who is probably a 2-3 WAR player himself at minimum salary.
    Thus, Pujols is really only worth a 20-win improvement on the most optimistic assumptions–more than $12M per win.
    On the most pessimistic assumptions, he’ll get $254M for no wins.

    Comment by Husker — December 9, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

  161. Hey Dave, you see the Angels just inked a 20 year, $3 BILLION tv contract with FOX sports? Looks like they’ll be able to keep payroll high. With nearly $30 million coming off the books after this season, they’ll have more than enough to bring back Kendrick/Aybar if they so choose. I’d also expect them to bring back one of Haren/Ervin(probably Haren since he’s better)

    Things are going to be juuuuust fine in Anaheim. Add in that they’ll have some good young players for cheap going forward(Bourjos, Trout, Trumbo, Garrett Richards, Jean Segura, Conger). This move won’t cripple or hurt the Angels

    Pujols won’t be putting up insane numbers probably by year 6-7 of this deal, but he’ll still be a quality hitter and will be chasing records and continue to draw/sell tickets. His presence will make the Angels a lot of money.

    Comment by sausagemcbiscuit — December 10, 2011 @ 4:04 am

  162. Look at it this way – if the Angels win the world series twice in the next 3-4 years, it does not matter if the last 6 years of the contract is washed out.. sometimes in business, for you to “win now”, you have to give out such a contract and its totally totally worth it.. Winning the WS is a very big deal for the fans even if a team sucks for the next 4 or 5 years.. far better than teams like Mariners who are not willing to spend and get stuck in mediocrity for ever.. Albert and his agent know this too.. they know he is old, but they are not going to agree to a 5 year deal.. they are going to want long term commitment and guarantee, because they know with Albert, they have a chance to win it all in the next 5 years. This is how business deals and negotiations work – there has to be a net win-win and positive for both ends and thats absolutely true in this deal.

    Comment by Angels_Kill_Mariners — December 10, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.269 Powered by WordPress