How Much Is Too Much for Albert Pujols?
While we wait through the last few hours of the Marlins and Cardinals jockeying for Albert Pujols, the reported offers are going up, and it’s now looking like Pujols is going to get a 10 year deal for somewhere around $220 million or so. It might end up a little south or north of that, but that seems to be the general landing area for the deal.
We’ll have analysis of the deal once it happens, but for now, I’m curious as to the perception of the upcoming deal among our readers. We’ve already asked you guys to guess what Pujols would get, but now, let’s see what you think he should get – if you were a GM, what would your absolute best offer be?
Dave is a co-founder of USSMariner.com and contributes to the Wall Street Journal.
2
He’ll be paid more than $20 million *when he’s 42*!!!
# of players in baseball history who hit more than 20 home runs in their age 42 season: 1.
# of players who hit more than 20 home runs in their age 41 season: 4
And he’ll be paid half of what he’s actually worth when he’s 32. 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. You don’t just automatically forfeit that early contract value because the player is going to be overpaid at the end.
Can we just post a big “Here’s how long term deals work” thing on Fangraphs right now? Why dose everyone seem to miss the point that long term deals, when they’re team friendly, underpay early and overpay late.
half is a touch hyperbolic…he was worth 5 WAR last year as a 31ish year old. that’s only 20-25 MM, right?
And the last single year WAR is always the best predictor for what he’ll do going forward, right?
never said always…
seems like it’s a worthy discussion though. the difference between a 7 WAR (fan projected) start vs a 5 WAR start @ $5 MM/WAR with standard aging and 10 % interest is 168 MM.
Pujols’ 2011 BABIP was 20 points lower than any other season, and 43 points below his career average. Yes, even Albert Pujols can be unlucky…
If you add another 20 points onto his BABIP, his 2011 season looks much better.
I agree about the hyperbole issue. If he gets $22MM, that would imply he’s about an 8 WAR player next year. I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if he does that, but I wouldn’t count on it either. I don’t think Dave really thinks it’s exactly half though – I assume it was more a figure of speech.
Another thing for philosofool’s “Here’s how long term deals work” post: long-term deals are usually back-loaded. Let’s say Pujols is paid $225M/10, but it’s structured so that he gets a $1M pay raise each year (gradually increasing from ($18M to $27M). Because of inflation, a deal like that is really only worth about $192M in present day dollars.
vivaeljeter–
$22m would imply a just-under 6 WAR player right now, not an 8WAR player. At 4.5m/WAR, for ten years, at 0.5 WAR/year decline, you get 37.5 WAR over ten years; assuming market inflation of 5% per year, that gets you $212 dollars in value, or approximately 22m/year.
philosofool, what I meant was, if he’s paid $22MM next year and he’s only paid half of what he’s worth (per Dave’s comment), then they’re expecting him to put up about 8 WAR next year (I was using $5MM/WAR, but it can go either way).
He’s not paid half of what he’s worth. He should be worth about what Gonzo gets paid. Maybe slightly more. And I wouldn’t expect him to out-produce Gonzo over the life of Gonzo’s contract, unless you think Pujols will be better at age 38 than Gonzo at age 36.
Pujols OPS was in decline 3 straight years, as has his W/K ratio. It’s the same as ARod when he was re-signed. As was Santana. Someone is going to sign a 1B with a .906 to play until he is 42.
Stuff like that is why I wish teams would just make front-loading the norm. Players get underpaid early and overpaid late. If they flipped that, baseball economics would follow common sense and we wouldn’t have these discussions.
And thanks to the time value of money (unless deflation happens), baseball players will be a lot richer and teams a lot poorer. Back-loading is the way to go.
Atom, how many players averaged 8 WAR over their first 10 seasons?
Since when did HRs become the sole determiner of a player’s success?
vivalajeter, if he’s only worth $35M next year (7 WAR x $5M/win), and is paid $20M, he’ll still be paid 1.75 times what he’s worth.
Which is half. Or close enough to it when you’re speaking English rather than mathematics. Which is what Dave was doing.
You didn’t have “10 million more than whatever my division rival is offering” as an option… I guess not every team thinks like Yankees/Red Sox as far as driving up price goes.
In my honest opinion, if the Marlins could average 5 to 6 WAR a year out of him until the end of his career on a 10 year deal, I would give him $300. This is more than an on the field baseball investment. This would be making him the face of the franchise for all of history. He is the Babe Ruth of our generation. His mere presence should drive ticket sales for the next 10 years which should lead to more team loyalty and some real history for the team to bank on.
Would you want to see a broken down old Babe Ruth playing?
Fans turn on a bad player pretty quickly, and when they are eating up $10+ million/year, they turn even earlier.
Mauer has had some boos when he goes up to the dish, that was pretty much inconceivable when his contract was signed two years ago.
I have a hard time believing Cardinal fans would EVER turn on AP for aging. If he’s cranking out some .260 – 15 seasons at age 41, they’ll still cheer him on the way out. These are the same fans that cheered Tino Martinez when he was in his last years, cranking out something like 0 for 850 in the playoffs.
Cody,
How many players come to the ballpark just to see Arod these days? When you’re not MVP-caliber anymore, the ballpark attraction isn’t the same.
Also, Pujols put up 5 WAR last year. It was obviously a down year, but I wouldn’t assume he’ll average 5-6 WAR over the next 10 years when he barely put that together last year.
vivalajeter – how many Yankees fans go to the ballpark to watch the game at all?
Barkey – you would watch a 41 year old Babe Ruth if he was on the verge of toppling records at the time, even if he slowed his pace as he approached them. There will be plenty of coverage of him as he nears 700 HRs, 3000 hits, 2000 RBIs, etc…
I set the average at 5 WAR because that is what it would take for him to be an average All Star over the life of the contract. A few more 8ish WAR seasons with a few declined 5 WAR seasons with his final years of 2 to 3 WAR, I think he could do it. It is lofty, but very possible considering this year was his worst year so far and he broke his arm/wrist and kept playing.
I understand that Pujols will decline and the later years of his contract may be a huge salary eater for Miami, but the way they are approaching this off season, it would be a smart move for the brand and notoriety of the franchise.
One of the greatest players in baseball history would be forever tied to the franchise. During his Hall of Fame career he will be chasing a number of records in the later years. After his career he would become the Nolan Ryan (how he is for Texas) of Miami.
I have to believe that his presence would draw more fans and more appeal over the long term and creating excess baseball value in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, and club valuations for years.
I do not doubt the fact that there may be a few years in which we have a Texas/Arod situation (especially if 2012 isn’t as gangbusters as Miami hopes), but I have to believe they are willing to risk that for all of the upside. Pujols is an investment in the franchise as a whole more than he is for the on field product in my opinion. He is not just an average player. He is a top five of all time player.
Ken Griffey Junior, even stronger argument (home-town hero), bad result.
I’m thinking $220 is about right. Is mid 40s WAR over the next ten years too aggresive? I don’t think so, not off hand at least.
He’s worth what any team is willing to pay him.
Did you think before you posted this? Did you consult Jayson Werth?
I think this is meant more as a statement about market economics. If a team is willing to pay a given price for Albert Pujols, then that’s what Albert Pujols is worth. Whether or not he represents good value at that price is neither here nor there.
It’s a paraphrasing of Publilius Syrus’ axiom “Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.”
I guess. You could have wrote “My definition of the word ‘worth’ is better than yours” and it would be an equivalent statement.
I thought we did math to get away from definitional arguments?
I suspect there are a lot of people who just don’t think he’ll *quite* be worth an average of $15 million over the next ten years, and thus are picking the “for any amount of money” option by default. Because I can’t believe that big a percentage of a usually-pretty-smart readership really thinks that the total length of a contract can, in a vacuum, make it a bad contract for the team. That’s ridiculous.
FWIW (basically nothing), I voted $220.
Yeah, that many choosing that response is really odd. Even if you use the most conservative estimates, he’ll be worth more than $150M over 6 years. If you’re philosophically opposed to 10-year deals, just release him after year 6.
Personally, I’m having a hard time with the poll. Based on market value and the history of big contracts, I think $220M is a good deal. But if I were a GM, I wouldn’t make that move. Except for smaller contracts, I think it’s stupid to pay market rates.
Yeah, I went a lot less than I think he’ll get, because when I’m told to assume I’m a MLB GM and decide what I’d offer I mentally insert, “of the red-sox” prior to GM (it’s a meaningless question without some context).
If I’d used “of the Cardinals” or “and desperate for a first baseman” then 240 million would probably have been it.
I’m sure he’d have no trouble getting more than $30M – $35M per year on a 3 – 4 year deal, say $130M for 4 years. So by paying him $20 – $22M per year for ten years you’re really paying a reasonable market rate for his near terms skills, spreading it out over a long period of time (which makes the net present value less). If he happens to still be productive in years 7 – 10 it’s a bonus, because you’ve likely received great value in the first 4 years.
Exactly. A $220mil contract is likely going to pay for itself in the first 6 years or so, assuming he can put up a few more seasons in the 6-8 WAR range and then not drop off a cliff. After that, everything you get from Pujols from ages 37-41 is essentially free.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect something like this:
Age—-WAR
32—-7.0
33—-6.0
34—-6.0
35—-6.0
36—-5.0
37—-4.0
38—-3.0
39—-2.0
40—-2.0
41—-1.0
Factoring in inflation, with the conservative assumption that each WAR will be worth about $6mil on average between 2012-2017, Pujols would be worth $204mil over those 6 years. From 2018-2021, he’d be paid $16mil for 8 WAR.
In reality, especially given the nature of other contracts where substantially inferior players like Crawford, ARod, Kemp and AGon are paid $20mil+ per season, a guy like Pujols should get more than $22mil.
What Inflation? There is no inflation currently. There could almost as easily be deflation in the near future as inflation. Your optimistic estimates pay him well over the market value of $4M-$4.5M that has prevailed for several years now, even in his value of Wins ABOVE REPLACEMENT.
The Marlins already have a younger 2-3 WAR 1B at MLB minimum (though he obviously will go higher than that in the next 10 years).
Husker, that’s simply not true.
If you’re talking about baseball salaries (where inflation has historically been around 10%), the value of a win has gone from $4M in the 2009/2010 offseason, to $4.5M in 2010/2011, and is around $5M so far this offseason. There’s no reason to think that players’ salaries won’t continue to rise. MLB’s profits are higher than ever, and a CBA was just passed that removes a number of artificial impediments to free agent contracts (i.e., draft pick compensation) and removes the ability of teams to spend their money elsewhere (i.e., the draft and internationally).
If you’re talking about the American economy as a whole, annual inflation is currently around 3.5%. The only time there has been deflation in the US economy since 1948 was during the summer of 2009. You don’t need to believe that the economy is going to rebound swiftly to assume that moderate inflation will continue.
It doesn’t work exactly this way. The opportunity cost of having Pujols on the roster in those latter years can hinder a team with a budget. If Miami ends up winning the sweepstakes for example, they would effectively be working with a budget that is 20mil less than what they are actually paying, because Pujols is no longer providing excess value. Long-term deals like this concede that you will likely have money problems at the end.
$220m may not be that bad depending on how the club structures the contract. You could front load it so you make AP the highest paid player for the next couple of years, and then slowly decrease it over time so when he’s 40 you may only be paying $15 million. For example, you could do 28-28-28-27-25-20-18-16-15-15 – assuming Pujols is reasonable and doesn’t expect to be the highest paid player when he’s 40. Of course depending on inflation and/or the time value of money calculations, it may make more sense to backload it or defer money like you usually see, but I’ll leave that to the math experts.
Yeah, you hit on it at the end — that would be terrible for the team because you’re paying him the most dollars at the time when those dollars are worth the most. If you’re giving him that amount of money regardless, do everything you can to pay him as much of it as possible in the later years.
Unless we are hit with deflation – then you are screwing yourself. Its all speculation and risk, coupled with the fact that despite the fact that you get good overall value, the latter years are plagued with filling out the rest of the roster on a limited budget without his surplus value anymore. Conservative teams would never touch deals like this. Unfortunately, I can’t think of teams like that outside of the Rays.
Financially, it makes sense to backload deals. In practice, when budgets don’t really change year to year if you have the same owner – regardless of the economic environment or success – maybe not so much.
Budgets don’t change year to year? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but how does the average payroll now compare to the average payroll ten years ago?
If Pujols only cares about “respect” among his peers and what the headlines say, and the team wants to be able to benefit from the time value of money, the thing to do would be to defer it over a long period of time. Manny Ramirez signed a contract in 2000 that makes annual payments until 2026.
A $300M contract deferred evenly over 25 years only amounts to about $192M in present-day dollars (assuming 3% interest).
I voted $240M. But I think that’s probably wrong.
If he’s a 6.5 WAR player now and loses .5 WAR each season, he will generate 42.5 WAR in the next ten years. Assuming 5% per year market inflation with the current rate at a conservative $4.5m/Win, he will be paid at an average rate of 5.6m/Win, and that means you would seek to pay about $240 over the life of the contract.
Given the time value of money and market inflation, $240 should be the minumum you would paid (assuming normal risk thresholds, which poor teams don’t have.)
However, the new CBA is designed to send more money to free agents and arbitration candidates. This means that 5% annual inflation over the next ten years is probably conservative.
(Indeed, for this final reason, I think now is a great time to spend on free agents. The market value of a win should go up quite a bit in the next few season because of the CBA.)
Not to mention chasing milestones.
i think it’s a mistake to assume that the value of $/WAR will increase faster than the regular rate of inflation. i would assume that the two are relatively constant, unless someone has compelling evidence to the contrary.
Baseball salaries have outpaced inflation for decades (and by more than a little). Assuming that it will sudden keep step with inflation is contrary to observed evidence.
In America I think it is always safe to assume top salaries will increase faster than the rate of inflation.
Not only that, but if you believe advanced methods will continue to gain currency among MLB front offices, $/WAR would continue to rise even if inflation were flat.
Picking the first choice is a cop out. It takes 10 years to make a play for Pujols.
And as worded, it’s patently ridiculous. I’d hand Nick Punto a 10-year contract if he (and the union) would take a salary of $100,000 a year.
Obviously, those of us who chose the first option were exaggerating for effect. However, the majority of us are, as of this moment, voting for less than $200M for good reasons.
You can’t just dismiss the majority opinion, nor refute it with unrealistic assumptions that don’t even consider risk. After all, he could be worth $0 for the next 10 years.
Several options under $200 million that aren’t “not at any price.” You’re right that he COULD be worth $0, but that’s the kind of thinking that would lead a GM to never sign anyone who anyone else could want. Risk aversion can be a good thing, but if you’re afraid to give Albert at least $150mm for the entire rest of his career, that seems a little overboard to me.
And, if you hadn’t noticed, most GMs aren’t pursuing Pujols. Clearly many have decided that signing him isn’t worth it.
Hardly.
What % of the teams can even realistically offer him 200/10?
That eliminates half of the teams (or more).
Of those that can, how many already have a 1B under a long mega contract?
There goes another handful.
There are really only a handful of teams that could offer AP5 the contract he’s looking for, without considering the information that we don’t know AND Prince Fielder also being on the market.
Had NYY and BOS been in need of a 1B, we might have seen this contract reach absurd levels, given the overpays of Crawford and/or ARod.
Most GMs aren’t pursuing AP5 for the same reasons I don’t spend a lot of time pursuing Jennifer Aniston. I don;t have a chance.
I guess I just feel like there’s an argument to be made that no one player is worth 30% or your entire payroll.
And that argument is wrong.
That’s a dumb argument.
According to that logic, Pujols shouldn’t be paid any more than $12.6mil with the Rays, but being paid $62.1mil annually is fine if it’s with the Yankees?
That isn’t even close to the same argument. I don’t agree with Eminor, but he obviously wasn’t following that logic. So I would be careful throwing around the word ‘dumb.’
I would say Bonds was worth 30% of any payroll when he was creamed and cleared up. Otherwise, teams need to be really good at drafting to fill in the remaining roster spots with a lot of money gone. Or they could just have payrolls like the Yankees where the remaining 70% is still 140M.
WHY!?!
This just makes no sense. How can it be more efficient to pay two players $15m than to pay one play whose WAR is the sum of theirs $30m?
Even the risk aversion/diversify investments argument doesn’t make a lot of sense here because expected WAR is what you expect including all risk!
So, when Bonds was 36 he signed a 5/90 contract (in 2001). He was worth 125mil and that includes missing the majority of one full season. Caveats about Bonds are a given, but if the question is “can Pujols be a productive hitter through his 41st year?”, then I think the answer is yes. Things may go wrong, but I think the Cardinals should spend the money to keep him. They are a “small market team” in the new CBA vernacular with a lot of money and a playoff ready squad. They can afford the risk. I’d say 230-240 for 10.
the better (and very reasonable) comp for your argument should be hank aaron. the “caveats” that you quickly dismiss for bonds warrant far more attention than you’re giving them.
Jim Thome was worth 4 WAR over his age 40 and 41 seasons AND it was only in about 650 PA.
I’m going to argue that Pujols has more talent than Jim Thome. I bring this up because we’re not talking about an speed type player that gets value from baserunning and defense, we’re talking about guys that are primarily hitters.
Pujols could be worth more than the chart in Dave’s other post. It’s not like there’s many Pujolses in the “player sample” that averages out to be 0.5 WAR decline per year.
He could still be league average at 40 and 41, and I don’t say “could” in the same way that I say I could be billionaire by 50, but “could” as in it wouldn’t be far-fetched.
Handedness makes a big difference there. Pujols has more talent but he may not be more valuable in the same limited playing time, due to Thome’s ridiculous platoon splits.
So apparently 30+% of Fangraphs readers are complete morons and selected: “I wouldn’t sign him for 10 years for any amount of money”? Not even league minimum? That’s just a dumb choice. I hope some of you are GMs on competing teams…
Yeah, I’m sure most of us read “any amount of money” as league minimum.
Rolls eyes.
you obviously read it as less than $150 million total though.
so, out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to give him on a 6 year deal then? if you wouldn’t give him 10/150, I’m guessing the answer to this is under $120 million?
I voted that option thinking that he was too big a risk for a ten year contract, it wasn’t about him not being worth anything. 5-6 years at $25-30 mill makes more sense to me. I understand the front laod discount, but in reality he still would get $20mil a year at age 40 for being a pinch hitter. (what have you done for me lately)
I think the reason the Cubs name keeps floating back in the discussion is their (reported) offer is shorter-term/higher dollar
If lets say they did offer something like 5/150, it is enough for him to at least consider.
Do you think a 37 year old Pujols with 5 more years of wear and tear could sign a 5/$70mil deal in 2017? I think it’s doubtful. But who knows what salaries will be like then.
Otherwise, he’s better off taking 10/$220m.
only pujols knows his true age. if he is actually 33, i;d take the years. if he’s 31…possibly?
The truth is Albert gets to win the Lotto every year for ten years, and play baseball for a living, does it get any better than that?
“I wouldn’t give him 10 years for any amount of money”
wow, i thought fangraphs readers were smarter. unless its a total joke. really no amount of money?
I can’t believe 36% of the voters so far wouldn’t pay him anything for 10 years. I’m assuming they mean they wouldn’t give him a 10 year contract. I can see the smarts in that but…if you can get 5 great years from Pujols, and then 5 junk years (whatever that might be for him) that keep people coming to the ballpark as they hope to see the great Albert do something awesome just one more time… wouldn’t that be worth SOMETHING? Even if you overpay him later, you’ll probably be overpaying him during the first part of the contract…so it would all be alright in the end. So a 10 year contract wouldn’t be so bad on it’s own. It’s the amount you have to figure out — what would constitute breaking even or making a profit or losin money for your franchise over the course of that 10 year contract?
Correction… i meant to say “Even if you overpay him later, you’ll probably be UNDERPAYING him during the first part”
What if you get no good years from Pujols. Is he immune from accidental death or injury? You high-number choosers have completely ignored risk.
Naww, the risk is very very minimal that such a thing would happen. I man, out of all the free agents since 1975, how many have actually died before playing out any part of their contract or even died before it was half done? I can only think of Cory Lidle & Darryl Kile as possibilities (I’m not familiar with how far into their contract they were when they died — did they complete half of it?). There’s probably more, but it’s very very few out of the whole who die unexpectedly before any return value is had by the team. If you run your business based on the 5% or 10% worse case scenerio, then you’ll never compete anyway so you might as well sell your team.
Any team that wouldn’t pay him $15m/10years is NUTS.
We live is a society that basically says what have you done for me lately.
When Albert gets 5-6 years into the contract the fans won’t care that he was “under paid” to begin with, and the team will be in last place and have no money to get anyone else.
I don’t know about you, but we’re going to be bragging about 2006 and 2011 for the rest of our lives … especially to Cub fans.
I think the “what have you done for me lately thing is over-stated.
Example: Mike Schmidt.
Boo’d near the end of his career. How is regarded in Philly?
There’s nothing stopping Pujols from retiring early if his performance and/or health deteriorates to the point that he’s being boo’d. Does anyone really think these elite superstar players are going to tolerate their own terrible play, let alone to be boo’d at the ballpark daily?
Do you honesty think a guy would retire while making $20 mil a year just because he couldn’t really play anymore?? The money is guranteed whether he sucks or not. Albert would be the first player in the history of baseball to not take the money I bet.
I picked 220. My thinking was that I’d definitely pay him 8/200, which makes the most sense from an age perspective, and no real harm in a 2/20 tacked on at the end (and 10 mil. will be more like 6-7 mil in 9-10 years, at the very least).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the deal paid him a bit less in years 9 and 10. I know Arod’s is structured that way.
“WARV” or WAR Value is only part of the picture for a player like Pujols who will bring in a ton of revenue because he’s one of the greatest players in baseball history. Imagine how the Angels or the Marlins could market him given their huge Hispanic populations.
This is why a contract like A-Rod’s, even though it is already ugly and going to get really ugly in terms of “WARV”, makes up some of the difference in other sources of revenue, that doozies like the Wells or Werth contracts just can’t do. Even the hurt of Ryan Howard’s contract, which must be the most unpopular contract among statheads, is somewhat lessened by his popularity in Philly and status as a big HR hitter
I voted 10/$250M. I might go higher if I was 100% convinced he’s actually 31-going-on-32.
Your first-paragraph assertion requires evidence. I don’t believe you have any.
Yeah, I’m sure there is some boost in profit for signing particular guys (Ichiro comes to mind), but I don’t know well it has been proven.
What has been proven though is that getting to the playoffs makes you a bunch of money, so when signing guys, you should be looking towards what gives you the best chance at getting to the playoffs regularly, not who is the most popular.
Fans will go watch the playoffs even if they don’t like the players.
Expexting an average decline and assume he is a 7 war player (rebounding from last year) over the next 10 years he would be worth 49.5 WAR. 4.5-5 million PER WAR. i would go high for Albert and say 5 million per war. thats 247.5 million. No one knows how he’ll age or if he has a spike in WAR and has another of 8 WAR season in his bat and glove or if he’ll fall of the cliff in 5 years and be worth less than league average.
I voted 240 million over 10 years.
I used the words expecting and assuming……there are much smarter people than I who can probably quantify my thoughts if they agree.
36% of people wouldn’t give him a 10 year deal at all? that’s absolutely ridiculous.
i can’t believe there’s anyone that wouldn’t be willing to guarantee him $150 million for the rest of his career. we’re talking about one of the best players in the game, and while he’s past his prime, he’s still only 31. he’s quite likely to provide $150 million of value over the next 6 years, and then the last 4 years are pure profit.
Yah, I mean… Crawford is getting $140m/7. With way less track record of success. So… people wouldn’t pay an extra $10m onto that for 3 more years of Pujols? Really?
I put Pujols at a 6.5 WAR player in 2012 (he was worth 1.4-1.5 per month over the final five months last year [counting the playoffs as the season's seventh month]), then plugged in a half-win decline per year.
Then I took Dave Cameron’s cost-per-win estimates from the Sabathia article of several weeks ago…and Pujols comes out to be worth $220 over the next eight years. So if you’re givin’ him $220 for ten years, the last two years are effectively “free.” (But then, I’m not the one writing the check.)
Speaking of check-writing, how about a Fangraphs article berating Cardinal ownership for their stated plan to simply pocket their entire post-season windfall of roughly $35,000,000, rather than plow some of that back into the on-field product?
You’ve also got to build in some sort of “broken leg in spring training, out for season risk” there too.
At this point I think Pujols’ true talent level is probably somewhere around 5.5-6.5 WAR. His stats have trended down the last two years, he’s past the prime age for a baseball player, and most concerning of all, he has to battle small injuries year after year, which at some point seems like it will have to take its toll. I mean, A-Rod was the same age when he signed his contract extension with the Yankees, and I’m sure they would love to have a do-over on that one. And Rodriguez has a body that you would expect to age better then Pujols’.
Now, obviously when you sign a free agent you are paying more for the near-term, but spreading it out over a longer time, so you end up underpaying for the first part of the contract and overpaying for the end of it. Even then though, I just wouldn’t feel comfortable committing to anyone’s age 40+ seasons at this price. I would rather pay a higher annual average value for a shorter contract. because at the end of the contract if you have a guy that’s making $20 million, producing 2 WAR and blocking first base that just isn’t all that helpful. And it’s not like you will be able to move him at that point, and if you bench him then you have the chance of bad press. Personally, if I were a GM this offseason I think I’d be more interested in Fielder for five or six years then Albert for ten. I wouldn’t be interested in Fielder for ten either.
My gut feeling is that Albert will be worth about $180 over the next ten years, but even with everything I’ve pointed out, I would be willing to overpay a bit for him. I went with $200 million.
In ten years I can’t develop or find a player to play first base?
Does he play all nine positions?
some disturbing pujols trends:
–O-swing% increased for each of the last four years;
–Z-swing% declined in each of last three years;
–ISO declined in each of last two years;
–career low ISO and SLG last year;
–career low BB% last year (first time under 10%)
–career high GB% last year;
–he is basically average at fielding his position, after being great earlier in his career–he could very well be a big liability in the field in 5 years;
–his base running score was a career low last year–he could very well be a station-to-station guy in another 3-5 years;
I still love Pujols and think he’s a great player, but his days of being a 9 win guy that could carry a team are gone. Anecdotally, I saw a few times earlier this year where he’d just sit and stare at a 92 MPH fastball going right down the middle–a ball he would’ve crushed a couple of years ago. His trends show his skills are eroding, and I think his most recent 5 win performance should be considered the beginning baseline, rather than the 8-10 WAR glory days.
All that being said, I’d still pay him $190 mil over 10 as a GM (avg 3.8 WAR per season), if I though he’d be the difference between making the playoffs once or twice over the life of the deal.
league-wide O-Swing % has also increased significantly over the past 3 years (and even more-so over the past 7 years).
i wouldn’t consider 63% to 62.9% a decline in Z-Swing %. plus you cherry-picked the last three years. 4 years ago it was 63.8%, 5 years ago it was 59%. league average has hovered between 64.5% and 66.5% during this time.
again, league-wide ISO has declined significantly over the past 3 years as well.
the huge drop in BB% is somewhat concerning, but his K% also dropped a bit.
more ground balls is also a little concerning, but he also hit fewer pop-ups (as a fraction of fly balls) than his career average.
defense part is definitely true – he’s probably more of a +2 defender at this point vs. the +10 defender he was a few years ago.
overall, i see no reason to overweight his recent performance much more than you would in a standard projection (ie 3/2/1 weighting of past 3 years or something like that). maybe you could make an argument to go 3.5/2/1 or 4/2/1. but i don’t see any way to reasonably justify throwing out everything he did before 2011 in making a projection.
those are good points, jono, and you’re obviously right–i totally cherry-picked the stats to make a point and didn’t reference the stats to league-wide peers.
that being said, i think the overall point still stands, that the numbers plus the overall actuarial profile of a 30 y.o. slugging 1B would indicate that, at this stage of his career, pujols is more of a 5 WAR player than a 8-10 WAR guy. and just with my own eyes, pitchers don’t fear him like they used to, and with good reason–he just doesn’t punish mistakes as consistently and ferociously as he used to.
Also, even if you do a 3/2/1 weighting for the last three years, Pujols is a 6-6.5 win player at this point. So even if you don’t throw out everything he’s done before this year, I still think the chances are pretty good that he’s on the decline.
yea i agree with that. he’s probably not a 7-8 WAR player for next year, but somewhere around 6 seems reasonable.
i was just objecting to the thought process of “he was 5 WAR last year, there are reasons why the decline could be real, therefore I think he’ll be 5 WAR next year”, because even if he really is in decline (which he probably is), a projection should still take into account past performance.
Wasn’t there an article on this site recently showing that clubs almost never got full-value for big money contracts and often got virtually no value at all or was that somewhere else?
Anyway, it’s true. So I hope the minority of us who are willing to pay $200M or more are so rich that they don’t care.
I have my doubts about Albert’s age, like some others here have alluded to. I would need solid evidence of his age prior to any talk of a 10-year deal. The downside risk far outweights the upside in my eyes.
Overrated
We desperately need the “How Long-Term Contracts Work” article, otherwise we’re going to endure the same types of comments for ever. Please, make them stop. Athletes, like the rest of us, are overpaid in the latter years so that our employees can have us for our best years.
None of us are as productive near retirement age as we are in our prime. Even with the extra experience and responsibility we’re not “earning our money” the same way we were as we climbed up the ranks. We’re all overpaid near retirement. That’s the way it works … and it benefits both entities. We, like baseball players, don’t allow our employers to just pay us for our best years and then cast us off for someone else to underpay once they’ve used up our prime years.
Also, the over 1/3 of the forum that said they wouldn’t give AP5 a 10y contract need to be more specific, otherwise I call BS. There are plenty of fictional figures that I could throw out over 10y that would make AP5 the best deal in baseball, even over 10y.
There are really people at this site that would rather not have Pujols than to have to give him 150/10 (the cheapest option in the poll)? I know there are *some* saber-friendly reasons for this, but I love to see them laid out and compared to the projections for the cheapest 10y contract in the poll (150M).
I have not read a serious analysis anywhere regarding the economic benefit – not baseball benefit – of Albert Pujols for the next 10 years as a player and Albert Pujols as the generational touchstone for a franchise akin to a Mickey Mantle / Stan Musial.
I read recently that the Cardinals organization estimates a drop of 200,000 in attendance next year if Pujols is not resigned. Excuse the back-of-the-napkin analysis, but if avg ticket price for a Cards game is in neighborhood of $40, that’s $8 million right there, not including lost concessions / parking (likely minimum another $2 to $5 million ). And that is only the starting point.
And how do you value the hit to the Cardinals’ brand name? And the flip side – how do you measure Pujols’ enhancement of the brand if he remains?
I love sabermetrics as much as others on this board, but if I were an executive for the Cardinals, my analsyis wouldn’t begin with projected WAR through the final 5 years of the deal. Really that is no more than a fraction of the analysis.
interesting point, John, but i wonder if any attendance drop would be attributable to pujols as sports-personality or pujols as difference maker and the cardinals as a winning team. i suspect it’s more the latter, in which case he wouldn’t be putting people in seats when grinding out his late, unproductive years under the long-term deal.
I see your point, Dudley, that if the contract provides a drag on the team’s win total in the latter half it may actually hurt attendance / revenue. However, are these reasonable assumptions?
Can we safely assume that $22 million circa 2019 will be a crippling deadweight to payroll? Two primary questions on this point – what will $22 million buy you in 2019, perhaps only a #3 SP? And, secondly, can we safely assume that Stl payroll will not have increased by then such that the Cards could more easily accommodate $22 million in deadweight?
Next, is it appropriate to assume that even if the contract hurts the team’s competitiveness, will this create a drop in attendance / revenue? The answer is likely partly tied to the “brand” point I made above. But the answer is also complicated by the likelihood that Pujols should be a historic figure chasing historic markers during that period.
The last time the Cards had a “historic” figure doing “historic” things was Mark McGwire in 1998 and 1999. The Cards were mediocre to bad both seasons – going 83-79 in 1998 and 75-86 in 1999.
Nonetheless, the Cards drew 3,195,000 in 1998 and actually drew more with a worse team in 1999. In 1999, they drew 3,225,000. By comparision, the last full season prior to McGwire’s arrival, the team was equally mediocre as ’98 and ’99 but only drew 2,650,000. On the surface at least, it looks like a historic figure bumped annual attendance by between 500,000 to 600,000 each year. And again, the Cards were mediocre this entire period.
Bottom line, no serious fan can argue that a 10 year deal for a player possibly in decline who is “listed” at 32 y/o makes sense from a strict baseball perspective. But that doesn’t mean it is not the right decision for the franchise as a whole. I actually suspect that the economics of it may compel the Cardinals to do this deal. I strongly suspect more money is to be made in the long run on than lost. And it is nothing more than a business after all.
My bad, the Cards were definitely not mediocre in ’97 (they lost to the Braves in the NLCS).
There was a league-wide boost in attendance in 1998 though. Part of that was the whole McGwire/Sosa thing, but it wasn’t just the Cardinals that saw attendance gains. Also, the Cardinals drew more people in 2000 then in ’98 or ’99.
I think that those attendance gains were part McGwire, and part just a return to normal as the fans they lost because of the strike started to come back.
As far as what $22 million will buy you ten years from now, I would guess it will still be a pretty large part of the average team salary. Right now league average is around $100 I think, so $20 million would be 20%. In ten years you have to figure $20 million will still be at the very least 10-15%. Heck, ten years ago A-Rod signed for $25 million per year, Manny signed for like $20, and Hampton signed for like $15 million so salaries could grow slower.
Do we have a clause in the contract in case he gets hurt we don’t pay him? If so, I’d pay him a good $250M over 10 years (performance alone, he’s worth more in the revenue he’d bring the team). If I don’t have that clause in there, I’d only pay him around $210M (about what he’s being offered). Although, if I’m an NL Central rival, I may well pay $220-$230 in order to weaken the Cardinals. Pujols has a good chance of breaking the HR record and that would be a boon to your revenue. Then again, what about performance enhancers that he might be on? I’d like a clause in the contract for that also (an out if we find out he’s on PEDs).
I think the people that voted that they wouldn’t give him a 10 year contract for any money meant that they balk at giving a 31 year old (33?) such a long contract and would in no way even discuss a 10 year contract. Of course they’d give him a buttload of money, but they’d prefer it being paid in higher amounts over a shorter period, like $220/ 8 years. The way I see it, to give a guy who is already 31, has had surgery and just came off his worst season a 10 year contract is asking for trouble. If he breaks down after 5 years you’re on the hook for over $100 million and getting exactly 0 WAR, plus then having to pay additionally for another player to replace him. It’s a fools game!
that makes no sense. if you’d be willing to give him $220 over 8 years, you’d definitely be willing to give him $220 (or any of the options less than that) over 10 years.
About a year ago there was an ESPN joke article about the offers all thirty teams were making for Pujolds.
IIRC the White Sox entry was, “We think it’s absurd to pay any player $200 million over ten years, so we’re offering $200 million for five years”.
It seems that many of our poll takers are stupider than the stupidest thing a writer could come up with as a joke.
Seriously, $150 million deffered over at least 10 years is a VASTLY better deal for the team than $150 million for six years, it’s an overwhelming favorite to be a better deal than $135 million for six years. AP5 isn’t worth $135/6? Really?
but who actually thinks he’s 31?
A few random thoughts:
1) Prince Fielder is rooting for him to get the sun, moon and stars.
2) He’s more valuable to the Cards and Marlins than any other team. The cards because it would be a huge black eye to the franchise if they let him walk, and the Marlins because they are clearly announcing they are a new team, and hoping the splashy signings will drum up ticket buyers.
Only if StL isn’t very good in 2012 and 2013.
Before 2011, I was in the camp that said StL HAD TO sign Pujols no matter what the cost.
But they have combinations, such as Berkman & Craig, + Wainwright’s return that could lead StL to being better than the 2011 version.
I think StL is going to be pretty good for the next 3 years. How they do towards the end of Holliday’s contract, post-Carpenter is a different story. But, there’ll be a lot of new happenings by then.
I don;t think we should really look past the next couple of seasons when looking at an org’s future. Pujols may go to MIA and find out that StL is okay without him, and after 2 seasons, MIA might have traded away all of the other good players and he might just be a really good player on a really bad team.
I get 10/270 before the team starts having a positive surplus. I look at it a bit differently than perhaps most. I compare the value provided to the present value of the deal not the future value. To do this, I assume a 3% discount rate which is also the same rate that I have $/WAR inflating by. A simple Marcel of the past four years would indicate that Pujols should be a seven WAR player in 2012. I then discount 10% each year. This assumes that $/WAR is currently $4.5M while it very well could be higher meaning the break-even is even higher. Here’s a table looking at the entire thing:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj216/SayHeyRays/Pujols10Year.png
…stops having a positive surplus. Arrgh. You’re going to want to open that in a new tab, fyi.
I’d rather give albert 20 million a year over 10 years than 28.5 million over 7 years. It’s pretty much the same thing. He’s worth 25+ million a year but the GM’s battling for him would rather take a shot on him performing when he’s 39, 40 and 41 then just paying him the extra 8.5 million over the first 7 years of his contract. It’s smart business.
Adding all his salaries up and throwing in $220 Mill, over 21 years they would have paid him $324,040,436. While that in of itself is ridciulous for any baseball or professional athlete, it is what the market bears. If you average that total paid out over 21 seasons he gets an avg salary of $15,430,496.95 – for what he has (and quite possibly could achieve) the Cardinals still got a bargain and made a boatload of money on him as well!!!!
Love 300M getting more votes than 260M, 270M,280M and 290M. TROLLZ at work.
I think you need to put away WAR and replacement values.
What is Adrian Gonzalez worth compared to Pujols? Adrian was better last year, and is two years four months younger. Pujols OPS and W/K ratio have declined three straight years. My guess is that he is the same decline that most players experience, albeit from an extraordinary level. Gonzo will have the same decline, but perhaps not for another 2 years 4 months.
Assuming you give Pujols the same amount you give Adrian, how much would you pay for the age 39-42 years? I can’t imagine it would be much, given the virtual complete dearth of players that can compete at the age.
I cannot imagine signing any player past the age of 36-37.
We’re not talking about “Any” player.
Jim Thome has been significantly valuable from age 36 to 41. ~16 WAR over 5 seasons, and the last couple seasons are partials.
We should figure up what a 1.0 WAR Pujols full season would have to look like, considering slightly below average defense and below average baserunning. My guess is that it’s still a pretty decent hitter. Let’s keep in mind that a 2.0 WAR 1B is a pretty damn good hitter. It’s possible that’s he’s a league average or better hitter at 40 and 41.
But what if his age 40 and 41 seasons are really his age 42 and 43 seasons?
Jim Thome has also been a DH pretty much that entire time, which is an option the Cardinals or Marlins don’t have. If Thome had to play the field every day in those years, I wouldn’t doubt one bit that his health would have declined much faster, and his poor fielding would have negated some of his value.
Also, the average full time MLB first baseman is worth about 3 WAR (in other words, something like Michael Cuddyer, Gaby Sanchez, or Casey Kotchman). Do you really want to be paying $20 million+ for four to five years of less production then those guys?
I voted for 240. I’d backload it as much s possible, hope he produces for 6-7 years (or more, of course), and plan a rebuilding cycle to coincide with his decline at the end of the contract, so his bloated salary will not matter much in terms of hampering roster construction.
I voted for 240. I’d backload it as much as possible, hope he produces for 6-7 years (or more, of course), and plan a rebuilding cycle to coincide with his decline at the end of the contract, so salary at the end will not matter much in terms of hampering roster construction.
Age 39 + 40:
Jim Thome 157 OPS+ (vs. 147 career)
W. Stargell 136 OPS+ (also 147 career)
W. McCovey 117 OPS+ (yup, 147 again)
So sometimes the slugging first basemen age pretty gracefully. Consider also these two guys, over their age 39+40+41 seasons:
Stan Musial 125 (vs. 159 career)
Hank Aaron 133 (155 career)
Ted Williams 164 (190 career)
Given Pujols’ work epic—er, I mean ethic—it wouldn’t shock me a bit if he hits very well indeed, during his own age 39, 40, and 41 seasons.
Pujols will be worth $200 million to his team because he will increase attendance and fan base for whatever team signs him, making the team more money now, and years down the road. Also, the actual value of any team he plays for will increase significantly simply because he played for that team. I think it is bizarre that people talk about the dollar value of a WAR. 26 position players were worth more WAR than Albert Pujols in 2011. Very few, if any, of those player were worth as much to the actual dollar value of their franchise as Albert Pujols, because their name is not Albert Pujols. Imagine a world where Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle never played for the Yankees. How many fewer Yankees fans would there be? How much less would that franchise actually be worth?
There are many interesting arguments being made in a lot of different places throughout the comment thread. Therefore, I have decided to just make a general comment as opposed to replying to any one in particular as it is easier for me to put all of my ideas together. My apologies for this.
I see the logic in the WAR projections and I understand how contracts work; however, I selected I would not give him a 10 year contract for two main reasons.
Firstly, I would be very hesitant to give any player a 10 year deal, especially one who will enter the contract in his age 32 season. This does not mean I would never give one, just that I’d be very reluctant and while Pujols’ 2011 season may be an outlier, and probably not a major reason for concern, it should not just be completely overlooked, and I am just not comfortable assuming health or performance for such a long period of time. I also factored into my vote that 15M AAV does not seem very realistic for a player as good as Pujols. Total value-wise I might spend more than that in a shorter term contract, but 150M for 10 years does not seem likely, so I did not choose that (though after writing this, I realize that perhaps I actually should have). In reality I would possibly go 150-180 total, but would assume to get the deal done it would need to be for less years (higher AAV). If I was going to spend the 150-180M range, I may for example present it as a 175M/7yr contract, but this is just hypothetically speaking.
Secondly, even though the vote said a “GM” as a general term, I voted assuming the role of either the Cards or Marlins GM, as they are the two teams we hear mentioning about being involved. Both are NL teams with no DH, so I would be even less likely to offer a 10 year deal. Even if he ages well, it could certainly be argued that occasionally DHing would be beneficial to both him and the team when factoring in health over such a long time.
I would, however, fully acknowledge that based on the WAR projections a player of Pujols talent could certainly have value meeting or exceeding the dollar amounts suggested over a 10 year period, even at 250-300M. Looking at a couple of the greatest hitters proves just that:
Ted Williams had 52.6 WAR in his last 10 seasons, age 32-41, 5.3 WAR/yr (5.26). Note: according to BR’s “season” age (midnight June 30th) he was 41, but he would have actually been 42 when he finished the 1960 season (born Aug 30) and more importantly it should be said that he only played 43 games during the 1952 (age 33) and 1953 (age34) seasons due to his service in the Korean Conflict. His 2.7 WAR in those 43 games is pretty amazing, but when dividing that as two seasons it certainly counts against him. His 4 season average (’50, ’51, ’54, ’55) surrounding the ’52 and ’53 seasons is 7.1 WAR (7.075). Make of that what you will.
Babe Ruth was even better over the end of his career and had an amazing 77.4 WAR in his last 9 seasons, age 32-40, an average of 8.6 WAR/yr.
That being said, Williams even with his missed time, was still worth 43.4 WAR in his age 32-38 seasons, an average of 6.2 WAR/yr. That is almost a full win more with only 43 games over a two season period in a 7 year deal. Babe Ruth was worth 71.3 WAR during his age 32-38 seasons, which would average to 10.2 WAR/yr.
Now while Pujols may prove to be as good as Williams or Ruth, and he has certainly had an amazing, let’s call it first half of his career, I would argue that he has not been as good as either of them so far. He has only had 1 season above 10 WAR. By this stage of their careers, Williams had 5 and Ruth had 6 and that is with Williams missing time for WWII and Ruth being a pitcher in his early days with the Sox. In addition Williams had a season wOBA over .500 six times with his lowest being .458 through his age 31 season. Ruth also had a season wOBA over .500 six times, including one season with a wOBA of .600. Pujols has had a wOBA over .400 every year except 2011, but his two highest wOBA seasons are .458 and .462.
Two other players with an amazing first halves of their careers are Jimmie Foxx and Ken Griffey, Jr.(as a few other have mentioned). According to BR, Foxx is Pujols most similar player through age 31, Griffey Jr. is the second. Jimmie Foxx had two 10 WAR seasons and 99.4 WAR through his age 31 season, but he finished his career at age 37 with 112.3 WAR. His skills diminishing quite rapidly at the age of 34. Griffey also only had 1 season of 10 WAR and accumulated 72.6 WAR during his age 21-31 seasons. Pujols at 87.8 is certainly better in terms of WAR, but Griffey also has his 19 and 20 year old seasons totalling 80.7 by the same age of their respective careers. Sure Griffey could be argued that he started to decline a bit before his age 32 season, but he really started to break down physically from his age 32 season, and we all know what happened to Griffey in his 30s…He played though his age 40 season and ended up with a career 83.9 WAR. That’s 2.2 WAR in his last 9 seasons.
In conclusion, it is certainly possible for Pujols to meet or exceed the value 300M/10yr contract, but I would be hesitant to give one to him. Will he end up in the same breath as Williams and Ruth? Possibly, but considering Foxx and Griffey, I would much rather prefere a shorter contract for say, 140M/5yr, which works out to be 28M/yr. If I was an AL GM, I might be willing to go another year or two with options for games started at 1B or total ABs/PAs.
Here are the WAR Graphs for the 5 players I mentioned:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=327,1177,1011327,1014040,1004285
***correction***
Griffey had 3.2 WAR in his final 9 seasons (not 2.2)
If you’re willing to pay a certain amount of money (say $175 million), why wouldn’t you offer that over ten years? It’s not like you have to play him if he can’t play anymore. There’s no downside at all to a longer deal if the dollar figures are the same, and actually, you’re likely to save money on it due to inflation.
I do admit just that, but I explain that that seems unlikely for Pujojs, so the amount of money I would be willing to spend did not seem realistic in a 10 year deal. In my conclusion I offer him a 5 year deal for 140M.
“Total value-wise I might spend more than that in a shorter term contract, but 150M for 10 years does not seem likely, so I did not choose that (though after writing this, I realize that perhaps I actually should have). In reality I would possibly go 150-180 total, but would assume to get the deal done it would need to be for less years (higher AAV). If I was going to spend the 150-180M range, I may for example present it as a 175M/7yr contract, but this is just hypothetically speaking. ”
Meaning it is just an example of a more realistic contract, it is not what I would offer.
“In conclusion, it is certainly possible for Pujols to meet or exceed the value 300M/10yr contract, but I would be hesitant to give one to him. Will he end up in the same breath as Williams and Ruth? Possibly, but considering Foxx and Griffey, I would much rather prefere a shorter contract for say, 140M/5yr, which works out to be 28M/yr.
@Bill,
my apologies if it wasn’t/isn’t clear…it all makes sense in my wacky brain.
I hear that the Tigers were offering 10/220+ for Pujols with the idea that he would play 3b at least initially, then sliding back to 1b and Miguel Cabrera goign to DH when Victor Martinez’s contract runs out. What kind of defender was Pujols at 3b?
A few things:
*I voted for the option of never giving him a 10 year deal. I didn’t take it literally. I meant I wouldn’t go to 10 years $25 million. I would consider 5 years at #5 million, however.
* Why are we assuming he’s a 7 WAR player in 2012? He was a 5 WAR player in 2011 and has been in decline for 4 straight years. I know he had an injury, but older players get hurt.
* HGH testing. Just sayin’
* He’s at the end of the defensive spectrum and apparently headed to the non-DH league. He’s almost certainly going to break down at some point in the next decade. I’d guess that breakdown phase has already begun givin his 2011.
Looks like he’s an angel. I revise my last point: Smart move going to the AL. He will NEED to DH for most of this contract
I’m surprised the Angels are able to offer the biggest contract. On one hand, I’m glad it’s the Angels and not NY or Boston, but on the other hand it’s frustrating when teams are able to cover for rank incompetence by spending while teams like the Rays are killed by even the smallest mistakes.
Let’s just start off by saying that if there is a player of this generation worthy of a larger contract it’s pujols.
From 2001-2011 He’s produced 87.8 WAR, while the next closest player (A-Rod) has only amassed a 75.7 WAR. Obviously the last ten years have been A-rod going from his prime south and Pujols vice versa. However, even in A-rods first 10 full seasons he amassed about an 85 WAR with the acknowledged aid of PHDs. A-rod somehow manages to grab a 10 year $275 mil contract at age 33, and Pujols is looking at $220mil? If ever a player should be payed for his accomplishments in today’s game it should be Pujols.
I realize that fair market rate does come into play here, but as someone was saying before you are paying for the legend that Pujols might one day become, and everything that goes along with that.
I feel like people are misusing the Value statistic here. As this site describes it, the value is what you would expect to pay to acquire a certain level of expected production. It does not say what a player is worth.
The Pirates could afford Albert Pujols’ new contract. They could not, however, afford to field a team of actual professionals around him. An 8 WAR player does nothing for you if it forces you to start eight -1.0 WAR players next to him. He would not be worth $25M/yr for 10 years to the Pirates. He may be worth it to the Angels.
Also, Ian pointed out above that this is a business move. You don’t just pay for wins, you invest in a product that will increase revenue. If Pujols increases revenue by more than the difference between his contract and that of Trumbo/Morales, then the signing turns a profit and it was worth it.
I don’t know if he’s worth 250/10, but the thing I hate about WAR in this context is that it minimizes what Pujols brings to the table in terms of certainty. Given their track records, projecting what Trumbo or Morales is going to do is a much more risky proposition than a guy with Pujols track record (especially if we assume risk increases as WAR approaches zero). I’m guessing it’s a pain in the ass, but it’d be nice to see some ranges presented with the projections we get here. We spend a lot of time talking about things like age, injury history and minor league track record, but these are all things that should be built into the numbers bring presented.