Pujols undervalued

[Torridd]

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/164100180/albert-pujols-greatest-right-handed-hank-aaron?partnerId=ed-10028995-872343173

[Blarg]

That link is not quite usable.

[Stradling]

Might as well get this out of the way.

Yk doesn't care what he did for another team.

Claude will be Claude in this thread.

AO will scream about finally coming to spring in shape.

Vladdy will tell us how fat Albert is.

[Stradling]

Sorry Vladdy

[Stradling]

I just know people are very busy so since I'm off today I was trying to save them some time.

[AngelsFanSince86]

Pujols has been a very solid 3-4 WAR player with the angels. His main problem is injuries, being a one trick pony last year, and having a contract he'll never live up to. And not having at least one Pujolsesque season with the angels before declining.

That being said all this article shows is how great Pujols was. That despite being merely solid in his mid-30's and miggy having some of the best years of his career, his career with the cardinals was so great that miggy will likely never catch up regardless of what happens from here on out.

Not sure how Pujols is undervalued though. It's precisely the fact that everyone knows what he's capable of that makes watching him so frustrating despite actually being pretty solid.

[yk9001]

Might as well get this out of the way.

Yk doesn't care what he did for another team.

Claude will be Claude in this thread.

AO will scream about finally coming to spring in shape.

Vladdy will tell us how fat Albert is.

 

Early entrant for post of the year

[ELEVEN]

Might as well get this out of the way.

Yk doesn't care what he did for another team.

Claude will be Claude in this thread.

AO will scream about finally coming to spring in shape.

Vladdy will tell us how Albert is really 44.

ELEVEN will tell us how fat Trout is.

Damn, now I want InO.

[ELEVEN]

Sorry Vladdy

Its Valdy.

[Erstad Grit]

No one here would say Pujols wasn't amazing on the Cardinals. 

[Angel Oracle]

It's just giving ten years to someone already with 11 FULL seasons under his belt.

The ten years is what is unfathomable.  

[UndertheHalo]

we wouldn't have pulled him down then AO.  Basically, in general no team is going to get a good deal on any FA under the current CBA.  Obviously there are some contracts that work out and are not harmful.  Torri Hunter comes to my mind for us recenty.  But I think by and large they're all bad.  Pujols at least has been a good player for us.  Even if he is over paid relative to his performance.  Really its not even the $ per year.  its the term, as you said.  I think from the organizations POV also, theres also value to just having Pujols on the team regardless of performance.  The Pujols thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Hamilton.  That was very poorly managed.  From the idea to sign him to everything including paying him to play for the Rangers.  This is not an original idea, but i'm really starting to think the best way to do it is smart acquisitions in FA for good (not star) players on deals not more then 3 or 4 years.  Save the huge contracts for your own players in order to keep them long term.  Assuming they've earned them.  Players like Weaver obviously Trout etc.  Basically the Cardinals and Giants way.  Peeps here have pointed this out before.

Edited February 10, 2016 by UndertheHalo

[AngelsFanSince86]

we wouldn't have pulled him down then AO.  Basically, in general no team is going to get a good deal on any FA under the current CBA.  Obviously there are some contracts that work out and are not harmful.  Torri Hunter comes to my mind for us recenty.  But I think by and large they're all bad.  Pujols at least has been a good player for us.  Even if he is over paid relative to his performance.  Really its not even the $ per year.  its the term, as you said.  I think from the organizations POV also, theres also value to just having Pujols on the team regardless of performance.  The Pujols thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Hamilton.  That was very poorly managed.  From the idea to sign him to everything including paying him to play for the Rangers.  This is not an original idea, but i'm really starting to think the best way to do it is smart acquisitions in FA for good (not star) players on deals not more then 3 or 4 years.  Save the huge contracts for your own players in order to keep them long term.  Assuming they've earned them.  Players like Weaver obviously Trout etc.  Basically the Cardinals and Giants way.  Peeps here have pointed this out before.

 

 

I agree.  Its much easier to stomach a players decline when they had their good years for your team.  Its not AS bad when you pay a player for what they already did when what they already did was for your team.  Plus they are less likely to have issues since they won't have to adjust to a new team.  In addition to that it creates more continuity which helps to create a consistent culture in the clubhouse.

[Angel Oracle]

No one will disagree about Hackilton, that was as bad of a contract for what was rendered in services as was ever given to ANY MLB player.

 

Pujols is the one that will be argued about always.   The first year (2012) was rock solid, except for April and down the stretch in September. 

Why then did he slump to a mid/upper .700s OPS for the next 3 seasons?

If he indeed can only produce at best a mid .700s OPS going forward, his contract too will go down as one of the worst ever given the services rendered.

10 years/$240 million for just ONE rock solid season and the rest ranging from probably mediocre to decent to MAYBE solid???? 

 

This franchise NEEDS to get STAT on building a solid farm over the next 3-4 seasons, and then focusing mainly on contracts to keep their own players with STRATEGIC FA/trade acquisitions to round off the roster.   No more waaaay overpays for older players from other teams! 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Angel Oracle

[IEAngelsfan]

You know, when I saw the thread title, I thought for sure that this would be at least 3 pages strong by now.

 

You guys are slipping....

[Lou]

No one will disagree about Hackilton, that was as bad of a contract for what was rendered in services as was ever given to ANY MLB player.

 

Pujols is the one that will be argued about always.   The first year (2012) was rock solid, except for April and down the stretch in September. 

Why then did he slump to a mid/upper .700s OPS for the next 3 seasons?

If he indeed can only produce at best a mid .700s OPS going forward, his contract too will go down as one of the worst ever given the services rendered.

10 years/$240 million for just ONE rock solid season and the rest ranging from probably mediocre to decent to MAYBE solid???? 

 

This franchise NEEDS to get STAT on building a solid farm over the next 3-4 seasons, and then focusing mainly on contracts to keep their own players with STRATEGIC FA/trade acquisitions to round off the roster.   No more waaaay overpays for older players from other teams! 

 

I don't disagree with much of what you said,  but which players have we lost in the past that leads you to say we  haven't focused on contracts to keep our own players? 

[seenoevil]

I'm looking forward to Pujols slow start and watch Trout get walked

[AngelsLakersFan]

we wouldn't have pulled him down then AO.  Basically, in general no team is going to get a good deal on any FA under the current CBA.  Obviously there are some contracts that work out and are not harmful.  Torri Hunter comes to my mind for us recenty.  But I think by and large they're all bad.  Pujols at least has been a good player for us.  Even if he is over paid relative to his performance.  Really its not even the $ per year.  its the term, as you said.  I think from the organizations POV also, theres also value to just having Pujols on the team regardless of performance.  The Pujols thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as Hamilton.  That was very poorly managed.  From the idea to sign him to everything including paying him to play for the Rangers.  This is not an original idea, but i'm really starting to think the best way to do it is smart acquisitions in FA for good (not star) players on deals not more then 3 or 4 years.  Save the huge contracts for your own players in order to keep them long term.  Assuming they've earned them.  Players like Weaver obviously Trout etc.  Basically the Cardinals and Giants way.  Peeps here have pointed this out before.

 

It's important to look at what you expect the player to do in the future, not what he's done in the past. You shouldn't ever be giving out long term contracts on the basis of what happened last year.

 

This is why guys like Heyward were actually a good value. It quite interesting really because projections love Heyward going forward because he hasn't hit his prime yet. Meanwhile fans and front offices seemed to think he might be overrated, because his numbers are not quite as elite as a free agent who was exiting his prime.

 

This is the attitude that rewards Albert Pujols with a 10 year contract at top dollar even though he didn't have a single year of elite performance left in him. 

[Stradling]

I'm looking forward to Pujols slow start and watch Trout get walked

Of course you are, it lends to your only style of posting.

[eaterfan]

I'm looking forward to Pujols slow start and watch Trout get walked

What's wrong with Trout walking? His OPS was nearly 1.000 in plate appearances when he walked.

[UndertheHalo]

It's important to look at what you expect the player to do in the future, not what he's done in the past. You shouldn't ever be giving out long term contracts on the basis of what happened last year.

 

This is why guys like Heyward were actually a good value. It quite interesting really because projections love Heyward going forward because he hasn't hit his prime yet. Meanwhile fans and front offices seemed to think he might be overrated, because his numbers are not quite as elite as a free agent who was exiting his prime.

 

This is the attitude that rewards Albert Pujols with a 10 year contract at top dollar even though he didn't have a single year of elite performance left in him. 

 

of course it is important to try and get a handle on what can be expected going forward.  it can definitely be argued that the Angels should have known that Pujols was on a downward trajectory in terms of performance(i'm sure they anticipated a decline in his game tho maybe they expected at least 1 MVP type seasons). I guess the question is whether he's was worth signing anyway.  Probably most of you will say no.  I'm on the fence about it personally.  As far as Heyward goes, i mean its nice to think that he's a nice get because hopefully you pick up his best years but thats a risk as well.  He may well never improve his bat to the point that people hope he will.  Maybe he regresses.  Maybe he lives up to the promise and its great for the cubs.  Its a different type of risk then signing a more established commodity like Pujols.  A risk all the same, though certainly its fair to argue the merits of taking one risk vs. the other.

Edited February 11, 2016 by UndertheHalo

[AngelsLakersFan]

of course it is important to try and get a handle on what can be expected going forward.  it can definitely be argued that the Angels should have known that Pujols was on a downward trajectory in terms of performance(i'm sure they anticipated a decline in his game tho maybe they expected at least 1 MVP type seasons). I guess the question is whether he's was worth signing anyway.  Probably most of you will say no.  I'm on the fence about it personally.  As far as Heyward goes, i mean its nice to think that he's a nice get because hopefully you pick up his best years but thats a risk as well.  He may well never improve his bat to the point that people hope he will.  Maybe he regresses.  Maybe he lives up to the promise and its great for the cubs.  Its a different type of risk then signing a more established commodity like Pujols.  A risk all the same, though certainly its fair to argue the merits of taking one risk vs. the other.

 

The point is, there is upside on the Heyward deal. There was no upside paying Pujols $250 million in his mid 30's.

[Stradling]

Well to be fair he was signed in his early 30's and there is still the belief that his signing was at least part of the reason the Angels got the big tv contract. If he is part of the tv contract then his signing isn't the problem. Arte having his budget, despite the big tv deal, is the problem.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Well to be fair he was signed in his early 30's and there is still the belief that his signing was at least part of the reason the Angels got the big tv contract. If he is part of the tv contract then his signing isn't the problem. Arte having his budget, despite the big tv deal, is the problem.

 

I'd rather not have the tv contract if it means Arte is going to pocket the money and stop investing in the team. 

 

Also 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. I think mid 30's is a fair statement

Edited February 11, 2016 by AngelsLakersFan

[LAAMike]

As Stradling mentioned this acquisition was not purely an on the field issue.  The Dodgers were going through a bad spell with their previous owner and his divorce, etc. and Arte and the organization saw an opportunity to seize some market share and also position the franchise for the big TV deal that followed.  From a purely baseball standpoint the contract with Pujols was probably too much and too long.  In the bigger picture the Angels accomplished some other goals which makes the Pujols contract very successful in my opinion.  I still enjoy watching one of the best players in the last twenty years perform for the Angels and am very appreciative of Pujol's strong work ethic and the other values that he brings to the team.