Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Pujols Retirement and the MLBPA


TroutField

Recommended Posts

If Pujols decided to retire or the Angels and him decided in some sort of buyout would that completely clear his payroll from the payroll? 

 

If the money owed was added into his personal service contract it could open up a ton of money to the payroll. 

 

I just wasn’t sure if the players association would let something like that fly or if they Would take issue with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TroutField said:

If Pujols decided to retire or the Angels and him decided in some sort of buyout would that completely clear his payroll from the payroll? 

 

If the money owed was added into his personal service contract it could open up a ton of money to the payroll. 

 

I just wasn’t sure if the players association would let something like that fly or if they Would take issue with it. 

If he retires it would no longer be part of the payroll.  If they release him we should still take a hit on the luxury tax until the end of his contract.  At least that is my understanding.  @Dochalo Has posted this a couple of times recently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, totdprods said:

I’m not getting on you @TroutField, you just happened to have the easiest thread to post this in and it’s a valid question...

 

...but JFC, I’m starting to hope Pujols retires just to stop having it loom over any discussion about future payroll. 

Sorry man, I just didn’t know if the mlbpa would be cool with it or not, I know they are crazy about some things, and I hadn’t seen it in any of the other threads. 

 

Im as sick of the Pujols discussion as you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stradling said:

If he retires it would no longer be part of the payroll.  If they release him we should still take a hit on the luxury tax until the end of his contract.  At least that is my understanding.  @Dochalo Has posted this a couple of times recently.  

What if he retires strictly because of injury, like Prince Fielder.....I assume the Angels have insurance for that but how does it effect the luxury tax?  The insurance issue is a separate issue, one between the club and an insurance carrier...but does it give us relief with the luxury tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is there really is no such thing as a "buyout."

He can all on his own just decide to retire and stop getting paid.  Nobody believes he is going to do that.

They can restructure and defer ALL of the money they owe him in a deal where he agrees to stop playing.  There would be no discount in the amount owed.

Or, he becomes physically unable to play and I don't know what terms might exist in his contract if it was determined he was physically unable to play. Not sure if they have insurance or ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a 0% chance he retires before this season - the return to St. Louis is going to mean too much to him and baseball.

But if he has another sub .700 OPS season, loses considerable playing time, and/or endured another surgery or two, I think he’ll legitimately consider stepping aside as soon as after the St. Louis series or prior to next season. I really don’t think the money will be of concern to him.

But until then, anticipating it or considering ‘what ifs’ is just an exercise in futility. I personally hold out some hope that he transitions into a part-time role and situational PH this season and by being limited to that, becomes productive once again, albeit as a very expensive bench player. How long he decides to stick with it after that is tbd...

And all good @TroutField, your questions were legit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

My understanding is there really is no such thing as a "buyout."

He can all on his own just decide to retire and stop getting paid.  Nobody believes he is going to do that.

They can restructure and defer ALL of the money they owe him in a deal where he agrees to stop playing.  There would be no discount in the amount owed.

Or, he becomes physically unable to play and I don't know what terms might exist in his contract if it was determined he was physically unable to play. Not sure if they have insurance or ?

There can be a buyout, but we rarely see that happen.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMVol said:

What if he retires strictly because of injury, like Prince Fielder.....I assume the Angels have insurance for that but how does it effect the luxury tax?  The insurance issue is a separate issue, one between the club and an insurance carrier...but does it give us relief with the luxury tax?

Fielder actually didn't retire, he stayed on the dl.  I remember reading how rangers were not happy that he took up a spot on the 40 man. 

Gil meche is the only player I can think of who retired in the middle of a contract.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

There can be a buyout, but we rarely see that happen.  

 

I am not saying you are wrong because who knows what I don't know.  But one of the things the mlbpa is hellbent on is a team not getting out of a single penny of a contract.

So if it isn't the player willingly retiring or paying the full (every cent) amount just over different terms, I really cant see them supporting it.

If they supported a  buyout that saved teams money, then you potentially have an established culture where the team forces it by misyreating the player to the degree that the player wants to get out.

From just a philosophical viewpoint I really would find it hard to believe they would allow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

Pride is nice and all, but at what point is it foolishness on Pujols' part to continue to play?    Hopefully, he understands that by a year from now. 

Is it foolish on his part though? Pujols is getting paid to play a game he loves, while being beyond terrible at it. Maybe he doesn't care that he's embarrassing himself.

In this case, the foolish party is the Angels organization. I don't expect Albert to walk away from all that money. I would consider that foolish, tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

Is it foolish on his part though? Pujols is getting paid to play a game he loves, while being beyond terrible at it. Maybe he doesn't care that he's embarrassing himself.

In this case, the foolish party is the Angels organization. I don't expect Albert to walk away from all that money. I would consider that foolish, tbh.

The analysis starts getting really weird when you think about if he was so bad they barely played him.

Like if he got 200 plate appearances a year he would be getting $145k per plate appearance.

That's barely doing more than if he retired, so. . .who wouldn't do that 600 times over 3 years and collect $87m.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

The analysis starts getting really weird when you think about if he was so bad they barely played him.

Like if he got 200 plate appearances a year he would be getting $145k per plate appearance.

That's barely doing more than if he retired, so. . .who wouldn't do that 600 times over 3 years and collect $87m.

 

sign me up conor mcgregor GIF by UFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hangin n wangin said:

I seriously cannot wait for the day Albert is not wearing an Angel uniform. It can't come soon enough.

What is funny is when they signed Pujols he was the one guy in the lineup you would never go to the fridge and miss his at bat (new Angel!  Legend! Pujols!).

And now he is the guy whose at bat I am most likely to ignore if I have to grab a drink or go to the bathroom.

I actually dislike watching this guy hit now.

It is terrible but even if he homers I sort of think "I"ll take the run but I wonder if this prolongs him being in the lineup everyday" or "Well I guess when a fat guy lifts one into the air a few might carry and sneak out.  Whatever."

I get no joy even from a Pujols homer.  And I have been one of his biggest fans for his entire career.

I thought Farrah Fawcett was just smokin' but at some point I don't need to see her in a swimsuit anymore.

It happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dtwncbad said:

What is funny is when they signed Pujols he was the one guy in the lineup you would never go to the fridge and miss his at bat (new Angel!  Legend! Pujols!).

And now he is the guy whose at bat I am most likely to ignore if I have to grab a drink or go to the bathroom.

I actually dislike watching this guy hit now.

It is terrible but even if he homers I sort of think "I"ll take the run but I wonder if this prolongs him being in the lineup everyday" or "Well I guess when a fat guy lifts one into the air a few might carry and sneak out.  Whatever."

I get no joy even from a Pujols homer.  And I have been one of his biggest fans for his entire career.

I thought Farrah Fawcett was just smokin' but at some point I don't need to see her in a swimsuit anymore.

It happens.

I'm on the same boat, honestly. I cannot stand watching the dude play baseball.

And it's sad that I feel that way about someone that was so good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am not saying you are wrong because who knows what I don't know.  But one of the things the mlbpa is hellbent on is a team not getting out of a single penny of a contract.

So if it isn't the player willingly retiring or paying the full (every cent) amount just over different terms, I really cant see them supporting it.

If they supported a  buyout that saved teams money, then you potentially have an established culture where the team forces it by misyreating the player to the degree that the player wants to get out.

From just a philosophical viewpoint I really would find it hard to believe they would allow it.

https://www.mlb.com/news/michael-cuddyer-mets-reach-buyout-agreement/c-165936318

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...