Pujols - Retire early or play out contract?

[ScottT]

5 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

What about trout? Honest question.

Im not at all against it. But people should probably be prepared for a different mike in about 6 years. Thats the reality of guaranteed contracts.

Albert Pujols' decline from greatness was one of the steepest in MLB history.  Injuries took a toll and certainly didn't help matters.  It's not unheard of for hitters to be very good in their mid 30's.   David Ortiz posted a 1.021 OPS at age 40.  Pujols is now as old as Trout will be in the last year of his contract.   The Angels get  two more years (age 27, 28)  and trade age 29 and 30 seasons for age 41 and 42 seasons.   All signs point to Trout's contract turning out much differently than Pujols'. 

[ScottT]

I'm prepared for Trout to be very good in six years.  He'll be 33.

[Jeff Fletcher]

4 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Does he age like Mays, Aaron, and Bonds and have some of his best years in his mid-to-late 30s? 

I think one of the names doesn’t belong with the other two, at least not when talking about how players age. 

[Angelsjunky]

40 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I think one of the names doesn’t belong with the other two, at least not when talking about how players age. 

How so? All of those guys aged well, historically speaking.

Mays had his three best seasons according to fWAR at age 31, 33, and 34 (1962, 64-65); he had another great year at 35 and remained a very good player through age 40 (1971) before retiring in 1973.

Aaron had his best five-year span of HR starting at age 35 (1969), including hitting 40 HR at age 39 (1973).

I can only assume you mean Bonds' steroids use, but even then he was still an elite player in 1998 at age 33--which is (allegedly) the last year before he started taking steroids; if we extrapolate from there without steroid use he'd probably still have aged well as he was showing no signs of significant decline.

 

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

In a resent interview, he made it pretty clear he plans on completing his contract...

[angelsnationtalk]

He stated in St Louis that he intends to play out his contract sooo.... take it as you wish

[Jeff Fletcher]

8 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

How so? All of those guys aged well, historically speaking.

Mays had his three best seasons according to fWAR at age 31, 33, and 34 (1962, 64-65); he had another great year at 35 and remained a very good player through age 40 (1971) before retiring in 1973.

Aaron had his best five-year span of HR starting at age 35 (1969), including hitting 40 HR at age 39 (1973).

I can only assume you mean Bonds' steroids use, but even then he was still an elite player in 1998 at age 33--which is (allegedly) the last year before he started taking steroids; if we extrapolate from there without steroid use he'd probably still have aged well as he was showing no signs of significant decline.

 

Bonds didn’t age naturally. We have no idea what he’d have done naturally. 

[Blarg]

Pujols had 6 surgeries in 7 years as an Angel. That certainly accelerated his aging curve since most were for the lower body. If he had a broken hand, that's a few months out and back to the game but knees don't rebound as fast nor heal to previous levels. 

When you mention Aaron or Mays, those guys didn't spend every off season rehabbing from surgery. They took damage playing the game but not to the same extent and each spring they were back whole and ready to play. 

Pujols busts his ass to get into uniform every April. If he could have done his off season routine without it being tied to rehab we would have seen a much different player. 

[Angelsjunky]

6 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Bonds didn’t age naturally. We have no idea what he’d have done naturally. 

We have some idea. He aged naturally and well through 1998, the year he turned 34, which is around when most have already showed signs of decline. His trajectory was good enough up to the point that he started taking steroids--after 1998, to the best of our knowledge--to speculate that he would have aged at least pretty well regardless of steroids, because he had already aged well in the first four seasons of his 30s.

[eligrba]

If Pujols continues to accept a decrease in power for an increase in opposite field hitting, I’m good with him finishing his contract. His defense is still solid.

[Angelsjunky]

7 hours ago, Blarg said:

Pujols had 6 surgeries in 7 years as an Angel. That certainly accelerated his aging curve since most were for the lower body. If he had a broken hand, that's a few months out and back to the game but knees don't rebound as fast nor heal to previous levels. 

When you mention Aaron or Mays, those guys didn't spend every off season rehabbing from surgery. They took damage playing the game but not to the same extent and each spring they were back whole and ready to play. 

Pujols busts his ass to get into uniform every April. If he could have done his off season routine without it being tied to rehab we would have seen a much different player. 

Give him an award and a pat on the pack, but...

[zenmaster]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

We have some idea. He aged naturally and well through 1998, the year he turned 34, which is around when most have already showed signs of decline. His trajectory was good enough up to the point that he started taking steroids--after 1998, to the best of our knowledge--to speculate that he would have aged at least pretty well regardless of steroids, because he had already aged well in the first four seasons of his 30s.

How do we know he wasn't on the juice prior to 1998?

[Angelsjunky]

23 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

How do we know he wasn't on the juice prior to 1998?

This response became longer than expected, so I've added two bold-face titles, in case people don't want to read the first part about Bonds. 

re: Bonds and Roids...

Well, that's the consensus view - that jealousy of McGwire spurred him to take steroids. Read about it here. According to that article and the book it was based on, he started taking steroids after 1998. He appeared in 1999 camp with 15 extra pounds of muscle. His statistical record also supports the view that he wasn't taking steroids before then, or at least not in a way that significantly impacted his performance or career trajectory. Unless, of course, he was taking from very early on, and there's no reason to think he was - otherwise we might as well accuse everyone from that era, including Hall of Famers Jeff Bagwell and Ken Griffey, both of whom have avoided scrutiny because, in my opinion, they were more media friendly.

Bonds hurt himself early in '99, supposedly due to steroid use (his arm muscles were too big), so at first it backfired. 1999 was the first year in his career that he missed substantial playing time due to injury. In 2000 he hit a career high 49 HR but his overall numbers weren't really better than before and he "wanted more," so he met with the owner of BALCO. Then 2001-04 happened, which was the greatest hitting in baseball history. 

So I think you can say that 1986-98 is "Natural Bonds," 1999-2000 is "Roid Bonds v.1" and not at all out of line with his previous numbers, except more missed time and a few more HR. 2001-04 is "Roid Bonds v.2," or "Roidzilla Bonds."

The most tragic thing about the Bonds story is that he was legitimately one of the greatest players in baseball history before he even took steroids, and certainly the greatest player of the 90s. Through 1998 he had accrued 99.2 fWAR, which was 9th best all-time through age 33. Given that he was still going strong and assuming a normal decline, we can speculate that he probably would have finished his career in the 120-130ish fWAR range, making Stan Musial (126.8) a good comp.

Bonds was a product of the times and a victim of his own ego, but a tremendous ball-player. Remember also that plenty of other players were juicing but no one came close to what Bonds did in 2001-04 (.349/.559/.809, 232 wRC+, 47.3 fWAR). I'm not making excuses for him, but I just don't think we should lose sight of how great he was, both before and while taking steroids. 

re: Trout (and comparing him to Bonds)

Anyhow, this isn't supposed to be about Bonds but career trajectories of decline, and what we might expect to see from Mike Trout in 5+ years. In fact, pre-steroid Bonds was a pretty similar player to Mike Trout. There are non-juicing players who maintained elite form past age 35, but it is unusual. The usual historic trajectory is that there's a point of decline that occurs around age 32-33. Players that decline before then could be called early decliners, while those who decline after are late. We don't know what Trout will be, obviously.

Looking at Bonds' pre-steroids career, he had a slower rise to greatness than Trout, who arrived in 2012 (age 20) as an elite performer - a very rare feat in baseball history. Bonds was a really good player in 1986-89, but still developing. He broke through to his prime form in 1990 at age 25, jumped another level in 1992 with the bat and then had his best overall (pre-roids) season in 1993 at age 28, after which he leveled off at a slightly lower plateau from 1994-98 (age 29-33), averaging about 9 WAR per 162 games with a 170 wRC+. 

If Trout follows a similar trajectory, we can expect a career year at some point within the next few years. If he finishes strong it could be this year. I suspect he has something close to an 11 WAR season in him at some point. Maybe like Bonds in 92-93 his performance spikes and then settles down at a slightly lower--but still better than everyone else--level for half a decade or more. But we can hope that he maintains a prime level until age 33 or beyond. Like Bonds did. If age 33 is his last truly great  year, that would still mean 7 of the 12 years were prime Trout, with 5 being some combination of very good to good. 

Anyhow, here are three possible projections for Trout, with WAR 2019-30 age 27-30):

Pessimistic (early decline - Griffey, Pujols): 9, 8, 8, 5, 7, 5, 3, 4, 2, 1, 0, 1. 53 WAR, or 4.4 per season. Career total ~115-120 WAR, still one of the dozen greatest ever.

Moderate (normal decline - Robinson, Musial): 10, 9, 11, 7, 9, 7, 8, 4, 8, 5, 4, 3. 85 WAR or 7.1 WAR per season and ~150 for his career, around the same as Mays and Cobb.

Optimistic (late/slow decline - Mays, Aaron): 10, 11, 9, 10, 8, 11, 9, 7, 8, 5, 7, 4. 99 WAR, or 8.3 per season and 160+ for his career, joining Ruth and Bonds, with an outside chance of becoming the first 170 fWAR player.  

[Angel Oracle]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

Pujols had 6 surgeries in 7 years as an Angel. That certainly accelerated his aging curve since most were for the lower body. If he had a broken hand, that's a few months out and back to the game but knees don't rebound as fast nor heal to previous levels. 

When you mention Aaron or Mays, those guys didn't spend every off season rehabbing from surgery. They took damage playing the game but not to the same extent and each spring they were back whole and ready to play. 

Pujols busts his ass to get into uniform every April. If he could have done his off season routine without it being tied to rehab we would have seen a much different player. 

His broken wrist healed really quickly (only 2 weeks, supposed to have been 4-6 weeks) in 2011 with the Cardinals, and still put up a .906 OPS.    That was a freak of nature.

Legs are a lot different than wrists, though.   That crouched stance for so many years, while carrying 230-250 lbs, eventually took a big toll. 

Trout, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a crouch and has the perfect swing.    That could well = at least 4 more MVP caliber seasons, 4 more additional All-Star caliber seasons, and up to 3 more decent seasons after 2019.    He's currently in pretty much the same age season that Pujols was in for the 2007 season.

[UndertheHalo]

Pujols should retire tomorrow. And that would be what’s best for the team.  He probably won’t tho. 

Of course it’s better that he’s putting up not negative numbers.  He’s also playing a lot less and probably will continue to play less over the rest of the summer.  The Pujols situation is not good. 

[Angelsjunky]

21 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Pujols should retire tomorrow. And that would be what’s best for the team.  He probably won’t tho. 

Of course it’s better that he’s putting up not negative numbers.  He’s also playing a lot less and probably will continue to play less over the rest of the summer.  The Pujols situation is not good. 

Yes, retiring tomorrow - and foregoing `$70 million remaining on his contract - would actually help the team by freeing up money for the organization to spend on non-replacement level players (Pujols has been a replacement level player for the last three seasons, at least).

But he's not going to forego $70 million. Would you? Would anyone?

So then the question is, if the Angels have to pay him regardless of how he performs, at what point do they just bench him in favor of someone else?

Answer: When someone better comes along. Right now the organization has a few options: Thaiss, Ward, and Walsh. None of these guys have forced the issue. If one of them does force the issue, say put up solid defense at 1B while hitting at a 110+ wRC+, then Pujols will lose time. But right now he's as good as any other option the Angels currently have. 

[UndertheHalo]

16 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Yes, retiring tomorrow - and foregoing `$70 million remaining on his contract - would actually help the team by freeing up money for the organization to spend on non-replacement level players (Pujols has been a replacement level player for the last three seasons, at least).

But he's not going to forego $70 million. Would you? Would anyone?

So then the question is, if the Angels have to pay him regardless of how he performs, at what point do they just bench him in favor of someone else?

Answer: When someone better comes along. Right now the organization has a few options: Thaiss, Ward, and Walsh. None of these guys have forced the issue. If one of them does force the issue, say put up solid defense at 1B while hitting at a 110+ wRC+, then Pujols will lose time. But right now he's as good as any other option the Angels currently have. 

Come on AJ you’ve seen me post about this 100 times.  Of course he won’t just retire, of course he has to get that money.  That’s not what I meant and I worded it poorly. 

I’m simply saying that the Angels would be better off terminating the Pujols relationship.  Maybe not literally tomorrow, but sooner is better.  I feel pretty confident that somehow the Angels will be able to dig up a league average 1B.  What Pujols is doing right now isn’t going to be sustained.  It hasn’t for the last 4 years and it won’t be over the next 3. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Angelsjunky]

41 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Come on AJ you’ve seen me post about this 100 times.  Of course he won’t just retire, of course he has to get that money.  That’s not what I meant and I worded it poorly. 

I’m simply saying that the Angels would be better off terminating the Pujols relationship.  Maybe not literally tomorrow, but sooner is better.  I feel pretty confident that somehow the Angels will be able to dig up a league average 1B.  What Pujols is doing right now isn’t going to be sustained.  It hasn’t for the last 4 years and it won’t be over the next 3. 

I don't know if that is true, at least not as an outright cut. Given his stature historically and in the clubhouse, his relationship with Trout, it is almost like he's "worth" more than what he actually produces, what we could call a "legacy bonus" to his WAR value.

You could almost imagine this as an imaginary +2 to his WAR. As I said, he's pretty much a replacement level player at this point - a 0 WAR player. The Angels wouldn't replace him simply with a 1 WAR player - because of his stature in the clubhouse and to Mike Trout. The Angels would need to replace him with at least a 2+ WAR player (or so).

Add in the contract issue, and they won't be signing someone to be that 2+ WAR player - the $15M+ it would require is better spent elsewhere. In other words, they'd rather spend $30M on Pujols 0 WAR than $45M on a 2 WAR player and Pujols being released.

If Ward, Thaiss, or Walsh prove that they can be 3 WAR players, or 110 wRC+ hitters, then they will take Pujols' job. As it is, Albert's playing time is gradually being reduced. The Angels have played 101 games and Albert 78 of them, starting 75 of them. In other words, he's a three-quarters time player...the equivalent of a 30 hr/week employee. I suspect that next year that will be further reduced, and even more so in 2021.

I've been griping about his contract for years, but I've pretty much made peace with the fact that he's not going anywhere. The Angels are not going to cut him, or "terminate the Pujols relationship" as you put it. But they also won't bench him unless they have an obviously better option, and until Ward or Thaiss or Walsh step forward and/or Albert can't hit .220/.700 or so, he'll be pencilled in at 1B more often than not.

[Jay]

blah blah blah, blah blah.

 

[UndertheHalo]

5 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I don't know if that is true, at least not as an outright cut. Given his stature historically and in the clubhouse, his relationship with Trout, it is almost like he's "worth" more than what he actually produces, what we could call a "legacy bonus" to his WAR value.

You could almost imagine this as an imaginary +2 to his WAR. As I said, he's pretty much a replacement level player at this point - a 0 WAR player. The Angels wouldn't replace him simply with a 1 WAR player - because of his stature in the clubhouse and to Mike Trout. The Angels would need to replace him with at least a 2+ WAR player (or so).

Add in the contract issue, and they won't be signing someone to be that 2+ WAR player - the $15M+ it would require is better spent elsewhere. In other words, they'd rather spend $30M on Pujols 0 WAR than $45M on a 2 WAR player and Pujols being released.

If Ward, Thaiss, or Walsh prove that they can be 3 WAR players, or 110 wRC+ hitters, then they will take Pujols' job. As it is, Albert's playing time is gradually being reduced. The Angels have played 101 games and Albert 78 of them, starting 75 of them. In other words, he's a three-quarters time player...the equivalent of a 30 hr/week employee. I suspect that next year that will be further reduced, and even more so in 2021.

I've been griping about his contract for years, but I've pretty much made peace with the fact that he's not going anywhere. The Angels are not going to cut him, or "terminate the Pujols relationship" as you put it. But they also won't bench him unless they have an obviously better option, and until Ward or Thaiss or Walsh step forward and/or Albert can't hit .220/.700 or so, he'll be pencilled in at 1B more often than not.

He takes up a roster spot as well.  Once he’s back to being horrible offensively you’re gonna sing a different song dude. 

[Angelsjunky]

20 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

He takes up a roster spot as well.  Once he’s back to being horrible offensively you’re gonna sing a different song dude. 

I will? To be clear, I think his playing time should reflect his performance. But at this point it would cause more harm then good "terminating the Pujols relationship." This isn't fantasy baseball.

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I will? To be clear, I think his playing time should reflect his performance. But at this point it would cause more harm then good "terminating the Pujols relationship." This isn't fantasy baseball.

Ya I don’t think it matters that much.  I’m not saying they should disrespect him but paying him his money shaking his hand and moving on isn’t disrespectful.