http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/new...s_stl&c_id=stl

DALLAS -- If resolution on Albert Pujols' situation is in fact coming soon, the Cardinals are not going down without a fight. General manager John Mozeliak said Tuesday evening that his team has tendered a new contract offer to the slugger. Mozeliak declined to provide any specifics on the offer, or to illuminate how or whether it differs from the club's offer last winter to Pujols.

Still, it's movement and is believed to be the first offer the club has made since the season ended. Asked whether the ball was in the Cardinals' court or that of Pujols' camp, Mozeliak simply said: "Theirs."

St. Louis still holds out hope to re-sign its signature player, a man who ranks in the franchise's top five all time in nearly every major offensive category. It's clear, though, that Miami is sincere and aggressive in its pursuit of Pujols as well. No deadline has been set by the Cardinals or by Pujols' agent, Dan Lozano, Mozeliak said, but the matter could gain significant clarity in the near future.

The Marlins have made a 10-year offer to Pujols, and the two clubs appeared to be the only serious suitors for the three-time National League Most Valuable Player at this time. USA Today's Bob Nightengale reported Tuesday night that the Cardinals have upped their proposal to 10 years, and a mystery team has also offered Pujols a 10-year contract. Miami has aggressively stepped up its pursuit of Pujols since the Winter Meetings began.

"In this case," Mozeliak said, "I think we're participants. I don't think we're dictating anything."

The Cardinals would of course love to have the matter settled in their favor. But one way or another, the club is eager for a conclusion, in order to pursue other matters. St. Louis still would like to upgrade its bullpen and middle infield, as well as potentially adding some bench depth.

"We've definitely put all of our eggs into this basket as far as trying to address it," Mozeliak said. "So for the resources upstairs here [in the team's suite], meaning all the people working, it would be helpful to start looking at other options if necessary."

Matthew Leach is a reporter for MLB.com. Read his blog, Obviously, You're Not a Golfer and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewHLeach. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

LeBron/a young Z/Larry Hughes/Gooden with Varejao as the #6 guy off the bench... it's not nearly as bad as people say. And Eric Snow as a useless scorer, but a good ballhandler and defender. In his latter years, they never brought in the marquee free agents. But they were a defensive powerhouse with good, solid role players. The problem is that people are stuck on this idea that you have to build a roster stacked with superstars.

The team was built very well for Lebron. The problem is that the Cavs built the team to support Lebron being "the guy." Pretty clear that in Miami, that's not who he is. His ego will never admit it, but he's a very good player who needs somebody else to take over in key moments.

Lebron had a good enough supporting cast early in his career to win a championship. Later in his career, if he committed to Cleveland, he could have convinced a very good free agent to sign a long-term contract there.
So instead, the Cavs fell over backwards for him and tried to piece together shitty 2-year stopgaps like Jamison, all aimed at getting Lebron a winner so he'd stay in Cleveland. Lebron weaseled his way into convincing not one but two marquee players to sign in Miami. He couldn't have even tried to do the same in Cleveland?

Marlins say they expect a Pujols decision tonight.
Per ESPN
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/73...-tuesday-night

Ken_Rosenthal Ken Rosenthal
Sources: #Angels pursuing Pujols. Ongoing conversations. #MLB

I hate the Cards, but he would be a ****ing fool to leave that organization AFTER JUST WINNING THE DAMN WORLD SERIES!!!

Isn't it sick how it is all about money, no hometown love. You are talking about money that would be hard to spend if your tried.

I am not cardinals fan either, but I can't believe that he would leave.

Lots of mixed signals on the Angels. Several different sources independently saying the mystery team is not the Angels.

Apparently Bob Nightengale said on KMOX said it's not the Angels, Rangers, or Giants. Gotta be the Cubs, or a complete out of left field team.

I bet it's the Phillies.

Yeah, the Boston Globe national baseball writer claims the Cubs are "definitely" not in on Pujols. At this point everyone that's not St. Louis or the Marlins are denying everything.

Its not the Angels unless Scioscia is convinced that Pujols can catch. :P

Come on we all know David Glass and Dayton Moore are the secert team. ;)

Poo Holes LMAO

Jim Bowden of ESPN just tweeted that it's down to the Marlins and Cardinals, "period."

Makes sense, there were a ton of different writers saying the Angels and Cubs weren't in on this.

Just remember, Bob Nightengale is Dan Lozano's version of Jon Heyman for Scott Boras. If Heyman says something about a Boras client it probably came from Boras' mouth same for Nightengale and Lozano.

According to rotoworld...

Marlins offered 10/220
Cardinals stuck with 9 years but upped the money to around 200.

Jim Bowden of ESPN.com and MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM reports that Albert Pujols will decide between the Cardinals and Marlins.
We've heard plenty of chatter about a mystery team and the possibility that it could be the Angels, but Bowden is quite adamant that this is a two-team race. While negotiations are expected to continue throughout the night and into the morning, MLB Network's Jon Heyman hears that a "good number" of MLB executives still think the Marlins will win the bidding. Stay tuned.

Maybe he's up for the challenge of leading a different team to a championship, even if the money is the same?

I have no emotional investment but I don't think there's anything dishonorable about spending 11 years at one team then 10 at another.

Maybe Cardinals fans don't feel this way, but I think it would be foolish to invest $200+ million and 10 years in someone who has probably 3-4 years left being worth it.

Do they want to be paying someone $30 million+ who's 35 and hitting .270 like the Yankees are? I don't think that's in the team's long-term best interest...

Beginning to feel that way myself. Get another outfielder and top pitcher for the same money. The offense is down a bit, but it picks up the pitching staff. This contract would take Pujols until he's 41. Unless he starts dipping into the steroids like Bonds, his career will start dipping after 35.

Marlins are on ****ing fire. Now they are offering CJ Wilson a 6 year deal.

Took about 80 more posts than I thought it would for that to come out.

I don't see how anyone gets 'bitterness' from this at all, but it's pretty much what I expected to hear from Royals and Cubs fans.

Economically asinine.

Backload the ever-living shit out of it and do so in a manner that allows for interest-free deferments.

It's his last deal, so it's not going to set a baseline for later contract discussions (that's the only drawback to backloading). Take the tens of millions you save over the first 6-7 years of the deal and invest it. With that kind of money, an 8% return is generally pretty easy. You'll double it over the life of the contract at a simple 7% return.

The Cardinals could backload that deal and invest accordingly in a manner that would make that $220 million only cost somewhere in the neighorhood of $170 million in 'real' dollars; the difference being money earned off the backloaded portion.

And that doesn't even get into the inflationary possibilities given baseballs unbridled payroll structure.

If Mozeliak offers that, DeWitt should fire him on the spot for being an absolute moron.

Buster Olney
@Buster_ESPN
No final decision in place, but there is a growing sense among some of officials involved in Pujols talks that he is staying with St. Louis.

I agree. Back loading contracts is always the way to go... Alfonso Soriano.

Probably. Marlins made a 6 year offer to CJ Wilson. Speculations are that they couldn't make that offer if they feel Pujols is leaning towards Stl.

Exactly.

The Cardinals front office got Pujols for 11 years at about 20% of this true financial value to the franchise. He was a screaming bargain over that time period.

If they had a brain in their head, they'd hold that money in a sort of 'escrow' because they know this day is coming.

Well now it's time to pay the man if you want to keep him. Sure, you can 'sell high' on him, take your excess value and let the Marlins foolishly overpay for him. Or you could take that excess value, put it back into Pujols and essentially 'purchase' a legend. By re-investing the excess value of the previous 11 years back into Pujols, DeWitt and Co. will ensure that Pujols goes down as the 2nd greatest Cardinal of all time.

Pujols has every right to demand that re-investment from the franchise, IMO. He doesn't owe the Cardinals a hometown discount at this point; he already gave them one for his entire prime.

Unlikely, well at least as to form (it appears they will go to 10/$220)

Pujols would have a no-trade clause by virtue of his 10/5 rights. The Cardinals can't sign him to a contract without a no-trade because his 10/5 rights would guarantee it.

So if a reporter is reporting that Pujols was granted a full no-trade clause, he's either making shit up or just being very sloppy.

Could the Marlins be any more transparent?

It is obvious they are trying to go all 1997 again to promote the new stadium by overpaying for a ton of big free agents, winning the World Series, and then dumping them all in trades a year or two later.

This was the cheapest organization in the sport just a year or two ago.

jcrasnickJerry Crasnick


Lots of buzz in Dallas that the Pujols decision is shifting strongly in the #Cardinals direction.

Jon_HeymanJon Heyman

#marlins already in pursuit of prince. Signs indicate cards likely to get pujols

A Pyrrhic victory, if they paid him anywhere near what the Marlins were offering.

Though this is pretty badass:

http://p.twimg.com/AgE9JVZCAAEZR9N.jpg

When Musial says it, you do it...

Did you miss the "interest free deferments" part? That's where it makes sense, inflation being what it is if you can defer the shit out of the money that way you win by back loading it.

So it would've been smarter to pay him $90 million over the last 5 seasons than it would have been to pay him $74 million over the same period of time?

You're aware that frontloading a deal doesn't make it cheaper, right? All the Cubs would've have done in the event that they front-loaded that deal was pay him $18 million/season for the first five years of the deal, as opposed to the last five.

Does that make him easier to trade? Well no, it does not. MLB allows teams to transfer money in the deal. So sure, Soriano's $18/per sounds bad to trade now, but by paying only 9, 13 and 16 over the first 3 years of the deal, they've saved $16 million that could be invested, increased and now sent to the trade partner to offset the cost.

You don't seriously believe the argument you're making here, do you? There is absolutely nothing that makes sense about front-loading a deal in an environment that does not have a salary cap.

You don't seriously believe teams back load contracts to invest the money saved, do you?

They are going to take that money saved from the early years and buy another player. In the Cardinals case, they'll buy a SP.

A) In fact, they do. If only via a shell game, they most assuredly do. When Bill DeWitt and crew only spend $100 million of their dollars on the Cardinals, instead of $110, they're leaving that extra $10 million somewhere else. Now some of that could be baseball investments (more money in latin scouting, more money in the draft pool; both of which are sources for low-cost talent). Even more of that is very likely in 'conventional' non-baseball investments.

But either way, the money doesn't vanish; it is otherwise used. When you're talking about money of that scale, it isn't difficult at all to make quite a bit more off of it, even in conservative investment vehicles. That money makes ol' Bill DeWitt an even wealthier man and all the more willing to eat a few $$ come payroll time.

B) Besides, now you're arguing about the intelligence of how the money saved is spent; which is a different story entirely. How the money is eventually spent or otherwise invested is completely different from how a contract should be structured from an economic standpoint. Even if DeWitt turns around and spends that $10 million on hookers and blow, the contract itself was still far more economically sound than front-loading it.

Oh, and getting beyond all that, you continue to ignore the inflationary nature of baseball salaries.

There are times when someone can cite a position as being 'an opinion' and thus capable of some gray area or reasonable disagreement. This, however, is not one of those time. From any logical economic perspective, it never EVER makes sense to front-load a contract absent a salary cap.

You are just flat wrong.

I agree. It makes no sense to pay a player more for his best years and maybe throw some incentive deals on the back end when the money lessens.

Glad we're on the same page.

Though, for the record, the MLB CBA does not allow for performance based incentives. Besides, now you're not talking about front-loading a deal, you're talking about lowering the overall value of a deal by tying part of it to incentives.

I don't see why this is so difficult for you to comprehend - it's MLB; these contracts are all guaranteed. The money is going to be paid. So if the money is going to be paid, when you pay it is immaterial, more accurately, it's immaterial if you're trying to factor when you pay it in relation to when it is earned via commensurate performance. Who gives a shit if you're paying him when he's most productive? You're going to be paying him anyway. At that point the only question is "how can we reduce the hit in 'real' dollars paid over the life of the deal"? The answer is the same as its always been in finance - defer the costs.

It's not like the NFL where you can cut the guy loose at the end. Albert Pujols is going to get $220 million over 10 years. If you can convince him to take $1/year for the next 9 years and the remaining $219,999,991 in the final year, you are MILES ahead of the game because you keep that money and are able to invest it.

Or maybe you think banks charge interest on long-term payments because people enjoy paying it.

The time value of money is not a myth, nor are economies of scale when dealing with figures this large. If you truly don't understand this, you are a complete fool.

I'm not talking about lowering anything... I'm talking about incentive bonuses.

It is my understanding that there is no such thing in the MLB because the CBA explicitly forbids it.

There are incentives in tons of contracts.

Soriano's contract comes with this - "award bonuses: $0.25M for top vote-getter in All-Star balloting, $0.35M for World Series MVP, $0.25M for LCS MVP, $0.3M for MVP, $75,000 for Gold Glove"

Dempster - award bonuses: $0.5M for Cy Young ($0.3M for 2nd, $0.25M for 3rd, $0.15M for 4th, $0.1M for 5th); $0.5M for MVP ($0.3M for 2nd, $0.25M for 3rd, $0.15M for 4th, $0.1M for 5th); $0.5M for WS MVP; $0.2M for LCS MVP; $75,000 each for Gold Glove, All Star

That's the extent of your response?

You're going to continue to ignore every bit of economic reality contained in there in order to once again harp about including incentive bonuses? Bonuses which, again, cannot be tied to performance?

Besides, that's exactly what you're arguing. Incentives have an economic value (amount of incentive multiplied by the likelihood of achieving them). If you're including incentives in the back of the contract in lieu of salary, then you're talking about reducing the value of the contract.

If you're talking about incentives in addition to the salary, you're talking about raising the value of the contract.

All you're doing there is dicking around with the overall value of the contract. None of that changes the fact that it still makes absolutely no sense at all to front-load the guaranteed portion of the salary.

Again - do people pay interest for charity?

If my firm offers to give me my next 7 years worth of salary tomorrow - done. I'll pay off every note I have to save the interest on those, I'll invest the rest in conservative crap the yields 7% and I'll end up better than twice as wealthy for my efforts (the math doesn't lie here; give it a shot).

You're not making any sense here. Money now is always more valuable than money later under any economic scale.

They can be based on awards and appearances.

You can't have performance based incentives like "batting average above .300", but you can have them based on MVP finishes or total ABs. You can also vest option years based on same.

But again, they have nominal economic value and have nothing to do with when the guaranteed portion paid is most valuable.

Major League Rule 3(b)(5) provides as follows:

"No Major League Uniform Player's Contract or Minor League Uniform Player Contract shall be approved if it contains a bonus for playing, pitching or batting skill or if it provides for the payment of a bonus contingent on the standing of the signing Club at the end of the championship season."

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Is this code for, "I was wrong and refuse to admit it"? hehe.

I've provided proof of contracts having incentives. You're the idiot here.

Here's a brand spanking new contract for you...

Berkman - award bonuses: $0.5M for MVP ($0.35M for 2nd, $0.25M for 3rd); $50,000 for WS MVP, LCS MVP; $25,000 each for Silver Slugger, Gold Glove, All-Star

I'm sure Albert is cringing over losing out on that quarter of a million for being a gold glover.

Is that code for "I was wrong?"

No, his code for "I was wrong and refuse to admit it" appears to be some nonsense about how wealthy businessmen don't know how to invest deferred funds.

I'm sure the agents and players are FAR too simple to look at time-value of money concepts. Wait, those are taught in high school? :hmmm:

The bolded part is the relevant word.

I can be based on duration, not based on skill. It's a very stupid rule, but it is what it is.

MLB contracts do not allow for performance-based incentives.

Ya ok... Lets pretend that another player isn't going to be signed with the money saved for the early years and that teams don't have individual salary caps.

For decades general managers in all major sports have been back-loading contracts (including the most successful in every single one of them).

Who'da thunk that they've been doing it wrong all this time? I mean hell, not only the GMs, but the billionaire owners their authorize their actions and the highly paid legal and financial consultants that are scattered throughout their respective organizations.

Thankfully some guy with the economic training of a house-cat is here to straighten them all out.

jcrasnickJerry Crasnick

Source says Pujols continues to negotiate with clubs other than #Cardinals. But Albert will not be going to Florida.

Exactly, especially someone who lived on backloaded contracts like Jim Hendry. Sure did him and his organization a lot of good. He got fired and the team went bankrupt.

Just as long as you'll continue to ignore that you're talking about a completely different analysis.

How to contract is structured is completely different than how the money intelligently saved should thereafter be spent.

Then again, I already mentioned that and you ignored it. Besides; don't you think the $9 million the Cardinals spent on Berkman this season due to deferred payments owed to Holliday, Lohse and Westbrook more than paid for itself through the World Series they won this year? So even if you want to consider money re-spent, that's an investment in its own right.

Oh yeah, and just keep on ignoring the fact that payroll in baseball has been rising by about 5% annually on balance, as though that's not relevant at all. Nor is the fact that revenue is increasing at a similar clip. That perhaps pushing off the real-time cost of a player will be off-set by commensurate increases in revenue streams such as television, advertising and ticket sales, once again greatly diminishing the 'real dollars' spent on the contract.

You keep looking at this through the eyes of a kindergartner if you'd like, but you're just dead-ass wrong here and by literally every logical analysis.

Wish Pooholes would hurry the hell up. He's had two years to do this shit, and now is holding up all the other deals till his is finalized. Got some Farve in him

Pujols is just waiting to schedule his special with ESPN to announce his decision.

He got fired and his team went bankrupt because he was an idiot and signed Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano. He got fired because he overspent on bad players, not because of how he structured the contracts.

Once again - do you care to explain to me how giving Alphonso Soriano $90 million over the last 5 years would've made more sense than giving him $76 million over the same time period?

Or are you just going to continue to ignore facts, logic and reason?

Go ahead and tell me why there are no GMs in MLB giving front-loaded contracts? Is every single GM and billionaire owner in this league completely economically inept? Hell, have none of them been bright enough to consult an economist?

Other way around. The Cardinals had 2 years to do this.

Cardinals low balled him and he laughed at it. They never budged from that offer and here is he making other teams have the Cardinals step up.

John Lackey.
Alex Rodriguez.

How many teams do you see offering 10 years to a 31yr old?

Who refused to negotiate once the season started? The Cardinals?

...

Who refused to increase their offer after the best player in baseball said no?

Because his agent insisted on it, not because the Red Sox did.

Look at Adrian Gonzalez - minor backload.
Crawford - fairly significant backload
Beckett - Backloaded in his original deal, static in his new one
Youkilis - backloaded
Pedroia - heavily backloaded
Lester - heavily backloaded

Yeah - looks like Epstein makes it a habit of backloading those deals because they make a lot of economic sense...

Oh wait, John Lackey was a free agent with several suitors and his agent insisted on more money up front for a slightly lower AAV.

Stupid !@#$ing facts. Why do they have go to making your argument look stupid all the time...

Alex Rodriguez.

So not only is front-loading contracts intelligent, but so is bidding against yourself.

Christ - you'll revolutionize contract negotiations. The Steinbrenner clan needs to get you on the phone yesterday.

Letting the best player in baseball even sniff free agency is a much better idea...

He picked the loosest purse-strings in the league to set the market price, now he'll find the team he really wants to play for?

Sabathia, Texiera, Burnett, Jeter, Cano, Soriano, Swisher...

Do we have to keep playing this game? Y'know, the one where an agent has a significant amount of negotiation leverage and convinces a team to structure a contract that's favorable to his client rather than a contract that comports with virtually every single other contract on the roster?

You're actually proving my argument for me pretty nicely here.

Maybe winning the WS increased their revenue projections and made it more feasible to bring Pujols back? The fact is, players wait to get to the open market unless they are bludgeoned with a ridiculously good deal.

It absolutely was.

By all accounts, Lozano was requiring 10 years and $275 million to re-sign without testing the market.

Yeah, the Cardinals really ****ed up by not giving that to him.

You are really really bad at this.

You just said no one is signing people to front loaded contracts and I bring up the one player you can even compare to the situation Pujols is in right now and you completely ignore it.

Thanks for playing.

Keep acting like the Cardinals are a better team without Pujols.

You mean like 10 years, $275 million?!?!?!

Stupid ass Cardinals - I don't know why they didn't just bend over backwards to give Albert whatever he wanted.

Maybe not today, but four years from now I'd be willing to bet they would be better off.

If they had an extra $30 million a year to spend, they certainly could be.

I'm not ignoring it at all, in fact I directly addressed it.

Those contracts were as a result of the player having leverage over the team and the team refusing to call the player's bluff. In exchange for a reduced AAV, the team front-loaded the deal.

This isn't hard to understand. You only frontload the deal if you're paying a significantly reduced overall $$ figure. Now if the Marlins were offering 10 years and $250 but he Cardinals only want to go 10 years/$210, then they'd have to front-load the contract to increase it's real-time value.

But again, that's manipulating the overall value of the contract to deal with market pressures.

It has nothing to do with what you're discussing.

But keep on covering yourself with glory here, chief. You're doing a bangup job of making yourself look like an idiot.

The Cardinals are a better team without Albert Pujols at that contract, yes.

And ultimately it looks like they're going to get him for a hell of a lot less than that. So yeah, they're a better team for calling Lozano's bluff.

Short term they'd be okay.

It would hinge on Adams development at 1B in the long run.