Marlins have made 10-year offer to Pujols

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Ken_RosenthalKen Rosenthal

Confirmed: #Marlins have made 10-year offer to Pujols. Source says two sides trying to work through no-trade issue. MORE #MLB

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by H5N1

st. louis fans sounding a bit bitter here, fwiw.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Front load the contract.

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.

Originally Posted by beer me

If he'll do that, yes.

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

[rageeumr]

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.

[jd1020]

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

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by rageeumr

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.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

No, totally, totally different situations.

I like the Cardinals and hope Pujols stays. But how can you blame him for wanting more money at this stage in his career? He's earned that right. Lebron, on the other hand, promised Cleveland a championship and then chicken-shitted out so he can buy a championship. And unless Pujols makes some kind of a chicken shit announcement on national TV, he'll do it with more character than Lebron did too.

I could see why a Cards fan would be mad. But it's hard to mad at a guy who has done so much for the team and the city.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Reports trickling out that the Cardinals matched the Marlins 10 year offer with the same money and added a full no trade clause.

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.

[eazyb81]

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.

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

jcrasnickJerry Crasnick


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

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Jon_HeymanJon Heyman

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

[evenfall]

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

[DJ's left nut]

Though this is pretty badass:



When Musial says it, you do it...

[veist]

Originally Posted by jd1020

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

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by jd1020

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

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.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.