If we offered him 300 Million over 10 years I would be damn happy.. Pujols would put people in the seats and would give the Astros so much exposure.. 38% Latinos in Texas More national exposure (Marketing dollars) Ticket sales Season Ticket sales Making Astros Relevant! = 30 Millions a year..
http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2011/2/16/1996628/making-a-case-for-albert-pujols Personally, I don't think it would be that wise of a choice to go after him. I don't think the Astro's can afford to have 30 million dollars tied up to a player for 8-10+ years. We've already seen how bad its sucked paying Carlos Lee the rest of his contract. Although Pujols is a surefire hall of famer and one of the best ever to play the game and in a league of his own. Large contracts is what got this franchise into its current situation. We need to spread the spending out over the entire roster. Pujols has said he wouldn't mind playing here though. But I don't see a scenario where he lands with the Astros. In all likelihood I think he resigns with the Cardinals
I think he ends up in Anaheim. I hope the Cardinals keep him, because it's going to mean Wainwright will be pitching somewhere else (hopefully in another division) and other cuts elsewhere.
Short answer: about 1/10 the chance that the Texans get Asomagha. Long answer: Paying a guy like Pujols make MUCH, MUCH more sense for a contender than a rebuilding/retooling/middle-of-the-road type team. Because at 31, Pujols' value deteriorates over time. And you have to maximize that value by making best use of the best player in the game at its peak value. Going from 70 wins to 80 wins is not nearly as useful as going from 90 wins to going to a WS. A good example would be the timing at which we got Pettite/Clemens, and to a lesser extent Randy Johnson. Those were good timings. And in those offseasons, if the Astros didn't have Berkman/Bagwell at 1st, I'd have prayed for Pujols on the teams. But with the current team, I see much better use of $30 mil a year.
You guys are all correct. There's no way the Astros pay it, and it wouldn't be smart anyway since they have almost nothing else in terms of talent. But come on: it would be FUN, wouldn't it?
It's not my money..... the new ownership group will want to make a SPLASH right? :grin: I still think his homerun off Lidge is still orbiting the earth.
I'd do it... with a caveat... If we get a deep pocketed owner/ownership group that likes throwing around a lot of money and can afford to pay $30 mil to a washed up player for 1 - 3 seasons (without it effecting the money they spend on the rest of the roster), then eff yeah, why not? But, as evidenced by my paragraph long sentance, that's a BIG "if." Obviously, Drayton couldn't afford to get less than steller production out of Carlos Lee and continue to spread money around to draft picks and latin players. It was all or nothing on that one, and it doesn't take Bill James to realize that we ended up on the "nothing" end of that.
IF the question is "can" the Astros get Pujols... Short answer: No. Long answer: Uhhh...no. If the question is "wouldn't it be great if they did"? Of course it would.
Honestly, it wouldn't be fun to me. I'd rather watch a young core come together. Not watch the best player of this generation play on .500 teams every year. With Pujols, the Astros can only be the latter given the financial restraints his contract places on them... short of a new owner willing to spend like the Yankees/Red Sox.
You'd be happy in 2012 and 2013. Probably 2014 and 2015. Maybe even 2016. What if, like most players, Pujols declines in his mid-30's and the Astros flounder for 5 years because they have a wreck of a contract?
The Bagwell contract, in the end, was a bummer because he clearly wasn't playing at the level of the $15 or $17 million (or however much?) he was being paid. But it didn't cause the Astros to "flounder" -- they did that all by themselves by forgetting how to run a draft and spending idiot money on the likes Kazuo Matsui, et. al. And trading for Miguel Tejada. *sigh* When I say it would by "fun", I mean turning on the radio or going to the ballpark to watch an all-time great wear your town's colors and put fear into the rest of the league. If you're rebuilding, odds are you're not spending all that much jack on the rest of your roster yet, anyway. Not saying they *should* -- just saying, who *wouldn't* feel at least a little excitement to see Albert Freaking Pujols wear the mud'n'blood?
*IF* the Astros did sign Pujols, wouldn't that make the team that much easier to sell? I'm sure some potential buyer would be more willing to buy the Astros with Pujols locked up long term. I dunno, just thinking out loud. There's no chance of it happening anyway.
If I where the Cards, I'd let him walk. I know he is the franchise but for that kind of money they could resign Wainwright and sign another high priced pitcher. Their farm team isn't any better then the Stros but they have a kid they drafted last season, Zach Cox, who they could groom into the next Cardinal 1st baseman. This is to much for any fiscally responsible team to take on, Stros should look the other way and hope he ends up in Anaheim or with the Yanks. Their time to spend money will come but not next offseason.
But Bagwell's was only really bad for 1 year. Outside of that, it was a major injury and insurance covered it. Imagine if we had that for 5 years AND Carlos Lee's contract for 5 more years of last year's performance. That's the risk of a 10 yr deal to someone already over 30. Absolutely - I think it would be fun both because the first several years you'd be able to terrorize the league, plus you'd have the novelty of it. My concern is entirely on the back half of the deal, when the novelty has worn off, and his performance has probably also gone done. All around, I'm amazed a deal didn't get done with Cardinals, and I'm even more amazed at the reports that they never got above $23MM/yr or so. After that Matt Holliday contract, they had to know they were going to have to up the ante for Pujols.
