I think I need to have it explained to me why a $153 million man is doing his own driving, much less getting a DUI.  Cabrera actually looks pretty pleased with himself in this mugshot:

I guess the only question now is whether Pujols joins the Yankees or the Red Sox after 2011.

/pessimist

More powerful than a locomotive.  Faster than a speeding beetle.  Able to down five mickeys at a single sitting.  It's super-Miggy. 

In related news, the model for Lois Lane died on Saturday. I had no idea when Crash Test Dummies sang "Superman never made any money", there was a germ of truth in it. 

I'd love to have Pujols here for obvious reasons but...

1) He is a 1B thus the only positions for him long term are 1B/DH - A-Rod was first a SS then a 3B thus could still move to LF/CF/RF/1B/DH thus more long term options

2) He will be coming off his age 31 season thus...

3) A 10 year deal at $30 mil per (which he seems to be after) is fiscal suicide as you'd be paying top dollar for his age 40-41-42 seasons.

If, however, he was 'just' after $25-$30 mil per year on a, say, 5 year deal then things get a bit more interesting. That would be for his age 32-33-34-35-36 seasons and given he has OPS+'d from 151 to 190 over his 10 seasons it wouldn't be unreasonable (sheesh, $125-$150 mil over 5 years 'reasonable').

Btw, Fangraphs has Pujols as being worth $24.3 mil+ for 8 of his 10 seasons (2001 they don't list, 2002 they have him at $14.9). He has been over $30 mil 4 times and peaked at $41.7 million.

So, if I was AA what would I do, assuming Pujols has a Pujols type season? I'd go up to him and ask what would it take to get you here, max of 7 years (age 38). If it is $175 mil ($25 per) I'd be extremely tempted to hand it to him there and then, conditional on a full physical of course with my absolute peak being $200 over 7 years ($28.5 mil which would be a record per year) which would be done understanding I'd lose money but be gaining one heck of a player who could shift the Jays by 7-10 wins a year (ie: from mid-80's to mid-90's).

Note that he was offered $200 over 9 by the Cardinals which is 'just' $22.2 per year or well below Ryan Howard's $25 mil per. If I was Pujols and the Cards offered that I'd look at them like they were insane. Others offered more per year include (in descending order) Roger Clemens ($28), A-Rod (twice), Howard, Cliff Lee, Joe Mauer, CC Sabathia, Johan Santana, Manny Ramirez (09-10 version), and Mark Teixeira. Tell me you'd take any of them (outside of A-Rod) over Pujols. Maybe Mauer, but only maybe.

Interview with Mr. Wakamatsu about his new role with the Jays, and his feelings about Seattle.

3) A 10 year deal at $30 mil per (which he seems to be after) is fiscal suicide as you'd be paying top dollar for his age 40-41-42 seasons.

Nah, just takes creativity (even laying aside the idea that Rogers can run it up to around 150)

If he wants more than A-Rod I'd do it. If the benchmark is 10/275 then I'll work off that. Your AAV has to be at least 28. He'll be the same age A-Rod was, more or less, when he signed so you can't really tell him he ought to settle for fewer years.

So how do you do it? How about this - the Jays 2011 and 2012 payroll will still be fairly conservative...around 60 this year and around 65 next sooo.


Give him a $10 mil signing bonus (set it up as an anuity or something if agreeable or whatever) and then:

'12 - 31
'13 - 30
'14 - 29
'15 - 28
'16 - 27
'17 - 27
'18 - 26
'19 - 25
'20 - 24
'21 - 23

or, for a different curve, this with a 6 mil signing bonus

'12 - 32
'13 - 32
'14 - 30
'15 - 30
'16 - 28
'17 - 28
'18 - 26
'19 - 26
'20 - 21
'21 - 21

Even a ballplayer has to admit he's less likely to be a 30 mil guy at 41 than at 31.

Plus, with the standard baseball inflation rate of 5%, buy the time he's 38 and making $26 million, that amount will be the sort of money you routinely commit to a guy who is similar to what Matt Holliday or Ryan Zimmerman is today.

I'd sign that sort of deal in a heartbeat. That's not to say his hip couldn't go south or something that would leave you on the hook for a ton of money to a guy who can't even play but that comes with any deal.

But it's also a good reason why you front load the deal.

Later on in the decade, the payroll will be higher, the precentage going to Pujols would be less, and there would be more flexibility to pay the young guys as they near free agency.

Pujols is a very very rare opportunity - arguably the best hitter out there AND an off-the-charts character guy (unlike A-rod maybe?)

You make your exceptions for these guys.

If they didn't use 2011 as an opportunity to front-load Bautista's contract, I can't imagine a scenario where it would make more sense to do so.

The birthday boys of Feb 18:

C-   Chad Moeller, 1B- John Mayberry, 2B- Joe Gordon, SS- John Valentin, 3B- Jamey Carroll

OF- Manny Mota, Alex Rios, Walter Thornton

Bench- Marc Hill (C), Dal Maxvill (middle IF), Frank Fennelly (IF), Jerry Morales (OF), Larry Twitchell (OF)

Rotation- George Mogridge, Sherry Smith, Kevin Tapani, Bruce Kison, Shawn Estes

Bullpen- Bob Miller, Luis Arroyo, Herm Wehmeier, Zip Zabel, Huck Betts

That's a pretty good club.  There is no ace, but Mogridge, Smith and Tapani make for a solid front three, and the pitching staff should be fine even when Estes gets the start, as Wehmeier can easily go 3 decent innings.  The offence has some pop and some players who will take a walk, and a little bit of speed.  There will be quite a few 4-3 and 5-4 games, and the club would probably end up at about .500.

 

 

If they didn't use 2011 as an opportunity to front-load Bautista's contract, I can't imagine a scenario where it would make more sense to do so.

Really?  Seems pretty simple to me.  Bautista getting substantially front loaded would mean agreeing to pay him more for his arbitration year than even he asked for.  Why would they set that precedent?  Meanwhile, Bautista's money will be relatively modest on an average annual level, as a percent of the total budget they will be spending in, say, 2015.  Knocking the late years down by $3 or 4 MM each for JB will not make a substantial difference to the total payroll.  Finally, JB's contract ends when he is still just 35 or 36.  There is every chance he could still be producing enough WAR to pay for his final year.

All of these factors are way different for Pujols.  There would be no arbitration year precedent in question.  The percentage of the total budget that Pujols would constitute would be much greater, under any scenario, and the impact of TamRa's front-loading would be much more significant for the total budget in the final years of the contract.  Finally, Pujols is asking for a contract that would end when he is over 40 and when his WAR would be bound to be way below a flat average of $28MM.

What have I missed?

Why would they set that precedent?

Because they currently have a payroll under 60m, and have ran the equivalent (considering the exchange rate) of 100m payrolls within the last 5 years. It makes a lot of sense to lock up Bautista longterm and pay the bulk of the money owed in a year where you have tons of payrool room with no holes to spend it on.

Knocking the late years down by $3 or 4 MM each for JB will not make a substantial difference to the total payroll.

Then it would make even less of a difference for a player likely to cost double as much for a payroll likely to be double as high.

The percentage of the total budget that Pujols would constitute would be much greater, under any scenario,

This is incorrect. The current on-field Jays budget is around 58m, and for 2012 as of now it's 30m. If you use the Jays payroll historical chart you see payroll doubling from 2000-2010, as well as from just 2005 to 2008. How you know what % a Pujols contract will represent 10 years from now is beyond me.

Finally, Pujols is asking for a contract that would end when he is over 40 and when his WAR would be bound to be way below a flat average of $28MM.

First of all, I'd gladly bet that Pujols in 2020 produces more WAR than Bautista in 2016. Secondly, even if he doesn't, there's 5 years of WAR inflation there to make up the value. The same 3 WAR from Bautista in 2016 that's worth 15m could be worth 25m 5 years later.

A little off topic but the New York Times has a pretty interesting piece up on J.P. Arencibia.  I knew that he had shown up early in Dunedin but hadn't realized that he had also spent the offseason picking the brain of Derek Jeter during their daily workouts.  Has to be a better influence than spending a winter hanging out with Miguel Cabrera!

If they didn't use 2011 as an opportunity to front-load Bautista's contract, I can't imagine a scenario where it would make more sense to do so.

I can. the difference here is you'd be signing Pujols effectively through the end of his career. It's easier for a player to agree he'd be worth less at 41 than it would be for Bautista to agree he'd be worth less at 35 than now.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in ten years, generally speaking

Which is what makes it a more inviting deal for Pujols if he gets good financial advice.

Heck, if for no other reasn than that the "extra" money he makes now can be "grown" (investments and such) for 10 more years than if he got it at the end.

Actually, now that you mention it that would be a substantial bargaining point.

How you know what % a Pujols contract will represent 10 years from now is beyond me.

Actually, the figures would seem to be pretty similar. to start.

One can safely assume the 2012 budget will be at least $70 million, thus Bautista will make no more than 20% of the budget. but as the payroll theoretically grows from 2013 to 2015, that precentage drops.

IF however you add Pujols at a level $30 mil per year to that 2012 and beyond budget then the minimum payroll is more likely around $100 million and the precentage going to JB around 14%

Under this scenario, if Pujols is making $30 mil in 8 or 10 years even at a $150 million payroll Pujols would still be making 20% of the overall.

so yes, you can argue Bautista - on a team WITHOUT Pujols, will make 20% this year and Pujols would make 20% in 2021 - but even then many years before the payroll reaches that level he'd make more than 20%

but in no case, with them both here, would Bautista's precentage ever approach Pujols'

I'd love to get in on the Pujols speculation because he's exactly the sort of player one makes trade for in MLB the Show just to dream on what he'd look like in the uniform of the home 9, but I just don't see it happening. I think I'd take a 90-win Jays 2011 team on the cusp on the playoffs, Lind failing the 1B experiment, and a change in philosophy of AA/Beeston.

All this and I think the Cardinals are going to say, "OK. Albert, we couldn't agree, test the market, give us your best number and we'll beat it."

Thankfully, I don't think there's a snowball chance in hell that the Jays sign either Pujols or Fielder - I'm out on signing either 

 

I'm very against the Blue Jays signing the best player in the game. He'd cost Rogers way too much money.

"Thankfully, I don't think there's a snowball chance in hell that the Jays sign either Pujols or Fielder - I'm out on signing either"

Well, we can all agree on Fielder; not in great condition; likely to deteriorate rapidly. Also, the gap between a decent Lind recovery this year and an average Fielder year is not so substantial as to justify the increased salary the Jays would have to pay.

"All this and I think the Cardinals are going to say, "OK. Albert, we couldn't agree, test the market, give us your best number and we'll beat it.""

This is the most plausible scenario yet for how the Cards might hang on to him. Until this comment, I couldn't see how they would pull it off, given how far apart he and they appeared to be. But maybe they underplayed their hand before Spring Training, knowing that they can play it to the hilt next fall. Hmmm, I will ponder that.

Otherwise, think about this from Albert's point of view. He would want a team that had the following going for it, don't you think? At a minimum, it should be a team:
1) With a strong chance of contending for post-season play, every year of his contract
2) With enough financial appetite to afford his contract readily, and not have to cut back on the rest of the payroll, and thus diminish its chances of meeting test #1. (Goodbye, Angels?) This financial capacity must not be put in doubt by questions about the financial soundness of the owners (Goodbye Mets and Dodgers)
3) Managed at the FO and on the field by high class managers, whom Albert can respect (comparable to what he feels for Tony La Russa)
4) If in the AL, the team should not have a rising star under control for many years (like Hosmer) or an almost-as-good first baseman on a long-term contract (like Tex is or A-Gon will be), with better defensive skills than Albert today, so that he runs the risk of relegation to the DH role, or sharing first base before his declining skills make that essential
5) Have a policy about free-agent signings that expresses openness to a big FA contract, either all the time, or as the last big step needed to become a contender

Here are a couple of other factors that would not be essential for Pujols, but would be nice-to-haves, for sure:
6) Not a team that is in the same division as the Cardinals. He doesn't dislike the Cards or their fans, indeed he owes a lot to them, and he would create a very ugly dynamic to go with the Cubs, to rub his departure in the Cards' fans face 17 times a year
7) A team that has a pronounced focus on growing with Latin American players and whose Latin American players would speak highly of being there

Who are the teams that various sources have given some chance at Albert, besides the Cards? How do they compare to those seven standards?

The Cubs surely fail on #1, are fine on #2, but fail by definition on #6. Not only are they are perennial losers, but just traded away a chunk of their farm for Garza. There are big holes in their line-up, and Pujols would be far from the last piece needed to put them in contention. While they could win it all based on a huge contract offer, Pujols would have to suffer through years of no post-season play.

The Rangers have a real shot, as they do not noticeably fail on any of the 7 factors. Arguably, however, they might ask themselves whether they need to pay that much to improve on a team that is already good enough to go to the World Series, and which now has Beltre on a major contract. In two years' time, as well, they will have a very large contract to give to Josh Hamilton.

Next up are the Nationals, willing to overpay, and seemingly able to go on pursuing whoever they want. They, like the Cubs, are starting from well back, but with Strasburg and Harper, have more of an upward trajectory. Still, this would be a gamble for Pujols to take on #1. Can anyone else speak on any of the other factors?

These teams could choose to out-bid the Jays, even if the Jays are prepared to go beyond their own normal limits, on Pujols.

Everyone else I have heard speculated about for Albert fails badly on one or more of the above factors. In particular, Boston has A-Gon, whose bat will be almost as good as Pujols, and whose glove is, IIRC, superior - a fail on #4.

Similarly, the Yanks with Tex, have a superior defensive 1B-man, on a long contract. They fail on #4, as well. Pujols will disdain any chance to play DH. And after the Yanks' recent experience with A-Rod, do they want another long-term contract of that scale?

The Giants have a young, upcoming star at first - and so fail on #4.

The Jays, on the other hand, are not only fine on all the first five, they have a real advantage on #6 (over the Cubs) and 7 (with JB onboard, they may well be the best in MLB on this score). They are surely a more contending team than either the Cubs or the Nationals.

So it comes down to this - are AA/Rogers willing to go the distance, for Albert's amount and for something like this length of time? Is Pujols interested in following his fellow Dominican Jose to Toronto? Is there any team where he would have a bigger impact, putting it over the top, than Toronto? I can't think of one.

Maybe when some of us get to Hell, we will find that it is actually bitterly cold. With today's weather, I am open to that view. Snowballs might do quite well there.

Which is what makes it a more inviting deal for Pujols if he gets good financial advice.

But it also makes it a more expensive deal from Rogers' perspective, unless there's the discount that Mike Green mentioned.  Rogers would be forfeiting similar opportunities to put good financial advice to work.

The frontloading/backloading of contracts came up here earlier this offseason, but realistically it's not a significant issue.  Whether a player is paid x now or x(1 + r)^n later, it really doesn't matter.


Note: I'm ignoring possible tax implications, which could be a factor when structuring contracts (I'm not qualified to comment on that).

Well, the thing that makes one dream is the old Clemens contract in the late 90's. No one thought he'd be coming here but then the shock of shocks happened. Made for a heck of a good two years as every Clemens start was fun to watch. Sad how it ended, but then we got to watch the mess with steroids and the like - just imagine if he stayed here from '97 on and retired with that drug issue appearing.

But it also makes it a more expensive deal from Rogers' perspective, unless there's the discount that Mike Green mentioned.  Rogers would be forfeiting similar opportunities to put good financial advice to work.

The frontloading/backloading of contracts came up here earlier this offseason, but realistically it's not a significant issue.  Whether a player is paid x now or x(1 + r)^n later, it really doesn't matter.

Sure. But that comes with the territory. if you are not willing to do that, you probably are not willing to talk about a $250+ mil contract in the first place.

Did anyone notice the story on how the Dodgers retained Furcal at the last moment, when the Braves were going to sign him, by offering him a firetruck for his hometown in the Dominican? He was the only person from his town ever to have 'made it', and he wanted to give back to that community. That was what swung the deal.

Fast forward to the Bautista signing - a significant part of the story was that the Jays intend to donate to Jose's favourite Dominican charities.

If I know AA and co. well enough, they will make a very big push on this aspect of the Pujols deal, if they decide to go for it, so that he can show himself to be the biggest of all benefactors to his native country. I am sure that his sense of pride and respect (that matter enormously to him) would be greater than with any other type of deal.

I also wonder whether they could make as part of the contract that Albert would be a PR ambassador for the Jays for a couple of weeks during each of his winters throughout Latin America (to do tours just like other Jays players are doing in Canada). I believe they could lock up the best Latin talent for a generation, if he was their spokesman.

That would also be an intangible, that nonetheless would have a substantial value for the Jays' prospects of consistently contending.

Shi Davidi has an interesting update on Adeiny Hechevarria.

Sure. But that comes with the territory. if you are not willing to do that, you probably are not willing to talk about a $250+ mil contract in the first place.

But that really has nothing to do with how the contract is structured -- it's a matter of how much cash Rogers is willing to fork over.  Frontloading the contract would not be a significant bargaining point.  I don't see any real advantage to the contract structure you've suggested.

I don't know how to clear it up beyond what I said.

1. the front loading increases the value of the early dollars for the player.  For instance, beyond their being uninflated dollars, $10 million made in 2012-2013 can be invested in a number of ways which will grow the money substantially over the period of interveaning years before the end of the contract - an opportunity that would not be available if that $10 mil was recieved in 2020-2021

2. From the teams point of view, you have a player who's 40/41 making an amount of money much more appropriate to his likely level of production at the end of the contract that you'd have if the dollar amount was level throughout, let alone backloaded.

I don't see how anyone could miss the advantage of having your 41 year old slugger making (for instance) $22 million instead of $30 million.

Especially if the slugger's WAR only justifies, say, $15 million

1. the front loading increases the value of the early dollars for the player.  For instance, beyond their being uninflated dollars, $10 million made in 2012-2013 can be invested in a number of ways which will grow the money substantially over the period of interveaning years before the end of the contract - an opportunity that would not be available if that $10 mil was recieved in 2020-2021

It's a non-issue.  The player's representatives are capable of figuring out the actual value of the contract, regardless of how it's structured.  For example, a front-loaded contract for a total of $200 million could be equal in value to a back-loaded contract for a total of $250 million.  Possible investment opportunities would be one of the considerations in those calculations.  Unless the player has an urgent need for cash upfront or believes that there is a significant chance the team could default, it doesn't really matter if the contract is front-loaded or back-loaded.

2. From the teams point of view, you have a player who's 40/41 making an amount of money much more appropriate to his likely level of production at the end of the contract that you'd have if the dollar amount was level throughout, let alone backloaded.

I don't see how anyone could miss the advantage of having your 41 year old slugger making (for instance) $22 million instead of $30 million.

Who cares if the player's salary in a given year doesn't match his production?  Over the life of the contract, the player is being paid the same regardless of whether it's front-loaded or back-loaded (assuming the time value of money has been taken into account).  It all evens out in the end.  You're trying to address an issue that's largely cosmetic.

Further, a front-loaded contract doesn't necessarily make a player more tradable later on because a team can include cash in a deal to make it work (essentially including the money "saved" from the early years of the contract).  It's not uncommon for teams to include cash in a deal when trading away an expensive player.

The advantages of front-loading that you're suggesting do not exist.

(Again, I'm ignoring tax considerations, and I'm also ignoring possible MLB luxury tax implications.)

Who cares if the player's salary in a given year doesn't match his production?  Over the life of the contract, the player is being paid the same regardless of whether it's front-loaded or back-loaded (assuming the time value of money has been taken into account).  It all evens out in the end.  You're trying to address an issue that's largely cosmetic.

that's certainly not the way ANY one ever discussed Vernon Wells' contract.

From the day he signed it, including the last year of the old deal that was left standing, Wells had several seasons of being UNDER-paid (as you look at "this year's pay vs. this year's production") as a trade off for the big figures in the out years.

Over the course of the 8 years his AAV was about 16.5 mil

Which might well be described as too much - but NO ONE but me ever noted that. The uniform refrain was "Vernon Wells makes over $20 million for THAT?!"

So clearly it makes a difference to a LOT of people, cosmetic or not.

So clearly it makes a difference to a LOT of people, cosmetic or not.

If Wells' contract had been front-loaded, how would it have made a meaningful difference?  People would then be complaining about how Wells was making $21 million when he was hitting .245/.304/.402.

The problem was that the Blue Jays were obligated to pay Wells more than his production warranted.  Front-loading the contract wouldn't have changed that fact.  The team was on the hook regardless of how the contract was structured.

As far as the trade possibilities go, instead of getting this:

Wells for Napoli + Rivera + freed-up cash to spend on other players

The Blue Jays would have gotten this if Wells' contract had been front-loaded:

Wells for players better than Napoli and Rivera

And Alex Anthopoulos could have gotten the latter this time around had he been willing to eat a significant portion of Wells' contract.  In a front-loaded deal, the team would have simply been eating the contract during the initial years of the deal rather than at the time of the trade.

I don't know how this idea about front-loading contracts got started around here, but it's misguided at best.  All you're doing is shuffling numbers around.  That's it.

Frontloading and/or backloading adds a different calculation to contracts as well...if you backload, one of things you are hoping for is inflation - inflation of player salaries in general (so $XX million will seem reasonable in 4 years even if it might not now), and inflation economically - which is expanded money supply (not higher prices, although often the two track one another). Salary inflation has vastly outpaced money supply inflation for decades, so it is often seen as the  more important piece of the two. I think sports salary inflation is heading for a flatlining in the next decade, if not a general decrease, but I'm in the minority there, usually. Frontloading makes sense if you are going to sign a bunch of guys to similar deals and go for franchise glory, but few teams seem to actually go all out on that route - one backloaded deal doesn't make as much sense as several, to me at least.

Anyway, a contract worth the same every year in $ total is frontloaded in an accounting sense, and Rogers (or whoever is paying) certainly accounts for it that way, with future money being worth less than it is now by convention.

Backloading a contract, when done, would seem to assume future payroll flexibility, which would generally happen after team success increased revenue (or marketing goes well). Backloading contracts is betting on the team and the player, or hoping for very large inflation. I hate backloaded contracts - the "things don't go right" options are worse, and more things have to go right for them to be worth it. They are also harder to unload, Wells example aside, if things aren't going well.

Backloading a contract, when done, would seem to assume future payroll flexibility, which would generally happen after team success increased revenue (or marketing goes well). Backloading contracts is betting on the team and the player, or hoping for very large inflation.

As I recall, the expectation of future revenues and a higher payroll was used by Ricciardi to justify back-loading the Wells deal (I know Ricciardi made that argument at some point with some player).  That's probably one of the reasons why Alex Anthopoulos has backloaded the contracts he's signed during his tenure as GM.

I also suspect that some GMs back-load contracts because they know they're not going to be the ones who have to deal with those contracts later on, but that's another issue.