"Is Pujols Worth $300 Million?" Is the Wrong Question

This Neyer piece, which references a Dave Cameron piece, is one of many investigating how much Pujols is worth and how much his contract should/will be (and with whom).

But I fear we're asking the wrong question.

The right question is, "Can the St. Louis Cardinals get a better return on investment by spending $xxx million on Albert Pujols than on anything else over the term of the contract?"

These questions are similar, but not the same. Not at all. Even if Albjert Pujols doesn't project to win $300 million worth of games over the next 8-10 years, that doesn't mean that there's something more productive that the Cardinals can spend that amount of money on over time.

That said, assuming a $300/10 deal, is there a better way for the Cardinals to spend that much money over that period of time? If the answer is no, then they should make the deal.

over 1 year ago J-Doug 11 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

$300M could go pretty far...

Hell, they could get EVERYONE on the Royals current roster for that much for the entire duration.

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Feb 16, 2011 6:30 PM EST reply actions

Will those Royals put up an 8 WAR/yr the next 10 seasons?

It’s an honest question

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Feb 16, 2011 9:18 PM EST up reply actions

Combined, will the entire Royals team be +8 WAR per season over the next decade?

Yes. Except for 2011.

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Feb 16, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions

But what about this roster specifically?

Take the players on the Royals’ current 25-man roster, follow them over the next 10 years. Do they post a higher WAR than Pujols? I’m skeptical.

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Feb 17, 2011 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

I'm guessing the Cardinals

feel they can get more mileage and spread the risk around in the process.

by Harry Pavlidis on Feb 16, 2011 6:31 PM EST reply actions

exactly

"Dropping an anvil on his back thru roof of his house" - LaRussa
turn it up to '11

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Feb 16, 2011 8:00 PM EST up reply actions

Managing risk and trying to win are usually incompatible goals.

One has to give somewhere in the process. I don’t see a better bet for the next decade or so than keeping Pujols in St. Louis.

All blockbuster free agent deals have built-in risk on the back end. But the actual risk package doesn’t get any better than Pujols. The only possible better fit is an AL team, where even if he experiences serious health issues, he can still DH to mitigate the losses somewhat towards the tail of the contract.

Stranded In Paradise

by misterjonez on Feb 17, 2011 12:07 AM EST up reply actions

The only possible better fit is an AL team, where even if he experiences serious health issues, he can still DH to mitigate the losses somewhat towards the tail of the contract.

Something that he is no doubt considering at this point.

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Feb 17, 2011 12:54 AM EST up reply actions

I would have said the Angels...

…prior to the Wells debacle.

Re: the need to DH, he plays first so it’s not the same issue as a having a 3B or SS where a team already has a 1B.

Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)

by Bill Petti on Feb 17, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions

Superstars who consider the DH a factor when choosing where to land seem rather rare.

Or at least they do to me. Maybe it’s pride, maybe it’s myopia, maybe it’s both. But it doesn’t seem like this happens until the end of superstar careers (and when their big contracts are up) that they actually settle for the DH role.

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Feb 17, 2011 2:04 PM EST up reply actions