Angels Bet the Future on Albert Pujols

by Dave Cameron - December 8, 2011

For the second year in a row, the “Mystery Team” has proven that they’re not a myth. This year, though, I’m having a harder time explaining the logic behind the move. Last year, Cliff Lee wanted to go back to Philadelphia, the Phillies were in win-now mode after compiling a roster that was just one piece away, and the two were able to work out a deal for an amount similar to what other teams were bidding.

This year, however, the Angels decided to blow the doors off the Albert Pujols sweepstakes, and they got their man by outbidding everyone else in a pretty significant way. The reported deal has the final dollar figure landing in the $250 to $260 million range over the next 10 years, nearly 13 percent higher than the next best reported offer (which has been disputed) and 25 percent higher than the offer the Cardinals reportedly made before the bidding got hot and heavy. And while I love Albert Pujols, it’s going to take a lot of things going right for this to work out for the Angels.

At $250 million over 10 years, the Angels are essentially paying for something close to 40 wins over the life of the deal. In order to believe he’ll produce at that level, you need to see Pujols as something close to a +6.7 win player now and will age fairly well, which is possible but is not the most likely outcome in this scenario. You also need to believe that he’s not lying about his age – if he is, there’s almost no chance this deal works for Anaheim. And, of course, you need him to stay healthy, which bigger guys often can’t do in their thirties. The Angels have absorbed a massive amount of risk by guaranteeing Pujols this much money for so long, and while the potential for him to earn it is there, it’s not clear that this is the best path they could have taken.

After all, the Angels didn’t exactly have a glaring need for a first baseman. Despite Mark Trumbo‘s lack of walks and oft-mocked OBP, his power served to make him a league average player as a rookie, and with a little future boost in his BABIP, projecting him as a +3 win player going forward isn’t a huge stretch. You don’t pass on Albert Pujols because you already have Mark Trumbo on the roster, but having a decent first baseman making the league minimum at least put the team in the position to not have to act desperate. When you factor in the potential that Kendrys Morales may recover some of his previous productivity after missing most of last year, the Angels had some in-house, low-cost options for 1B/DH.

Now, the Angels have to shift a lot of things around to fit Pujols into the roster. With 1B closed off, the Angels now have essentially three spots in the line-up for some combination of Trumbo, Morales, Torii Hunter, Bobby Abreu, Vernon Wells, and Mike Trout. If you simply shift Trumbo/Morales to DH, then Abreu/Wells/Hunter likely become the de facto corner outfielders, and Trout begins 2012 back in Triple-A, biding his time until the overpaid and mediocre get out of his way.

This seems to be the most likely scenario, as it’s the one that doesn’t require the Angels to do anything too terribly drastic, but it’s also the one that is perhaps the worst use of their resources. Trumbo’s less valuable as a DH than as a first baseman, Abreu is less valuable if he ever has to put on a glove, and whatever playing time goes to Wells could have been better allocated to Trout, who is just the better player between the two even at his current stage of development.

There are more radical plans – release Wells, move Trumbo to third base – that could offer the team a chance to keep Trout on the roster, but it’s more likely that the Angels take the conservative approach and stick with the veterans as they push for a playoff spot in 2012. Especially with the addition of C.J. Wilson as well, the team is making a clear push for contention, and most organizations don’t prioritize playing time for 20-year-olds while making a run at October baseball.

This all gets a lot easier in 2013, when the contracts for Hunter and Abreu expire and Morales will be eligible for free agency, so you could argue that the Angels were just getting their shopping for next winter done a year early, and have given themselves a chance to land a player who simply wasn’t going to be on the market in 12 months. However, even with those contracts coming off the books next winter, it’s not clear that the Angels should have been allocating a significant part of their payroll to a 1B/DH anyway.

Dan Haren‘s only under team control through 2013, and if they hope to keep him slotted into their rotation behind Jered Weaver, he’s going to require a pretty significant contract extension, probably somewhere north of $100 million on his own. Likewise, Ervin Santana is a free agent after 2013, and there’s already talk that the team will try to trade him now that they have Pujols and Wilson in the fold. Meanwhile, starting catcher Chris Iannetta can void his contract to become a free agent next winter, while second baseman Howie Kendrick, shortstop Erick Aybar, and quality infielder Maicer Izturis are set to hit the open market as well.

It’s simply going to be cost prohibitive to retain all or even most of those guys, so the Angels have likely chosen Pujols over retaining their in-house players who will be up for big raises in the not too distant future. I don’t know that spending $25 million per year on Pujols is actually going to provide a better return than using that money to lock up some combination of Aybar, Kendrick, and Haren, and if the Angels have to let several of those players go to keep their payrolls at reasonable levels, it’s not clear that they’ve actually improved their ability to contend during the time when Pujols still projects as an elite player.

If the Cardinals had signed him to this same deal, I think I probably could have talked myself into it. Pujols is great enough that this kind of contract isn’t totally crazy on its face, but when you look at the context of the Angels situation and how much this actually improves them, I just don’t know that this is how they should have spent $250 million. Perhaps Arte Moreno will approve payroll increases up to $200 million and they’ll be able to keep the core of their team together, but if I was an Angels fan, I’d be a little worried that I might be heading to the park to watch Pujols play with a cast of teammates that just aren’t quite good enough to keep up with the Rangers in the AL West.

The Angels are now contenders in 2012, but I don’t know if the present value added for the next year or two is worth the long term consequences of this contract. The Angels are going to need a lot of things to break their way in order for this to work.

$250M contract, kind of makes you want to cry.
I have been trying to get few xtra thousand dollars increase to my yearly raise and I been getting stone walled

Add a little Bolumba to your diet and entertain the multiple offers to come your way

But I think the reasoning in the next article below to be sound and appropriate.

Pujols' departure a blessing in disguise

Jon Paul Morosi analyzes the Angels' signing of Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson.


It’s a great day for the St. Louis Cardinals.

LONG HAUL

Which of these lengthy contracts paid off and which ones were busts?

Yes, Albert Pujols is an eminent player. Yes, Cardinals fans feel heartsick right now. Yes, a unique opportunity in baseball history — the chance for Pujols to succeed Stan Musial as the Cardinals’ franchise icon — has been lost forever.

In the immediate aftermath of this morning’s bulletin — Pujols to the Angels for between $250 million and $260 million over 10 years — Cardinals officials mastered the Mr. Yuk face. But give them time. They will come around. This is excellent news for the Cardinals’ long-term, on-field health.

Don’t get me wrong: Pujols is probably the game’s best hitter. He should retain that title for several more seasons. The Cardinals, in the near term, would have been better with him than without him.

But objectively speaking, a 10-year contract for Pujols in the National League would have been a catastrophe. Pujols turns 32 next month. The 40-homer, 110-RBI seasons will continue for a while — but not into perpetuity. In St. Louis, without the therapeutic benefit of DH days, there’s an excellent chance this contract would have gone rogue on the backstretch.

END OF AN ERA

Cardinals fans start to come to terms with Pujols' departure.

Cardinals fans would have had to watch Albert become A-Rod 2.0. And that might happen, anyway, although the Angels can do more to preserve his legs and back in the American League.

Under his new contract, Pujols will play four seasons at 38 or older. Over the last six years, according to STATS LLC, only two position players made All-Star teams when beginning a season at those ages. One was the worn-down Barry Bonds, the beneficiary of a courtesy vote in San Francisco during his farewell season of 2007.

Let’s not forget an important detail in all of this: The Cardinals just won the World Series. Co-ace Adam Wainwright is coming back from arm surgery. They have Lance Berkman to play first base or right field, depending on where general manager John Mozeliak decides to add a bat. They have All-Star run producers in Berkman and Matt Holliday, along with a rising star in David Freese. The bullpen is deep. They should win the weakened NL Central.


So, spare me the LeBron James comparisons. LeBron left the Cavaliers without a championship or a sufficient amount of talent to put a competitive team on the court. Pujols committed neither of those sins in St. Louis. He won two championships for the city. He is leaving a strong clubhouse behind. Sure, he’s turning his back on a city’s unconditional love. For that, some will see him as a villain. But the World Series DVDs will ease the pain.

To declare the Cardinals a ruined franchise is to ignore an important piece of recent baseball history: Alex Rodriguez left the Seattle Mariners for the Texas Rangers during a winter meetings at this very same hotel 11 years ago. His 10-year, $252 million contract was almost identical to the one Pujols has received. The Mariners were supposedly doomed. Well, all they did the following season was win an AL-record 116 games.

St. Louis fans have every right to feel bitter today. They should grieve the loss of a superstar who fit their city so well. But if the pity party goes on for too long, I’ll criticize their lack of perspective. They should consider themselves fortunate to have seen 11 of the greatest seasons in baseball history, during which they celebrated two World Series championships. If they’re feeling down, they should call their friends in Cleveland and ask if they would have taken that bargain with James, Manny Ramirez, or the other stars who left.

The Cardinals may have a homespun fan base, but free agency isn’t foreign to them. The concept dates to Curt Flood more than 40 years ago. The organization survived when Flood left. It should thrive now.

If anything, Cardinals fans ought to think big about the possibilities Mozeliak has in front of him. Should he go after Prince Fielder? How about Carlos Beltran? Maybe Jason Kubel or Michael Cuddyer, free agents who received a principled baseball education from the Minnesota Twins? With the right moves, folks in St. Louis can dream — credibly — about a reunion with Pujols and the Angels in the 2012 World Series.

But just to be safe, perhaps the Major League Baseball schedule-makers should arrange an Angels-Cardinals series at Busch Stadium in 2013. By then, Cardinals fans may be able to appreciate the blessing they received on Dec. 8, 2011.

Especially the fact that they would even sign him for ten years. U know his play will deteriorate by the time he is in his mid to late 30s. I would have signed him 5 years and no more.

[QUOTE=mirabal4ever]
[QUOTE=guillermone]
$250M contract, kind of makes you want to cry.
I have been trying to get few xtra thousand dollars increase to my yearly raise and I been getting stone walled
[/QUOTE]
Especially the fact that they would even sign him for ten years. U know his play will deteriorate by the time he is in his mid to late 30s. I would have signed him 5 years and no more.
[/QUOTE]


That's why the Cardinal management is not too unhappy that this took place; it's actually a good business deal for them. They can tell their fans: "Look we made him an offer, but those other guys threw him a boat-load of money and we couldn't go that far" Crocodile tears by the Cardinals Now the Angels get to see a very good Pujols, not the better Pujols from his PEAK YEARS with the Cardinals. And Pujols gets to extend his productivity for a few more years with the DH option available in the AL. Of course the Angels will now be on the hook for the duration of Pujols career. But before you think this is a deal breaker for Arte Moreno and his Angels team, take a look at his 3 BILLION dollar contract (20 yr) he signed with Fox Sports BEFORE going on his Pujols adventure.

Big Ticket Signings Don’t Drive Attendance
[URL]http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/big-ticket-signings-dont-drive-attendance/[/URL]
by Dave Cameron - December 9, 2011

With the Angels throwing a small mountain of money at Albert Pujols, a common justification for the expenditure is that the revenues he creates through gains in attendance and merchandise sales will make up for the costs of acquiring him in the first place. This argument is a pretty common one among people looking to defend free agent prices, but it has one fatal flaw – there isn’t much in the way of evidence to support the idea.

The merchandise argument is almost a total non-starter, in fact. As part of MLB’s revenue sharing plan, the profits from sales of jerseys, hats, and the like are pooled into the central fund and distributed equally to each team around the league. While about one-quarter of all baseball jerseys sold have a Yankees logo on them, each team shares equally in the profits from those sales. Even if every person to walk through the gates in Anaheim next year purchased a Pujols jersey, the Angels wouldn’t get much benefit from those sales.[The equal division of merchandise sales only applies to third-party stores and licenses, like if you buy a Rays shirt at Target, or something. If it’s bought in the official team store, however, it goes to the team.]

Where teams can really differentiate themselves and create additional revenues are attendance and television contracts – teams pocket the profits they make by selling more tickets or by negotiating better rates with their local cable provider, or, in many cases, creating their own regional sports network and cutting out the middle man. The Angels’ spending windfall is essentially a direct result of the latter option, as Arte Moreno exercised an opt-out clause in the team’s television deal last winter and renegotiated a new contract that will reportedly pay the team $3 billion over the next twenty years. The contract essentially tripled the team’s TV revenues, upping them from $50 million to $150 million per season.

However, that deal was already agreed to before their recent series of signings, and adding Pujols won’t allow the team to extract even more money from Fox Sports. The franchise secured those revenues prior to signing Pujols, and his presence won’t earn them any extra money even if their ratings go through the roof during his time in Anaheim. By the time the Angels television contract is up for renegotiation again, Pujols’ days will be long since finished, and his presence on the roster a decade prior won’t have much impact on what kind of deal the franchise will be able to negotiate in 2031.

That essentially leaves revenues from items related to stadium attendance – ticket sales, parking, concessions – as the one area where Pujols could generate an increase in profits for the Angels. While MLB teams are forced to share a portion of their locally generated revenues, they keep 85 percent of the profits from their gate receipts, so a significant spike in attendance from adding Pujols could put more dollars in the team’s pockets, offsetting some of the cost of his contract in the process. [

The problem here is that there simply isn’t much evidence that these kinds of contracts actually drive sustained long-term increases in attendance. The most comparable deal to this contract is, of course, Alex Rodriguez‘s $252 million deal that lured him to Texas during the winter of 2000. Tom Hicks made similar financial arguments at the time of that deal, arguing that Rodriguez’s name value would cause a drastic increase in attendance, which would also allow him to make large gains in revenues from developing the land around the Rangers ballpark.

However, that simply never materialized. Here’s a graph of the Rangers attendance from 1996-2005, which gives us a 10-year window that includes their ability to draw fans before Rodriguez arrived (’96-2000), during his time in Texas (’01-’03), and the first two years (’04-’05) after they shipped him to New York for Alfonso Soriano.

The Rangers were drawing well in the mid-1990s as they were perennial contenders in the AL West, but were seeing the fans come to the park less often as the team’s fortunes on the field took a turn for the worse. Rodriguez’s arrival turned that tide, and in 2001, the Rangers saw their attendance jump by 242,620 fans over the prior year. That nice little spike got them back near the attendance levels they were experiencing when the team was winning, but it was a short-lived boost, as fans quickly realized that they weren’t overly interested in watching Rodriguez play for a losing team, and they avoided the park en masse in 2002. In fact, the loss of 478,624 fans between Rodriguez’s first and second season was twice as large as the gain they got from the spike of bringing him in, and then they lost another 258,003 fans during Rodriguez’s third and final season in Texas as well.

By the end of his stay with the Rangers, the team had actually seen a net loss of 494,000 fans compared to their final year prior to signing him. Having not realized any real financial gain from having Rodriguez on the roster, the Rangers gave up on the idea of keeping him in Texas and shipped him to New York for Alfonso Soriano and some salary relief. They cut payroll, re-built the roster, and managed to turn a 71-win team from 2003 into an 89-win team in 2004. And, in perhaps the greatest demonstration of what actually causes fans to decide to go to the ballpark, the Rangers saw an attendance spike of 419,291 fans.

The attendance spike that occurred in the year they got rid of Rodriguez was 73 percent larger than the spike that they got when they acquired him. And, unlike the short-lived boost that came from bringing Rodriguez onto the roster, this spike actually held, as the team was able to maintain those attendance levels in 2005, actually adding another 11,536 fans in the second year after Rodriguez’s departure.

If one were to simply look at the facts regarding attendance in Texas surrounding Rodriguez’s arrival and departure, it’d be hard to conclude anything other than that having him on the team had no real impact on drawing fans to the park, nor did he create anything close to the extra revenue that Hicks may have anticipated.

Of course, this is just one player in one city, and while Rodriguez was a phenomenal talent, he wasn’t quite the established superstar that Pujols is currently. So, let’s look at another example where the sport’s marquee player changes cities with a deal that looked to lock him up for the remainder of his career.

Cincinnati Reds attendance, 1996-2005.
Year Attendance Note
1997 1,785,788
1998 1,793,649
1999 2,061,222
2000 2,577,371 Ken Griffey Jr. Acquired
2001 1,879,757
2002 1,855,787
2003 2,355,259 Great American Ballpark Opens
2004 2,287,250
2005 1,943,067

The Reds saw a 25 percent attendance boost the year after they acquired Ken Griffey Jr, the most recognizable player on the planet at the time he was traded from Seattle. However, one year later, they saw a 27 percent decrease, as the novelty aspect wore off and fans realized that they simply did not want to pay to watch Griffey play on a losing team. Attendance continued to hover at pre-Griffey levels until the Reds new ballpark opened, which created an attendance surge of similar proportions to acquiring Griffey.

Again, though, we see that having Griffey as a gate attraction didn’t lead to any kind of sustained revenue growth for the Reds, despite the fact that he was a local hero and his father had been a star for the franchise previously. Given Griffey’s marketability and his connection to the city, he’s perhaps the perfect storm of circumstances that should conspire to bring fans to the ballpark. And like with Rodriguez, the team did get a boost in year one, but once again attendance returned to prior levels in year two.

At best, there appears to be a short-lived gain associated with making this kind of investment in a player who you expect to draw fans to the park, and even that effect has a minimal financial impact on the organization. If you look at other big money free-agent signings over the last 10 years, the pattern is the same. Teams might see a small bump in year one, but if the team doesn’t win, the fans don’t stick around.

If Albert Pujols is going to earn his contract, he’s going to have to do it by producing wins on the field. A team’s record is the driver of attendance, and if Pujols makes the Angels contenders, they will benefit from the extra revenue associated with drawing more fans and earning potential windfalls from playoff appearances. However, there’s simply not much evidence that Pujols will produce revenue for the Angels above and beyond what he’ll add through helping the team accomplish those goals. Wins create revenue, not star-attraction players.

Tim Brown nails it with this article.

A little deceit bought ‘Fausto Carmona’ a new life

Tim Brown

By Tim Brown, Yahoo! Sports Jan 19, 8:27 pm EST


I’m not saying it’s right, but were I raised on a dirt floor in the Dominican Republic and found I could throw a baseball a little, and that seemed like more fun than, say, working a tobacco farm for a few pesos a day, I’d change my name to Doris Day and wear a wedding gown for a shot at professional ball.

Roberto Hernandez Heredia went not for anything quite so suspicious, but for “Fausto Carmona,” a Cleveland Indians uniform and a fresh birth certificate.

Several months ago, we learned Juan Carlos Oviedo had opted once upon a time for Leo Nunez.


When he was known as Fausto Carmona, Roberto Hernandez Heredia won 19 games in 2007 for the Indians and was 53-66 in six full seasons.
(Getty Images)

Carmona (nee Hernandez), according to reports out of the Dominican Republic, is actually 31, or three years older than the Indians believed him to be.

Which brings to mind the reaction out of Anaheim a decade ago when it was learned Ramon Ortiz was 28, not the 25 that was in their records. Vice president Tim Mead mused, “We’re excited to have a more mature, knowledgeable pitcher.”

Sure enough, a wiser Ortiz won 31 games over the next two seasons, the best years of his career.

Life may not be as mirthful in the Carmona camp, given he was not only discovered to be allegedly using someone else’s name (and birth date), but arrested for it outside the U.S. consulate in Santo Domingo on Thursday.

This comes not three months after the Indians picked up Carmona’s $7 million option for 2012. And four since Carmona stumbled away from a season in which he was 7-15 with a 5.25 ERA.

Carmona signed with the Indians in 2000, supposedly as a 16- or 17-year-old. Turns out he was perhaps as old as 20. Two years later, while Carmona was playing rookie ball in Burlington, N.C. (and presumably still getting used to answering to “Fausto”), Rafael Furcal, Bartolo Colon, Neifi Perez and Ortiz, among others, were discovered to have lied about their ages. Years later, Miguel Tejada and Vladimir Guerrero were found to have shaved a year or two from their birth certificates. In March 2009, MLB investigated at least 40 cases of age irregularities among Dominican Republic prospects.

While age management is a profession in some parts of our culture – I’m based in Los Angeles, remember – it’s exasperating for baseball. Scouts sent to Santo Domingo are asked to project 16-year-old waifs into something like 22-year-old professional ballplayers, and it would help to know if the kid is as big and mature as he’s going to get. Of course, the likes of Tejada and Guerrero – and, presumably, near countless others – worked out just fine. But, when millions of dollars are at stake and the discussion turns to an international draft, it would be somewhat important to separate the boys from the grown men.

This is not to cast judgment on the young men who view their nation’s reputedly lax record keeping as a welcome loophole when the American scouts arrive, or on those who use the anonymity of a rural upbringing for the same cause. For the same reasons an athletic but malnourished boy might happily roll up his sleeve for a few CC’s of synthetic, over-the-counter muscle, so might he swap birth certificates with a clumsy cousin.

If an edited date of birth and a strange new name got young Roberto Hernandez Heredia into a tryout, onto a mound, and into a scout’s line of sight, you think he regrets that during his few hours in prison today? I wouldn’t.

Assuming he gets the $7 million he’s got coming this season, he’ll have made $22 million in his career. Against the alternative, think that’s worth running around with someone else’s name and birthday for 12 years?

As a business, baseball must try to authenticate the ages and identities of every one of those kids who borrows a glove, wobbles onto a rutty field and hopes to become the next Miguel Tejada.

I get that.

But, as a person who sympathizes with that kid, whether he’s 16 or 19, whether he’s Roberto or Fausto, I can only say, “Que Sera Sera.”