The 5.5 Hole

Albert Pujols is back to hitting the ball like an MVP.  He's now hit six home runs, five doubles, and is hitting .424 in his last seven days.  But it's not just the last seven days.  Pujols has been coming on strong since Mike Trout was called up to the Angels on April 28th.  Because of the hole he dug himself through the first month of the season, it took some time to realize that Pujols was back to his old self, but he is hitting .289 on the season, he has 24 home runs, he's driven in 76 runs, and may very well cross the .300 batting average plateau before the season's over.  His Los Angeles Angels are planted in the play-off, but they are trailing the Rangers - and they have been all year.

So the question is, how much did Albert Pujol's early-season slump cost the Angels.  There are two ways to look at this question and thus two sets of answers, both equally important.  How much money did Pujols cost the Angels, and how many wins did he cost the team?

Most off-seasons are headlined by free agency.  This one is no exception.  The difference this season lies with the managers.  There are three vacancies at the helm of some high-profile clubs.  Unlike other managerial hunts for teams like the Nationals, Marlins, A's, and Astros, this hunt features some of the most coveted positions in baseball.

The Chicago Cubs, The St. Louis Cardinals, and the Boston Red Sox are all looking for new managers.  The Cubs just fired Mike Quade today.  Tony LaRussa announced his retirement Monday.  Terry Francona left Boston shortly after the Red Sox implosion at the end of September.  Three big name ball clubs are now searching for replacements.

The Cubs and Theo Epstein announced their next manager would need to have prior coaching or managerial experience on the big-league level.  Whether this will be the case when the new manager is ultimately hired remains to be seen.  People say things all the time, then change their minds.  However, limiting the search to people with Major League experience is the right move for Chicago.  The emotional, fan-driven reaction would be to hire Ryne Sandberg.  Sandberg is a fan favorite and is currently managing in Triple-A, but he is wrong for Chicago with Theo Epstein as the team President and Jed Hoyer as the GM.  Theo Epstein knows what type of manager he wants.  Jed Hoyer knows what type of manager can get the best out of the talent currently available.  Theo worked with Terry Francona, and together they saw unparalleled success in Boston.  Jed Hoyer watched Bud Black lead the Padres, with no real contributors outside Adrian Gonzalez, to 90 wins in 2010.  He followed that up to a decent 2011 considering this team didn't even have Adrian Gonzalez.  The Cubs don't need a rookie at the big-league level leading the club.  They need someone with experience who can coexist with Epstein's and Hoyer's player-evaluation methods, out-of-the-box thinking, and potential meddling.  Sandberg is not that person. 

Sandberg may, however, be the person to take over St. Louis.  Reports started popping up today that the Cardinals had asked the Phillies (the host club of the Minor League affiliate Sandberg manages) if they could interview Sandberg.  Perhaps these reports were designed to drive Cubs' fans crazy after they heard Epstein all but shoot down the idea of Sandberg ever coming to Chicago.  Perhaps they are legitimate.  Either way, Sandberg is a better fit in St. Louis.  The club is already built for success, even without Pujols.  In fact, should Sandberg take of and Pujols sign elsewhere, Sandberg would have a built in safety net for expectations of the 2012 season.  If they don't succeed, 'Hey, Sandberg is new and he didn't even have Pujols.'  If they do succeed, 'Hey, this Sandberg guy can even win without Pujols.'  Obviously the dynamic changes a bit if Pujols returns, but Sandberg would be a good fit in St. Louis regardless. 

The Red Sox remain the mystery.  All three of these clubs have been linked to the same available names and faces.  Yet, the Red Sox have not even hinted what direction they may go.  Filling Francona's shoes will be difficult.  He won two World Series, made the play-offs five times, and was a well-liked manager in Boston.  Whoever takes over will have his work cut out for him.  The Red Sox are dealing with drama from all angles.  They will have to rebuild from more than just a personnel standpoint.  Clubhouse cohesiveness will need to be addressed.  This may not be the most desirable job out there.

Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder may dominate the off-season headlines, but filling managerial openings with these three clubs could be bigger news.  The Cubs are on a quest to overwrite history and win a World Series.  The Cardinals are looking to turn the page.  And the Red Sox are just trying to recover.  One of the more interesting off-seasons in recent memory is ahead of us following one of the more interesting postseasons. 

Baseball is good. 

Let me start with this disclaimer: I am an admitted Albert Pujols apologist.  I love everything about the guy.  His performance on the field, the way he carries himself, his philanthropic contributions.  Everything.  So, as you read this piece about Pujols' contract negotiations you can write it off.  Or, you can love it and appreciate the logic.  I believe you will do the second thing.

I'll start by reminding everyone that we live in a different world than those of athletes.  If we pass judgement because we can't fathom the amount of money athletes make, we don't really have a leg to stand on in the argument.  Yet, that doesn't seem to be the main issue many people have with Pujols and the contract negotiations.  It would seem that most people are put off by Pujols' rejection of $200 million.  But why?

Pujols signed his current contract after the 2003 season.  He would make $13.875 a year million for the next eight years.  Pujols was coming off a .329/.403/.610 season in 2001, a .314/.394/.561 season in 2002, and a .359/.439/.667 season in 2003.  That's a pretty good start to a career, but no one could have known that Pujols would carry these types of number in every year of his career.  $13.875 million a year seemed fair.  But it quickly became clear that Pujols was the greatest player in the game.  Yet, his salary was being outpaced by players like Ryan Howard, Mark Teixiera, and even Miguel Cabrera.  Inferior players were making more than Pujols (inferior but still of All Star quality).  Ryan Howard is making $25 million a year.  Mark Teixeira is making $22.5 million a year.  Miguel Cabrera is making $19 million a year.  Pujols is better than all of them.

But Pujols played out his contract.  He didn't demand a trade to a team willing to pay him more immediately.  He didn't demand a new contract.  He played it out.  Now that it's time for him to renegotiate, he is getting flak for wanting to see what he's worth on the open market.

Last we heard, the Cardinals had reportedly offered something like eight years, $200 million.  That equates to $25 million a year.  Pujols was reportedly looking for ten years, $300 million.  So he rejected $200 million.  If any team is willing to pay him more, why shouldn't he take it? 

Perspective check:
You're working in an office making $40,000 a year.  From everything you've heard, everyone acknowledges you as the best at what you do, including other companies.  There are other employees, employees who are not as good as you, who make more.  Say you find out a few of these employees within your own company and at other companies are making 44% more than you.  That comes to roughly $57,000 and some change.  Now you know other companies want you and are willing to pay you.  Is there anything wrong with demanding say $67,000?  You're better, companies want you.  It would seem the market would place at least that value on you.  Now, let's assume your own company offers you the $57,000 others are making who clearly are inferior in performance.  Would anyone second guess your decision to test the market and see if you can in fact get the $67,000 elsewhere?

I know many of you may have stopped reading, shocked that I am using numbers with no baseball statistical relevance, but for those of you who continued on, you probably realized this is a simplified version of Pujols' situation using similar percentages scaled back to what we in middle-class America can understand.  When you look at it in terms of numbers we are familiar with, it doesn't seem so bad.  When you look at from a percentage standpoint, it doesn't look so bad. Ryan Howard is making 44% more than Pujols per year.  Pujols is better.  He should be paid more than Howard.  Pujols has asked to be paid 16.67% more than Howard.  Pretty reasonable considering his performance over the years.

So, nothing Pujols has asked seems out of line.  If you have issue with it, you simply have issue with contracts in baseball that have set the precedent.  You cannot blame Pujols for what other teams chose to pay players like Howard, Teixeira, and Cabrera. 

Now that I have blown your mind with numbers, go forth and praise Pujols, start a telethon to help him raise the money he should be earning, and bow at his feet.  Or continue to dislike him because he turned down $200 million.  I've said my piece.