Life Without Albert

On Thursday, Dec. 8th, news broke that my sporting hero, Albert Pujols, would not re-sign with the St. Louis Cardinals but would instead take a 10-year, $254 million offer from the Anaheim Angels of California or whatever their name is.

Before I say anything else, let me make this clear: I really wanted Albert to stay with the Cardinals. I have been a Cardinals fan most of my life (1982-1989, and 1997-present, or 21 years), and he has been a phenomenal joy to watch since his amazing rookie year in 2001. All that was left was for him to be locked up as a Cardinal for life. A gigantic statue would eventually go up at Busch Stadium, the Cardinals would retire #5 (maybe they still will), and his Hall of Fame plaque would list only one team. The perfect script.

That was the hoped-for fairy tale. Reality is much more complicated. Am I disappointed he won't be a Cardinal anymore? Sure! It hurts that when I watch a Cardinals game, he won't be in the lineup, at first base, or in the dugout. But, life goes on. The title of this post is a bit of a sucker's choice, because there will not be life without Albert. There will only be life without Albert as a Cardinal.

Does that mean I'll be an Angels fan now? Not necessarily. I could see the Angels becoming my AL team, at least casually. I won't live and die with every Angels win and loss like I do with the Cardinals. If (when?) the Angels make the playoffs, I will definitely be rooting for Albert and the Angels.

So, that's me. I seem to be in the minority. My St. Louis Cardinals "feed" on Twitter and comments I've seen from "fans" on St. Louis-area media and otherwise have been highly vitriolic, condemning "Pujol$" apparent greed and disloyalty. Maybe if I were actually in St. Louis, I might feel the same way. There's a good chance that I'd have a better sense of Albert letting down a whole community, whereas here in Utah, I don't think one person has said a word about it to me, aside from my own wife and kids. The anger of many fans has reached near LeBron-vs.-Cleveland levels, from what I have seen.

I suppose all the fans who say they want to burn their Pujols apparel would never consider getting their hands dirty with a quarter of a billion dollars. Sure, they would never take the best monetary offer. Their motives are purer than that. Maybe they're suddenly realizing that their hero, their baseball god in Cardinal Red is, like them, motivated by human desires and needs.

All those who are so offended that Albert would suddenly be all about the money seem to conveniently overlook that during his time in St. Louis, Albert was vastly underpaid compared to what he delivered. Using baseballreference.com as my source, I found that from 2001 through 2011, Albert averaged a mere $9,458,221 per season. That's dirt cheap for a 3-time MVP and a key player on three World Series teams, and two World Champion teams. Less than $10 million per year for the player widely regarded as the best in the game? Get outta here!

Consider these average annual salary amounts for some of his contemporaries (2001-2011 unless otherwise noted):

• Barry Bonds:  $16,523,620 (2001-2007)
• Randy Johnson: $13,506,947  (2001-2009)
• Alex Rodriguez: $25,853,568
• Derek Jeter (Mr. Overrated himself): $18,520,851
• Ryan Howard: $12,541,667 (2006-2011 only!)
• Roger Clemens: $11,900,000 (2001-2007)
• Matt Holliday: $8,702,443 (2005-2011, and close to $2 million more than Albert per year since they've been teammates)
• Derek Lee: $8,256,818
• Manny Ramirez: $17,437,070 (even with a 2011 salary of just over $2 million)

True, during this period, Bonds was a 4-time MVP...but come now. Albert didn't just get house arrest, either. Is there any argument you can make that says Albert was not underpaid for his first 11 years?

Tony La Russa had what I thought were good, common-sense comments about the whole thing this week. He said, "He deserves what he got. He earned it. There's no bad guy here. I think the Cardinals went where they thought they should go. If they can't go farther, they shouldn't."

Seems reasonable. According to the info I have, I think the Cardinals could have done a better job trying to lock him up. The Cardinals were looking out for their interests before Albert's. That's SOP, sure...but if you're dealing with a superstar, the kind of talent you see once every 50 years, as Tim Kurkjian has said, I think you take a different approach. 

Deidre Pujols, Albert's wife, had an interesting comment that I think speaks volumes: "When you have somebody say 'We want you to be a Cardinal for life' and only offer you a five-year deal, it kind of confused us. Well, we got over that insult and felt like Albert had given so much of himself to baseball and into the community ... we didn't want to go through this again."

Now, most of us would like to be insulted to the point where we're offered a 5-year, $130 million contract. But, in her defense, how do you say that to the cornerstone of your organization? I'm not sure of the timeline, but I believe that offer was two years ago, perhaps a year ago. Also, I'm not sure if that's the same offer, but one offer before the 2011 season would have made Albert the 4th highest first baseman in baseball. That's not going to entice anybody, let alone "Lou Gehrig," (which is the historical comparison Michael Wilbon uses when talking about Albert).

I believe if the Cardinals' first offer was close to their final offer of 10 years and $210 million, he would still be a Cardinal. Maybe that goes against the convention negotiating wisdom of anchoring (believe me, I had a negotiations class in grad school). But you can't be convention with Lou Gehrig! If they had made an 8- or 9-year offer two years ago for, say, $195 or $200 million, would we have this conversation? And...if that deal had been made, there would only be six or seven years left...That would make it a lot easier to swallow. If you help Albert understand St. Louis isn't New York or Boston, while not insulting his Latin pride, maybe you do get the "home town discount." You know what: We all want to be wanted (trust me: as a guy who's been on the job search since the end of July, being wanted is huge!).

The Cardinals didn't appeal to Albert's pride. I am not an expert on the Latino psyche, but I would be surprised if his Latin pride and machismo wasn't bruised a little in the way the Cardinals approached the negotiations. As said above, this guy has been woefully underpaid compared to what he delivered, and he was looking for his pay day. As La Russa said, "I believe in Albert's case he was disappointed there wasn't more enthusiasm from the Cardinals. The (Miami) Marlins came at him hard and then here comes Anaheim. I think that the Cardinals were being careful."

In their defense, perhaps the Cardinals were wise to be careful. Albert's offensive numbers have been in decline for four straight years (although those have still been darn good years). He's a special player, but Father Time is undefeated (something else Wilbon likes to say). He'll be 32 in January; have we seen the best Albert has to offer? Only time will tell. Albert could end up being the offensive equivalent of Nolan Ryan, putting up solid numbers into his late 30s. Still, as ESPN.com states,

Studies by Bill James and numerous other baseball scholars have found that players tend to peak in their mid-to-late 20s. There have certainly been plenty of outliers on that front... But more often than not, once you hit your 30s, it's not going to get any better from there. Pujols went from 9.1 WAR [wins above replacement] at age 28 to 9.0 WAR at age 29, 7.5 at age 30, and finally 5.1 WAR at age 31 this past season. That's a scary trend for a team that just shelled out $250 million.

And yet, I have a sneaky feeling Albert is going to convert the backlash of his move to Anaheim into a solid offensive year. Forget his unfamiliarity with AL pitching and ball parks. He's going to have something to prove. Despite Albert's achievements, he's always had something to prove: early on, "people" said he was older than he claimed to be. How else to explain such talent? Then, it was performance enhancing drugs. Albert converted those doubts into motivation. This is the same. I would expect something like .325, 38 HR and 120 RBI. I am not familiar with the Angels lineup, but those seem like reasonable Albert numbers at age 32. The big question is: how long will it last?

One reason I am accepting this is that the Cardinals should be competitive for the next couple years. They just won the World Series without Adam Wainwright (which I never expected) and with reduced contributions from Albert). They obviously have some cash that was intended for Albert that can now go for other players (not least is locking up Wainwright long-term if the elbow is sound). Berkman is rejuvenated, Carpenter proved in September and October that he's still a dominant ace, David Freese had a historic post-season, Yadi Molina is adding a better than average bat to his Gold Glove-caliber defense, and Holliday might actually show up and contribute next year. If the Cardinals aren't in contention in 2012 and 2013, I'd be shocked.

The final word: I am not angry at Albert for leaving; I think the Cardinals could have tried harder to "woo" Albert and fawn over him unless they had serious doubts regarding his future production; and the Cardinals can definitely win without him.