Both the Sox and Yankees are set at 1B for the next 7 years, so it's doubtful.  I think he'll end up back in St. Louis, although it would incredibly fun for the Cubs to sign him.  There was some talk that the Red Sox would trade Adrian Gonzalez if they thought that Pujols would sign in Boston, but that was purely speculation.

If A-Rod can sign a 10yr $252m dollar contract with the Texas Rangers back in 2001.... I'm thinking there's another stupid owner out there outside of the Yankees/Red Sox with a big enough ego to put out $300m for Pujols...

If anybody playing today is worth that, it's Pujols.

Absolutely agree with everything said.  If either team were able to do the Pujols at DH move, the Red Sox are in better position since David Ortiz, JD Drew, Jonathan Papelbon and Mike Cameron come off the books (combined $46,250,000 in 2011) whereas the Yankees get rid of Posada only ($13,100,000 in 2011).

The problem is, there have only been a couple of guys worth $300M from there age 31 to 40 seasons.  One was named Ruth and the other is the most infamous juicer in baseball history.  Now even if Pujols is statistically worth that much, how can the Cardinals afford to pay ~3 guys over 50% of their sallary cap.

Everything I have read (and I have read a lot on this) is the Cardinals are willing to go in on average anual value (AAV) or years, but not both.  For the Cardinals $250M/ 10 years would be a stretch.  The club might consider $90M/years, but I doubt they can go much longer than that at a $30M AAV.

Posted by amycox67 on 2/14/2011 6:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GregNLFan on 2/14/2011 5:17:00 PM (view original):
If anybody playing today is worth that, it's Pujols.

Well I dont think any sports worth that kind of dollars it is just a game.& you have some Soccer guys making even more over in Europe it is some kind of crazy

 

I agree no athlete is worth what some of them get, but they do get it.   If any baseball player around today has the stats and character to support gettting an historic contract, that player is Albert Pujols.

Someone said that only Ruth and Bonds were that good in their later years; however, I think you can add Ted Williams and Gehrig to that list, even considering the disease that ended Lou's career at 36.

I wrote that only Ruth and Bonds would be worth $30M/year in terms of modern payrolls.  You are right about Williams, he should be on the list too, but I'm not sure why you mentioned Gehrig.  Plenty of players had very good careers from 30-40 years old.  Almost none were superstars every year and that is what it would take for a player to be worth $30M AAV.

Posted by doubletruck on 2/16/2011 12:21:00 AM (view original):
I mentioned Gehrig because it is likely that without the unusual circumstance of ALS he would have been going strong still at 39 or 40. He was still having monster years at 34, and declined at 35 only because his body was starting to kill him even before he knew it.

Of course, you could also use Gehrig's illness as an argument against star players being able to go deep into their careers. But ALS is so rare that Gehrig is an exceptional case in any case.

The list of players who would have or could have been (or remained) superstars is endless...  My point is, and it still stands, that there have been very very few players that have continuously perfomed at a superstar level from their age 30 to 40 seasons.