SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman

hearing #cardinals aren't moving up from 200-210M for 9 they offered albert before season. still the team to beat tho twitter

So that's roughly $23MM/year. I would imagine some team comes in with something like 6 years/$160MM, with a better yearly rate but fewer years.

Honestly it doesn't sound like it's about the money for this situation. It sounds like it's about where he wants to play and what he wants to do. Of course... he wont take substantially less money to play elsewhere I'd imagine. That being said, I would imagine if he's getting offers from other teams they're all in the same price range.

It's definitely all about the money, IMO

 

I'd do the same thing

So that's roughly $23MM/year. I would imagine some team comes in with something like 6 years/$160MM, with a better yearly rate but fewer years.

 

I'd expect him to take the $200-210 million given his age.

So that's roughly $23MM/year. I would imagine some team comes in with something like 6 years/$160MM, with a better yearly rate but fewer years.

 

I'd expect him to take the $200-210 million given his age.

I would, too. But I would still imagine he'll end up with both options from a team that doesn't want to commit to the 9 years.

Damn, once your in the over $100 million range, the guy should at least give consideration to where he will enjoy playing the most. I understand $200 million is a huge chunk of money but so is $100 million. I'm no big money athlete but I'd take $100something million to play for a team and a town that I'll enjoy than to take $200 million from a team I'd be miserable playing for.

Followed by this tweet:

 

LoMoMarlins Logan Morrison

Should've been more clear, my buddy Renee Pujols' landlord is making him get rid of his beloved pet cockatoos.

 

 

Maybe he'll end up buying a house on Bird road....shop at sinbad's birds..marvel at sacrificed chickens on the railroad tracks.

Source: Cubs call Pujols' reps

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7294424/source-chicago-cubs-call-st-louis-cardinals-free-agent-albert-pujols-reps-express-interest

 

That would be a hell of a way for Theo to start his tenure in Chicago.

I figured Fielder would go to the cubs

Damn, once your in the over $100 million range, the guy should at least give consideration to where he will enjoy playing the most. I understand $200 million is a huge chunk of money but so is $100 million. I'm no big money athlete but I'd take $100something million to play for a team and a town that I'll enjoy than to take $200 million from a team I'd be miserable playing for.

 

There's only 81 home games. I'd much rather have the extra $100 million.

Damn, once your in the over $100 million range, the guy should at least give consideration to where he will enjoy playing the most. I understand $200 million is a huge chunk of money but so is $100 million. I'm no big money athlete but I'd take $100something million to play for a team and a town that I'll enjoy than to take $200 million from a team I'd be miserable playing for.

 

There's only 81 home games. I'd much rather have the extra $100 million.

I would think that in both cases, balancing a checkbook would no longer be necessary. Anyway, that being said, would you rather call Wrigley Field home, or "Whatever the hell Sampson is going to call it" Ballpark. Or, do you stay where you know, in St. Louis? Wrgley is a dump, so, for me its Marlins or Cardinals.

Damn, once your in the over $100 million range, the guy should at least give consideration to where he will enjoy playing the most. I understand $200 million is a huge chunk of money but so is $100 million. I'm no big money athlete but I'd take $100something million to play for a team and a town that I'll enjoy than to take $200 million from a team I'd be miserable playing for.

 

There's only 81 home games. I'd much rather have the extra $100 million.

I would think that in both cases, balancing a checkbook would no longer be necessary. Anyway, that being said, would you rather call Wrigley Field home, or "Whatever the hell Sampson is going to call it" Ballpark. Or, do you stay where you know, in St. Louis? Wrgley is a dump, so, for me its Marlins or Cardinals.

Wow, what a gross oversimplification (pun intended).

Damn, once your in the over $100 million range, the guy should at least give consideration to where he will enjoy playing the most. I understand $200 million is a huge chunk of money but so is $100 million. I'm no big money athlete but I'd take $100something million to play for a team and a town that I'll enjoy than to take $200 million from a team I'd be miserable playing for.

 

There's only 81 home games. I'd much rather have the extra $100 million.

I would think that in both cases, balancing a checkbook would no longer be necessary. Anyway, that being said, would you rather call Wrigley Field home, or "Whatever the hell Sampson is going to call it" Ballpark. Or, do you stay where you know, in St. Louis? Wrgley is a dump, so, for me its Marlins or Cardinals.

So you would take $100 million less to play in Bush Stadium over Wrigley Field? If you were actually in that position, I suspect your answer would be considerably different. You absolutely would take the money. I think virtually everyone here would; it's easy to say otherwise when you don't have the contract in front of you.

 

I don't think ballplayers care enough about the ballpark itself to warrant taking substantially less cash. The facilities are frivolous things for the fan to worry about. Wrigley, by the way, has been the best ballpark fan experience I've ever encountered.

Ballplayers, by the way, have very few productive skills outside of playing baseball. If they are lucky they can get a coaching or broadcasting job when they retire (often before the age of 40).

 

Having the extra financial security brought by $100 million is much more appealing than playing in the best ballpark in MLB for 81 days of the year.

Ballplayers, by the way, have very few productive skills outside of playing baseball. If they are lucky they can get a coaching or broadcasting job when they retire (often before the age of 40).

 

Having the extra financial security brought by $100 million is much more appealing than playing in the best ballpark in MLB for 81 days of the year.

 

I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying. My point is that there comes a time that you have made more than you can spend. Keep in mind that these guys have investments as well. He, unless he has made some horrible financial choices, has far surpassed the point of financial security. Obviously, if you are talking about a younger ballplayer, or one of a lesser valiber, then the scenario could be completely different.

The ballpark is more of a concern than you think. Through the years, there have neen numerois complaints from players about the conditions of the stadium, which there is only limited opportunities to update, due to it being historical landmark. Ballplayers are at the stadium more than they are at home. The comfort factor is indeed important. It is just a question of how much money would be sacrificed for comfort.

Ballplayers, by the way, have very few productive skills outside of playing baseball. If they are lucky they can get a coaching or broadcasting job when they retire (often before the age of 40).

 

Having the extra financial security brought by $100 million is much more appealing than playing in the best ballpark in MLB for 81 days of the year.

 

I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying. My point is that there comes a time that you have made more than you can spend. Keep in mind that these guys have investments as well. He, unless he has made some horrible financial choices, has far surpassed the point of financial security. Obviously, if you are talking about a younger ballplayer, or one of a lesser valiber, then the scenario could be completely different.

The ballpark is more of a concern than you think. Through the years, there have neen numerois complaints from players about the conditions of the stadium, which there is only limited opportunities to update, due to it being historical landmark. Ballplayers are at the stadium more than they are at home. The comfort factor is indeed important. It is just a question of how much money would be sacrificed for comfort.

I'd like to see some evidence for what you propose in the latter paragraph.

 

And a few hundred million is not "more than you can spend." There are a lot of very expensive things to be bought, don't doubt it.

I stopped reading this thread.

 

Have we signed teh Pujols yet?

Good because I just bought his jersey.

Ballplayers, by the way, have very few productive skills outside of playing baseball. If they are lucky they can get a coaching or broadcasting job when they retire (often before the age of 40).

 

Having the extra financial security brought by $100 million is much more appealing than playing in the best ballpark in MLB for 81 days of the year.

 

I understand, and somewhat agree with what you're saying. My point is that there comes a time that you have made more than you can spend. Keep in mind that these guys have investments as well. He, unless he ha7s made some horrible financial choices, has far surpassed the point of financial security. Obviously, if you are talking about a younger ballplayer, or one of a lesser valiber, then the scenario could be completely different.

The ballpark is more of a concern than you think. Through the years, there have neen numerois complaints from players about the conditions of the stadium, which there is only limited opportunities to update, due to it being historical landmark. Ballplayers are at the stadium more than they are at home. The comfort factor is indeed important. It is just a question of how much money would be sacrificed for comfort.

I'd like to see some evidence for what you propose in the latter paragraph.

 

And a few hundred million is not "more than you can spend." There are a lot of very expensive things to be bought, don't doubt it.

...so google it. Surely you'll find something. A few of them were on tv too, so links obviously can't be provided for that.

I think the burden is on you to show that players would despise playing in one of the most historic ballparks so much as to give up $100,000,000.00

I'd like to see some evidence of that too; evidence that the age of of Wrigley would lead a player to accept on the order of $100 million less to avoid playing there.

 

It's not like Pujols is going to be sitting behind a pole during the game or pissing in the troughs.

I think the burden is on you to show that players would despise playing in one of the most historic ballparks so much as to give up $100,000,000.00

 

For the sake of discussion, let "x" equal a salary that is more money than any one person needs. When your salary reaches "x", it doesn't matter whether you're offered a raise of 2x, 5x, or 100x, because "x" is more than you'll ever need.

With that being said, I have stated that players have complained about conditions at Wrigley. I have not claimed that he won't sign there because of it, I have just said that he has a choice to make. You are looking strictly at the economics when there is more to it than that.

You're asking me to cross an economic decision with an emotional one. This is something nobody except the person being offered the contract can do. I can't prove it to you, just like you can't prove it wrong.

 

 

 

After all of that, there is no $100 million difference of offers that we know of anyway. It was all a comment that was made about $100 million being a lot of money.

I think the burden is on you to show that players would despise playing in one of the most historic ballparks so much as to give up $100,000,000.00

 

For the sake of discussion, let "x" equal a salary that is more money than any one person needs. When your salary reaches "x", it doesn't matter whether you're offered a raise of 2x, 5x, or 100x, because "x" is more than you'll ever need.

With that being said, I have stated that players have complained about conditions at Wrigley. I have not claimed that he won't sign there because of it, I have just said that he has a choice to make. You are looking strictly at the economics when there is more to it than that.

You're asking me to cross an economic decision with an emotional one. This is something nobody except the person being offered the contract can do. I can't prove it to you, just like you can't prove it wrong.

 

 

 

After all of that, there is no $100 million difference of offers that we know of anyway. It was all a comment that was made about $100 million being a lot of money.

You quoted that comment in your response. That's why I mentioned it. I'm not asking for a study of the value of Wrigley; I just wanted some proof that players hate playing in Wrigley, or even living in Chicago, such that it would make them [take less money and] go elsewhere. It seems to be a well-loved park and people can't wait to play for the cubbies.

 

And while I'm well aware of the diminishing marginal utility of one's salary, the difference may not be zero at any level of wealth, let alone at "only" a couple hundred million dollars. This is not Bill Gates/Warren Buffett money.

The problem is that you are probably overstating the degree to which the ballpark matters for the player. It might factor in on some level, but you are trying to put an astronomically high number on it ($100 million).

 

You might think that athletes might not need to make anymore money after $100 million or so, but I really don't see any evidence for that. Obviously that second hundred million means something to athletes or else you wouldn't be seeing guys like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods wasting their time with product endorsements. Woods didn't have to accumulate a net worth of over a billion, but he obviously wanted to get it.

 

People have also neglected to mention federal income tax. For a $100 million contract, the player keeps maybe a little over $60 million of that. That alone makes the second hundred million much more desirable.

 

I would play on a dirt field in Tijuana if it meant I could earn a second $100 million.