Rethinking Pujols’s demands in light of 2010 playoff teams’ payrolls
As the Cardinals look toward this offseason with an eye toward extending Albert Pujols’s contract, they may want to look at the payrolls for this year’s playoff teams to gauge whether such an expense (as the extension is sure to be) is necessary. After all, the Texas Rangers, Tampa Rays and Cincinnati Reds all have payrolls under the league average. Since 2001, here are the playoff teams with the lowest Adjusted Payroll+, the payroll based on league average (league average is 100):
| Year | Team | Div | Payroll | MLB avg | AdjPayroll+ |
| 2008 | TBR | ALE | $43,820,597 | $89,495,289 | 49 |
| 2001 | OAK | ALW | $33,810,750 | $65,636,210 | 52 |
| 2002 | OAK | ALW | $40,004,167 | $67,629,251 | 59 |
| 2002 | MIN | ALC | $40,425,000 | $67,629,251 | 60 |
| 2010 | TEX | ALW | $55,250,544 | $90,711,996 | 61 |
| 2007 | ARI | NLW | $52,067,546 | $82,556,300 | 63 |
| 2007 | COL | NLW | $54,424,000 | $82,556,300 | 66 |
| 2003 | FLA | NLE | $48,750,000 | $70,962,071 | 69 |
| 2003 | OAK | ALW | $50,260,834 | $70,962,071 | 71 |
| 2009 | MIN | ALC | $65,299,266 | $88,824,233 | 74 |
| 2007 | CLE | ALC | $61,673,267 | $82,556,300 | 75 |
| 2004 | MIN | ALC | $53,585,000 | $69,288,598 | 77 |
| 2003 | MIN | ALC | $55,505,000 | $70,962,071 | 78 |
| 2010 | CIN | NLC | $71,761,542 | $90,711,996 | 79 |
| 2010 | TBR | ALE | $71,923,471 | $90,711,996 | 79 |
The Cardinals’ 2010 payroll of $90,711,996 comes out to an adjusted payroll+ of 103. Since they won the World Series in 2006 (and prior to that), they’ve had a better-than-average payroll each of the four seasons, yet as pundits often claim, the Cardinals have "missed" the playoffs three of the last four years.
| Year | MLB avg | STL Payroll | AdjPayroll+ |
| 2001 | $65,636,210 | $79,373,333 | 121 |
| 2002 | $67,629,251 | $74,660,875 | 110 |
| 2003 | $70,962,071 | $83,786,666 | 118 |
| 2004 | $69,288,598 | $84,340,333 | 122 |
| 2005 | $72,957,113 | $92,106,833 | 126 |
| 2006 | $77,382,421 | $88,891,371 | 115 |
| 2007 | $82,556,300 | $90,286,823 | 109 |
| 2008 | $89,495,289 | $99,624,449 | 111 |
| 2009 | $88,824,233 | $88,528,409 | 100 |
| 2010 | $90,711,996 | $93,540,751 | 103 |
To this point, the onus has been on the Cardinals to somehow "prove" that they’re a competitive-enough team for Pujols, who once claimed that “it’s not about the money” but merely “being in a place to win and being in a position to win,” to condescend to remain with. But isn’t it also fair for the Cardinals to ask whether Pujols is worth it? After all, if the Cardinals have missed the playoffs three of the last four years, they’ve done so with Pujols on the team. How much has Pujols enabled them to make the playoffs, or more to the point, how much will he enable them to make the playoffs over the next few years? The question of competitiveness cuts both ways, and Pujols needs to look in the mirror before he makes demands about competitiveness.
None of this is to say Pujols isn’t a hugely valuable player or hasn’t been worth his salary to-date. But if the goal is to win championships — or, as we propose, simply make it to the championship crapshoot tournament — will having an albatross of Albert’s contract over the next five to seven years make that more or less likely? After all, the Cardinals haven’t exactly cashed in with Pujols and their relatively high payroll recently, and the NL Central Division winners the last two years (including the Cardinals in 2009) have had league-average or lower payrolls.
We’re all for keeping Pujols — to a point. Given the reality that keeping Pujols will mean a higher payroll, but that higher payrolls are necessary for getting to the playoffs, the Cardinals may want to fundamentally rethink the way their organization works. If they can’t consistently win with Pujols and an attendant high payroll, perhaps they should look at how other clubs are winning and take a new tack.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Here is the big problem with the idea of going small payroll. Outside of the Twins what small payroll team can consistently make the playoffs? Oakland? Not since the Big 3 left.
But the Phillies, Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, and until previously the Cardinals all do. Those are high payroll AND smart teams. The Cardinals can afford a payroll around $120M and at that number the Cards can compete with Pujols on the team.
I would personally much rather be in the consistent winners side then the hope it all comes together for a season or two side.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
You make solid points. In the post, I’m not necessarily even advocating “small” payroll. I am saying a) it’s fair for the Cardinals to ask Pujols if he is worth the money, given the last four years, and b) the organization may want to fundamentally rethink the way their team is structured payroll-wise. That may mean simply having a “flatter” distribution of salary but not necessarily a smaller total payroll.
September 30th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Are the Cardinals really a smart team? They had three of the worst ten offensive position players in the NL this year in Ryan, Molina, and Feliz. Management demonstrated that it is, in fact, possible to put a lineup on the field with Pujols and Holliday and still be marginal offensively.
Then there is the albatross of Kyle Lohse’s contract and the weird treatment of Colby Rasmus. There is an awful lot to suggest that the clubhouse was an unhappy place this year.
When you have a roster that starts with Pujols, Holliday, Wainwright, and Carpenter and you have promising young talent–possibly top-tier talent–in Rasmus and Garcia, then there is certainly hope going forward. What is not clear to me is that even if the Cardinals sign Pujols that their management understands how to evaluate free agent talent so as not to shoot the team in the figurative foot.
September 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
You don’t trade baseball’s best player unless you’re a rebuilding team; which the Cardinals are not. Maybe this is just crazy speculation in light of changing the subject from not making the playoffs. We are not rebuilding; there is no scenario that would call for us trading Albert Pujols…PERIOD!!
September 30th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“But isn’t it also fair for the Cardinals to ask whether Pujols is worth it?”
OK, you asked the question, and it’s fair to ask every question. Now I’m answering it: YES. He has played 6 years on a 7 year contract in which he’s been grossly underpaid. He hasn’t complained about money once. He’s an MVP caliber player every year…literally….10 for 10. The Cardinals have had 1 losing season since he showed up. End of discussion. Please, nobody ask this question again.
September 30th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Also, the time to have this discussion (if it were valid) would have been 9 months ago when we were signing the $120 million bat to hit behind Al. You are seriously going to get this far into the long-term plan and then wonder if we should spend the money on the linchpin?
September 30th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
It would’ve been the height of ingratitude for Pujols to complain about money. When he signed his contract, he could’ve gotten injured the next day and still made $100 million. Each side takes a risk, and it just so happened that the Cardinals ended up with surplus value. It very easily could’ve ended up differently.
September 30th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Excellent point.
October 1st, 2010 at 12:17 am
[...] that the Cards should be willing to extend their payroll and give Albert the big money. However, this Fungoes examination suggests that an above average payroll is not necessary to make the playoff…. There is no doubt that Pujols is an extremely valuable player, but it might be wise of the [...]