In a world of uncertainty, there are a few constants that we can always depend on. There will be baseball in the summer. There will be football in the fall (at least on college campuses). And the sun will always rise, even when some idiot pastor claims otherwise.
There's another constant that's gotten some debate of late: the deterioration of athletes that comes with age. No matter how great an athlete is, the end comes calling eventually. Always. To everybody.
The most recent example of this constant is Derek Jeter, the soon-to-be 37-year-old shortstop of the New York Yankees. But while much has been written about Jeter's declining production at the plate and even more limited range at short, there's another guy whose slow start to the season brings up a different aspect of the age debate.
That guy is Albert Pujols, and the question is how clubs predict the inevitable deterioration with age and factor that information into contracts before that deterioration begins.
First, a look at just how off the 31-year-old Pujols has been this year:
* Lifetime batting average / on-base percentage / slugging percentage: .329/.423/.618. Those same stats through Sunday's finale against the Royals: .269/.341/.409.
* Pujols has only 12 extra-base hits in 211 plate appearances (seven home runs and five doubles). That's an average of one extra-base hit every 18 plate appearances. His career average: one extra-base hit every eight plate appearances.
* Pujols' career ground ball-to-fly ball rate is 0.70, with a high of 0.77 in 2003. This year, it's 1.00, which goes a long way toward explaining how, in fewer than 50 games, Pujols is more than half-way to his career high in double plays.
* Perhaps more than anything, Pujols just doesn't pass the greatness eye test right now. Mediocre pitchers are challenging him and getting away with it. Opposing managers have intentionally walked Pujols just once all season. A lot of that has to do with Matt Holliday and Lance Berkman behind Pujols (his IBB were also low in the MV3 2004 season with Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen hitting behind him), but Pujols just doesn't have it right now.
All of this is not to push the panic button on Pujols. The season isn't even a third gone, and Pujols has shown in the past that he can go on some incredible tears. He could be hitting .320 with 20 homers by the All-Star Break and nobody would be surprised.
In fact, let's just assume that this is all some mirage. Maybe Pujols goes to get his eyes checked, gets some glasses a-la Ricky Vaughn, and all is well again. But, even with that assumption in hand, it is worth taking a look at Pujols now and wonder if we're not getting a glimpse into 35-year-old Pujols. And the question Cardinals brass have to be asking themselves is this: do we really want to pay this version of Albert Pujols $30 million in 2017, 2018, 2019...?
Regardless of how this year turns out, you have to figure the minimum floor for Pujols is the five-year, $125 million extension the Phillies gave Ryan Howard, a much less accomplished hitter who is actually two months older than Pujols. So, at the very bare minimum, we're talking about $25 million for a 36-year-old in 2016. And if Pujols gets a premium on the Howard deal, the team that signs him could be shelling out $30 million for a 37-year-old AP.
Right now, the Cards are in relatively good shape. Their bullpen and defense are shaky, but they're in first place. Their starting pitching is lights out. And even without Pujols' normal production, they lead the league in batting average and runs scored. Their lineup on Sunday consisted of John Jay, Tyler Greene, Daniel Descalso, Pete Kozma, and Allen Craig, and they still scored 9 runs to win the series two games to one.
But as the season progresses, the Pujols quandary is going to become more and more magnified. If he rebounds to his normal production, the price goes up and the risk gets bigger. And if he doesn't rebound, the Cards will be looking at making a $125 million (or more) bet that a down 2011 was just an aberration.
Even for the second-greatest player in franchise history, that's one hell of a gamble.
Leave a Comment