Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Spider John
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10619
Joined: May 18 06, 10:09 pm
Location: East of the middle of West Tennessee

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Spider John »

Jocephus wrote:

Albert Pujols went 0-for-4 at the plate Thursday in Cleveland, dropping his season line to .233/.280/.374.
Pujols went 0-for-15 at the dish in the series as the Indians swept the Angels. The future Hall of Famer's walk rate has been going in the wrong direction for years now and this season he hasn't produced much power to make up for it with a pedestrian 14 homers. The good news is he still remains a fixture in the No. 3 spot in the lineup behind Mike Trout, which means he's still on a 93-RBI pace even in a poor hitting campaign.
Jul 27 - 3:06 PM
I hate to see he's fallen that far.

dmarx114
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 24002
Joined: December 20 07, 2:45 pm

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by dmarx114 »

Magneto2.0 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
JoeMcKim wrote:If you factor in his value vs. what he's getting paid then he's probably the LVP. After how bad the long term deals for Pujols, Howard and Fielder went not sure why teams continue to give players deals longer then 5 years.

Which is why you think twice before trading for Stanton, who has 10 years left on his deal.
Pujols was 5 years older than Stanton is now when he signed with the Angels.
True.....but Stanton in his prime is not close to Pujols in his prime.

User avatar
Swirls
gone fission
Posts: 8308
Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Location: South Korea

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Swirls »

Hoot45 wrote:
JoeMcKim wrote:If you factor in his value vs. what he's getting paid then he's probably the LVP. After how bad the long term deals for Pujols, Howard and Fielder went not sure why teams continue to give players deals longer then 5 years.
Because if you don't do it a bunch of grammatically challenged middle-aged men will dedicate their lives to roasting you on internet message boards. Have to avoid that, IMO.
The grammar will not improve, I assure you.

User avatar
Jocephus
99% conan clips
Posts: 63639
Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Jocephus »

TJ
10:01
How long can the Angels pencil Pujols in the lineup for? He looks 100% cooked

Jeff Sullivan
10:02
They have nowhere else to turn. But this is only going to get more and more ugly

User avatar
sighyoung
Mayor of GRB
Posts: 37618
Joined: April 17 06, 7:42 pm
Location: Louisville

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by sighyoung »

Jocephus wrote:
TJ
10:01
How long can the Angels pencil Pujols in the lineup for? He looks 100% cooked

Jeff Sullivan
10:02
They have nowhere else to turn. But this is only going to get more and more ugly
Pujols will remain until replaced by a player not of woman born, and after Birnam Wood comes to Angel Stadium.

Magneto2.0
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 17324
Joined: June 16 07, 2:12 pm

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Magneto2.0 »

dmarx114 wrote:
Magneto2.0 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
JoeMcKim wrote:If you factor in his value vs. what he's getting paid then he's probably the LVP. After how bad the long term deals for Pujols, Howard and Fielder went not sure why teams continue to give players deals longer then 5 years.

Which is why you think twice before trading for Stanton, who has 10 years left on his deal.
Pujols was 5 years older than Stanton is now when he signed with the Angels.
True.....but Stanton in his prime is not close to Pujols in his prime.
Fair enough and he does have a history of missing a lot of time every year.

Johnconrad
Same Ole
Posts: 816
Joined: June 4 14, 12:33 pm

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Johnconrad »

All the 1985 and 1987 Cards needed from Jack Clark was about 100 games/year.

Stanton easily makes that.

"If only" President Moe had the bucks back that he squandered on Dexy's Midgame Blunders and Tatman Cecil.

But, whatever would the team do without those guys?

User avatar
ZigZagCardsFan
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 5531
Joined: July 29 06, 6:26 pm

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by ZigZagCardsFan »

Albert Pujols continued to put his extended slump in the rearview mirror on Tuesday night, launching a three-run home run and knocking in five runs to power the Angels to a 7-1 series-opening win over the Phillies at Angel Stadium.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/245924364 ... ver-phils/

User avatar
Farewell Friends
Snayke's Bottomline
Posts: 3888
Joined: August 3 16, 9:44 am

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by Farewell Friends »

TT bringing up the 2003 Cardinals got me looking at Pujols' career. In 2004, he hit .331/.415/.657 with a 12 percent walk rate and 7 percent strikeout rate. And that, by WAR, was only his fourth best season as a Cardinal. Incredible. I think I took Pujols for granted that he would remain a machine throughout his career.

User avatar
wart57
just can't quit you.
Posts: 25242
Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Location: Lost

Re: Shaikin: Angels Not Buying That Pujols Is LVP

Post by wart57 »

Farewell Friends wrote:TT bringing up the 2003 Cardinals got me looking at Pujols' career. In 2004, he hit .331/.415/.657 with a 12 percent walk rate and 7 percent strikeout rate. And that, by WAR, was only his fourth best season as a Cardinal. Incredible. I think I took Pujols for granted that he would remain a machine throughout his career.

Post Reply