Pujols' first 5 seasons in Anaheim.
Age, year, WAR, salary
32, 2012 4.8...12,000,000
33, 2013 1.6...16,000,000
34, 2014 3.9...23,000,000
35, 2015 3.0...24,000,000
36, 2016 1.5...25,000,000
So setting aside the net negative WAR the past 4 years at the cost of $110,000,000 (that's a lot to just bypass), that's 14.8 WAR for $100,000,000.
If we set the value of 1 WAR at $8,000,000 (that's what people are saying, fabulous people), then the first 5 years worked out.......at the cost of an additional $110,000,000. For replacement-level production.
Sorry, I don't buy the "we sign the guy for what he contributes on the front end" crap. It inevitably hamstrings your franchise for the 6-8 years after that. Why in the hell should there be a hundred million dollar "tax" on a prudent, first five years of a contract?!? That's some bullshit a player's agent blows up your ass.
I've said it a bunch of times, mostly on the Bill James forum: LET ANOTHER TEAM MAKE THE MISTAKE OF SIGNING A 30+ YEAR OLD PLAYER TO A 10+ YEAR CONTRACT!
No, the Pujols deal wasn't the worst ever - you have guys with negative WAR for the duration of their $100 million contract (Ryan Howard) out there preventing Pujols' from being the worst, but that is one steep tax to get 5 years of good/not great production.
3 WAR per year (on the front end) isn't the return the Angels were looking for, trust me. Using WAR, Pujols' best season in Anaheim wasn't as good as his worst in St. Louis. And THAT is why people suggest it's the worst deal ever, because of how far below expectations he performed. Nevermind that the expectations were absurd.
