Page 1 of 2
Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 14:03 pm
by imadangman
I had wondered about this and maybe did a little research but not enough to answer for sure.
Was the pre-2004 Pujols extension the 1st of its type? It came before any of the massive, long-term pre-arb extensions we commonly see today.
Is there an example before Pujols of a player with 3 years of service time (or earlier) receiving an extension of 7 years or more?
That extension might have been the single best move of Jocketty's GM tenure.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
by ScotchMIrish
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 14:37 pm
by imadangman
imadangman wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:03 pm
Is there an example before Pujols of a player with 3 years of service time (or earlier) receiving an extension of 7 years or more?
Putting this here again to clarify my question. Not looking for an entire history of mlb contracts.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 14:38 pm
by imadangman
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Good information though that's very interesting
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 14:38 pm
by Bomber1
During the 1990’s Cleveland extended some of their young players early.
Not sure of any specifics though.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 15:24 pm
by Sheepdawg
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Imagine how much a prime Bambino would pull in today.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 15:29 pm
by imadangman
Sheepdawg wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:24 pm
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Imagine how much a prime Bambino would pull in today.
Would he pull in more (hot dogs) than Burleson?
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 15:40 pm
by brock118
imadangman wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:03 pm
I had wondered about this and maybe did a little research but not enough to answer for sure.
Was the pre-2004 Pujols extension the 1st of its type? It came before any of the massive, long-term pre-arb extensions we commonly see today.
Is there an example before Pujols of a player with 3 years of service time (or earlier) receiving an extension of 7 years or more?
That extension might have been the single best move of Jocketty's GM tenure.
It was the largest of its kind at the time. I doubt if it was the first.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 16:03 pm
by WaltsSuccessor
brock118 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:40 pm
imadangman wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:03 pm
I had wondered about this and maybe did a little research but not enough to answer for sure.
Was the pre-2004 Pujols extension the 1st of its type? It came before any of the massive, long-term pre-arb extensions we commonly see today.
Is there an example before Pujols of a player with 3 years of service time (or earlier) receiving an extension of 7 years or more?
That extension might have been the single best move of Jocketty's GM tenure.
It was the largest of its kind at the time. I doubt if it was the first.
Correct. The total dollar amount was the largest deal at that years of service time. Brock is likely right it wasn't the first, but it was definitely not the norm at the time. What a bargain that ended up being. Too bad it wasn't 2-3 years longer.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 16:05 pm
by imadangman
WaltsSuccessor wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 16:03 pm
brock118 wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:40 pm
imadangman wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:03 pm
I had wondered about this and maybe did a little research but not enough to answer for sure.
Was the pre-2004 Pujols extension the 1st of its type? It came before any of the massive, long-term pre-arb extensions we commonly see today.
Is there an example before Pujols of a player with 3 years of service time (or earlier) receiving an extension of 7 years or more?
That extension might have been the single best move of Jocketty's GM tenure.
It was the largest of its kind at the time. I doubt if it was the first.
Correct. The total dollar amount was the largest deal at that years of service time. Brock is likely right it wasn't the first, but it was definitely not the norm at the time. What a bargain that ended up being.
Too bad it wasn't 2-3 years longer.
Yea, and give DeDe the opt-out clause
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 17:08 pm
by hugeCardfan
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
He had a better year than the President.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 19:55 pm
by ScotchMIrish
hugeCardfan wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 17:08 pm
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
He had a better year than the President.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 19:58 pm
by ScotchMIrish
Sheepdawg wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:24 pm
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Imagine how much a prime Bambino would pull in today.
Pete Rose said the Babe was the best because of the quality of baseballs at that time. Rose said the Babe was hitting rocks.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 20:50 pm
by Gob
And right one cue this forum was calling that contract a disaster when he was batting .260 with single digit homers in May
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 25 Sep 2025 22:37 pm
by imadangman
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 19:58 pm
Sheepdawg wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 15:24 pm
ScotchMIrish wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025 14:25 pm
First ever multi-year might have been Babe Ruth in 1930. 2 years for $160,000.
Imagine how much a prime Bambino would pull in today.
Pete Rose said the Babe was the best because of the quality of baseballs at that time. Rose said the Babe was hitting rocks.
Very interesting.
Re: Question about the 1st Pujols deal
Posted: 26 Sep 2025 08:02 am
by PadsFS07
I believe Torii Hunter was the first to do a big contract in pre-arbitration, but there may have been others. There are many examples though like Pedro Martinez, Bagwell, etc where players avoided arbitration in the 90s with large contracts. Pujols was a big deal due to the $100M price tag.