Albert Pujols lets slip that he's older than his listed age

fatbeard

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2013
Posts:
13,173
Liked Posts:
12,172
As many suspected, Pujols is actually 40 years old, not 38. This makes so much sense in terms of his career arc and the Cardinals' decision to let him walk. There's just no way they didn't know. It also raises interesting questions about whether the Angels could get themselves out from under an oppressive contract to the worst player in baseball last year.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/39462/rubbing-mud-aging-angel/
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,297
Liked Posts:
38,768
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
I just assume every player from Latin American countries is actually 2 years older than what they say.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,815
As many suspected, Pujols is actually 40 years old, not 38. This makes so much sense in terms of his career arc and the Cardinals' decision to let him walk. There's just no way they didn't know. It also raises interesting questions about whether the Angels could get themselves out from under an oppressive contract to the worst player in baseball last year.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/39462/rubbing-mud-aging-angel/

I don't know. I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that they knew. That contract goes through his age 41 season if you think his age is correct or his age 43 season if he's two years older as seems to be the case. Not a lot of difference there at the end of the deal so if you were inclined to reject it you'd do so with either set of facts.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
507
I don't know. I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that they knew. That contract goes through his age 41 season if you think his age is correct or his age 43 season if he's two years older as seems to be the case. Not a lot of difference there at the end of the deal so if you were inclined to reject it you'd do so with either set of facts.

The point isn't that it ends at age 43; it's that it was starting at a much older age. You might be willing to eat a few back end years for the high value years in the front but if the first year of the deal was 34 so you probably aren't thinking there is a ton of extra value to bank in the first years of the deal.

But to give a guy a 10 year deal with fWAR wins of 8.4 then 6.8 then 4.0 in the same amount of playing time is just spitting at the wind.
 

Top