Pujols, I don't get it...

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Nail on the head. That's my biggest issue with pro sports. In a lot of cases, it's not an issue, but for a case like this, where he had one of the rare chances to play his entire career for one team would be awesome. Ozzie Smith, Barry Larkin, Derek Jeter are a rare occurrence since the beginning of free agency. It's starting to turn me away from the MLB. I stuck behind and supported them during the MLB strike in 94, but it's just starting to be too much. Pro sports wouldn't be around if there weren't money to be made, but at the end of the day, the teams are around b/c of the fans and their support.

And don't forget these ludacris tv contracts...of which the Angels just signed a $ 3 BILLION one.

Amen!! The fans are the ones who suffer. I guess that is our fault for becoming "attached" to "our" players and caring.

Originally Posted by Starscream

I guess now I do "get it", but I don't agree with it. Thanks for the conversation and discussion, Mac and Dom.

Anytime Andy...LOVE talking baseball.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

And don't forget these ludacris tv contracts...of which the Angels just signed a $ 3 BILLION one.

Amen!! The fans are the ones who suffer. I guess that is our fault for becoming "attached" to "our" players and caring.



Anytime Andy...LOVE talking baseball.

Sucks but it's true, and it's not just baseball.

I'll talk baseball anyday as well, Mac. I just might not be the most knowledgable guy in the park.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by jonumberone

I think the DH was a huge factor as well, for both Albert and the club!

This is huge. While Albert is an excellent fielder now, he likely won't be so agile in a few years.

While I miss the day when players played a whole career with one team, those days are gone. $200 million for the midwest, or $260 million for SoCal? No brainer for this guy.

[yourchoice]

I think the day teams start showing loyalty to players is the day players should start showing loyalty to teams. It's a business on both sides. On the ownership side, I don't want my team rewarding players for past performance....that would likely just weaken the team's future performance (the Phillies did this with a lot of guys from the '93 team, killed them for years).

From the players perspective, the player, in this case Pujols, not only has his own financial reasons to take the money, but there's a lot of pressure from the Player's Union for each player to maximize their earnings for all future players' contracts.

And I root for laundry.

[688sonarmen]

The way I feel about it is I thought Pujols was going to be the player that truly loved the game. The way he played, the fact that his wife was his pitching coach in the off season, the money he donated to charity and the awards banquets he passed up to spend time with his daughter and other charity events. He was a product of St Louis and had roots established there. Not to mention the talk he talked as stated earlier. I really thought that he might be the guy to change just a little the way sports are now. It's a romantic thought and that's as far as it will go. Once Tony left it was a reality check on the past season of why Pujols did not want to talk about it, to "Let God" make the choice. The only sense I can make out of it is he spends more time playing as a DH and get all the money he can to help out the charities he supports. Either way id does not matter, he will go down in history as one of the greatest players to ever play the game, and St Louis benefited greatly from him and the guys that learned from him.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

I think the day teams start showing loyalty to players is the day players should start showing loyalty to teams. It's a business on both sides. On the ownership side, I don't want my team rewarding players for past performance....that would likely just weaken the team's future performance (the Phillies did this with a lot of guys from the '93 team, killed them for years).

From the players perspective, the player, in this case Pujols, not only has his own financial reasons to take the money, but there's a lot of pressure from the Player's Union for each player to maximize their earnings for all future players' contracts.

And I root for laundry.

I get that, and it's sad. Agents have ruined the players' union in some aspects. I won't say there's any blackballing going on for accepting less money, but they're certainly frowned upon by their peers.

[qwerty1500]

Definitely have a lot of mixed emotions about this.

I am grateful to have seen a future Hall of Fame player in a Cardinals uniform for 11 seasons. Time will tell if those were the best years of his career. We saw so many home runs and gold glove plays as well as Albert’s pure baseball instinct. I will appreciate all of that forever as a Cardinal fan and a fan of the game.

I am happy for Albert and the Angels. Talent deserves to be rewarded and a quarter billion dollars is an amazing amount of money. I guess the Angels can afford it thanks to their new $3 billion Fox Sports television contract. They now have a real threat in the middle of their lineup and a new star to attract disgruntled Dodger fans.

I feel bad for all the five year old kids in their Pujols t-shirts and the lesson this taught them about loyalty.

I feel good about Cardinal management. They were aware of Albert’s age and the likely impacts of past and current injuries on his future performance. Also, did they see a hole in his swing as Albert hit into one double play after another in 2011? Nevertheless, they offered more than they should to make their fans happy and to give Albert an opportunity to become a Cardinal legend.

I’m a little relieved and very optimistic about the future.

This contract has been hanging over our heads for a couple of years. I’m glad it’s over and that management didn’t mortgage the next decade on one player.

It is a little late and I don’t see any obvious moves in the free-agent pool other than maybe Rollins at short. Don’t know enough about the relievers on the market but the bullpen would be a good place to drop some cash for 2012.

Management has worked hard to restock the farm system and the Cards have some prospects that should have a real impact in a year or two. With a couple of tweaks, I’d be willing to muddle through 2012 with the current roster and use Albert’s $20+ million a year to improve the team when the right deals come along.

Finally, I’m mostly glad that Albert is going to the American League and won’t be in a Cub uniform.

Sorry to be so windy but this topic has been on the minds of a lot of folks around here the last couple of days. It feels good just to get it off my chest.

[Eleven]

Why aren't the Occupy Wall street people sh*tting bricks over stuff like this? Double standard perhaps?

Interesting discussion here, and I think all made valid points. I didn't think Puljos would leave STL, but I'm happy being a Cub fan (I know). But I think he was looking at becoming a DH towards the end of his career. I don't think he's "too" concerned about his legacy right now, he's got two rings and he knows that he has a lot of HRs left in him. In the end, I believe that a mix of cash and the ability to he an everyday hitter without having to play a position played a huge role in his decision. And in all fairness, STL could have come up with an offer to keep him...not to mention, in professional sports (except in rare occasions) when it comes to money, enough is NEVER enough.

D