GatewayRedbirds.com

Wasn't the 5 year deal for a crazy AAV though? Them trying to be creative to get him the AAV he wanted, but without the years?

I'm pretty much with Tom, doesn't really matter when he said it or why, just that he did. He's free to choose whatever he wants, but that's why you avoid making statements like that.

_________________

I thought I read that when they signed Holliday to that contract, the front office actually ran it by Pujols' camp to make sure he was OK with it...as in: "We can sign Matt to this contract, but it might leave a bit less for you..."

And Pujols was OK with that concept at that time. Obviously, they may not have been talking numbers at that time, but still. He changed his tune.

_________________

It was 5/130. The Cardinals offering him one hundred and thirty million dollars drove him, by his own admission, to tears.

_________________
"This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

Regardless if it was a 10 year deal for 5 million total or a 10 year deal for 240 million total, it remains that Pujols received (something like) $xx,xxx,xxx.xx more to go to Anaheim. Make that whatever number you want, it is his prerogative to take the most money, regardless of what he said earlier in his career. It doesn't make him a bad person.

By most accounts, the Cardinals offered a 5 year deal with one of the highest AAV in baseball. They also offered longer deals. I'm sure they did what they could to get a deal done and still be able to remain competitive. That wasn't good enough. It is not their job to outbid everyone and it is their prerogative to let other teams outbid them. It doesn't make them bad people.

It is the Angels prerogative to sign anyone for whatever contract terms they want.

I don't get the need 'villify' anyone here. For [expletive] sake, just let it go. No one is necessarily a bad person, villian, murdered, [expletive] or whatever else you want to say just because of this situation.

_________________

I don't think most of us are suggesting that anyone involved is a villain or a bad guy (some are, I realize). I probably wanted there to be a bad guy at first, but that just didn't happen.

I don't, however, think it's wrong to evaluate a situation this way. It's not like we lost Tyler Greene - we lost this generation's best player, who had been in St. Louis for 11 (very successful) years. Most of us probably assumed he'd be here forever, and when that didn't happen, naturally it was going to be a topic of discussion for a long time.

I've moved from the initial anger, to sadness, to a point where I'm now confident that the Cardinals can succeed without Albert. However, I'm still interested in him as a player and the reasons why he's no longer in St. Louis. Is that so bad? It's not like it's distracting me from following the current season or anything.

_________________

No. I find it more satisfying to root against him and his team. Go Rangers!

_________________
"This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

My original response was to those that were. It gets annoying seeing people constantly bad mouthing Pujols or the Cardinals or the Angels or whoever when in fact it is just the way things work.

_________________

Well, some of us are going to bad mouth him, root against him, and take pleasure in his failures and his team's failures. I for one will be most pleased if the slow but noticeable decline in his production observed in St. Louis 2009-11 continues in Anaheim. I'll be happier still if Arte Moreno's team never makes the playoffs without him. I look forward to reading the ESPN stories in 2018 about how the Angels are desperately looking for some relief from his contract. Go Rangers!

_________________
"This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

That would make me cry too. Tears of joy.

_________________
Silence is golden.

I bet you could poll 100 fans in LA and after they remember what sport the Angels play and who that Albert Pujols guy is, 100 would disagree with the notion that they were paying Pujols for what he did in STL. I get your production in your previous contract determines your value going forward, but even though his years in STL set his value, Angel fans are EXPECTING him to repeat it if not better it in LA.

Even though the Cardinals chose to overpay for Tino Martinez in 2002, it didn't stop the fans from turning on him when he failed to live up to his lofty (at the time) contract. No one in St. Louis cared what he did in NY, and that notoriety DeWitt paid for was more of a curse than anything when his body simply wouldn't reach that level anymore. We expected more. That's what'll happen to Albert in LA, but it'll be x10 since they have more invested in him.

Is that notion out of touch with reality? Absolutely. Still, if he fails to make good and prove he's worth $25-$30 million a year in LA, they are going to turn on him. That's why his move to LA was such an idiotic decision on his part. He could have taken less and aged gracefully in St. Louis. Now, unless he wins them a title or two in the next 5 years, he'll be just another mercenary athlete that talked a big game, didn't live up to expectations, and weighed their franchise down like an anchor for years. They'll have no problem booing him, and he won't react well to it.

_________________
The Chicago Cubs: be-LIE-ving since 1908

"Do I want to be in STL forever? Of course. People from other teams want to play in STL and they are jealous that we're in STL because the fans are unbelievable. So why would you want to leave a place like STL to go somewhere else and make 3 OR 4 MORE MILLION A YEAR? IT'S NOT ABOUT MONEY. IALREADY GOT MY MONEY. IT'S ABOUT WINNING, THAT'S IT." Albert Pujols (February 15th, 2009)