Pujols Signs With Angels

Classic threads for your viewing pleasure.
Online
AWvsCBsteeeerike3
"I could totally eat a pig butt, if smoked correctly!"
Posts: 25500
Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Location: Thinking of the Children

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by AWvsCBsteeeerike3 »

Socnorb11 wrote:

Remember, 32 year old players typically do not get 10 year contract, it's pretty much that simple. Maybe Albert thought he deserved to be the exception, based on what he'd accomplished. The second part of your statement is a standard caveat. Consider my first sentence here to be a rebuttal to that caveat.
Funny how being one of the top what 5, 10 all time hitters will make you think you are deserving, isn't it?

User avatar
JL21
NPR & THT Contributor
Posts: 36130
Joined: April 18 06, 7:44 am
Location: Chocolate City

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by JL21 »

32 year old players also don't typically have 445 HR's, 3 MVP awards (and 4 2nd place finishes), a 170 OPS+, or the 28th best WAR in MLB history.

User avatar
cards2468
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 14763
Joined: October 28 06, 11:10 pm
Location: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by cards2468 »

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
cards2468 wrote:
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote: If there were others who were obviously better than me, then I wouldn't have a problem being the 3rd highest paid. Maybe that's just me.
Please list these people of whom you speak that are better than AP over the past 10 years.

And remember, players get paid in their 2nd contract for what they did in their first.
Such a stupid concept that I'm glad the Cardinals don't believe in.
But, nevertheless true.
Yep. Based on the motivation of both sides, I think the right decision was made. Cardinals managed to not handicap themselves for the next 10 years, Albert got a bunch of re$pect.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 20162
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by Socnorb11 »

JL21 wrote:32 year old players also don't typically have 445 HR's, 3 MVP awards (and 4 2nd place finishes), a 170 OPS+, or the 28th best WAR in MLB history.

Completely agree. There's nothing typical about this, so I'm not sure why we would discuss how players "typically" get paid in their second contract based on what they'd done thru their first contract. For one, I'm not sure that's true. Secondly, it's a stupid concept. Thirdly, as you pointed out, this isn't a typical case.

Spider John
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10020
Joined: May 18 06, 10:09 pm
Location: East of the middle of West Tennessee

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by Spider John »

ghostrunner wrote:[ I bet he's over it once the season starts, if not sooner. I doubt he even regrets it now. He just feels bad about the situation and is trying poorly to fix it.
To me, that makes the Pujols' more human, just regular Joes who were overcome by all the pressure of the situation and made an emotional decision.

User avatar
robbotis
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 4849
Joined: April 18 06, 7:05 am
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by robbotis »

cards2468 wrote:
fanforever wrote:
jagtrader wrote: And no one will wear No. 5 in St. Louis again. Can we just stop with that?

Amen
[expletive], no reason to set aside a number for a guy who just turned his back on us. He can have it back 5 years after he retires.
Actually- better make it 10 years after he retires, so 2032. Thanks, to the Re$pect provided by the Personal Services contract. Nobody in STL will love Albert then, hell, people in LA will definetly not love him then.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8266
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by vinsanity »

Socnorb11 wrote:For an 18% increase in my current pay, I wouldn't even consider moving out west to work. I've had offers from other companies for substantially more money than I'm making. I'm comfortable.
My question wasn't would move out west to make 20% more. It was:
What about when another company is offering to pay you 25% more? Wouldn't you then feel like your current employer is 'underpaying' you?
If someone is willing to pay you $75K when you currently make $60K, let's say without moving at all. You make the same commute, have the same responsibility, do essentially the exact same thing but for the building next door and with the exact same benefits. The only thing changing is the numbers on your paycheck, the name it's coming from and the name on the building outside.

Would you or would not feel underpaid by your current company?

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 20162
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by Socnorb11 »

vinsanity wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:For an 18% increase in my current pay, I wouldn't even consider moving out west to work. I've had offers from other companies for substantially more money than I'm making. I'm comfortable.
My question wasn't would move out west to make 20% more. It was:
What about when another company is offering to pay you 25% more? Wouldn't you then feel like your current employer is 'underpaying' you?
If someone is willing to pay you $75K when you currently make $60K, let's say without moving at all. You make the same commute, have the same responsibility, do essentially the exact same thing but for the building next door and with the exact same benefits. The only thing changing is the numbers on your paycheck, the name it's coming from and the name on the building outside.

Would you or would not feel underpaid by your current company?

I would assume that the other company is pretty desperate for help, probably.


Why are you excluding the part about going west? Albert may still have a home in St. Louis, but he'll be spending the majority of his time in Anaheim.

User avatar
cpebbles
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 8838
Joined: August 30 07, 12:28 pm

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by cpebbles »

The situations aren't really comparable. Cost of living is a very real factor for any of us, and it isn't for Albert. He is already paying people who can do all of the little nuisance things we would have to do to change jobs and move. Finally, he works in one of the few professions where it is easy to measure himself against his peers, and where compensation is public information.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8266
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Pujols Signs With Angels

Post by vinsanity »

Socnorb11 wrote:I would assume that the other company is pretty desperate for help, probably.
So even if Google or Microsoft or State Farm or <insert relevant industry leader for your job> was the person offering the job and saying they thought you're work was worth 20% more for them than where you currently are and nothing had to change, you'd decline because you'd assume they were just desperate and now adequately valuing your contributions? If another stable employer offered you 20% more, your first thought isn't "Hey, maybe that's how much I'm worth?"
Why are you excluding the part about going west? Albert may still have a home in St. Louis, but he'll be spending the majority of his time in Anaheim.
Two reasons.

The question was about feeling underpaid. You can feel underpaid without needing to move cities for a new job. On these scales, relative to national big league players he was offered substantially more money and moving him up the list of highest paid players in history.

And I guess I assumed part of the reason you brought it up was Cost of Living or location desire. Not everyone likes California and not everyone likes St. Louis. So I was trying to take that subjectivity out of it. Also, as has been noted, Cost of Living adjustments are regressive. While the same house in LA will be substantially more expensive, the slight increase in other living costs likely won't dent his yearly salary like it would for you or I.

But if you can honestly tell me you wouldn't move to a different company next door or different department within your current company or that if someone was offering you 20% more than your current salary you wouldn't feel slightly underpaid then that answers my question. I'm isolating one thing; pay. Not morality, not ethics, location, commute, hours, responsibility, title, benefits, desirability.

Locked