go birds wrote:Wouldn't that mean by definition it was about the money?
The point is that there's a difference in going to a team that's offering $50M more versus a team that's offering $1M more. The latter is an example of someone being "all about money", the former is simply common sense.
But if it wasn't "just about the money", then what was it about?
He said it wasn't just about the money. I don't believe that. What else do the Angels offer, that the Cardinals couldn't?
…was a swinging strikeout versus Mike Adams in the bottom of the 7th of Game 7. I was there, and gave him a standing ovation, even if not everyone in the stadium did.
Albert was on deck when Craig made the last out in the bottom of the 8th.
Last edited by pioneer98 on December 8 11, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Angels were kind of my 2nd Team/AL team since their AA team is here in Little Rock....now I am thinking about not going to a game next year. (sort of joking)
An extra $5 million per year is a [expletive] load of money.
But I am still mad at him.
The Cards are my team, I would have taken the 10 yr $225 mil deal to stay in St. Louis, because I am loyal to the club, he took more money, so I am mad at him.
Is it rational, hell no, but neither is paying someone $26 million a year to hit a baseball really hard, and really far.
If I am disappointed in anything, it is MLB. Sure, this is nothing new-that baseball can not be discussed without your spreadsheet and understanding of contract values. I don't have time for that crap, well actually I do, but not when it comes to sports.
Was privately fantasizing that some sort of economic recession centered on baseball causing a salary level collapse and returned the game to some recognizable form.
$250 million to play a kid's game (a game that is scarcely even our national pasttime anymore) in this [expletive] economy? It's idiotic.
