GatewayRedbirds.com

closest pujols gets to STL in 2012, i think - Chicago August 3-5 & Kansas City September 14-16.

He shouldn't have to apologize for taking more money, but he should apologize for his hypocritical stance about what was important to him. You can't have it both ways. You can't put on a sentimental front, but then do a turnabout when push comes to shove.

He probably should not have said some of the things that he said in the way that he said them. They never acted in a way that supported some of his comments.

You can be upset about that. It's a legitimate gripe.

By the way, I told my 7 year old son today that Albert had left to go play in Los Angeles (Hollywood). He got this shocked look on his face and wanted to know why. So, I had to explain contracts and stuff like that. Then he wanted to know who else had left... he had to double check on Holliday and Molina and Freese. I assured him that they were all still around.

Then he said, "well, I guess we'll just have to go start going to baseball games in Hollywood instead of St. Louis."

Then my 4 year old daughter had to weigh in. She said, "Matt Holliday is MY favorite player."

EastonBlues22 wrote:You have a social "thing" against athletes making a lot of money?

No. You've missed my point entirely. So long as pro sports is a giant pot of money to be divided between players and owners, I'd rather that the people we pay to see get the larger share. My objection is to the argument I've read many times that big athlete salaries are great because they do all this wonderful charitable work. Yes, I'm aware that Pujols has a charity that works with disadvantaged kids. So did Jerry Sandusky. I'm glad he does this and don't wish to question him personally. He's a rich dude who can afford to do a lot of charitable work. That's great. And I don't really begrudge him for wanting to get the biggest deal to pay for this or whatever he wants to do with it. I just don't buy the moral case that Pujols is serving the good of the world by demanding to be paid the highest possible salary.

This sucks for short term, but I think we'll be a lot happier than angels fans for years 4-10.

ilstu24 wrote:

Lesson wrote:Nightengale tweeted that the Marlins offered more $ to Pujols than Anaheim.

I don't buy this for a second. I think this is out there to make it look like it wasn't about the money.

I heard that factoring in taxes, the Marlin's offer was better (less AAV, no state income tax).

Kids.

One other thing I just considered. I don't know think Albert is the best player ever, but he's in the running. I've also got to see Gretzky and Lemieux play hockey, Marino throw the football and Jerry Rice catch it and Lawrence Taylor change offenses based on him. And of course got to watch Jordan play, I of whom there is no comparison.

I got to see three of these guys play for my favorite team too (Rice, Gretzky and Albert). That's pretty good.

This USA Today Nightengale article definitely paints Albert in a good light. It's timeline of how the negotiations went down. It makes me sad.

planet pujolsian wrote:This USA Today Nightengale article definitely paints Albert in a good light. It's timeline of how the negotiations went down. It makes me sad.

I can't believe nightengale hasn't blocked me.

Arthur Dent wrote:

EastonBlues22 wrote:You have a social "thing" against athletes making a lot of money?

No. You've missed my point entirely. So long as pro sports is a giant pot of money to be divided between players and owners, I'd rather that the people we pay to see get the larger share. My objection is to the argument I've read many times that big athlete salaries are great because they do all this wonderful charitable work. Yes, I'm aware that Pujols has a charity that works with disadvantaged kids. So did Jerry Sandusky. I'm glad he does this and don't wish to question him personally. He's a rich dude who can afford to do a lot of charitable work. That's great. And I don't really begrudge him for wanting to get the biggest deal to pay for this or whatever he wants to do with it. I just don't buy the moral case that Pujols is serving the good of the world by demanding to be paid the highest possible salary.

I agree. Where is this coming from? I heard my sister talking about it on f/b and my wife at dinner (just to piss me off I'm sure), and I know they didn't get it from here.