GatewayRedbirds.com

I bet he will avoid the subject of money except to say he wanted to do the best for his family, he loves St Louis etc. I'm sure there will be a full page farewell ad in the PD soon.

This is still disappointing. What Mo does next is going to be absolutely critical as far as how the organization bounces back.

As I said on the other thread, I hope we do a better job replacing Pujols than we did replacing Jack Clark.

Just buy some Fred McGriff videos and show them to the minor league players.

Would have been nice if Matt Adams got tested at AAA last season.

EastonBlues22 wrote:

Arthur Dent wrote:It's not like the $65 million was created by Pujols signing this contract. If he did not, the money would have been spent elsewhere. So, it's really about the fact that Albert gets to decide what to do with it rather than someone else. Is Albert really going to direct the majority of this gain to charity, or will more go to large houses, luxury consumption, and family members? And how effective are athlete run charitable organizations really? Not that I really want to criticize what Pujols does with his income, I'm sure he means well, but I think it's kind of silly to believe there is any great social good done by giving lots of money to already rich athletes.

Albert's heavily involved in a number of charities, more than a few of which he founded himself...surely you're aware of this? It seems incredibly silly to argue about the "relative effectiveness" of charities, when most of the work he does is with disadvantaged kids of some sort (Down syndrome, impoverished children, etc.). He's not trying to cure cancer.
I'm of the opinion that Pujols funnels a greater percentage of his sports income back into the community/good causes than his average athletic peer.

Long story short; this 'raise' doesn't just materialize out of no where. The only difference is Albert decides where the money goes. Assuming he puts more towards charity than others assumes it's not about the money to him - but didn't he just prove otherwise? It also assumes that the entire raise he gets of STL is going to charity. That's completely ignoring moving costs or travel costs while keeping his family in STL (not to mention Lozano's cut $9M cut of the $60M raise). It's also assuming $1M to charity in LA is as effective (i.e. overhead, employee salary, food costs ect) as it is in STL.

You can't assume that it's just net a $40M gain for charity. Some of it goes to Albert's relocation or travel costs. Some of it goes to Lozano. And a good portion of the increase will go to the increased costs/taxes of a new charity/location in Cali.

I'd be willing to bet if the final difference was exactly $40M that the overall net gain to charities (cost adjusted) is $10M over the next 10 years. Which I'd argue would have been matched by STL citizens, companies and government.

I will miss his super gold-plated, stretched, double-decked, diamond encrusted, Lamborghini bus.

There will definitely be a drop off in grounded into double plays.

I won't.

Ok thats a big lie, I'm just upset.