alz wrote:

Second, Max, you seriously cannot say Pujols is blameless here. I don't have a problem with you putting the blame on Dewitt,

First, let's remember that I was a DeWitt apologist back when KC was telling us he was the problem.  I was converted on the road to Damascus . . . hmm, maybe after 2008.  But I was not born and bred to dislike DeWitt, I was taught, and it took me a long time to learn that lesson.

alz wrote:

but come on man. Pujols could have been the bigger man here.

I think Pujols was the bigger man from after the WS in '06 until about a week ago.  I stood up for him and the others and said the best thing that we as fans could do was to put pressure on DeWitt not to cheap out.  I wasn't entirely aware back then how he was hurting the process by being kind of a cold-prickly business man, but that only makes him worse in my eyes.  So, my integrity is intact through that.

What Pujols and his wife have done since that awful day, I make no apologies for, other than to say that I assume they are wracked by mixed feelings and that neither has a clue about PR.  I have gone off on some pretty wild tirades in my day, and I'm glad that TV cameras weren;t rolling and broadcasting it around the country.

alz wrote:

There were 4 million people that wanted him to stay here (roughly based on stadium attendance alone), and he stuck it to all of them to stick it to Moz/Dewitt. Me, you, tk, fors, artie and the rest of Cardinal nation got to take it in the ass because those two GROUPS could not come together over years of negotiations. I'm not sure how you take all the blame for that, and dump it on one side of the table.

It takes two people to want to stay together to maintain a relationship.  It takes two nations to want to maintain peace to avoid war.  It only takes one to end a relationship, and it only takes one nation to make war.  I take Pujols at his word, that he wanted to stay. 

alz wrote:

Third, assuming you will admit Pujols had a hand in this debacle, then it's just a question on how much you blame each party. That's relative and opinion, and totally up to you.

Thanks.

alz wrote:

I just have a difficult time hearing Pujols cast as a shining angel of god himself who was above error, while Dewitt was offering the apple to Eve, and fucking up mankind forever in the process. It didn't go down like that, both of these pricks sat across the proverbial table with the entirety of Cardinal nation waiting and crossing their fingers. BOTH let us down. In my opinion, Dewitt has the most defensible position. He blew the 5/125 call, tried to make up for it, but couldn't sacrifice the entire franchise to keep Albert. Albert has played here for 11 years, and has watched numerous people play for less to stay here, but somehow couldn't be bothered to take less when the deal was 9/198 million. If your entire persona is "It's not about the money, want to be a Cardinal for life, want the commitment", you can't walk from that offer, no matter when it's made. Albert could have taken it, maybe disliked Dewitt, but did it for Cardinal Nation, who he "loved". Maybe did it because STAN MOTHER FUCKING MUSIAL asked him to stay. Maybe it didn't have to be about Dewitt, and Albert could have really walked the high road that he talked about so often. In my opinion, he could have, and instead of doing it, he gave us a nice middle finger.

So, in my humble opinion, fuck him and his christian ways. Hope he enjoys his money, and I hope he goes to the Hall of Fame as an Angel.

I've tuned it all out.  This is all putting spin on a bad, bad situation.  What people will learn from this, is that for sports to be meaningful to people, they have to live up to our beliefs in some ways.  Sure they are businesses, but they can't be ALL business and no sentimentality.  It took a tremendous lack of sentimentality to allow the relationship between Pujols and the FO to get frosty, and as the other one-team HOFers mentioned, they never even got close to free agency.

alz wrote:

Just as you take Pujols at his word, I take Dewitts. 9/198 is a more than fair offer, so was the 10/220 regardless of options.

In my opinion, it was the timing of both of those that was designed to say, "Drop your pants, and bend over, Albert.  Mr. DeWitt will be in to see you shortly."  I don't blame Albert one bit from being offended by the way in which the Cardinals conducted the extension negotiations, beginning with all the noise that they'd like to get it done early.  I'm with Windy on this one, Albert Pujols can say, "Fuck you, it's Mr. Pujols to you, or no deal" to anyone he wants to.  And I respect him more, for feeling and acknowledging the disrespect that I believe was meant by the way the FO managed this whole ugly affair.

If I'd earned what Pujols has earned, I wouldn't want to have to take a pay cut and kiss some conceited owners' ass just to play ball where I wanted to: "So, I said like, a million times, that I wanted to be a life long Cardinal.  Instead of being grateful, DeWitt acts like he's gonna pocket the benefits to the club from my loyalty.  Fuck him."  That's how I would feel, anyway. So, I would be a hypocrite to begrudge how Pujols has behaved.

Curious Max, would you have led with a 10/220 offer? knowing that both the money and the years were a serious detriment to your organization? He's an owner, regardless of fan adoration, he has to assess the value of Pujols. The fact Dewitt came to those numbers at all should signify Pujols value to the Cardinals, if it doesn't then he can have a tissue and cry over it some more while praying. Most fans would have called him insane had Pujols signed. That's just too much for an NL club to offer a 32 year old big man with crappy wheels and a busted arm.

I have no problem with Pujols going to get his money Max, nobody does. You are not reading, either me on this board, or the Pujols' family in the news. I'm begrudging him for still trying to sell me on his, "I'm above the money" bullshit. He's just another scumbag money grubbing athlete, and became such the second he gave Cardinal nation the bird for MORE MONEY. I don't care about his little fuss with Dewitt, I care that millions of fans took a backseat to his fucking wallet when he spent years convincing us he was different.

He's the hypocrite Max. He played his little song and dance, and then when the money was on the table, he ran for the door as fast as he could. Forgive me if I call into question 3 years of his mouth due to his actions. I tend to like calling a spade a spade though, and thus Pujols is nothing more than a gold digger, with no care for the city or the fans in any fashion that matters.

Edit: or 10/210, whatever it was. 9/198 even works for the example. You don't open the bidding with your best possible numbers.

Last edited by alz (12/14/2011 3:05 pm)

And someone who knows and cares about the difference between 'acting stupid' and 'acting stupidly' ought to know the difference between making an accusation that someone thinks they are smarter than the others, and the accused who responds: "If you think I am behaving too smart, perhaps you are acting stupid."  Perhaps I would have made my pointer more clear-LY had I written:

"If you accuse me of acting like I think I am too smart, perhaps it is you who are acting stupid(-LY, if you prefer)."

forsberg_us wrote:

I don't buy this nonsense that they weren't PR savvy, and I highly doubt that either of these interviews were conducted without Lozano knowing about them in advance.

Your argument seems to assume that PR savvy comes in two flavors: savvy and unsavvy.  By demonstrating some amount of savvy, this indicates that they are no unsavvy, and therefore both camps can be lumped into the only other category left.  Dare I mention that false dichotomies are a common assumption in your arguments?

You seem to have conveniently glossed over the fact that they chose to do a likely scripted interview that was aired on their own radio station rather than provide Strauss the opportunity to defend his sources or ask difficult questions.

BTW- for some reason the interview was pulled from the station's website.  I wonder why?

Dare I say it's a common theme in your arguments to overlook or minimize facts that don't support your argument.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I took the middle road."

That would have been a first.

"Funny to me, but perhaps not to you, I debated whether it should read: stupidly, stupid, or stoopid.:

You really have to believe you're smarter than everyone else if you think anyone is going to buy this pile of bullshit.
Thanks for proving I'm correct.

Just to clarify, . . .

do you think that I am lying when I say I debated whether it should read stupidly, stupid, or stoopid, and chose the middle way, and thus i think I am smarter than everyone else because I think I can get away with a lie like this?

or do you think that I must think I am smarter than everyone else that I would post my thought processes?

The Cardinals have waged a brilliant PR campaign by saying nothing. The Pujolses would have been wise to follow suit.

alz wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

The Cardinals have waged a brilliant PR campaign by saying nothing. The Pujolses would have been wise to follow suit.

This is actually quite true. "We tried to keep him, it didn't work out" end of PR campaign.

Rec.

forsberg_us wrote:

The Cardinals have waged a brilliant PR campaign by saying nothing. The Pujolses would have been wise to follow suit.

It is believible and fitting for the Cardinals to say nothing because that is their MO.  It isnt like Pujols to cry about not being treated fairly.  He has stated he wanted to be a Cardinal for life and was happy with his 2004 contract.  Now he has taken that back.  One is changing their story and the others is the same.

"Take a look at Jeff Gordon, who, Fors described as such a "schill for the organization" that Fors cannot take him seriously:"

And I stand by those comments.  I put Gordon and Burwell in the same category, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.


"So let's be honest and acknowledge that, as in any professional PR campaign, the target is told to say little and the heavy lifting is done by others, at least those focused on damage control."

In this case, the "heavy lifting" is being done by Albert and Didi Pujols.  Initially, most of the reporting was fairly benign "don't blame Pujols for taking the better deal, don't blame the Cardinals for making the offer."  The real negativity has been in response to the Pujols' interviews and comments during the Angels' press conference.

Strauss said something in his latest Q & A, that made sense: Pujols asked that all discussions regarding negotiations remain confidential.  He declined to answer any questions at Winter Warm-up and when the negotiating deadline passed.  The Cardinals tend to give milktoast answers, but they provide answers.  Strauss' take was that Pujols could have run interference by making his position known publicly--at the very least dispelling the notion that he might not accept less to stay.  Hard to predict what might have happened (10/210 is still a lot of money), but it didn't help his situation that the last thing people remember was the quote that Artie has cited where Pujols suggested he'd stay for $3-4M year less.

Last edited by forsberg_us (12/15/2011 4:01 pm)

Max wrote:

i see bernie and gordon as natural yin and yang, and burwell as more of a free agent.

Bernie is a populist.  Gordon's position remains unchanged regardless of whether it's popular.  Burwell is a waste of ink.