No, I'm sure I've used the word money in a post or two. 

But your recent position is that Pujols drove down his market because "from Day 1" he has been saying he wants to be a Cardinal for life and money isn't important.  That statement is false--plain and simple.  Has Pujols said on multiple occasions that he wants to be a Cardinal for life--yes.  Do I believe him when he says it--yes.  But at no time did Pujols ever say that money wasn't important.  In fact, go back and look at those statements before he signed his first long term deal.  Those statements are very clear that getting paid fairly was very important to him.  He made a single comment either at the 2009 or 2010 Winter Warm-up that he MIGHT consider a "hometown discount" and people jumped all over it, ignoring the second half of his comment where he said "but I'm not afraid of being a free agent."  Pujols wants to get paid--but he wants to get paid by a winner.

Another thing that Pujols has said quite often is that he wants to win as many championships as possible.  Do I believe him--yes.  I don't know Albert Pujols but he strikes me as an extremely competitive indivdual who wouldn't be happy playing on a perennially bad team regardless of the money he makes.  That is why I discount the likelihood of teams like the Marlins and Cubs when it comes to ultimately signing him.  It's only my opinion, but I don't think he would enjoy playing for teams that consistently sucked.  Along those lines, I have also said that if he did sign with a team like that, that the reason would necessarily be money.  Here's an example:

"If Pujols signs with the Cubs, it will be purely about money. He's absolutely entitled to do that, so please don't think I'm suggesting otherwise. But if he decides to sign on to wear blue pajamas, he better not show up on TV saying that he did it because he felt they were closer to being a winning club, because if he does that, his credibility goes out the window."  (post #28 from this thread)

I stand by that statement.  There isn't anyone who can objectively look at the Cardinals and the Cubs and honestly think that the Cubs are presently in better shape to contend than the Cardinals.  Any statement to that effect would be disingenuous.  I'm not saying Pujols is a liar or that he has lied, I'm saying that IF AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE he made a statement like that, it would diminish his credibility based on past statements.

But here's my issue with you Max.  You've been telling us for more than a year that teams would be lining up to sign Pujols to a 10 year/$300M contract; that it might look like a bargain if he was actually allowed to hit the open market; that this was Babe Ruth hitting the market and that pretty much every team would be interested, payroll limitations be damned.  I even remember a post in which you suggested the Yankees might eat a bunch of Texieria's contract to get him to accept a trade so they could sign Pujols.  At no time did you ever suggest that Pujols had been depressing his own value since Day 1.  The first time you ever mentioned this idea was after it became increasingly apparent that the market for Pujols (at least to this point) was much less than most people believed (myself included).  It's only my opinion, but I honestly think there's at least a part of you that hopes Pujols signs elsewhere so you can continue to lampoon Dewitt as the "dunce in the corner."  And you got especially testy when I suggested that, as foolish as it seemed at the time, Dewitt might actually come out ahead in the decision to have not signed Pujols to the 5/$125M extension that was rejected.  I believe your response was to the effect of "it doesn't matter if you're smart if people think you're shitty."  The thing is, other than you, who thinks Dewitt is shitty? If he gets this Pujols deal done at a level that doesn't limit the team's ability to remain competitive, he's freakin' brilliant.

forsberg_us wrote:

But here's my issue with you Max.  You've been telling us for more than a year that teams would be lining up to sign Pujols to a 10 year/$300M contract; that it might look like a bargain if he was actually allowed to hit the open market; that this was Babe Ruth hitting the market and that pretty much every team would be interested, payroll limitations be damned.  I even remember a post in which you suggested the Yankees might eat a bunch of Texieria's contract to get him to accept a trade so they could sign Pujols.  At no time did you ever suggest that Pujols had been depressing his own value since Day 1.  The first time you ever mentioned this idea was after it became increasingly apparent that the market for Pujols (at least to this point) was much less than most people believed (myself included).  It's only my opinion, but I honestly think there's at least a part of you that hopes Pujols signs elsewhere so you can continue to lampoon Dewitt as the "dunce in the corner."  And you got especially testy when I suggested that, as foolish as it seemed at the time, Dewitt might actually come out ahead in the decision to have not signed Pujols to the 5/$125M extension that was rejected.  I believe your response was to the effect of "it doesn't matter if you're smart if people think you're shitty."  The thing is, other than you, who thinks Dewitt is shitty? If he gets this Pujols deal done at a level that doesn't limit the team's ability to remain competitive, he's freakin' brilliant.

The first part of this is fair criticism.  Based upon A-Rod's contract, I think $300/10, or higher, is within what we might expect a team would be willing to pay.  I also recall a post following Howard's contract that DeWitt caught a break because the cost to resign Pujols had just been halved, reasoning that the CW had changed and 5 years would get the job done.  At the time, I think I mentioned something along the lines of $150/5, so the idea of an AAV of $30 M goes back a way.  That is relevant because a contract of $150/5 or even $300/10 would have been a better deal back around the time that Howard extended, but with each passing year, it is less so.

I did not bring up the issue of Pujols talking his value down previously because I had not thought of it.  It had not occurred to me how Fielder's consistent message that he would go to the highest bidder juxtaposed with Pujols's consistent message that he would like to remain a Cardinal for life worked to drive the value of one player up and that of the other down.  I also think that many teams, including the Yankees and Red Sox, would have acted differently had Pujols spent the past several years talking like Fielder did.  Finally, I think that the owners do collude on prices, and it is not incoceivable to me that there was great concern among the owners about what Pujols's contract might ultimately look like, and that there has been collusion to keep it down.

Now you might conclude from all of this that i am a disingenuous asshole determined to stick to his argument, no matter what the evidence against it is.  I disagree.

The last part about who among us thinks DeWitt is acting shitty depends on the day.  We just won a WS, and few are remembering how they felt 2007-2010.  KC has left, but he was my mentor in learning to blame this on DeWitt.

forsberg_us wrote:

Let's just put this thing to bed Max.  I think we both (and everyone else on the board for that matter) want to see Pujols back on the team.  We diverge a bit when we get into the minutia of how long or how much should they be willing to go, but we agree on the end result.

We aren't going to agree on Dewitt.  Maybe he just got lucky, maybe he's really, really smart, maybe he's a shitty boss, maybe he's a shrewd businessman, or maybe it's a little of all of these.    But at the end of the day, the team is sitting in a really favorable position--at least right now--with respect to the Pujols situation, and I don't think any of us would have thought that possible before the season began.

The art of negotiation is to make both people feel they are in a win-win situation.  Lately I perceive frustration on the part of Pujols, and I would not like it if DeWitt comes a out a business winner because he chiseled our star down through his shrewd business tactics.  I want to work for a fair boss, not a shrewd one.  I currently have the shrewd variety, and my thoughts on all things related to job negotiations are colored by these experiences.

forsberg_us wrote:

I have little doubt that Pujols/Lozano are frustrated, but at who?

If I were Pujols, I would be frustrated at myself.  But if I were Pujols best friend, I would comfort him like this:

Hey, you did the right thing under the expectations you had, so don't be so hard on yourself.  The team can either play hardball brinkmanship, or they can try to make both sides feel like winners.  Under Jocketty they negotiated the extension well before the the last minute and it felt fair: you earned more than you would have at the beginning, they were getting a great deal by the end.  You had every reason to believe they would do that again, at least until Jocketty got canned.  When you were saying that stuff about wanting to be a Cardinal for life that scared away the big bidders, you couldn't have know that they would wait until the offseason of 2011 to get serious.  You didn't believe you'd be playing 2010 and 2011 for $16 M with no security.  The noises from the Cards was that after 2009 was the right time to extend, then it was after 2010 was ideal.  They delayed and stonewalled right up until the last minute, and then offered less than Ryan Howard makes, all the time letting you talk yourself out of the market.  Screw 'em.   They're businessmen, you're a ball player.  Just play ball, but make sure the fans know what you think of the guys who screwed you over.

Last edited by Max (11/17/2011 5:42 pm)

alz wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Let's just put this thing to bed Max.  I think we both (and everyone else on the board for that matter) want to see Pujols back on the team.

I don't know if this will work for the Max/Fors debate.

That won't work, but you know a Max/Fors debate is winding down when you read statements like:

Max wrote:

The first part of this is fair criticism.

forsberg_us wrote:

I get where you're coming from, but here's my thought.

"until somebody decides it's time to take you down."

weird that it should happen now, right when Pujols is gonna sign.  what are the chances?!?

The sad reality is that the behavior described in that story is such a prevalent part of the agent business, the story is hardly shocking.

In the five years I had my agent certification through the NFL, I witnessed most of the behavior described in this story targeted at players a helluva lot less prominent than Lozano's clients.

Lozano is apparently a giant d-bag, but I'd guess that more than half of his competitors employ the same or similar tactics.

The part that would suck for Pujols (if true) is the part that suggests he isn't a very good agent.  If the original Pujols extension was a product of Lozano needing money or if he's lying to clients about offers just to make himself look good, that's a shame.

Last edited by forsberg_us (11/23/2011 10:15 am)

APRTW wrote:

Sounds like he is a real d-bag.

Or he has an ex-wife/girlfriend.

I'm fairly certain that most/all agents are complete and utter dirtbags. I don't think Lorenzo is more of a d-bag than Boras, or "Ros".

I will say the amount of Desperate Housewives stuff that goes on behind closed doors to win athletes affections away from each other is something I've intentionally tried to avoid reading about. Jerry McGuire was enough for me to realize it's not a business I would excel in. I am more of a confrontationalist (as you've no doubt witnessed) then a "stab you in the back while smiling and whistling YOUR favorite tune to put you at ease" type character.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Sounds like he is a real d-bag.

Or he has an ex-wife/girlfriend.

This has the gestalt of a professional hit.  Although sometimes events allow one to mix business and pleasure, as the saying goes, this is business first and foremost, not payback.

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Sounds like he is a real d-bag.

Or he has an ex-wife/girlfriend.

This has the gestalt of a professional hit.  Although sometimes events allow one to mix business and pleasure, as the saying goes, this is business first and foremost, not payback.

I doubt Lozano's partners at Beverly Hills Sports Council were thrilled when he walked out the door with many of that agency's high dollar clients.  And I would certainly think that his partners and co-workers would know as much, if not more, dirt about him than anyone else in the business.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Or he has an ex-wife/girlfriend.

This has the gestalt of a professional hit.  Although sometimes events allow one to mix business and pleasure, as the saying goes, this is business first and foremost, not payback.

I doubt Lozano's partners at Beverly Hills Sports Council were thrilled when he walked out the door with many of that agency's high dollar clients.  And I would certainly think that his partners and co-workers would know as much, if not more, dirt about him than anyone else in the business.

That's just payback.  Payback could have happened at any time.  Why now?