tkihshbt wrote:

I'm still here and generally OK with this move.

Look, the Cardinals weren't going to pay Pujols $25 million unless it was on a short contract. One or two years? Sure. Anything taking him into his mid-30s? No. And it would have been foolish. This team does not have the resources to pay one player almost a quarter of the payroll.

So when the alleged 5/125 was rejected and then Lozano came back and said that bidding starts at the A-Rod deal, it was pretty obvious the Cardinals were going to be out if someone offered that.

And until the Angels came rolling in with an A-Rod-like contract for a 32-year-old soon-to-be DH, it was game over for the Cardinals. We don't have to like it and we can lament the Cardinals being business people instead of just blindly forking over $254 million, but this is the way it is.

I'm disgusted that he's gone but relieved that they don't have him on their payroll until 2022 when he's 42. That's just too long and too much. It would be great to see him ride out his legendary career with the Cardinals, but when they're sitting at home in October because too much of the payroll is tied up in a legacy player, fans would be grumpy.

They're going to take a hit in 2012 unless they can find two more players to provide something close to Pujols in the aggregate. I think they can.

Oh stop being so fucking rational.

tkihshbt wrote:

I'm still here and generally OK with this move.

Look, the Cardinals weren't going to pay Pujols $25 million unless it was on a short contract. One or two years? Sure. Anything taking him into his mid-30s? No. And it would have been foolish. This team does not have the resources to pay one player almost a quarter of the payroll.

So when the alleged 5/125 was rejected and then Lozano came back and said that bidding starts at the A-Rod deal, it was pretty obvious the Cardinals were going to be out if someone offered that.

And until the Angels came rolling in with an A-Rod-like contract for a 32-year-old soon-to-be DH, it was game over for the Cardinals. We don't have to like it and we can lament the Cardinals being business people instead of just blindly forking over $254 million, but this is the way it is.

I'm disgusted that he's gone but relieved that they don't have him on their payroll until 2022 when he's 42. That's just too long and too much. It would be great to see him ride out his legendary career with the Cardinals, but when they're sitting at home in October because too much of the payroll is tied up in a legacy player, fans would be grumpy.

They're going to take a hit in 2012 unless they can find two more players to provide something close to Pujols in the aggregate. I think they can.

Rec

ESPN Radio is reporting there's a security detail outside Albert's restaurant in St. Louis ...

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Strauss has done an ample job documenting the rift between Pujols and the front office, and I can't dispute that.

Do you have a link, or are you speaking generally?

It wasn't a specific story, but the issue was referenced earlier this week

"Rather than facilitate a deal, the Cardinals' offer in January might have led to a hardening of stances on both sides. The Cardinals, sensing no serious challenge to their position, see no reason to bid against themselves. Such inactivity in the wake  of the franchise's second title run in six years could be construed as a slight.

Already irked by the club's reluctance to engage in talks before (or immediately after) retaining free agent left fielder Matt Holliday with a franchise-record seven-year, $120 million deal in January 2010, Pujols became further irritated by Mozeliak's comment last summer that future talks would be "independent" of previous negotiations."

Thanks.  That's part of my argument with DeWitt: how does your relationship with your franchise player deteriorate?

If he's LeBron James, OK.  But this was Albert Pujols, one of the most respectable people in sports?!?

My suspicion, that you scoff at, is that it was by design.  DeWitt reckoned as long ago as 2007 or before that he was not going to be willing to take the risk to pay Pujols what would be necessary to extend, so he began a long slow effort to push as much blame as fans would believe on Pujols, and meanwhile began to insulate himself from the blowback he knew was coming.

artie_fufkin wrote:

ESPN Radio is reporting there's a security detail outside Albert's restaurant in St. Louis ...

As there should be all things considered.

"DeWitt is a numbers guy, plain and simple."

Apparently so is Pujols.

forsberg_us wrote:

"My suspicion, that you scoff at, is that it was by design.  DeWitt reckoned as long ago as 2007 or before that he was not going to be willing to take the risk to pay Pujols what would be necessary to extend, so he began a long slow effort to push as much blame as fans would believe on Pujols, and meanwhile began to insulate himself from the blowback he knew was coming."

You're right.  I think the notion is silly and completely unfounded.  As of the moment the Marlins withdrew their offer, the Cardinals had the highest bid on the table.  That being the case, it's difficult to conclude that they weren't willing to take the risk.  As of about 4:00 yesterday, most of the reports coming out of Dallas was that Pujols to St. Louis was a done deal

It's fair to say there was a line they weren't willing to cross--it would be foolish not to.  They weren't willing to do an A-Rod contract.  Both Miklasz and Strauss are reporting that the Cardinals' last offer was 10/210.  That's a 10 year deal for a 32 year old player.  If you don't think that's a genuine effort, that's your call, but I think you're in the minority.

You are misstating my argument and therefore attacking it with facts that are tangential at best.  There are so many things I take issue with in your rebuttal that it's better just to close this.  I think DeWitt is 99.99% responsible for disrespecting the greatest talent in the game and by all accounts a very decent human.  The one who should be persona non-grata should be DeWitt, but that's life.  I imagine people were pretty upset with Curt Flood when he stood up against the owners, and it might take some time for the collective consciousness to see this in a similar light.

forsberg_us wrote:

Nailed it

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/St-Louis-Cardinals-Albert-Pujols-Los-Angeles-Angels-reaction-analysis-120811

the problem with this is that it painfully omits the history.  It's like congratulating Hitler and the Nazis for allowing Paulus to capitulate at Stalingrad, thereby saving the Wehrmacht from the need to send good troops after bad.  Wasn't that a blessing in disguise, too?


Oh no, wait, perhaps it would have been better still if they had maneuvered their resources differently in the months and years before capitulation.  I guess the capitulation still was a major gaffe and turning point. *Whew* no need to rewrite the history books.

Last edited by Max (12/08/2011 7:06 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Forsberg_us wrote:

I stopped having that inner 9 year old when I started working with athletes, and undoubtedly that's why my perspective is jaded more with the business side of sports than the fan's perspective.  But I have an 11 year old at home who has an autographed picture of himself standing with Albert Pujols just days after his 7th birthday.  I'll be interested to see his reaction when I get home tonight.

Dad, I hear Anaheim has Disneyland and now also has Albert Pujols.  Is this why they call L.A. the city of angels?  Can we move there, pleeeeeeezzee?

You don't know my son.  My guess it the Pujols picture is off the wall by the end of the weekend.

He gone!!!

The picture was in the closet when I got home from work.

Me:  What happened to your picture

Bob: We don't live in Anaheim and Pujols doesn't play for the Cardinals.  Why would I keep his picture up there?



I love that kid.

alz wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

ESPN Radio is reporting there's a security detail outside Albert's restaurant in St. Louis ...

They should, there's a number of people who adore the man living in the region who bought his "It's not all about the money" bullshit. These same people that have been happy to fork over 35.00 a seat for nosebleeds so that we can lose out on our icon because we could "only" offer 220 million.

There's security guarding that punkass statue too.

How phoney does that damn statue look now?  He just put that thing up.


Edit: the writing should have been on the wall about his ego.  He put his own fucking statue up.

Last edited by APRTW (12/08/2011 9:19 pm)

APRTW wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I think the one question I would have that would show whether or not the situation was irreparable is this--did Lozano take the Anaheim offer to the Cardinals and give them a chance to match/counter?  If yes, then the relationship was salvagable.  If not, then it probably wasn't.  I doubt we'll ever know the answer, but that's one answer I would love to know.

"So the Pujols camp never came to you and said, we've got this offer ...

They never put us in a position to do that which I think shows a lot about Albert and his representation. They never pinned us like that."

source?

At this point, everyone is in damage control from the Cardinals organization.

We knew this the moment we found out they hired a PR firm to outline the fallout from not being able to keep Pujols. There's nothing said on either side that I can trust.

I'm waiting to see what Moz does to make it up to the fans, and get the whole picture. However, the Cardinals (whether they care about it or not) are very much trying for my affections.

APRTW wrote:

Looks like the deals were worth more then I thought.  Marlins 10y/275mill, Angels 10y/280mill bot with no defered money.

Whoa! That's amazing!