"I'm too young to remember, but are you sure Charlie Finley didn't engage in a 5 year conspiracy to ensure that Jackson would sign elsewhere. Maybe it wasn't Jackson's fault he ended up a Yankee. "

It's funny that you make the comparison.  There is a clip I am looking for, but have not yet found, that has Reggie Jackson giving advice to a young player, telling him something like "make a couple mentions about God and you'll have them eating out of your hand".  Reggie loved to talk and was as insincere as they get.

Reggie and Albert were almost polar opposities in terms of personality, in my opinion.

Last edited by Max (5/18/2013 10:46 am)

Damn close to a eulogy here. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51937226/ns/sports-baseball/

"Assume they had a doctor right there saying, "In 3 more seasons, he'll barely be able to crawl to first base." Then what's the responsible thing to do as the GM/Owner of the franchise?"

Well, if you want to be Pujols's best friend and you have no ethical qualms about lying and screwing other people over, you pretend you don't know, you make a big deal of trying to sign him, you lowball him, and let him get his payday elsewhere.  But even if you were onboard with the ethics of doing that, I wonder about the legal jeopardy you might put yourself in.

Pujols equated respect with money.  He isn't the first athlete to do so.  He also isn't the first athlete to regret his decision to do so.

"The pitch is right. Pujols unleashes the swing. There are no cartoon exclamation points. Instead, he pops up to the shortstop, completing his 0-for-4 day. There will be better days, of course. But the big thing, is nobody really seems to notice. Nobody really seems to care. That’s the cost."

Last edited by forsberg_us (5/21/2013 9:06 am)

"I am not saying that he equated money with respect."

You're not.  I am. 

"There was plenty of information in the years leading up to the "failed" efforts to resign (or successful efforts to not resign?) that Pujols felt disrespected by the team."

Yes there is.  But just because Pujols felt disrespected doesn't mean his feeling is correct.  By all accounts Pujols' feelings of disrespect started after the team re-signed Holliday.  But the team traded for Holliday after Pujols threatened to have season-ending surgery if the team didn't make a move to improve it.  They re-signed Holliday to give Pujols the protection he publicly craved and then he held it against them because they didn't move quick enough to sign him and his bad elbow.  

"Baseball lost the chance at an amazing legend, a real feel good story."

Pujols' legend wasn't lost by the move.  Plenty of great players played for multiple teams (in fact you have to go all the way to #15 on the all-time HR list to find a player who didn't play for more than one organization).  It was lost because of his rapid decline.  I know you cling dearly to the idea that Pujols' decline wouldn't have happened if he stayed in St. Louis, but the reality is that his first two years in Anaheim have simply followed the trend that started in his last years in St. Louis.

You're entitled to your own opinion about how these events transpired, but not your own set of facts.

Stated facts--none.  Ignored facts--many.
 

"Which of my ignored facts are wrong."

By definition, they aren't wrong, they're ignored.  Here's a small list:

- Pujols said he wanted to be a Cardinal for life and would forego $3-4 million/year to do so, so long as the team was competitive.  He then took $3M/year more to leave after the team won the World Series.
- Pujols used his elbow injury to force the team to trade for DeRosa & Holliday, then held it against the team when it chose to re-sign Holliday to pacify Pujols' demands for lineup protection.
- Pujols imposed an arbitrary deadline for contract negotiations claiming he couldn't be distracted by discussions during Spring Training.
- Pujols' camp never made a counter-offer to the Cardinals offer made in the Spring of 2011.
- The Cardinals offer of 9/$198M was only 1 year and $2M/year less than what Pujols eventually accepted from the Angels.

You like your "Dewitt drove Pujols away" theory.  I believe Pujols (probably on the advice of his agent) wanted to be a free agent the entire time.  I think everything Pujols said to the public was BS, he was going to the team that most closely met his demands.  Based on this, I think Pujols lied when he told Chad he asked for a 5/$125M extension.  I doubt it ever existed.

Now, having said that, Pujols was well within his rights to do all of these things.  He wouldn't be the first athlete to act contrary to his public posturing.  Pujols isn't a victim.  Pujols chose to be an Angel and now gets to live with the consequences of that choice. 

Then again, maybe God really did tell Albert to sign with the Angels.  If true, God must be a Cardinals fan.

The timeline is key, as you no doubt agree.

forsberg_us wrote:

Pujols said he wanted to be a Cardinal for life and would forego $3-4 million/year to do so, so long as the team was competitive.  He then took $3M/year more to leave after the team won the World Series.

When. 

forsberg_us wrote:

- Pujols used his elbow injury to force the team to trade for DeRosa & Holliday, then held it against the team when it chose to re-sign Holliday to pacify Pujols' demands for lineup protection.

But the team payroll did not go up, so Pujols had a bit of an argument yet.  What I interpret Pujos to have been saying was that money that they saved on him should be spent on other stars, not merely pocketed.  After the Holiday signing, they were still pocketing the money.  He had a right to upset.

And let's remember who was right and who was wrong back then.  I argued that they had merely reallocated payroll, not committed new money.  I was ridiculed for my contention that payroll should go back up to it's pre-belt-tightening level, and then bump upwards by a few million per season until it was around $110 million.  That's exactly what wound up happening, but the ridiculer remains silent.

forsberg_us wrote:

- Pujols imposed an arbitrary deadline for contract negotiations claiming he couldn't be distracted by discussions during Spring Training.

So what?  The Cards had said the optimum time to extend was prior to 2010, and then they never even made an offer.  Then they frittered away virtually the entire offseason prior to 2011, waiting until pretty close to the last minute before making an offer.  In my hypothesis, the damage had been done, Pujols was offended, and he was going to test the FA waters, period.  I think Strauss tried to make that point (that FA was virtually certain) during the 2011 season as well.  

As for the deadline, it's his right to do whatever he needs in his option year to boost his chances for FA.  But keep in mind, the deadline was meant to be a line in the sand: "if you respect me, you will get this done before the 2011 season."  In my hypothesis, the Cards FO understood the meaning well and chose to play it all out in a way that were further piss off Pujols: making a last minute lowball offer.

forsberg_us wrote:

- Pujols' camp never made a counter-offer to the Cardinals offer made in the Spring of 2011.

 

So what?  Not enough time, and he understood their meaning well enough anyway. 

forsberg_us wrote:

- The Cardinals offer of 9/$198M was only 1 year and $2M/year less than what Pujols eventually accepted from the Angels.

Good.  So it sounds like you agree that the money was NOT the issue, and the respect that was atached to the negotiation was they key.  One sided coddled him like the best player in a generation, and one side treated him like a business deal.  He chose the side that coddled him.  Maybe the choice was stupid, but I think he felt so disrespected by the Cardinals at that point that he was looking at any respectable offer that was an alternative to DeWitt.  

forsberg_us wrote:

You like your "Dewitt drove Pujols away" theory.  I believe Pujols (probably on the advice of his agent) wanted to be a free agent the entire time.  I think everything Pujols said to the public was BS, he was going to the team that most closely met his demands.  Based on this, I think Pujols lied when he told Chad he asked for a 5/$125M extension.  I doubt it ever existed.

So, for your ignored facts:

Show one other instance when Pujols flat out lied, as you claim he lied about 5/$125.

Show any instance where Pujols's character was a question mark, other than his religiosity.

Show anything at all about Pujols that would make anyone have the opinions in which he is now held, which occurred before 2010.



 

APIAD wrote:

So we are still doing this?

what, me and fors arguing?  or me and fors still talking about pujols vs. dewitt?

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Show one other instance when Pujols flat out lied, as you claim he lied about 5/$125.

Show any instance where Pujols's character was a question mark, other than his religiosity.

Show anything at all about Pujols that would make anyone have the opinions in which he is now held, which occurred before 2010. 

 
All of which are answered in my original post.  Like I said Max, you have an amazing penchant for ignoring the obvious when it doesn't suit your position.

Interesting take, considering I carefully addressed each of your most recent points, and you dismissed each of mine.  

forsberg_us wrote:

As Joe Posnanski said, Pujols isn't important enough to argue over anymore.  If you choose to believe in the Easter Bunny, it's your business.

That's right.  Nothing to see here folks.  Move along.