Pujols Signs With Angels

[lukethedrifter]

Bye Albert. Sorry we couldn't work it out.

[The Third Man]

I'm just bummed. AP literally turned me into a baseball fan.

[expletive].

[ilstu24]

I'm still disappointed, feel like I got dumped. But I literally went to the gym today to pick myself up today. So there is that.

[doe_boy]

Unlike some who post here, I remember what Cardinal baseball was like prior to the arrival of Pujols (he'll never be 'Albert' again).

Guys threw and ran and hit. The pitcher was 60' 6" from the plate. Same rules and [expletive].

The team won some World Series titles. Fans went wild. Clydesdales ran wild (and [expletive] on the astroturf!).

Albert Pujols may very well be the best baseball player I've ever seen play. Maybe the best Cardinal in my lifetime. But, there's more to being a Cardinal fan than that.

The moment he chose not to be a Cardinal anymore was the moment I decided to move on.

I'll experience shadenfreuede if he should fail. It's only natural.

But, I won't be surprised if he plays well for most, if not all, of the duration of his contract.

[expletive] you Albert!

[KyCardinalFan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/ ... 2#45611632

[EastonBlues22]

I just don't buy the moral case that Pujols is serving the good of the world by demanding to be paid the highest possible salary.

First of all, what you're taking from my quote is not at all what I intended to convey. There are pages worth of quotes dogging Pujols for being a greedy SOB in this thread. In my experience, greedy SOBs aren't as giving with their money (or time) as Pujols has proven to be. My statement was simply intended to show that even if one believes it was "all about the money" (even though I listed off about 4 other perfectly legitimate reasons why that's a great place for him to be), then it's still hardly a given why that extra money matters to him. Could be simple greed, but there just as easily could be other explanations as well. Nobody knows, and anyone who thinks they do is acting foolish. Anyway, I wanted to point out that there's an obvious counter-perspective to the "greed" slant by simply reminding people that he's been very generous with his time and money in the past...and is highly likely to continue doing that in the future. It wasn't an after the fact generalized justification of athletes demading top dollar, and I'm not entirely sure how it could be read that way.

Secondly, nobody knows that Pujols was "demanding to be paid the highest possible salary." Depending on what sources you believe, he may or may not have taken the largest offer on the table. Even if he did, you should know better than most people that simple correlation doesn't equal causation. There are any number reasonable reasons why the LA contract might have been more attractive to him than STL's or Miami's. There's also any number of reasons why STL or Miami might be less desirable destinations for him than LA.

Anyone who's claiming it's definitively "all about the money" is reducing a complex situation to an overly simplistic one...probably because it's easier to make sense of it, and respond to it, that way. Anyone who's claiming that Pujols "went for the money" for either good or bad reasons is in all likelihood simply demonstrating their prediliction for view him in particular (or perhaps ballplayers or people in general) in a positive/humanistic/whatever or negative/materialistic/whatever manner, respectively. Their take on an obviously ambiguous situation merely reflects their own preferences for how to perceive that situation specifically, or the world in general. Or perhaps they're simply projecting their emotional response into their interpretations of the situation. Both are non-logical coping mechanisms that we all employ, to one degree or another.

As an aside, if you want to selectively take issue with the logic of people who are positive exhibiting perception bias (instead of the negative one that seems to be permeating this thread), or who are rationalizing the actions of others because they (for whatever reason) subconsciously want or need to see the best in other people, because this is a particularly important topic for you for whatever reason...then by all means feel free. It's not a logical mechanism for coping with the world, so I'm sure there's plenty of ammo to work with, and it's certainly well within your rights to do so. I wouldn't expect the other party involved to be all that thankful or receptive, though, while you strip away/expose/undermine their "logic" for the sake of intellectual debate. Just my two cents.

[Arthur Dent]

Anyone who's claiming it's definitively "all about the money" is reducing a complex situation to an overly simplistic one...probably because it's easier to make sense of it, and respond to it, that way.

Reducing complex situations to the essentials is the essence of explaining something. I really don't see the problem here. The (artificial) dichotomy is between loyalty to St. Louis and the Cardinals versus getting the most money (for whatever ends). Clearly, when considering these two factors, the money went farther for him. There may be plenty of other factors we don't know about, but the charity argument doesn't require we consider them. If he wanted more money to use for his charitable ends, that is still "about the money."

As an aside, if you want to selectively take issue with the logic of people who are positive exhibiting perception bias (instead of the negative one that seems to be permeating this thread), or who are rationalizing the actions of others because they (for whatever reason) subconsciously want or need to see the best in other people, because this is a particularly important topic for you for whatever reason...then by all means feel free. It's not a logical mechanism for coping with the world, so I'm sure there's plenty of ammo to work with, and it's certainly well within your rights to do so. I wouldn't expect the other party involved to be all that thankful or receptive, though, while you strip away/expose/undermine their "logic" for the sake of intellectual debate. Just my two cents.

Good grief. I've heard this bit rationalizing these decisions on the grounds that an athlete does charity work in several places and wanted to discuss it, so I used your post as a jumping off point. It has zero to do with taking issue with positive or negative perception bias or you personally. It was totally unnecessary to take it as such.

[EastonBlues22]

Anyone who's claiming it's definitively "all about the money" is reducing a complex situation to an overly simplistic one...probably because it's easier to make sense of it, and respond to it, that way.

Reducing complex situations to the essentials is the essence of explaining something. I really don't see the problem here. The (artificial) dichotomy is between loyalty to St. Louis and the Cardinals versus getting the most money (for whatever ends). Clearly, when considering these two factors, the money went farther for him. There may be plenty of other factors we don't know about, but the charity argument doesn't require we consider them. If he wanted more money to use for his charitable ends, that is still "about the money."

As I just explained, it was never an "argument" that I was making to begin with. Reminding people that there's a positive aspect to Pujols' personna =/= an argument for why "the most money" matters. If you believe that Miami's bid was higher than LA's, then where does that leave you? Obviously it's at least possible that something else mattered besides just the money and the location...which is why it's wrong to overly simplify this situation to begin with. We're assuming we know what the "essentials" are, but I think that's hardly a safe assumption to make.

As an aside, if you want to selectively take issue with the logic of people who are positive exhibiting perception bias (instead of the negative one that seems to be permeating this thread), or who are rationalizing the actions of others because they (for whatever reason) subconsciously want or need to see the best in other people, because this is a particularly important topic for you for whatever reason...then by all means feel free. It's not a logical mechanism for coping with the world, so I'm sure there's plenty of ammo to work with, and it's certainly well within your rights to do so. I wouldn't expect the other party involved to be all that thankful or receptive, though, while you strip away/expose/undermine their "logic" for the sake of intellectual debate. Just my two cents.

Good grief. I've heard this bit rationalizing these decisions on the grounds that an athlete does charity work in several places and wanted to discuss it, so I used your post as a jumping off point. It has zero to do with taking issue with positive or negative perception bias or you personally. It was totally unnecessary to take it as such.

Well, the obvious problem is that you read something into my post that had nothing to do with what I was intending to be there. Might be my fault for being unclear, might be your fault for not reading closely, or maybe we both share the blame.

Either way, I think I've made it clear that you're attributing a perspective to me that I don't necessarily agree with, that I wasn't postulating in my original post, and that I don't personally feel like it would be constructive to discuss even if I did, or had. Is that fair to say?

Edit: If I'm coming across as overly snarky, I apologize. I'm pretty sick (have been for the last week), am generally very stressed out from all the stuff that I need to do that I'm not currently getting done, and I'm emotionally conflicted about this whole Pujols thing to boot. It was not my intention to be taking that out on you, or anyone else in general.

[Mary1966]

Fox Sports' latest front page poll:

[lukethedrifter]

It is my belief that many many of the charitable organizations and foundations have much more to do with image than actual substantive positive change in lives as well as, frequently, being about employing one's wife or other relative in a well compensated do nothing position.

This is not meant to reflect on Pujols since I don't have a clue about who his organization employs and all the good it does.