AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Berkman replaces pujols. Loss of a couple wins.
Really the comparison should be Craig replaces Berkman because that's who will be filling Berkman's former position, and apologies if this has already been talked about, but Berkman was almost equal to Albert in 2011 WAR (Albert was 5.1, Berkman was 5 even). Even with a little expected regression from Berkman, he'll be better defensively at 1st and he'll likely approximate what Pujols was this season in wins.
A lot of what will happen may fall on Craig's shoulders. His breakout 2011 needs to be for real, and players have to be healthier in 2012 than they were in 2011, or yes, we're in trouble.
I've reached the angry phase.
Living in Chicago is not the easiest thing for a Cardinal fan. I've spent most of the last 10 years defending Pujols. Constantly hearing about how he's 5 years older than he says he is. Always with the steroid and HGH talk. It got old, but I always felt like I was standing up for a franchise player that would be a Cardinal for his entire career.
I learned 2 things today. That while players may be all about the team that they play on for that year, fans are more about the franchise. And at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS about the money. Whatever was left of the 12 year old in me died today.
EastonBlues22 wrote:You have a social "thing" against athletes making a lot of money?
No. You've missed my point entirely. So long as pro sports is a giant pot of money to be divided between players and owners, I'd rather that the people we pay to see get the larger share. My objection is to the argument I've read many times that big athlete salaries are great because they do all this wonderful charitable work. Yes, I'm aware that Pujols has a charity that works with disadvantaged kids. So did Jerry Sandusky. I'm glad he does this and don't wish to question him personally. He's a rich dude who can afford to do a lot of charitable work. That's great. And I don't really begrudge him for wanting to get the biggest deal to pay for this or whatever he wants to do with it. 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.
I agree. Where is this coming from? I heard my sister talking about it on f/b and my wife at dinner (just to piss me off I'm sure), and I know they didn't get it from here.
I don't know who was saying it. It certainly wasn't Easton from what I read.
I say you continue to pursue other FA's but don't over spend for someone short term like giving Furcal his three years. Without major talent to pursue I'd rather the team use that money elsewhere to generate more revenue for future payroll when other FA's hit the market. I have no problem with a semi competitive rebuilding year. With Lohse coming off the books next year you would have a lot of money to spend.
At least the ticket prices probably won't increase that much with the departure of Pujols.
Actually, the "replacement" is Craig replacing Pujols - and he's not even going to be available until May.
Craig's good, but he ain't *that* good. Thus, we have to upgrade in other areas to make up for where Craig doesn't measure up to Pujols.
I didn't find out about this until about 10:30 or so while I was at work. I've got a lot of mixed feelings about this, but basically, here's what's been percolating:
The Cards did step up and make a decent offer. It's not like we tried to lowball Pujols.
We were so worried about the Marlins, we didn't even think about the Angels.
It didn't help that the Angels "expressed shock" that anybody could think they were trying to sign Albert.
Basically, they blew us out of the water - rather like the Rockies did when they offered Mike Hampton far more than we were offering.
I'm not sure I'm mad at Pujols - if anything, I resent the Angels and their guerilla tactics, swooping in out of nowhere and snatching up Pujols.
The Angels haven't had a great history with their FA's - they were notorious, in the early days of free agency, for signing free agents to big-money (for then) deals and still never winning anything. I'm not so sure they're going to win anything, even now, and I rather hope (without wishing any actual harm on anyone) that they crash and burn in 2012 and beyond.
The remarkable thing, if you think about it, is that despite all their troubles, the Dodgers, not the Angels, are still top dog in LA and its environs. Pujols isn't going to change that, no matter how well he does.
Dodgers are not as strong a franchise as you think- Arte heavily markets in LA and on Spanish radio and getting Pujols will only increase their appeal. Angels had 200k higher attendance this past year than Dodgers.
