Socnorb11 wrote:
In the here and now, it may appear that Pujols has only been a "possession" to St. Louis. But I always suspected that Pujols was interested in beyond the here and now........ that he truly valued the legacy. As it turns out, I think he put very little or no value on that. To me, that's what's really disappointing.
The Cardinals didn't value that legacy either, if you put it that way. They share a healthy share of the blame, if that's what you want to call it.
I think they valued it a great deal. Otherwise they wouldn't have considered giving him over 20 million dollars as a 42 year old ballplayer. Everyone knows his value on the baseball field won't be worth that.
Jocephus wrote:
no, its spoken word piece ("words of advice") he did for the band Material. as i was re-reading the lyrics there was 1 or 2 other lines that *I* thought could also be applicable
I'd like to take my time to summarize this whole thing with a few lines of lyrics, that I felt were inspirational.
"Life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, it’s never easy when there is so much on the line."
Socnorb11 wrote:
In the here and now, it may appear that Pujols has only been a "possession" to St. Louis. But I always suspected that Pujols was interested in beyond the here and now........ that he truly valued the legacy. As it turns out, I think he put very little or no value on that. To me, that's what's really disappointing.
The Cardinals didn't value that legacy either, if you put it that way. They share a healthy share of the blame, if that's what you want to call it.
I think they valued it a great deal. Otherwise they wouldn't have considered giving him over 20 million dollars as a 42 year old ballplayer. Everyone knows his value on the baseball field won't be worth that.
Not to mention the fact that legacy isn't going to win games for you. And at the end of the day, that's what a baseball team is supposed to try to do. I think the Cardinals offer was an exceptionally good balance of "legacy" and paying for future production. Albert didn't see it that way. That's his perogative, but he's wrong.
Fans are going to scrutinize Albert's every comment, trying to find contradictions, trying to see hypocricy, looking for reasons to side with the team and blame him. Perfectly normal and understandable predisposition afflicting many.
My predisposition is different. I've been saying for at least two years now that I did not trust this front office and negotiating team to handle this situation effectively -- whether the best choice lie in keeping him or letting him go, they would get it wrong. So naturally I am seeing all the evidence through that lens.
It's not like the ownership and front office just met Albert -- his pride and stubbornness are not new. Two years ago he felt slighted, and if they really wanted to keep him, the time to fix things and address his contract was then. It seems to me like we really only have two realistic possibilities -- either they did not want to, or they botched things up.
So then the following year, with the threat of "no more negotiations until the end" hanging over, he asks for 10/$300 and we counter with something in the neighborhood of $100mm less, never really moving from that offer (although apparently tweaking it in mainly non-financial ways, like the possibility (unknown if viable) of partial ownership).
Then we finally get to the winter meetings, and withdraw the long-term deal, and offer a 5-year deal and then eventually, when prodded, a 7-year deal. If we wanted him, was there any reason to think he would have taken one of these? If we didn't want him, why are we wasting so much time on this? Cut the strings and move on.
So should we have wanted him? I hear some fans say yes, some fans no, some fans started yes then changed to no after the fact to fit the outcome. Should he have taken LAAA's deal? I hear some fans say he's hypocritical, some fans say who could blame him for taking an extra $75mm over our last best offer.
As I mentioned in my other post, this team is very risk-averse; it seems to me they knew quite clearly two years ago that he was not returning in 2012 unless they got very, very lucky. So, is this just smart baseball? Avoid getting tied up in a crippling contract gone bad, when he loses a lot of time to injuries, and a lot of WAR to age? I dunno for sure, obviously no one does.
But while many are complaining that if he only stayed instead of grabbed the last possible dollar, he could have been the next Musial -- we ought to remember that from ages 32 to 41 (the age span Albert will be under the LAAA deal), the REAL musial put up an OPS+ of 147, never once fell below 100, produced 435 runs above replacement -- and had one more (age 42) season left, in which he put up a 100 OPS+. Was Stan the Man the same 172 OPS+ hitter he was in his first 11 seasons? Nope. He "declined" all the way to roughly 150 -- a very real and measurable decline, but to a level at which, if Albert's decline were the same, the contract numbers would still work.
Superstars sometimes do not age exactly like the rest of us. The peak comes a little later, the decline, while inevitable, a little later and a little gentler. For the Cards to keep Albert at the price it would have taken, he probably would have been worth more than good will assets.
If fans really think that he should have stayed to be The Mang, then they should probably fault ownership for letting him get away instead of paying him accordingly. If the Cards gave Albert a 10-year, $220mm contract, he would very likely have stayed, and there's pretty good reason to think the deal would have worked out OK.
When the Red Sox re-signed Mike Lowell out of sentiment a few weeks after he won a World Series MVP award, it was probably a mistake. When they avoided sentiment and let Pedro walk after a World Series win, it was almost certainly the correct choice.
But the major leagues see a player like Albert about once every 50 years, with absolutely no assurance that when he comes, he'll be on your team.
He might snap an elbow, or a foot, or a hammy in season one and never be the same. Always a risk.
but he also might put up another 300 home runs, another 1,500 hits, another four pennants, another two Championships, a bunch of all-time high records ... the Cards bet against that, mainly because there is a risk it won't happen.
AdmiralKird wrote:
The Cardinals wouldn't commit to a ten year offer, and they kept praying to God to make something happen, send them a sign, then Arte Moreno makes a call for ten years.
The Pujols family saying it wasn't about the money is a defensive reaction to the accusation that Albert is just greedy. What they don't realize is that's about the least offensive rationalization for him leaving. The fact that Albert wanted to play somewhere other than St Louis is left open as a viable conclusion by arguing that it wasn't about the money. That will cause fans to turn on him quicker and more violently than his being greedy.
Richie Allen wrote:The Pujols family saying it wasn't about the money is a defensive reaction to the accusation that Albert is just greedy. What they don't realize is that's about the least offensive rationalization for him leaving. The fact that Albert wanted to play somewhere other than St Louis is left open as a viable conclusion by arguing that it wasn't about the money. That will cause fans to turn on him quicker and more violently than his being greedy.
I'd not be pissed off at him as much if he just said, "It's not personal, it's just business. This is my job, and I took the best job offer."
