Skip to content

Don’t hate on Pujols for taking the money and running

Dec 8, 2011, 10:57 AM EDT

Albert Pujols AP

We’ll talk soon about whether it was wise for the Angels to give Albert Pujols a friggin’ quarter of a billion dollars, but for now, let’s look at this from Pujols’ perspective.

As soon as the news hit the wire I saw people — Cardinals fans mostly — starting to slam the man they’ve cheered for the past decade. Watching the tweets flow, I saw the word “greedy” thrown around. I saw people talking about how he would now be hated in St. Louis. I  saw him called “Pujol$.”  Cut it out, will ya?

This was no betrayal of the Cardinals by Albert Pujols. The Cardinals, as best can be told, never really got much higher than the bids they’ve had out for a few days. Probably ten years. $220 million at best, but some people are saying it was actually less.  The Angels came in a good $30-40 million more than the nearest bid.  How much of a hometown discount is the guy supposed to give?

The people booing this move on loyalty grounds would all switch jobs for more money in a heartbeat. Every single one of them. Pujols’ move is no different. And to suggest that he owes the Cardinals something greater — after delivering two World Series championships and nearly unprecedented excellence for 11 seasons — is nonsense.

The Angels paid the man. The Cardinals wouldn’t. It’s that simple.

199 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. Chris Fiorentino - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    He helped to bring you two World Series Championships. That’s what it is all about. Be glad you had him, Cardinals fans. Also, no matter where he went, nothing can ever take away the fact that YOUR TEAM is the defending World Champs.

    • cur68 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

      Actually, that’s about what I would say, too. Also, anyone here gonna turn down $250 mil/10? No? Me either.

      • hotkarlsandwich - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM

        Please shut up, Craig. You aren’t helping the grieving process

      • bkertz - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM

        That’s terrible logic. Of course I wouldn’t turn down 10/250, but I also wasn’t offered in the neighborhood of $200 million or whatever the Cardinals actually offered.

      • ftbramwell - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:41 PM

        Terrible logic? really? So do you mean to tell me that if another company offered you a 25% raise over what your current employer is paying (or offered to pay) you, you wouldn’t take that in a heartbeat? If not, you’re either working in your family’s business, or you’ve got more loyalty than 90% of the population.

      • rooney24 - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM

        Hold the phone! This is comparing apples and oranges.

        If I left my job for a different one, with a 25% raise, that would make a difference in my life. While being a much smaller amount, extra money would change my style of life. Pujols has already earned over $100 million in his career and was going to make at least $200 million on this contract. I agree that $30-40 million is a lot to pass up, and I don’t begrudge him the money. But, is that money really going to change his lifestyle? How?

        I think this has more to do with being mad that the Cardinals didn’t put up the money last offseason and ego in wanting the biggest contract. At that level, a few more millions don’t really make a difference. In most of our lives, a few thousand would make a difference.

        That said, I will him the best with the Angels!

      • rooney24 - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM

        Hold the phone! This is comparing apples and oranges.

        If I left my job for a different one, with a 25% raise, that would make a difference in my life. While being a much smaller amount, extra money would change my style of life. Pujols has already earned over $100 million in his career and was going to make at least $200 million on this contract. I agree that $30-40 million is a lot to pass up, and I don’t begrudge him the money. But, is that money really going to change his lifestyle? How?

        I think this has more to do with being mad that the Cardinals didn’t put up the money last offseason and ego in wanting the biggest contract. At that level, a few more millions don’t really make a difference. In most of our lives, a few thousand would make a difference.

        That said, I wish him the best with the Angels!

      • deadeyedesign23 - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        That’s incredibly myopic. Bill Gates would bend over to pick up a 100 dollar bill.

      • ftbramwell - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM

        Apples and oranges? I don’t think so.

        Albert is done playing to earn money just for himself. Hell, he stopped (or should have stopped) playing for himself during the first year of his last contract. Pujols is now playing to earn money for his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, et. al. He’s also playing to fund various charities that will support causes he believes in.

        The Rockerfellers made their family money in oil; Pujols is making his money in sports. And there is nothing wrong with that.

      • richsaint - Dec 8, 2011 at 5:27 PM

        I agree, apples and oranges. Of course I would have to consider taking a 25% pay raise (in reality in this case its actually closer to a 10-15% pay raise), but I didnt make $20m this year, and I am not considering re-upping with my company for $220m. The average person makes what $40k a year so of course if they have a chance to make $40k or $250M they are gonna take the 250 without even a question.
        I dont begrudge him his money, and hell I’m pretty thrilled how this ended, being a Reds fan, but to say this move was anything more than just plain greed is ridiculous, he got everything he wanted out of the cards, 10 years, over $200m and he still jerked them around to try to get them higher. He left and for a time will probably be hated, but like everytime a player leaves after a while he will be forgiven (See Griffey, Ken:Seattle).

      • chuckj1234 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:02 PM

        Well actually Weaver took 30 million less to sign with the halos, just to stay with the team that signed him. He said 80 million would last for three generations in his family. How refreshing!

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

      “nothing can ever take away the fact that YOUR TEAM is the defending World Champs.”

      –I wouldn’t have though so either…yet here we are.
      Who needs a drink?

      • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:42 AM

        Me. Big time.

      • pjmarn6 - Dec 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM

        The main point is that his numbers have been declining. The $250 million dollar rodriguez contract destroyed Texas. Alex Rodriguez this year reward the Yankees 7.5 million dollar raise to 32.5 million with a .276 ba and 66 rbi. A lot of players parlayed their drug use into multimillion dollar multiyear contracts that didn’t pan out. And the stupid owners and general managers just don’t learn from history. Since they are playing with your money, they are just as greedy as the ball players who are just big children that are playing a child’s game. The surest way to kill initiative in a player is to give him a large multiyear guaranteed contract.
        It was reported that almost 73% of these multimillionaires go bankrupt after they stop playing. And baseball stats show conclusively that most stars either quit, retire or show tremendous declines in productivity by the age of 35. Ruth, Berra, DiMaggio Brothers, Mantle, Bond etc. Why should Pujols be the exception. 4 years and he is begging for hits. But dumb L.A. is stuck with this and no other team is going to want him.

    • marshmallowsnake - Dec 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM

      Seriously! And the guy was a FREE AGENT. He completed his contract and was not required to sign anywhere. Fans need to realize that it is a business, just like where they work.

  2. Tyree Studio - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    I’m fine with him bolting to LA…as long as he says “it’s not about the money”…because everyone knows it WAS about the money.

    • 78mu - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:25 AM

      I’m fine with it too because he’s never said it’s not about the money. The Cardinals may one of those albatross contracts in a few years with MH and they didn’t need another one in 6 or 7 years.

      We won two WS with him and he gave us some great highlights over the years. It will be strange not seeing him in the lineup but for that money I don’t blame him one bit.

    • Jason @ IIATMS - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:43 AM

      I approve of this message.

  3. Mark Armour - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM

    The Cardinals wouldn’t pay him? I disagree with this frame. Pujols took the highest offer. How you feel about that is a personal decision, but I would not use the “Cardinals wouldn’t step up” frame.

    • cggarb - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM

      Reportedly, the Cards offer would make Pujols the 4th highest paid 1b in baseball.

      That’s a no brainer.

      • cemdinc - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

        Wrong — the Cards offer was reported to be heavily frontloaded. So, presumably, he would have been the highest paid player in baseball — or near that, for the first 4-5 years of the deal, and which point his salary would have slowly diminished to reflect the probability that his production would erode with age.

      • cleverbob - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:15 PM

        @cemdinc

        Why settle for that, when he can have it all in Anaheim?

    • brucewaynewins - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:45 AM

      You basically said what Craig said despite disagreeing with Craig. In order for the Cardinals to make the better offer…they’d have to actually make the better offer. Otherwise if they didn’t make a better offer and the Angels offered $40 million more… Logic dictates that if the Cardinals didn’t raise their offer then they are unwilling to pay him that much to stay. Doesn’t mean you have to side with one side or the other. But facts are facts and math is math.

  4. gldfngr38 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    Craig logic has no place here for the next 24 hours.

    • cemdinc - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

      I’ve been on here for a few months now and Craig loves this black and white, that’s the way it is, deal with it, mentality. Sometimes that works, and sometimes (i.e. this situation) it doesn’t. This isn’t black and white, and Pujols set himself up to be criticized by saying “it isn’t all about the money.” By taking this deal, he showed that it IS about the money. The criticism IMO would be much less had he made that admission from the get-go.

      Also, as someone else said, there is a huge difference from working for 40K and Company A and having Company B swoop in and offer you 80K. Anyone here would take that. But how much is enough? Apparently $220 million isn’t enough — $250 million is. Sorry, I have a hard time with that, with ANY athlete, not just Pujols.

      Side note: La Russa retires, and Pujols then leaves. Could TLR have known this was coming?

      • phillyphreak - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM

        If Pujols didn’t sign with the Cardinals for any reason then he “set himself up to be criticized.”

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

        No.

      • phantomspaceman - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM

        I’m not a Cardinals fan but I was hoping to see Pujols finish his career in St. Louis. However, I find it hard to believe that any person would say no to $30 million.

      • ftbramwell - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM

        So you would leave $30 million on the table? Not I. Again, Pujols has been done playing to feed himself for a while now. It’s all about funding his decedents and whatever business ventures he chooses in the future.

        Moreover, that “mere” $30 million can be leveraged to $150 million if Pujols wanted to start a business. And that’s a big deal. (If you don’t understand how this works, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on matters of money.)

      • cemdinc - Dec 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM

        ftbramwell — I am a financial advisor and was an accountant before that. I think I might be qualified to talk about matters of money…

      • ftbramwell - Dec 8, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        Yes, but if you were a good (as opposed to merely competent) financial adviser you wouldn’t need to work because you’d be rich. That you didn’t respond at all to my comment about leverage is telling.

  5. chrisdtx - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM

    No doubt the Pujols poo-pooers would leave their jobs for more money, in a heartbeat. There’s a difference between going from a $50K job to a $70K job and $220 mil vs. $250 mil, though. I don’t hold any personal animosity for Pujols taking the larger deal, but I can see how it might rub some the wrong way.

    • Ari Collins - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:06 AM

      Yes. The difference is that one decision nets you $20,000 and the other nets you $30,000,000. The charity of his choosing and his grandkids’ grandkids will be very happy to have an extra thirty million frickin’ dollars.

      • kopy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:15 AM

        But that $20,000 might be the difference in you being able to afford kids in the first place.

    • bkertz - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM

      My thoughts exactly. When you approach that kind of money, you aren’t talking about a lifestyle change. Doubling the income of the “common” man is a different story.

    • wsnydes - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:39 AM

      many people are missing the point that he’s already rich beyond belief. 3M a year for a guy that’s made as much money as he has isn’t going to matter much in the grand scheme of things.

  6. dlindstedt2 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

    Oh I am not hating Pujols at all this moment. As a fan of another NL Central Team, I am not complaining at all.

    Thanks Pujols you just made winning this division a little easier.

    • cintiphil - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM

      I am with you on this one. I like Albert, and think he is the greatest player of this generation. But it is good to know that he won’t be in our division any longer.

      • sdelmonte - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM

        Or even the NL.

    • brucewaynewins - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:47 AM

      As a fan of another NL Central team I pretty feel exactly how you do.

    • stex52 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM

      Boy, it’s lose-lose for the Astros. They have to go to the AL, and Albert will be waiting when they get there.

    • tridecagon - Dec 8, 2011 at 2:14 PM

      Ha ha, I wanna know what teams you all are rooting for. The Cardinals could easily end up a stronger team without Albert than they would be with him – certainly in a few years, and possibly even in 2012. And by the way – you can have the division, we’ll take the World Championship, thanks.

  7. cosanostra71 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

    welcome to Anaheim Albert! Can’t wait to get your jersey!!

    • cintiphil - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

      Be careful what you wish for. This may not be the best deal even for the Angels.

  8. cardinals1234 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    Actually, it is a lot different.

    A raise to from 30,000 to 40,000 would make a huge difference in an average persons life.

    A raise from 22,000,000 to 25,000,000 makes no difference at all.

    So quit being such a smartass.

    • Chip Caray's Eyebrows - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

      I assume you have personal experience on which to base this comparison.

      • cintiphil - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM

        No, I happen to agree with 1234. There is not a lot of difference, especially after taxes. figure it out at 22 MIl or 25/26 Mil a year. It is not 3-4 MIl, but much less.

      • ukcardsfan - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM

        I don’t entirely agree with cardinals1234, Chip, but I do see where he’s coming from.

        For us mere mortals, why shouldn’t 22mil suffice? A hundredth of a mil would be a big deal to me!! But hey, I guess these seasoned athletes are aware of more and better ways to blow these millions on.

      • kopy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM

        Especially after California taxes. Looking at 2009 data, they tax 10% of the highest bracket to Missouri’s 6%.

      • kopy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM

        Sorry guys, forgot to un-bold after California.

      • wsnydes - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM

        i think most people are missing the point that he’s already rich beyond belief. his grandkids grandkids are already set for life. another 3M a year really isn’t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

      • kopy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:39 AM

        Here, this may hammer the point home better: http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=22000000&city1=52965000&city2=50602000

      • aaronmoreno - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM

        Not really. There’s lots of communities near Anaheim, some quite wealthy, just as I’m sure there are in St. Louis.

        Also, the state tax issue is diluted by road games, so it’s not a straight comparison.

      • kopy - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:21 PM

        Sales tax is diluted by road games, but not state tax – or property tax. Plus, everything is just more expensive there. Pujols will be spending more money with the Angels than he would have with the Cards.

  9. umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    Craig… with respect, don’t tell me how to feel about my team losing the best player in baseball for the past 10 years. You can argue the Cards shoulda done more. I’d probably agree to that. However, when he claimed that he wanted to be a Cardinal for life, and that it was about more than money… and then turns around and signs for more money, it’s kind hard not to be irked at the man.

    And as to your “who wouldn’t leave their job for more money” – bad comparison. *I* have a family I have to take care of, I don’t have $100+ million already in the bank to fall back on. *I* never said I’d love to stay in this job for life, and that it was about more than money. *I* don’t have millions of fans who’re sad to see me leave this job for a different one.

    • jimeejohnson - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM

      I disagree with you but gave your well thought out post a big thumbs up!

      • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

        What did you disagree with? And why? (Seriously. I’m curious)

    • randygnyc - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM

      The numbers being thrown around aren’t what they seem. The highest tax brackets, between fed, state and local take over 50% of the income (also an 8-9% sales tax on every purchase). His 100 million is likely less than $50 million. Of that, I’d guess he’s left with much less than half of that in cash (maybe he’s got 15-20 million left), after the 15 million dollar houses, etc. California has the highest taxes in the country, too.

      Also to be considered, our gov’t is trying to punish the wealthy by raising taxes even more. CA gov Jerry brown is too. There are many people in this country who aren’t satisfied with taking half of a persons success. They like to take 6 or 7 dollars for every 10 dollars earned. These envious douchebags think that’s “fair”.

  10. drmonkeyarmy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    I hate the argument that “every single one of us would leave our jobs for more money.” It is such a bullshit argument. Seriously. Let’s say the average annual salary for a given individual on this board is 60,000. Might be high, might be low….I have no idea. An increase in salary to say 85,000 grand provides more tangible benefits to ones family and self. You know, money to actual live and exist. All that goes out the window when discussing a quarter billion dollars. There is no additional tangible benefit. It is multi, multi, mutli generational money. You hear all the time, “can’t compare professional athletes” to the common folk and here we are using that nonsensical argument.

    • cggarb - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM

      It’s the natural response to the folks who get personally angry at another man’s choices. It’s VERY easy to turn down “a few million” for someone else, especially when you hand-wave it away as “not mattering.”

      Which is ultimately the worse argument? If we’re being honest, which one is at least *trying* to be rational, and which side is arguing from a place of anger, hurt, and (perhaps) jealousy?

      • drmonkeyarmy - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM

        No, I am coming from a rational place. I don’t care where he went. Honestly, I’m kind of glad he is out of the NL. Makes things marginally easier for the Phillies. I’m not angry at his choice, I just don’t like the argument used to defend it. Comparing financial situations of the average person to that of professional athletes is asinine. If anything, it serves to marginalize the plight of the average American citizen in the current economic climate.

    • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM

      I actually have kept a job most think I am over-qualified for rather than seeking a tenure track position because I love the freedom I have in my current position and I love where I live….two things that are very important to me and that I have not been willing to give up just to make more money.

      Money is not what drives everyone.

      • stex52 - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:30 PM

        I’m with you there, but it is part of how these elite athletes measure their worth. Don’t have to like it, but we have seen it before. Here is the bright side. Cards can fix more than one thing with the opportunity cost.

        Perhaps not what you want to hear at the moment, but it is true. Berkman will be a very solid replacement for a year or two, anyway.

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:41 PM

        You think ecologists don’t measure worth based on university affiliation and title? Thus far, I have given up more than just money…but again, I never wanted my life to be only about my career or money, I have more diverse interests than that….which, I realize, may not be the norm.

  11. hushbrother - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    I think all this talk we’re hearing today ignores what seems to me to be the real issue here, which is, when you get down to it, is Albert Pujols a Hall of Famer?

    • brianbowman16 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM

      If he plays anywhere near how he did with the Cards, for about 6-7 years, you would really HAVE to expect him to be a 1st ballot Hall Of Famer.

      It was kind of a shock that he left St Louis, but not really a shock that it was the Angels. They always seem to be involved in the talks for the big name guys.

      Ten years is WAY too long, but it certainly was a good move by the Angels.

    • gpatrick15 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:15 AM

      If Albert Pujols retired today, with 3 MVP’s and 2 World Series rings, he’d be a first ballot Hall of Famer. After 10 years of being the best player in baseball and having the accomplishments he has, I think the next 10 years will just be the gravy to his resume.

    • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:46 AM

      Actually, what I’m curious about is… when he makes the HoF, do the Cards now retire his number? I mean, to be honest, I’m irked enough right now to say they should hand it to the next rookie off the damn bus at spring training, but once I cool down some (say, after he retires), I’ll really be wondering.

      • rooney24 - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM

        Even if he never played another game, he would be a Hall of Famer based on what he has done so far. As far as the Cards retiring his number, I would expect that they would at some point (assuming that it is a regular practice for them to retire numbers). He is one of the best hitters EVER. Even if they are disappointed, they will eventually realize that.

        I think the Cards saw this as likely to happen. Why else would they have resigned Berkman, when it looked like Craig and others were ready to step in a take over RF in his place? Now, Berkman moves to first and Craig to the OF, once he is healthy.

    • southbeachtalent - Dec 8, 2011 at 4:59 PM

      Your in the minority.

  12. sleepyirv - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    For $210 million, I would probably have stayed in a town that loved me. Pujos is an adult and every right to make this deal but when you start talking about 200 MILLION DOLLARS I’m not going to care much if there’s more money on the table.

    To quote William Vanderbilt, I wouldn’t cross the street for another million dollars.

  13. manute - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:04 AM

    But Scioscia probably won’t let him call his own hit-and-runs.

    Then again, he can probably just assume that it’s on.

  14. broncsfan72 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM

    good luck Albert. we’ll miss you.

    • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM

      I agree with the second sentiment…but then, even if they re-signed him, I we would probably miss the player he was within 3 years….however, I now have any interest in how he does going forward.

  15. jonirocit - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM

    Agreed , cards fans be happy atleast you won’t have to listen to ownership cry about not having enough money right after winning the world series like we do out here in SF.

  16. El Bravo - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM

    I’m still putting my skull back in place from my recent headsplosion…ok ok ok…wow. I mean I can’t wait for the season to begin. Between the fact that mlb.tv will be on my xbox next year and the re-balance of power that’s taking place in the MLB, I need baseball to happen now!!! This off season is pretty fantastic so far from my perspective. Sure, I wish the Braves would/could do a bit more, but who cares, this insanity is f’ing entertaining. Only thing better would be actual baseball games on my TV.

    • goawaydog - Dec 8, 2011 at 12:47 PM

      Grumble, I hate it when I agree with a Braves fan!

  17. Jonny 5 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

    Let’s not forget that on top of the money, It’s going to be 67 degrees in Anaheim this weekend, and 37 degrees in St Louis. And it’s much closer to Huntington beach. Albert is about to have a much better life than he had previously.

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:27 AM

      Let’s also not forget that St. Louis is a dank hellhole devoid of culture and constantly ranks among the most dangerous cities in America. But I guess it has a big stupid arch to make up for it. Seriously, that thing is ridiculous. And have you been to St. Louis in the summer? It’s like walking into a sauna. What an awful, awful place.

      Signed,

      Someone who used to live there then moved to New York…which is somehow worse.

      • umrguy42 - Dec 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM

        Falcon, I agree with everything you’ve said (including about moving to NY)… and yet I’d move back home there in a heartbeat if I could.

      • bluesfan58 - Dec 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM

        We in this dank hellhole are completely jealous of his move to an area where he’ll pay 50% more for gas to sit in a two-hour traffic jam on the interstate, pay much more for housing that might or might not survive the next earthquake or brush fire, etc. OK, it will admittedly be pretty hot here in St. Louis at least for one week next summer, but “devoid of culture”? Seriously? What am I missing? What don’t we have here that everyone else does (except the NBA)?

  18. vanmorrissey - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

    He won two World Series there, La Russa is gone, why should he stay? Loyalty? This is 2011, 2012, that went out the window awhile ago. Cards fans got their WS’s wins, surprisingly so this year, they have nothing to bitch about. Put the money towards more pitching, hitting, relievers, whatever, but don’t complain. Life goes on, get over it. Maybe 5 productive years in LA so when Albert turns 37 or so, let’s see how productive he is and what Cardinal fans have to say then.

    • vanmorrissey - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

      ………and that also leaves the door open to go for…….Fielder.

    • cemdinc - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM

      I think the lesson here, if we all didn’t already know, is that loyalty doesn’t really exist in sports anymore.

      • paperlions - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM

        It never did.

  19. ukcardsfan - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM

    I’ve not hated on Pujols at all. He’s a human being, we love ourselves lots of money, it’s a species thing. I’m just absolutely gutted – too gutted to be angry…

    However, I am convinced there’s more to this going on between him and FO that we don’t know about. I have a nasty feeling that offer last off-season did a little more damage than was reported at the time.

  20. drunkenhooliganism - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:10 AM

    Why does Pujols owe the Cardinals loyalty or a discount? He was the one who outperformed his contract with an historic ten year run of production. The cardinals got the performance and the profits. Shouldn’t we be questioning the Cardinals’ loyalty for not matching any offer or even having him locked up before he even reached free agency.

  21. dlindstedt2 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM

    Hmm, playing in Anaheim for 30 million more, or stay in cold St. Louis… hmm decisions decisions.

    Yes, you are hurt by his signing, but anyone of can lie and say, I want to be a cardinal for life because who wants the fan base against you. What if you never had any interest in playing there anymore.

    There is a lot we probably dont know. So just accept what happened. And be happy for the Angels. Its not like Pujols fucked you or anything. He just decided to play for a different team. Shit, he isn’t a cub for gods sake.

  22. agilmore1080 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM

    Give me a break Craig. This isn’t like changing jobs and going from a $35,000 to a $55,000 salary. I highly doubt that extra 3-4 million a year is going to change Pujols standard of living and we’re not just pissed off because he took the extra money. He has been saying for years it wasn’t about the money, that they would get the money worked out, that he wanted to be a Cardinal for life. Now that is all complete bullshit. And the fact that he “prayed” on it really pisses me off. It’s funny how Jesus always tells these greedy athletes to take every last $ they can. He has every right to take the biggest contract he can but the things he’s been saying over the last 10 years makes him a huge phony. AND THATS WHAT WE”RE PISSED OFF ABOUT!

    • cemdinc - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM

      As a Christian that angers me, too. You’re right, the majority of athletes who claim they prayed for wisdom with decisions like these almost always find the wise thing to do is take more money. I don’t know AP, but it seems kinda phony to me.

    • cggarb - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:19 AM

      What else is he supposed to say? Fans crucify a player if he doesn’t swear up and down how loyal and committed he is to his current team.

      Joey Votto is a rare example of a guy courageous enough to say, “Free agency is a ways off, but I’ll probably want to test the waters and listen to offers.” And he gets killed for it, by a portion of the Reds fan base. Plus, it immediately sparks a million “get something for him” trade rumors that will follow him for the rest of his tenure.

      We demand that these guys swear lifelong fidelity to their original team — a team that WE chose to follow, but the player had no say in the matter. Then we get all CAPS LOCKY when they act in their own self-interest. Good Lord, why should Albert Pujols put a Cardinals’ fan’s happiness over his own family’s long-term interest? Even for a penny less money?

      • Alex K - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM

        I lol’d at the caps locky comment. Well done!

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM

        Caps Locky. My new pen name, I think.

        Thanks for the laugh

  23. joshftw - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM

    Looks like Pujols is the new A-rod.
    Wonder how A-Rods ego will take that news.

  24. gpatrick15 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

    I left my job primarily because the competitor was offering more money to do the exact same job. Everyone calling him names and giving him crap about it would do the exact same thing. At this point, after two world series and 3 MVP’s and 10 or so years of arguably the best baseball of his time, I’d say he doesn’t own St. Louis anything. Be glad you had an all time great, and be glad you didn’t hamstring your salary to keep him rather than using those funds on other needs.

  25. phillyphreak - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

    The notion that an extra 20 million or whatever shouldn’t matter is nonsense. Sure going 30K to 50K makes a world of difference, and on the surface 220 million to 250 million doesn’t seem like it would matter, but it’s all relative. The market dictated his price so he’s obviously not going to take less. Why do fans always feel that there should be a “home town discount?”

    If you make 30K and were offered a job for 50K by your current employer, but a competing company said “Hey we’ll give you 70K if you join us” what would you do? Say “nah 50K is enough for me” or would you take all the extra money you can get?

    • ribo3 - Dec 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM

      It’s all about his pride and ego.

      The difference isn’t 30 million unless he plays nowhere in year 10. The cards offered him roughly 22 mil per year for 9 years and the Angels offered him 25 mil for 10 years.

      That’s only about a 10% raise. Would I move from a midwest job that I loved to a west coast job for 10%? NOT A CHANCE.

      Assuming he plays the 10th year he probably gets 15 to 20 mil anyway so the difference is marginal.

      • phillyphreak - Dec 8, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        “The difference isn’t 30 million unless he plays nowhere in year 10. The cards offered him roughly 22 mil per year for 9 years and the Angels offered him 25 mil for 10 years. ”

        But you would assume he thinks he can play for 10 more years and get all of that money. Or else he may have accepted an offer for less years with a higher AAV. I heard the Cubs were rumored to be offering that but who really knows.

        “That’s only about a 10% raise. ”
        - Again this is relative. 10% on 50K is only 5K. But 10% on millions is…well…millions.

        .

    • jollyjoker2 - Dec 8, 2011 at 7:38 PM

      going from 30k a year to 40 k per year or 50-70 doesnt make a world of diffence because your going to work til 65 – 68 on either salary so quality of life and location is more important. A guy making 250 m doesnt have to work and has only a limited career anyway. I would take the money and laugh all the way to the bank. Scre w winning a world series, especially if you have 2 already. Honestly, can anyone remember who went were 20 years ago? I seriously doubt.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Teams searching for trade deadline impact
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3756)
  2. C. Lee (2949)
  3. H. Ramirez (2725)
  4. T. Tulowitzki (2697)
  5. Y. Puig (2584)
  1. C. Headley (2505)
  2. T. Walker (2469)
  3. B. Belt (2384)
  4. M. Trout (2215)
  5. D. Price (2173)