Skip to content

Wife of Albert Pujols tells radio show: “the city of St. Louis has absolutely been deceived”

Dec 12, 2011, 4:06 PM EDT

St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Pujols kisses his wife Deidre after the Cardinals defeated the Texas Rangers to win MLB's World Series baseball championship in St. Louis Reuters

“I understand you’re talking to us, then one TV station, and that’s about it,” is how Sandi Brown, morning show host at 99.1 Joy FM in St. Louis, opened her conversation Monday with Deidre Pujols, the wife of new Angels first baseman Albert Pujols.

“This is the moment of truth for us,” Deidre replied. “Four days have passed and most people are probably sick of hearing our name by now, but I’m ready to let people have our side of what has happened and be able to make better judgements.”

Before we delve into the topics discussed during the 39-minute interview, some background information is necessary. Joy FM is a Christian music radio station based in a western suburb of St. Louis that debuted this past July in place of “Classic 99,” a classical music offering that had been on the air for more than six decades. Joy FM recieved funding and pledges, during its inception, from the Pujols family and from former Cardinals pitcher Andy Benes.

Sandi Brown, the interviewer, is friends with Deidre Pujols, the interviewee. The chat opened with a prayer.

**********************

Albert Pujols signed a 10-year, $254 million pact with the Angels at last week’s Winter Meetings in Dallas and was introduced as the club’s new first baseman at a kind of hybrid pep rally and press conference Saturday in Anaheim attended by over 4,000 fans. The deal also includes a 10-year personal services contract that will keep Pujols a member of the Angels organization in some capacity long after his playing days are through.

Pujols often claimed, near the end of his tenure in St. Louis, that he wanted to remain a “Cardinal for life,” in the ilk of the legendary Stan Musial. To hear his wife Deidre tell it during Monday’s interview, that claim was wholly accurate. Pujols did want to return to St. Louis this offseason. But then his mindset changed.

In a failed reading of the marketplace for the 31-year-old slugger, the Cardinals put forth a five-year, $130 million proposal earlier this winter. Some might call that part of doing business — every negotiation starts somewhere, and offers can be improved — but it struck the wrong chord in the Pujols household.

“When you have somebody say, ‘we want you to be a Cardinal for life,’ and then only offer you a five-year deal, it kind of confused us,” said Deidre, calling the offer an “insult.”

The Cardinals eventually improved their package, all the way up to 10 years and $210 million, but $30 million of that would have been deferred with no interest. In the Angels’ $254 million deal, nothing is deferred.

“I’m going to tell you what, listeners especially,” said Deidre, “had that offer been given to us with a guarantee (i.e. no deferred money), we would have a Cardinal on our bat.”

Deidre then hinted that the lack of a post-baseball commitment from the Cardinals also rubbed Albert the wrong way. He wasn’t offered a personal services contract like the one Angels owner Arte Moreno gave.

“Albert and I never, not one time ever, made plans to leave this city,” said Deidre. “We had no reason, not one reason, to want to leave. … People were deceived by the numbers.”

The rest of the interview centred largely around Mrs. Pujols’ faith and upbringing in Kansas City, and the both harsh and friendly comments she’s received from St. Louisans since the decision was announced on Thursday. But the main intention of the lengthy Monday morning discussion was to relay the message that Albert did not chase the Angels’ $254 million offer because of greed or money lust. Rather, it was about the Angels’ willingness to make a long-term commitment and the Cardinals’ reluctance to match that.

“It’s just like God,” Deidre told Brown near the end of the chat, “to put us on a team called the Angels.”

182 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. stevedubs11 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

    OH MY GOD! WHAT IS THIS!? SHE SOUNDS LIKE TEBOW!

    • b7p19 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

      There are worse people to sound like if we’re being honest.

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM

        No doubt B7P19. I can think of a lot of people worse.

      • nightman13 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM

        There are worse, but something rubs me the wrong way about a guy who talks about being a man of God and then charges little kids $175 per autograph in the name of charity, but won’t disclose what percentage goes to charity and what percentage he keeps.

        Who knew God was anti transparency?

      • pauleee - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM

        If God were about transparency, it wouldn’t be about faith, now would it?

        //Not bashing religion, just your comment.

      • b7p19 - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

        Yeah nightman, how dare he not be a perfect person…

      • drewsylvania - Dec 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM

        Rex Ryan, for instance.

      • hystoracle - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM

        Pujols just throws his money in the air and what God wants he keeps. What hits the ground Pujols keeps. Charity? It’s called the Diedre fund.

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

      I guess we now fully understand what A.P. was referring to when he mentioned the Angles making a “commitment.”

      • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        Nice to see them almost admitting that it was just about the money finally.

    • lovesmesomeme - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:43 PM

      This bit@h is a nut job. Just tell them that god told you to sign in Anaheim becuase they offered more money. Quit hiding behind your religion, step up and have the minerals to say it was about the money. They are both freakin wacky if they didnt think he would have some role with the team after he retired. Dan Lozano should do a better job next time when hes bringing women to players, AP should have thrown this one back

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM

        Considering she’s saying they would have left potentially $44 million dollars on the table with the Angels to return to the Cardinals, if they had simply offered the length he felt he deserved, I believe you’re a bit off.

        It takes some serious love for a team to leave that kind of money to return. All the Cardinals had to do was double the years. Which you do very rarely because of what a risky business deal that is. You only do that sort of thing for pinnacle players.

        Like Pujols.

      • lovesmesomeme - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:43 PM

        Matt I gotta be honest here, I am more than a bit off.
        With that being said its insulting to tell people that they would have taken $44M less to stay with the cardinals after they had signed with the Angels. The cardinals were absolutely brilliant not to sign this 34 year old JA for ten years, his production will fall off the table in two maybe three years.

        “It’s just like God,” Deidre told Brown near the end of the chat, “to put us on a team called the Angels.” WHAT A WACKADOO

      • yournuts - Dec 12, 2011 at 8:57 PM

        Actually I now have more respect for Albert and Deidre. I am happy that people can relate to religion when they make a decision that will affect their lives. He is a married man and he and his wife talked about what the commitment the St. Louis Cardinals would give him to finish his career with them. He found out his answer. Then the Angels stepped up and made a huge commitment to the Pujols. Albert and Deidre are community minded people, they give of themselves to the community and make life better for many people they come in contact with. They have a wonderful foundation and will be a credit to the LA area. Some people like “lovesmesomeme” can not come to terms with commitment and character.

        As a Yankee fan I don’t look forward to seeing Albert in an Angel uniform, but I do have a lot of respect for him and his wife.

      • lovesmesomeme - Dec 12, 2011 at 9:34 PM

        Your right yournuts I should start looking for a place to worship were I can throw people under the bus when I don’t come out of something looking good.

      • hystoracle - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM

        Yournuts, Pujols decision had little to do with religion and everything to do with $$$. Period, end of story.

    • pete9313 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM

      so…lets see if i understand…the actual fans…the ‘people’ of st louis…they dont count, when she says they wanted to always be a cardinal…only the front office counts? and…wants to be a cardinal for life? obvously, only if the cardinals agree to pay them after Albert’s playing career has ended…
      Sounds to me that being a Cardinal for life only occurs when the front office pays them to be a Cardinal for life. I mean, really…$210 million wasnt enough to keep them in St Louis, even though tey wanted to stay there? I guess the extra $30 mil was enough to make them “Angels for life” now.

      • b7p19 - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

        Actually, that would be an extra $44 mil. Just a slight difference of $14,000,000.00

        But whatever, that doesn’t sound as good as what you said.

      • bleedgreen - Dec 13, 2011 at 7:52 AM

        So what you’re saying is, that if at your job, you were offered $80K to stay but there would be new management coming in, since your old manager, that you loved, retired but another place offered you $87K to go work for them and told you that you’d get a much better pension after 10 years of service, you would stay with your old company out of loyalty?

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM

        Bleedgreen: Your comparison is apples-to-oranges. Would I leave under your scenario?
        Absolutely….BECAUSE I AM LIVING PAYCHECK-TO-PAYCHECK. Considering I haven’t “made my money” like A.P. said repeatedly….considering I didn’t tell my employers…”I want to be an employee for life”….like A.P. said repeatedly…considering I didn’t tell my employer “why would I leave for 3-4 million more a year” like A.P. said repeatedly…it is apples-to-oranges. But primarily…your scenario doesn’t fly because generations of the Dudes family were already set for life PRIOR to this contract with the Angels ever coming to fruition. Again…as A.P. said…he has MADE his money.
        Look…I am not going to begrudge someone for leaving for more monies. I just want people to be honest about it. But most importantly…when people make comments like yours it just doesn’t stack up. Cause’ again…in the real world most people are struggling to make it as it is. Hell…living paycheck-to-paycheck is almost the norm in today’s world.
        So again…your $7,000 annual increase is not even in the same hemisphere (comparison wise). Why is this so hard for people to understand?

    • cmutimmah - Dec 13, 2011 at 9:53 AM

      Why does the broad keep saying offering US and WE? Can she hit a curveball? I would say she should be in the kitchen, but I’m sure at 254 mil the Pujols’ family can afford better cooking.

    • cardsfanindelaware - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:35 AM

      Is it wrong to still think they are hypocrites?? What was actually wrong with the 9 year, 200 million dollar contract WITH TEAM OWNERSHIP that was offered to him last year during spring training?? Albert and/or Lazano wanted to go to FA to get more effing $$. I know a player cannot own part of the team because of the old CBA, but I am pretty sure that Selig & Co. would have gotten something worked out this past month during the new CBA’s drafting.

      On a side note, I watched the press conference to get closure on the matter of Albert not wearing the Birds on the Bat logo anymore. It was nice to portray Albert as a family man because AJ and Deidre were announced as well. But the last I knew, they still have 2 daughters as well. Just because they have Downs Syndrome, does that mean that they couldn’t have been present or at least have gotten a shout out?? “Here is my ‘perfect’ side of the family and I won’t even acknowledge my 2 daughters with DS”?? I was suprised Lazano wasn’t on stage as well.

      Utter horses#!t on his behalf there.

      I do believe that the Cards FA did eff up somewhat with their “5 year” deal. I originally thought that they should have offered him 5 years at 30-35 mil to make him happy with his AAV issue, then have another 5 years tacked on for (vesting) options, incentives or whatever. Then at that time his personal services contract could have started if he saw that “God” told him it was time to retire because of his declining stats / dead elbow / cant walk because of his feet and the fact that he was still standing in the way of a promising 1st baseman coming from Memphis. The Cards FA hasn’t come out to say that their intentions were as such and Lazano wasn’t shoving the Angels phone with a smile on his wallet, I mean on his face, as opposed to the mad face when he handed the Cardinals phone to Albert.

      I am honored to have watched almost 98% of the Cardinals games (born & raised in the Lou & residing in Delaware) over the past decade with him on the team. He was my generations Stan Musial and I am grateful to have that for the rest of my life.

      Too bad his legacy ended too soon in St. Louis. I was waiting for the unveiling of his statue at Busch Stadium.

      • cardsfanindelaware - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:39 AM

        If the team ownership aspect of the previous contract isn’t an indication of “we want you to be a part of us until the day you die”, then I surely don’t know what commitment is…

  2. Francisco (FC) - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    How does deferred money usually work? Does this mean in reality St. Louis was offering 10 years $180 Million guaranteed? And Contract Services. How do those work?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but it’s exactly as it sounds. Money to be paid at a future date, which makes the value of the contract even less (due to inflation and time value of money).

    • Bryz - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:25 PM

      Deferred money would just mean that Pujols would have received less money right away, but he would have made up that difference after he retired. In other words, if $30 million in a contract is deferred, that money gets paid over time in the future. I guess this means that Pujols decided it was his money and he needed it now.

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM

        Obviously, $30 Million TODAY is worth alot more than 10 years from now…but according to Joe Strauss (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)…the $30 Million was deferred w/out taxes as well.

      • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        It also depends on if it was deferred with or w/o interest.

      • acdc363 - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

        LOL nice finish JG Wentworth for life

      • jyoung1891 - Dec 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

        You might want to ask Manny Ramirez if there are any OTHER risks involved in taking deferred money. (Hint: he’s an unsecured creditor in the Dodgers’ bankruptcy case.)

      • mojosmagic - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM

        You left out deferred money with NO interest which doubles that amount. The Cards knew what they had in Pujos and should have signed this guy three years ago andthey have no one to blame but themselves. Be happy Card fans because everything went your way at the right time and you won another World Series even though you were a far from the best team.

    • SOBEIT - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM

      Deferred usually refers to payment after the player retires…but I believe it could also tie to other scenarios prior to retirement.

      Contract services means Pujols will work for the team in some capacity, other than being a player, after he retires. He could be an ambassador, he could be a coach on some level, he could be in the front-office on some level. There are many roles that relate to contract services.

    • spudchukar - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:34 PM

      It differs. Sometimes deferred cash is interest bearing and sometimes it isn’t, or a rate can be agree upon. Many “hometown discounts” are actually deferred monies, which of course benefits the ownership. In real cash, assuming the money is invested wisely and not spent, the Cards save about $5 mil at least by deferring the payments.

      Service Contracts are not necessary with deferred cash. In the old days in St. Louis, they were usually in the form of beer distributorships, but that is when Gussie was making the deals.

  3. seattlesuperchronic - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    Barf. This lady is a whack-a-doo.

    • SOBEIT - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:30 PM

      Now that they are in California, she is entitled to half…meaning she is a $125M whackadoo.

  4. Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:20 PM

    Based on this Albert truly did do the right thing. Unless she’s outright lying, the Cards were not respectful to Pujols at all.

    • goawaydog - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM

      On that radio station she might have burst into flames if she was outright lying, since that did not happen there must be some truth in there.

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM

      I would love to be disrespected with an offer for $210 million dollars.

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM

        So would I, however would you accept that offer if you had a far more respectful offer on the table from someone else?

      • hystoracle - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:26 AM

        What’s disrespectful about $210 million dollars?

      • Reflex - Dec 13, 2011 at 2:27 PM

        The money wasn’t the only consideration. The team’s unwillingness to guarantee him a future beyond his playing days was a major sticking point. That is the part where he felt disrespected. Furthermore, the offer wasn’t really $210 mil, it was $180 mil plus $30 mil deffered to some future date when it was worth considerably less. Basically he was being made an $18 mil/year player.

        Considering he’s the best player in the game thats pretty lame.

  5. dannie0107 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    in other words, it’s about the money

    • evanwins - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:49 PM

      Apparently…isn’t greed and gluttony two of the deadly sins?

      Typical religious zealots. It’s all about love…except when it’s about money…

      • nightman13 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:15 PM

        Who knew God was a Capitalist?

  6. notsofast10 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM

    The OC vs St Louis?

    I think the Pujols Family will enjoy the OC!

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM

      Don’t flatter yourself 10: It sounds like the Pujols family enjoy’s St.Louis. To the point of keeping their offseason home their (according to Matt Holliday’s interview with Mike and Mike).

      • notsofast10 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM

        Sorry you took offense stlouis1baseball… Im just sayn!

      • cardsfanindelaware - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

        … until they can find a buyer…

  7. jeffrp - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:31 PM

    He was a free agent and took the highest offer, that’s the way these things go and no one other than some diehard Card’s fans would begrudge his decision.

    But then going on the radio to talk about deception and insults and where god put them is a bunch of crap trying to paint Pujols as some kind of victim. F that noise.

  8. Thunder Chicken - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:32 PM

    I understand her sentiment…

    But I could also understand Mozeliak being confused by someone saying “I want to be a Cardinal for life” and “It’s not about the money”… and then turning down a 9-year $200+ million deal.

    • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM

      If you read the details, that wasn’t the offer. 10 years, 210 mil with 30 of that deffered. Given that its at most a 10 year 195 mil contract in today’s dollars. With no personal services contract for the face of the franchise.

      Mozeliak didn’t actually make an offer that made him a ‘Cardinal for life’. He made him one that expired in ten years after continuing to underpay the best player in the game. Had he offered him another ten years like the Angels did as a special assistant of some sort, that would have gone further in demonstrating that the team wanted Albert to be a Cardinal for life. They didn’t do that, they made him an offer that seems designed to make certain he signs elsewhere. Then they let the press rip him for it without pointing out that they weren’t committed to him,

      • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM

        Yes because he was definitely in jeopardy of having no future with the Cards after he retired were he to have signed with them. I mean seriously, if he needed his ego stroked that much that he needed to be told contractually that he was going to have something post-playing career with the team he apparently hasn’t been paying attention to how the team operates.

      • Thunder Chicken - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:06 PM

        Pujols said repeatedly that he was committed to winning, and he wanted to be on a team that was committed to winning. The Cardinals overpaid Holliday to show how committed they were to putting a World Series caliber team on the field knowing that it would mean paying Pujols less when the time came… all the while trusting that Pujols was as committed to winning as they were. But when push came to shove, the only winning Pujols cared about was winning the biggest contract.

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

        I’m just going to point out that this offseason the Angels have demonstrated as much if not more committment to winning as the Cardinals. Had he accepted an offer from the Royals, I could see your point, but he took the offer from a guy who is turning his team into a juggernaught.

        While I’m sure the Cards will be competitive over the next ten years, the Angels will be as well, so he did not betray that goal.

        Again, all other things equal, which offer do you take and why? And if you take the Cards offer, aside from team loyalty how can you justify that? And why would you feel team loyalty when the owner dosen’t seem to feel as loyal to you despite what you’ve done for a decade for his team?

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

        veistran – If thats true, that there was no risk, then why didn’t the Cards offer it or match it? Diedre stated that was a major deciding factor, if its no big deal why was it not offered?

        What if the Cards ownership changes? What if its sold? What if Pujols retires early due to a serious injury? What if any number of factors occurs? Why would he not want to know that the team will still be there for him after he’s given them his entire adult life? And why wouldn’t he want that in writing?

        Seriously, do you people even think this through? I don’t care who my employer is, I want my deal in writing. Words are like air, and just as empty.

      • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 9:54 PM

        I couldn’t tell you why they didn’t offer it or didn’t want to but its a total canard to suggest that there was some risk of them not having something for him post-playing career. Really it just sounds like he wanted the total value of the contract to be as big as possible because that is the kind of validation he was looking for and that is fine and absolutely his right to go after. Personally I’m of the opinion that you don’t have to justify your decision to fans like this unless you feel guilty about it.

      • Reflex - Dec 13, 2011 at 2:55 PM

        Why is it a total canard? I listed several reasons why it could be a concern. Sure, if Bill DeWitt retains control of the team and Pujols’ career ends well its likely they will continue to keep him around. But what if a new owner takes over? What if DeWitt dies? What if any of a million other scenarios occurs? Why should he just assume he has something in place?

        Secondly, why do you assume that its because he needed to have the largest possible contract? He is human. When I changed jobs this last year, more money was a consideration, but it was just one of many. The management, the project, the location and my career all factored in more heavily than the cash. What makes you think Pujols makes decisions about his career unlike almost everyone else?

        And the reason he may feel the need to get his story out there is that he loves the team, the fans and the community. He is upset at the ownership. Should he just shut up while they continue to imply that he was a mercenary? I would be pretty upset if my former managers decieved my co-workers and clients about my reasons for leaving as well. A person has a reputation in life, defending their name is one of the more important things they can do.

  9. JBerardi - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM

    “It’s just like God,” Deidre told Brown near the end of the chat, “to put us on a team called the Angels.”

    Uhh, Deidre? You might want to crack that bible again…

    “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24

    Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    Is it just me or do the people who are the most gung-ho about Christianity also tend to be the ones who understand it the least?

    • paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM

      Nah, people that aren’t gung ho about it understand it just as poorly.

      • JBerardi - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM

        Well I’d love to know what I’m missing.

      • paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM

        For nearly everyone, their religion is a social mechanism whose dogma they follow by happenstance and when convenient….in other words, they don’t understand much and what they disagree with or what they find challenging, they ignore (like not being greedy, hateful, or judgmental)….people that aren’t religious go through life the same way, understanding moral standards, but ignoring those they find inconvenient.

    • nightman13 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:18 PM

      In the words of Ed Mcmahon:

      You are correct sir!

    • unlost1 - Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

      it’s a good point, but are you saying christians shouldn’t have money? i think Pujols gives to a lot of charities

  10. theonlynolan - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:36 PM

    I hate religion. It simply muddles conversations. A person could get into a horrible car wreck and survive then say thank god I made it. By that thinking who caused the car wreck? It makes no sense.

    • theonlynolan - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:20 PM

      I’m glad I’m getting a lot of thumbs down because I want to have this conversation. Honestly, tell me why I’m wrong. I want to discuss it.

    • sportsdrenched.com - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:27 PM

      Your metaphor is hard to follow. Are you insinuating that God caused the car wreck? Or allowed it to happen?

      • theonlynolan - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM

        Either way it’s the same thing. If God caused it or allowed it to happen he’s ultimately responsible is he not?

      • saltmanz - Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

        God created a universe that culminated in said car wreck. Obviously he’s ultimately responsible.

  11. steveflack - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM

    “It’s just like God,” Deidre told Brown near the end of the chat, “to put us on a team called the Angels.”

    Lady, I don’t remember the Angels signing DEIDRE Pujols.

  12. thefalcon123 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:44 PM

    Look…the Cardinals couldn’t pay Pujols $25 million a year without crippling their team long term. Pujols, fairly enough, though he deserved that much. The Cardinals shortened the term to raise the annual value. It didn’t work. It’s no one’s fault.

    It sucks that he’s gone, but this “Pujols is an asshole/Cardinals are the asshole” stuff is getting old real fast.

    • stex52 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:18 PM

      Look, I wanted Albert to be a Card forever. I will root for them next year (and every year, at least until the Astros are decent). I think I will also root for AP to continue, because we are watching a historic talent.

      But it was a business deal. It didn’t work out the way we wanted. Dierdre may not be a rocket scientist, but cut the lady some slack. She is in there because she feels her husband was being jerked around. I don’t agree, but don’t expect detached observations from her.

      And TF123 is right. It’s over. I worked myself up for a long time over hte Beltran and the Astros and there is just no point.

      The Cards will still be a good team next year. And no team is just one player.

    • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM

      The Cards could pay Pujols $50 mil/year and not cripple the team. The owner is a multi-billionaire. If he had wanted Pujols to stay, he would stay. The Cards are likely among the top six teams in total revenues, their salary cap is self imposed.

      • thefalcon123 - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:27 PM

        1. Yes, Bill Dewitt is a billionaire…but is it fair to expect him to run the team at a financial loss every year? He’s hardly a cheapskate, but…

        2. …there is no way in hell the Cardinals are among the top six teams in total revenue. At all. Here are the 2011 ranks in revenue according to Forbes (in millions):

        NYY
        BOS
        CHC
        LAD
        PHI
        NYM
        SFG
        LAA
        MIN
        CHW
        *STL*:

        Hmm…that’s 9 teams ahead of St. Louis.

      • thefalcon123 - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:29 PM

        Also from Forbes:

        “The Cardinals could not come to terms with superstar Albert Pujols prior to the start of the 2011 season. One obstacle: $20 million in annual stadium debt payments the team is on the hook for.”—
        http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_St-Louis-Cardinals_333240.html

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM

        I’ll concede they are not among the top six, but they are among the ‘haves’ in the game. I also will not concede that paying Albert would hamstring the franchise or make them run at a loss. Baseball is wildly profitable, by every single objective analysis, and even the poorest teams make their owners tons of money.

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

        BTW, the 2011 Cardinals averaged over 38,000 fans per game at $44/ticket on average. Just thier box office income alone was almost $138 million. Their total payroll per Cot’s Contracts for 2010 was $109 million.

        This is not counting their multitude of other revenue streams, including tv, radio, MLB.tv, merchandise, parking, concessions, etc. I’d be willing that they make somewhere between double to triple the ticket revenue from these other income sources.

        The Cards could afford Pujols. Easily. They made a business decision to maximize revenue at the cost of their best player. That is a defensible business decision to make. But pretending that signing Pujols would ‘hamstring the team’ is ridiculous.

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 8:50 PM

        I meant their 2011 payroll, not thier 2010 one.

      • thefalcon123 - Dec 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM

        “BTW, the 2011 Cardinals averaged over 38,000 fans per game at $44/ticket on average. Just thier box office income alone was almost $138 million. Their total payroll per Cot’s Contracts for 2010 was $109 million.”

        So, the only thing a team spends money on is their players? Well, apart from the $20 million in stadium debt payments, I think there are many, many other things apart from player salaries that teams spend money on.

      • Reflex - Dec 13, 2011 at 3:27 PM

        Do you honestly think that they spend more than a hundred million on everything else combined? I’d be suprised if most franchises spent even half that. And the Cards clearly make far beyond $210 mil/year, which would be a worst case scenario.

  13. paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM

    I don’t understand the team not wanting to add on a personal services contract, assuming it was for a reasonable amount (if compensation was specified). If that was the deal breaker, then that was just stupid on the part of the Cardinals….and here you can blame DeWitt since he would be the one deciding such things.

    ….but here is the confusing part….why would you commit 20 years to an owner you have never met (at the time of the agreement, Pujols had never even met with Moreno) to play on a team whose stadium you have never visited (except to play a few games)….if you are going to make such a commitment, don’t you want to know something?

    Isn’t this like dumping your girl friend of 10 yrs because she doesn’t want to get until next year and then marrying a girl you meet at a bar the next night?

    Is money really a good basis to commit to something you don’t know anything about?

    I am not absolving the StL FO of being petty or stupid (it looks like they were looking for a way out of a no-win situation), but the decision process for Pujols seems strange….especially knowing that it wasn’t about the money….except then his wife says that it was about the money.

  14. vikesfansteve - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM

    Insult to us? Cardinal on our bat? Another athletes wife claiming credit for his talent. In 5 years she leaves him & gets half for doing nothing but running her mouth, spending his hard earned money & shitting out babies ala Linda Hogan.

  15. thegreatness34 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM

    So…it’s about the money then. Not a criticism, just tell it like it is. Oh, and pretty sure God didn’t get involved in your stupid out of whack no basis in reality “problem” of where Albert was gonna play a freaking game for millions. He’s got other more pressing matters I’m sure, so GET OVER YOURSELF!

  16. koufaxmitzvah - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:52 PM

    I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who considers a $130 million for 5 years as an insulting opening bid.

    Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, I guess, but Whatchu talkin’ ’bout, Mrs. Pujols?

  17. El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:56 PM

    “I think god is there and that he is watching and he made us. I just don’t give a shit.” – Deirdre Pujols

    • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM

      or maybe it was Louie C.K…..I’m sure it was one of them…

  18. Lukehart80 - Dec 12, 2011 at 4:59 PM

    No one here seems to have commented on what strikes me as the most interesting detail: the Cardinals’ initial offer being for just 5 years. If that’s true, it was a major blunder on the team’s part, unless they weren’t really interested in bringing him back.

    I understand that counteroffers are a part of negotiations, but good businesspeople understand that people’s comfort and mindset are vital pieces of the process, that’s why there’s food put out at open houses, etc.

    The Cardinals had to know a 5-year offer was really far from what it would take to get things done, and would put a dark cloud over the negotiations.

    • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:04 PM

      It was 5/130 I wish someone would insult me by offering to pay me $26M/yr for five years.

      • Lukehart80 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:21 PM

        Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know the money is crazy. But that’s old news. It’s the world that superstar athletes’ salaries live in, and it adds nothing to the conversation to be the billionth person to point out that the money is absurd, and that police officers and teachers are more deserving of it. That stuff should go without saying.

        Within the world of baseball-superstar free agency, a 5 year offer is laughable. If you surveyed all of the GMs in baseball, not one of them would have thought he’d take that offer, or even consider it.

        I think making an offer that is so obviously not going to get it done is poor negotiating, because it puts the other side on edge, which makes them more likely to listen to outside offers.

        I don’t blame St. Louis for not matching the Angels’ offer, but if they were serious about keeping Pujols, they should never have started with just 5 years.

      • Reflex - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:25 PM

        Lots of people I know think my salary is crazy high(well, not that they know it, but when they discuss salaries around my level they always act like its a huge amount of money and that anyone making that much should be happy with it and not want more). My salary is nowhere near Pujols, but having moved up in pay over the past decade pretty regularly I’ve learned about how perceptions of money change.

        I’d certainly take another job if they offered me 15% more and perks beyond what I have now provided the project was one that interested me and the management is one I liked. Why wouldn’t I? Hell, I just did that this past year, leaving a company I’d been at for a decade. Money certainly was not the only factor, I was blocked in terms of promotion where I was at and I didn’t see that clearing anytime soon, but the new company was willing to go to extreme lengths to convince me to sign on and work on a project they felt my skills matched.

        Should I have stuck with my previous employer? I could live just fine on the salary they were paying me after all. But I felt my future and lifestyle were better respected by the new employer, and as a result I accepted their offer. And I dont’ regret it. And in a few years, were my previous employer to approach me again, I’d certainly consider them as well, although how much would depend on how my current employer is treating me, of course.

    • paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:11 PM

      It makes perfect sense if it wasn’t about the money…as a certain ex-Cardinal always claimed. A 5 year deal with high AAV takes him through his age-36 season…at that point they can decide where to go contract-wise. Even Pujols would have to admit that in 5 years he may not be the player he is now, and that the organization would love to keep him, but would want to take that opportunity to make any necessary adjustments. Of course, if it is only about the money….they you hold out for the 10 year deal.

      One thing Cardinal fans will be grateful for…at least we don’t have to deal with the surly, old, unproductive, over-paid version of Pujols that is coming in 6 or 7 years.

    • Francisco (FC) - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:35 PM

      You’re assuming Pujols would put the 5 year offer in the same perspective. Obviously not. I think MLB Stars EXPECT to be overpaid for many many years. Look at Rollins. From Pujols POV if the team is committed to him, why not give him a 10 year offer right off the bat? Another interesting detail: remember that the last offer he had received the previous winter was for 9 years… you can’t ignore the history of the negotiations and expect Albert to be happy that you went from more years to less. That probably started things off the wrong foot.

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:44 PM

      I hear what you are saying Luke. I truly do. But I would counter that the Pujols camp’s intitial demands of “A-Rod” type money was equally bad. Pujols’ camp had to know this was really far from what it would take to get things done. But at the same time…this is simply how negotiations work. If you are selling…you start very high (Pujols Camp). If you are buying…you start very low (Cardinals Camp). You then hope to meet somewhere in the middle and they didn’t. The non-negotating, flea market bartering, no auction skills having sons-a-bitches.
      And I mean that for both sides!

      • Lukehart80 - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:57 PM

        “A-Rod money,” would that be his 10 year, $252M contract?

        It doesn’t seem like Pujols’ side started that high after all.

    • fearlessleader - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM

      They started with an offer for more years, but Albert wasn’t happy with the AAV, so they floated a shorter contract for more annual dollars. I don’t have any problem with that approach, but I guess God did.

      • badmamainphilliesjamas - Dec 12, 2011 at 6:46 PM

        Consulting with both God and Lozano could give anyone whiplash.

  19. charlutes - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

    Blah blah blah God Tebow, blah blah blah god Angels…I’m god damn sick of having religion jammed down my throat. I WATCH SPORTS TO ESCAPE RELIGION, not so I can be converted.

    • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:16 PM

      “I want to thank God for this win today” – every sports player ever to play and win anything ever (not that I disagree with you, I just don’t see how you can “escape” it)

    • irishjackmp - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:36 PM

      While I find it annoying for Puhols’s wife to actually site religion as a reason for leaving, I find it even more annoying when some people tell others what they are and are not allowed to talk about. The Constitution of the United States grants everyone freedom of religion. It does not grant everyone freedom from religion. There is a difference.

      Christians have free speech rights just as you do. If you don’t like it, you have a remote control for a reason.

      • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM

        [changes channel]

  20. eagles512 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

    What’s wrong with deferred money? Gives you a nest egg in case you spend like some idiot athletes.

    • sportsdrenched.com - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:37 PM

      Time Value of Money. Figure 3% annual inflation. $30 Million in 10 years will only be worth $22.1 Million in todays dollars.

      • spudchukar - Dec 12, 2011 at 7:51 PM

        Veistran, if you could hit like Albert Pujols, someone would offer you 5/130.

      • veistran - Dec 12, 2011 at 10:24 PM

        Hahah, true, true. Its just one of those things where I can understand being unhappy with the offer but being insulted?

  21. El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM

    My tolerance for, and decision to keep my mouth shut, when reading the incessant whining from St. Louis fans is officially over. Just like your love affair with AP. It’s over. Now move on, you whiny sore winners and take that huge amount of cash and pour it into fifty other things. Do you really think anyone feels bad for you? AP is in LA now. Move. The. F@ck. On. Your organization didn’t want to keep him bad enough or he’d be in St. L still. This entire process is beginning to revitalize my dislike for the Cards. You all sound like a bunch of Chris Carpenters, but who can’t pitch for shit.

    • paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:36 PM

      Come on….we’ve all been reading your lame attempts at humor and semi-coherent comments all season….we still have equity left.

      • El Bravo - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM

        That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t make St. Louis fans sound any less douchey. They make Yankees fans look like the minor leaguers of false-sense-of-entitlement-ball. At least I’m a self-aware douche that knows my team and its players don’t owe me anything .

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM

        On another note BRAVO: I think you will find numerous posts in this particle article from fans of several teams. When the greatest player of our generation moves on as a FA…I think you will also find that true baseball fans have opinions on the matter.
        I anxiously await your response to my “Larry” post.

    • stlouis1baseball - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:49 PM

      Yes…BRAVO:
      We all know you would have no issues whatsoever if Larry “I have a Cheesy Ass nickname like Chipper” Jones bolted for more monies 10 years into his career. Yep…you would have no issues.

      • kathybaseball - Dec 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM

        The difference is, Chipper didn’t bolt for more money. He stayed in Atlanta to play for a classy organization, and in fact deferred his salary several times so that the Braves could sign players to better the team. He;s said publicly something that Pujols knows nothing about – “I’ve made my millions”. Apparently Pujols hasn’t made enough, and the Cards’ offer wasn’t enough for him.

        As an aside, why is Pujols’s wife saying “we”? I’ve never seen her at the plate, or in uniform. Somebody PLEASE INSULT ME with an offer like the one ALBERT turned down!!!

    • spudchukar - Dec 12, 2011 at 8:08 PM

      Come on, give El Bravo a break. He would be `commenting under posts about how the Braves captured the wild card and went on to win the WS, and how they lost their best player and life-time Brave, Larry Jones, to the Angels, but they didn’t and there is no good news originating in Atlanta, because the Braves folded up like a spring-loaded lawnchair, and the Angels wouldn’t pay for a plane ticket to get Chipper to LA.

      Have a heart, I mean they replaced their legendary manager with a Marlin reject, and are burdened with having to have listen to that toady Chip Carey, and are confronted with their phenom right-fielder who is a walking DL list, a catcher who cannot see, their two ace pitchers who are plagued with sore arms, a second-baseman who has the range of Newt Gingrich (hey he is a fellow Georgian), a SS named Pasternicki, a left-fielder they cannot trade, and two burned out closers.

      Hey, I would be bitter too.

    • cptnew1 - Dec 13, 2011 at 3:11 AM

      I know. That was a horrible game that Carp pitched vs Halladay in game five of the playoffs.

  22. acieu - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:25 PM

    God was too busy helping Timmy of the NFL and Albert’s contract just got past him.

  23. genericcommenter - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:27 PM

    If Pujols performed over the next 5 years, he could make more money on a 5 year deal. Cards ( or someone) would give him another 5 years plus a services contract then. But like everyone else, he knows in 5 years he’s not going to be worth the money and wants to be paid in 2021 for what he did in 2001.

  24. brewcrewfan54 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:32 PM

    Personal service contract? Give me a friggin’ break.

    • irishjackmp - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM

      Agreed. Had he signed this deal it means the Cardinals would have paid him over $300m over the course of his career. And on top of it he wants them to pay him more money after her retires? Considering his production almost certainly will diminsh signifigantly in years 6-10 of the contract, he already would have been taking plenty of money and not putting up the production to justify it… to pay him more would have been rediculous.

  25. teaspoon1731 - Dec 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

    I don’t understand ten year contracts. The man will be 33 when the season starts, meaning both teams were willing to invest money in him into his 40s. I think a five year deal was more than reasonable. If he continues to be effective, renegotiate then. I won’t deny that he’s an amazing player, but I also understand what it takes to maintain that level while your body naturally declines. How often do these long term deals actually benefit the teams? (I have no stats on that, I’m merely curious because it seems to me like they rarely pan out).

    Some of you stated the difference in money based on the structure of various contracts, and I’ll ask you this: who needs that much money? No one? If he wanted to be a Cardinal for life, he should have stayed there. There are lots of admirable players that turn down big money contracts to stay with their teams. I’m sure if he had showed the Cardinals some faith, and continued to perform for them as he has been, they would have extended him opportunities closer to his retirement.

    • paperlions - Dec 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM

      He’ll actually turn 32 in February 2012.

      • stex52 - Dec 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM

        January 16th, to be precise. I happened to note that once because it is my birthday.

      • teaspoon1731 - Dec 13, 2011 at 1:59 AM

        Ok, I was off by a year. But is there really a difference between a 42 year old baseball player and a 43 year old? Both are likely pretty washed up.

      • stlouis1baseball - Dec 13, 2011 at 9:36 AM

        You got it Tex. The same day as my oldest Daughters B-Day…and yours apparantly.

    • jwbiii - Dec 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM

      “[W]ho needs that much money?”

      This is the wrong audience to answer that question, I think. Try sending an SASE to:

      Mr. William DeWitt
      250 Stadium Plaza
      St Louis, MO 63102

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Time for Red Sox to be sellers?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Gonzalez (2403)
  2. R. Braun (2275)
  3. T. Tulowitzki (2228)
  4. B. Moss (2179)
  5. S. Pearce (2034)