Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Sammy Sofa]

He's made some nice cash, but technically has been severely underpaid. He's due.

 

Undoubtedly, and if that's what he wants to go after, he'll get his money. I still say when it's all said and done, he'll take a little less (but still get a ton of freaking money) to stay in STL.

 

Yeah, but a little less from what he's asking still seems to be way out of their price range.

 

Albert seems to indicate in his most recent quotes that what the media is reporting as his "asking price" isn't accurate. Could well just be him trying to throw the media off...but I guess we'll see.

 

Well, again, I think LaRussa is somewhat right because I think the union is definitely pushing him to get an unprecedented contract. That doesn't he necessarily will go that route, but I think there will be more weighing on him when it comes to doing what's "right" besides just re-upping with St. Louis for a discount.

[Backtobanks]

Not to be negative nancy here, but I really think he'll end up re-signing with the Cards. This guy has never been about the money, unfortunately. He's taken less in the past to stay with the Cards, and I bet when it comes right down to it, he'll do it again. He'll try to get what he can out of em, but I don't think he's leaving.

 

So because he signed a team-friendly contract 6 years ago while he was still in arbitration he isn't about the money and will take less to stay in St. Louis???????

 

 

Some people's defense mechanism against being disappointed by something they really really want to happen not happening is downplaying the chances of that thing happening. Did that even make sense?

 

 

Not that I'm saying I think we'll sign Pujols...or that it's even really likely... but I'd have to agree that it's a stretch to paint the picture that optimistically for the Cardinals.

 

We're all guessing here, and I think it's reasonable to think that given Albert's pro-STL quotes, his past behavior when it comes to contract negotiations, and the fact that, while not one of the highest paid guys in the league, the guy has already made some pretty nice cash over the years, that he may not be looking to completely break the bank here.

 

It's also reasonable to think that he's gonna walk. Maybe it's more about the money than he's previously let on. I certainly understand that thought, and don't bregrudge anyone think that's going to happen.

 

But I think he stays. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.

 

Let's not forget that professional athletes do have egos and when push comes to shove they want proof ($$$$$) that they're the best player in baseball. He may give the Cards a discount, but I think he wants to have the biggest contract ever (> $275 million). Unfortunately for the Cards, $280 million plus might be a "hometown discount".

[Guest]

Let's not forget that professional athletes do have egos and when push comes to shove they want proof ($$$$$) that they're the best player in baseball. He may give the Cards a discount, but I think he wants to have the biggest contract ever (> $275 million). Unfortunately for the Cards, $280 million plus might be a "hometown discount".

 

That's the thing. Pujols has already given them a bargain for the last decade. It's now time for him to get paid and St. Louis owes him this time. If they don't want to pay him, someone else will.

[SouthSideRyan]

He's made some nice cash, but technically has been severely underpaid. He's due.

 

Undoubtedly, and if that's what he wants to go after, he'll get his money. I still say when it's all said and done, he'll take a little less (but still get a ton of freaking money) to stay in STL.

 

Yeah, but a little less from what he's asking still seems to be way out of their price range.

 

Albert seems to indicate in his most recent quotes that what the media is reporting as his "asking price" isn't accurate. Could well just be him trying to throw the media off...but I guess we'll see.

 

 

Albert also has to play an entire season in front of these weirdos and doesn't want everyone thinking he's a selfish jerk. (Not that asking for what you're worth makes you a selfish jerk, but baseball fans in general are buffoons, let alone those St. Louis sycophants

[javy knows my name]

Yep, the Cardinals will just go out and find a diamond in the rough like Colby Rasmus

 

Oh man, thanks, I would have missed this

[Banedon]

One offer to Albert Pujols before negotiations were halted -- perhaps even the main offer -- was for nine years and more than $200 million, according to people familiar with the talks.

[jiml60]

He's made some nice cash, but technically has been severely underpaid. He's due.

 

Undoubtedly, and if that's what he wants to go after, he'll get his money. I still say when it's all said and done, he'll take a little less (but still get a ton of freaking money) to stay in STL.

 

Yeah, but a little less from what he's asking still seems to be way out of their price range.

 

Albert seems to indicate in his most recent quotes that what the media is reporting as his "asking price" isn't accurate. Could well just be him trying to throw the media off...but I guess we'll see.

 

 

Albert also has to play an entire season in front of these weirdos and doesn't want everyone thinking he's a selfish jerk. (Not that asking for what you're worth makes you a selfish jerk, but baseball fans in general are buffoons, let alone those St. Louis sycophants

 

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

[daske17]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

 

But you empathize with the billionaire owner who wants to hold on to even more money for himself

[Splendid Splinter]

Rotoworld

 

Carlos Pena said he would be open to discussing an extension with the Cubs at any time.

 

Obviously it's not going to happen anytime soon, as the Cubs signed him to a one-year, $10 million deal just a couple months ago. It's possible the team could be interested in extending him if he gets off to a nice start, though. However, that would rule them out for free-agent-to-be Albert Pujols, and the Cubs have been among the teams most prominently mentioned as a possible landing spot for the best player in the game.

 

Can Pena play 3B? hahaha...

[daske17]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

 

But you empathize with the billionaire owner who wants to hold on to even more money for himself

 

Where are you getting that?

 

I don't empathize the sums of money on either side. It's the rich fighting the richer.

[javy knows my name]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

 

But you empathize with the billionaire owner who wants to hold on to even more money for himself

 

Where are you getting that?

 

I don't empathize the sums of money on either side. It's the rich fighting the richer.

 

Wow, listen to yourself. The money has to go somewhere. Does it stay in the pocket of the billionaire owner for no reason, or does it go to the guy who makes the product on the field what it is (a.k.a. makes the owner his money)?

[Banedon]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

 

But you empathize with the billionaire owner who wants to hold on to even more money for himself

 

Where are you getting that?

 

I don't empathize the sums of money on either side. It's the rich fighting the richer.

 

Wow, listen to yourself. The money has to go somewhere. Does it stay in the pocket of the billionaire owner for no reason, or does it go to the guy who makes the product on the field what it is (a.k.a. makes the owner his money)?

 

Who cares?

[daske17]

I'll never understand this stance that people take against athlete's salaries; because if they were in the same position they would want as much as they could get. I guess it's easier to take the "playing for the fun of it" route when you don't have the talent to play either for the fun or the money.

 

Or it's just a ridiculous sum of money to those making middle-class wages. I certainly don't begrudge certain classes of people for what they make as it is what the market will bear.

 

However, I just can't empathize with someone making $10 million dollars a year wanting to make $20 million. I want my bills to get paid on time.

 

But you empathize with the billionaire owner who wants to hold on to even more money for himself

 

Where are you getting that?

 

I don't empathize the sums of money on either side. It's the rich fighting the richer.

 

Wow, listen to yourself. The money has to go somewhere. Does it stay in the pocket of the billionaire owner for no reason, or does it go to the guy who makes the product on the field what it is (a.k.a. makes the owner his money)?

 

I can enjoy the game of baseball without caring about its finances. Not that novel of a concept.

[SouthSideRyan]

Funny way of showing it.

[javy knows my name]

Wow, listen to yourself. The money has to go somewhere. Does it stay in the pocket of the billionaire owner for no reason, or does it go to the guy who makes the product on the field what it is (a.k.a. makes the owner his money)?

 

Who cares?

 

Do I care how much money Pujols ultimately makes? No, I don't

 

Is my above point germane to the discussion? Yuuuup

[daske17]

Funny way of showing it.

 

I just commented on a post relating to people taking sides based on salary.

 

Seriously, what difference does it make to you or me? None. I like watching baseball. That's it.

 

If that was sarcasm, I apologize.

[Banedon]

Wow, listen to yourself. The money has to go somewhere. Does it stay in the pocket of the billionaire owner for no reason, or does it go to the guy who makes the product on the field what it is (a.k.a. makes the owner his money)?

 

Who cares?

 

Do I care how much money Pujols ultimately makes? No, I don't

 

Is my above point germane to the discussion? Yuuuup

 

Yeah sorry...wasn't really commenting on your post. More that I don't really care about how mega rich athletes and mega rich owners divvy up the pot....except for how it ends up splitting up the pool of players.

 

Didn't mean to imply anything about the relevancy or quality of your post.

[CubsInNC]

Well if Detroit is going to kick Cabrera to the curb to go after Pujols, then let them do that and just go after Cabrera instead.

 

Yeah, with all the bars in Wrigleyville that would end well....

[davell]

After the Milton situation, I think Jimbo and Ricketts would both pass on Cabrera, rightly or wrongly.

[Little Slide Rooter]

OK, so say all of our wildest dreams come true and the Cubs give Pujols an A Rod like deal. Meanwhile, we waive goodbye to Aramis and Kosuke. Are we then in the same situation as the Cards were between Edmonds and Holliday giving pitcher no reason to pitch to Pujols in significant situations and find difficulty building an ofense around him?

 

Meanwhile, say the Cards take that money, and sign Prince Fielder and Mark Buerhle, and still have money left over to improve on one of the other 3 infield positions. Maybe even Aramis Ramirez. In this scenerio, whose the better team in the long run?

[Backtobanks]

OK, so say all of our wildest dreams come true and the Cubs give Pujols an A Rod like deal. Meanwhile, we waive goodbye to Aramis and Kosuke. Are we then in the same situation as the Cards were between Edmonds and Holliday giving pitcher no reason to pitch to Pujols in significant situations and find difficulty building an ofense around him?

 

Meanwhile, say the Cards take that money, and sign Prince Fielder and Mark Buerhle, and still have money left over to improve on one of the other 3 infield positions. Maybe even Aramis Ramirez. In this scenerio, whose the better team in the long run?

 

Fielder, Buerhle, and Ramirez would cost more than $30 million in 2012 unless Buerhle and Ramirez really bomb this year.

[Little Slide Rooter]

OK, so say all of our wildest dreams come true and the Cubs give Pujols an A Rod like deal. Meanwhile, we waive goodbye to Aramis and Kosuke. Are we then in the same situation as the Cards were between Edmonds and Holliday giving pitcher no reason to pitch to Pujols in significant situations and find difficulty building an ofense around him?

 

Meanwhile, say the Cards take that money, and sign Prince Fielder and Mark Buerhle, and still have money left over to improve on one of the other 3 infield positions. Maybe even Aramis Ramirez. In this scenerio, whose the better team in the long run?

 

Fielder, Buerhle, and Ramirez would cost more than $30 million in 2012 unless Buerhle and Ramirez really bomb this year.

 

Ramirez is a long shot, but I could definitely see them go for Fielder to replace Pujols, and Buerhle has been all to vocal about his desire to play for the Cardinals. Hes good, but not good enough for the players union to hassle him too much about giving them a hefty discount.

[Sammy Sofa]

OK, so say all of our wildest dreams come true and the Cubs give Pujols an A Rod like deal. Meanwhile, we waive goodbye to Aramis and Kosuke. Are we then in the same situation as the Cards were between Edmonds and Holliday giving pitcher no reason to pitch to Pujols in significant situations and find difficulty building an ofense around him?

 

Meanwhile, say the Cards take that money, and sign Prince Fielder and Mark Buerhle, and still have money left over to improve on one of the other 3 infield positions. Maybe even Aramis Ramirez. In this scenerio, whose the better team in the long run?

 

The Cubs, obviously. They clearly don't have the same financial constraints as the Cardinals, which would preclude form your scenario in the first place.

[XZero771679666304]

OK, so say all of our wildest dreams come true and the Cubs give Pujols an A Rod like deal. Meanwhile, we waive goodbye to Aramis and Kosuke. Are we then in the same situation as the Cards were between Edmonds and Holliday giving pitcher no reason to pitch to Pujols in significant situations and find difficulty building an ofense around him?

 

Meanwhile, say the Cards take that money, and sign Prince Fielder and Mark Buerhle, and still have money left over to improve on one of the other 3 infield positions. Maybe even Aramis Ramirez. In this scenerio, whose the better team in the long run?

 

The Cubs, obviously. They clearly don't have the same financial constraints as the Cardinals, which would preclude form your scenario in the first place.

 

Not to mention we have at least some talent on the way, potentially. The Cards' system is pretty barren, so they won't be filling positions from within anytime soon. And in a few years, we ditch the Soriano contract as well.

 

We're in very different financial situations down the road.