Pujols signs with Angels pg 151

[Guest]

That's not the way I read it.

 

I read it as, "we really wanted to stay, but the Cardinals gave us no choice but to leave." I've got no sympathy for that perspective. In fact I think it's laughable.

 

Pujols followed the money, just like most athletes do. That's perfectly fine. Just don't try and dress it up as something it's not.

 

I don't understand how you can read it that way. It's way more simple than that. The Cardinals got Pujols for dirt cheap in relation to his production for many, many years. As a reward for giving him such a wonderful contract and a couple of World Series rings, it was now time to get paid by the team he has shown his loyalty to for the entirety of his career.

 

When it finally became time to give Pujols true value for his production, they were busy signing guys like Holliday and Berkman instead of paying close attention to the franchise player. For Pujols to accept another "hometown discount" from St. Louis when all he has ever done is outproduce his contract is an absolute slap in his face. He owes nothing to St. Louis.

[davearm2]

She's not complaining about the situation. She's explaining why they're leaving.

And her explanation is laughable IMO.

 

It's quite apparent to me that some combination of pride and greed drove this decision. And to be clear, I've got no issue with that. As I said, that's what most athletes do.

 

It's her suggestion that they didn't want to leave but the Cardinals left them no other choice that is the issue here.

 

If you don't detect that tone in the article, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Sammy Sofa]

Holy God, why are you taking the "no other choice" part so literally?

[davearm2]

That's not the way I read it.

 

I read it as, "we really wanted to stay, but the Cardinals gave us no choice but to leave." I've got no sympathy for that perspective. In fact I think it's laughable.

 

Pujols followed the money, just like most athletes do. That's perfectly fine. Just don't try and dress it up as something it's not.

 

I don't understand how you can read it that way. It's way more simple than that. The Cardinals got Pujols for dirt cheap in relation to his production for many, many years. As a reward for giving him such a wonderful contract and a couple of World Series rings, it was now time to get paid by the team he has shown his loyalty to for the entirety of his career.

 

When it finally became time to give Pujols true value for his production, they were busy signing guys like Holliday and Berkman instead of paying close attention to the franchise player. For Pujols to accept another "hometown discount" from St. Louis when all he has ever done is outproduce his contract is an absolute slap in his face. He owes nothing to St. Louis.

I agree completely that he owes nothing to St. Louis. I don't see where anyone here was suggesting otherwise.

 

The Cardinals based their offer on his expected future production (plus some calculation of his intrinsic value to the franchise), not based on how much they owe him from years of underpaying him on his previous deals. That's just smart business.

[Guest]

She's not complaining about the situation. She's explaining why they're leaving.

And her explanation is laughable IMO.

 

It's quite apparent to me that some combination of pride and greed drove this decision. And to be clear, I've got no issue with that. As I said, that's what most athletes do.

 

It's her suggestion that they didn't want to leave but the Cardinals left them no other choice that is the issue here.

 

If you don't detect that tone in the article, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

So you work for this company that will only pay you about 2/3 of what you are worth. You've been there a long time. A company down the street sees how good you are at what you do and will pay you more than your long time company sight unseen.

 

Do you stay with the company that has gotten off cheap for years or do you go where they clearly appreciate you much more?

 

For me it was easy to leave my old company when someone offered me more money to do the same exact thing.

[davearm2]

She's not complaining about the situation. She's explaining why they're leaving.

And her explanation is laughable IMO.

 

It's quite apparent to me that some combination of pride and greed drove this decision. And to be clear, I've got no issue with that. As I said, that's what most athletes do.

 

It's her suggestion that they didn't want to leave but the Cardinals left them no other choice that is the issue here.

 

If you don't detect that tone in the article, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

So you work for this company that will only pay you about 2/3 of what you are worth. You've been there a long time. A company down the street sees how good you are at what you do and will pay you more than your long time company sight unseen.

 

Do you stay with the company that has gotten off cheap for years or do you go where they clearly appreciate you much more?

 

For me it was easy to leave my old company when someone offered me more money to do the same exact thing.

What part of "I've got no issue with that" are you struggling to grasp?

[Guest]

The Cardinals based their offer on his expected future production (plus some calculation of his intrinsic value to the franchise), not based on how much they owe him from years of underpaying him on his previous deals. That's just smart business.

 

And you don't believe that the player/family might display a bit of disappointment that after waiting to finally get paid by the organization they've spent years playing for, they aren't nearly as committed to him as some team down the street is?

 

I can't understand at all why someone would be mad at Albert or his wife that they felt they got the raw end of the deal with St. Louis all these years and now can't wait to leave town. How many discount contracts is the guy supposed to keep signing with St. Louis?

[davearm2]

The Cardinals based their offer on his expected future production (plus some calculation of his intrinsic value to the franchise), not based on how much they owe him from years of underpaying him on his previous deals. That's just smart business.

 

And you don't believe that the player/family might display a bit of disappointment that after waiting to finally get paid by the organization they've spent years playing for, they aren't nearly as committed to him as some team down the street is?

 

I can't understand at all why someone would be mad at Albert or his wife that they felt they got the raw end of the deal with St. Louis all these years and now can't wait to leave town. How many discount contracts is the guy supposed to keep signing with St. Louis?

Who's mad at Albert or his wife over wanting to leave town? They're completely within their rights to make that choice.

[Guest]

What part of "I've got no issue with that" are you struggling to grasp?

 

You are the one arguing that they did it all for greed, which is pretty much nonsense.

[Guest]

Who's mad at Albert or his wife over wanting to leave town? They're completely within their rights to make that choice.

 

I'll give you 3 guesses.

[treebird]

theo should hire davearm to negotiate contracts.

 

"okay prince, our final offer is 3 years at 10M/year. DON'T BE GREEDY YOU HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY IT'S FINE JUST TAKE IT WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU YOU'RE JUST LIKE ALL OTHER ATHLETES NOW TAKE THE OFFER YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE IT."

[davearm2]

What part of "I've got no issue with that" are you struggling to grasp?

 

You are the one arguing that they did it all for greed, which is pretty much nonsense.

That's not what I'm arguing, but more to the point, even if they did, I'd have no problem with it.

[davearm2]

Who's mad at Albert or his wife over wanting to leave town? They're completely within their rights to make that choice.

 

I'll give you 3 guesses.

Not me. I don't fault them for leaving one bit.

[davearm2]

theo should hire davearm to negotiate contracts.

 

"okay prince, our final offer is 3 years at 10M/year. DON'T BE GREEDY YOU HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY IT'S FINE JUST TAKE IT WHAT DO YOU MEAN I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU YOU'RE JUST LIKE ALL OTHER ATHLETES NOW TAKE THE OFFER YOU'RE LUCKY TO HAVE IT."

Your capacity to misinterpret what it is I'm saying is truly astonishing.

[Sammy Sofa]

So your problem is actually over the semantics of what was said. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'" instead of "we had no choice" you wouldn't have an issue? Because Mrs. Pujols didn't make it explicitly clear that they weren't literally without a choice you find what she said "laughable" and a "sob story?"

[ConstableRabbit]

is she hot?

[davearm2]

So your problem is actually over the semantics of what was said. If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'" instead of "we had no choice" you wouldn't have an issue? Because Mrs. Pujols didn't make it explicitly clear that they weren't literally without a choice you find what she said "laughable" and a "sob story?"

My problem is with the tone of Mrs. Pujols' comments. She made it abundantly clear that they really wanted to stay, had no intentions to leave, and that moving is very difficult for a number of reasons.

 

That obviously begs the question, well then why didn't you stay, if that's what you wanted?

 

Her implication is, the reason they didn't stay is because Cardinals somehow took that option away from them. That I find laughable.

 

If she had said something like "Albert felt in the end that he wanted the Angels' offer more than the Cardinals'", then I wouldn't have an issue, since that's what really happened.

[mul21]

is she hot?

 

She's not even in the same neighborhood as hot.

[imb]

she actually has down syndrome

[Elwood]

is she hot?

 

She's not even in the same neighborhood as hot.

 

http://www.ambassadorspeakers.com/ACP/images/880.jpg

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I would.

[TruffleShuffle]

So your problem is actually over the semantics of what was said.

 

i for one am shocked that davearm is hung up on semantics and making a pointless and inane argument based on them.

[SouthSideRyan]

I would.

 

You'd [expletive] a plugged in toaster with a tin foil condom.

[Ballgame64]

Yes, that is the context; we're talking about Albert Pujols: maybe the greatest hitter of all time. In that context a 5 year/$130 million deal IS insulting. She shouldn't have to clarify to anyone with a functioning brain that she's talking about being "insulted" on a rich people's problems-scale.

She was on a Christian radio station. What do you think the average listener to that station thinks about the "value" of a baseball player? I am not arguing, just asking.

[TruffleShuffle]

So you work for this company that will only pay you about 2/3 of what you are worth. You've been there a long time. A company down the street sees how good you are at what you do and will pay you more than your long time company sight unseen.

 

not a bad analogy, but this isn't a company down the street, it's like 2000 miles away. it's a big life change so you can understand why she/they would be stressed about it, and disappointed that the cards didn't step up with a more market-competitive offer to keep him in town.

 

of course davearm throws around the term "greedy" because it's huge money, but if you're living in st louis and making 80 grand a year and some company in california offers you 125k, and you go for it, people aren't going to call you greedy. this may be hard to believe, but people like to be paid a fair wage given what they bring to their employer, regardless of whether that be 50 grand or 50 million.