Pujols signs w Angels

[Willie Lanier]

per Dan Patrick Show

wow

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

So, Mrs. Pujols, you were insulted by the Cards' initial "lowball" offer of 5/130. Get the f over yourself. Welcome to every negotiation ever.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/73...ouis-cardinals

Really? Realistically that is all that can be expected for him to be at his peak. He is asking a team to pay him 10 years for five years of value. Diedre also didn't check into the cost of living index in LA vs StL.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Look at how the tone of this thread has changed over the last few days.

It wasn't his decision to leave that did it - it was his bullshit petty whining on the way out the door.

Yeah, that's rubbed me pretty damn raw.

No, I heard nothing but bitching since he left about greed.

What was the last contract he signed? Was it 111 million for 8 for a tad less then 14mil per year? Did he complain about playing for the contract during his tenure with the Cardinals where he was considered the best player in baseball.

I don't recall, just asking if he complained about playing for about 60% of his market value while leading the Cards to championships.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Damn, Albert bruised a lot of asses.

But we still get to keep all the World Series stuff, douche.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

No, I heard nothing but bitching since he left about greed.

What was the last contract he signed? Was it 111 million for 8 for a tad less then 14mil per year? Did he complain about playing for the contract during his tenure with the Cardinals where he was considered the best player in baseball.

I don't recall, just asking.

So you didn't read the thread, then. The tone has changed immensely over the last several days. From the start I said I don't have a problem with him taking the money. But don't try to make it more than it was.

Besides, what grounds did he have to complain about the first contract? It was among the highest in baseball when it was signed and it included 2 arbitration years. It's easy to say that he was underpaid now (and he was), but when that contract was signed there was very real angst throughout the Cardinal community that the contract would be a serious problem going forward. It was absolutely a fair contract.

Business is business - spare me the lying about your motives and for the love of all things sacred, just shut up about being 'insulted' when you were offered the 2nd highest annual salary in the history of baseball over 5 years, then you were offered a contract that was the second highest in the history of baseball.

The Cardinals offered to dedicate a hell of a lot more of their net value and their payroll to Pujols than the Angels did, that's for sure.

So Albert was more 'respected' by the Angels because Anaheim plays in a larger market, didn't finance a new ballpark (and therefore aren't carrying $200 million in debt) and can afford to make a FA splash?

Sure Albert, whatever you say.

Take your money and go.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

No, I heard nothing but bitching since he left about greed.

What was the last contract he signed? Was it 111 million for 8 for a tad less then 14mil per year? Did he complain about playing for the contract during his tenure with the Cardinals where he was considered the best player in baseball.

I don't recall, just asking if he complained about playing for about 60% of his market value while leading the Cards to championships.

Just how many yachts does he need to water ski behind? Is this a Spreewell 'got to feed my family' thing? He is going to be worth the value of the contract for 5 years max. He did sign the other contract. Not sure if God had any hand in that one.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So you didn't read the thread, then. The tone has changed immensely over the last several days. From the start I said I don't have a problem with him taking the money. But don't try to make it more than it was.

Besides, what grounds did he have to complain about the first contract? It was among the highest in baseball when it was signed and it included 2 arbitration years. It's easy to say that he was underpaid now (and he was), but when that contract was signed there was very real angst throughout the Cardinal community that the contract would be a serious problem going forward. It was absolutely a fair contract.

Business is business - spare me the lying about your motives and for the love of all things sacred, just shut up about being 'insulted' when you were offered the 2nd highest annual salary in the history of baseball over 5 years, then you were offered a contract that was the second highest in the history of baseball.

The Cardinals offered to dedicate a hell of a lot more of their net value and their payroll to Pujols than the Angels did, that's for sure.

So Albert was more 'respected' by the Angels because Anaheim plays in a larger market, didn't finance a new ballpark (and therefore aren't carrying $200 million in debt) and can afford to make a FA splash?

Sure Albert, whatever you say.

Take your money and go.

Now, look at this for Albert's perspective. You played out what ended up being a sweet heart deal for the Cards without so much as a complaint and carried the team for a decade. You expect to be rewarded for your service for a close to market value contract when the next one is up and what do the Cards do? They low ball a 5 year deal when the guy is looking for 10 and is obviously worth it to a few teams. I would guess after that offer came out he was probably dead set against returning the Cards regardless of what they raised the offer to. I think it was more pride and anger then greed, but that's just my opinion.

If I was a Cards fan I would be angry with the front office for low balling him initially which from the wifes interview was the start of the problem.

[veist]

Berkman on the Pujols thing: "They say it's not about the money. It's always about the money. ... What the money represents."

So yeah, why exactly are Albert, DiDi and Lozano so busy trying to spin this if Albert isn't feeling guilty?

[kcpasco]

If you find 5/130 or 10/210 insulting you have the emotional level of a 14 year old girl.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by veist

Berkman on the Pujols thing: "They say it's not about the money. It's always about the money. ... What the money represents."

So yeah, why exactly are Albert, DiDi and Lozano so busy trying to spin this if Albert isn't feeling guilty?

So I just read the article where he is quoted as saying that and he is referencing his own contract negotations and he doesn't even breath a word about Pujols in it.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Now, look at this for Albert's perspective. You played out what ended up being a sweet heart deal for the Cards without so much as a complaint and carried the team for a decade. You expect to be rewarded for your service for a close to market value contract when the next one is up and what do the Cards do? They low ball a 5 year deal when the guy is looking for 10 and is obviously worth it to a few teams. I would guess after that offer came out he was probably dead set against returning the Cards regardless of what they raised the offer to. I think it was more pride and anger then greed, but that's just my opinion.

If I was a Cards fan I would be angry with the front office for low balling him initially which from the wifes interview was the start of the problem.

Last spring they offered him 10/$198. He turned it down and his agent repeated the "A-Rod" money crap.

They didn't 'low-ball' a 5 year deal; they responded to his agent's insistence that he wanted an AAV that put him above Howard's; that's exactly what they gave him. They didn't offer it to him over 10 because that would've been foolish. I don't care if other teams are lining up to be idiots; the Cardinals can't do that and expect to compete.

After he again declined, they evidently moved to 10/$210; other reports say they went to 10/$220. The Cardinals refused to big against themselves, I think that's more than fair. Besides, all of this was before the Angels even made an offer. Were the Angels being insulting by sitting it out? Afterall, had the Marlins offered a no-trade clause, the deal would've been signed/stamped before the Angels even made an offer. Evidently he was so important to them that they made sure to wait a bit to make an offer.

From there it was just a petty temper-tantrum on Albert's part. The Cardinals made him several offers that were all plenty reasonable in light of the ROI that an NL team is going to get on a 1b in this late 30s. If that's not good enough for him, then he wanted the Cardinals to pay a premium for past-services rendered.

And their refusal to do so was evidently 'insulting' to him. His 'pride' sent him elsewhere. And if your pride is permanently damaged by the offers that the Cardinals made, then you're really not a 'proud' person; you're a petty narcissist.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Now, look at this for Albert's perspective. You played out what ended up being a sweet heart deal for the Cards without so much as a complaint and carried the team for a decade. You expect to be rewarded for your service for a close to market value contract when the next one is up and what do the Cards do? They low ball a 5 year deal when the guy is looking for 10 and is obviously worth it to a few teams. I would guess after that offer came out he was probably dead set against returning the Cards regardless of what they raised the offer to. I think it was more pride and anger then greed, but that's just my opinion.

If I was a Cards fan I would be angry with the front office for low balling him initially which from the wifes interview was the start of the problem.

I would have been real angry at the FO if they crippled the franchise with the contract that AP wanted. Just like AP is looking at things from a business perspective, so were the Cardinals. They just simply couldn't complete both objectives. Given the salary constraints the club was imposing, the club simply couldn't afford to give Albert the contract he really wanted. They came pretty damn close though in the grand scheme of things. They couldn't come to an agreement, and that's fine. Then AP can quit his babbling that he wanted to be a Cardinal for life because in the end the money was more important. Oh, and he can speak for himself instead of letting his wife do it for him.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Last spring they offered him 10/$198. He turned it down and his agent repeated the "A-Rod" money crap.

They didn't 'low-ball' a 5 year deal; they responded to his agent's insistence that he wanted an AAV that put him above Howard's; that's exactly what they gave him. They didn't offer it to him over 10 because that would've been foolish. I don't care if other teams are lining up to be idiots; the Cardinals can't do that and expect to compete.

After he again declined, they evidently moved to 10/$210; other reports say they went to 10/$220. The Cardinals refused to big against themselves, I think that's more than fair. Besides, all of this was before the Angels even made an offer. Were the Angels being insulting by sitting it out? Afterall, had the Marlins offered a no-trade clause, the deal would've been signed/stamped before the Angels even made an offer. Evidently he was so important to them that they made sure to wait a bit to make an offer.

From there it was just a petty temper-tantrum on Albert's part. The Cardinals made him several offers that were all plenty reasonable in light of the ROI that an NL team is going to get on a 1b in this late 30s. If that's not good enough for him, then he wanted the Cardinals to pay a premium for past-services rendered.

And their refusal to do so was evidently 'insulting' to him. His 'pride' sent him elsewhere. And if your pride is permanently damaged by the offers that the Cardinals made, then you're really not a 'proud' person; you're a petty narcissist.

So it sounds like we pretty much agree. He didn't take the money because he needed more money to buy "Yachts" or whatever else is sprewed. He just wanted to be rewareded to be recognized as the best player in the game and probably rewarded for playing out his contract in a respectable way. He felt slighted by the Cards offer and lack of desperation to get him signed and when someone came along that "rewarded him" he jumped on it. It wasn't really about "dollars" it was about the dollars providing him status and justification for his accomplishments.

[veist]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

So I just read the article where he is quoted as saying that and he is referencing his own contract negotations and he doesn't even breath a word about Pujols in it.

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Au...1-4Berkman.mp3 tune in at like 4:30 minutes he said it today about Albert. Sit and ****ing spin.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by veist

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Au...1-4Berkman.mp3 tune in at like 4:30 minutes he said it today about Albert. Sit and ****ing spin.

Yeah, about the 5:00 mark he said it wasn't about the dollars he said it was because in Albert's mind it meant the Angels love and respect me because they will pay more. Which is exactly what I've been saying.

[kcpasco]

Diedre is saying the 10 years wasn't guaranteed but the Cardinals are saying it was guaranteed. WTF is going on and is it possible Albert got duped by his own agent?