Did not mean to imply that lots of teams sell out all their games. My main point is saying that signing Albert Pujols means you will well out all of your games is a given for just about any MLB team.
Sandra
MLB 2011 Season
- Thread starter Ramy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 94K
- Status
Did not mean to imply that lots of teams sell out all their games. My main point is saying that signing Albert Pujols means you will well out all of your games is a given for just about any MLB team.
Sandra
So let me get this straight....
.....The CARDS have the best player in baseball and they don't wanna pay as such?
2011 Spring Training: St. Louis Cardinals, Albert Pujols don't reach by deadline - ESPN
.....The CARDS have the best player in baseball and they don't wanna pay as such?
2011 Spring Training: St. Louis Cardinals, Albert Pujols don't reach by deadline - ESPN
Why is it wrong for a team make a business decision on how much to spend on salary, whether it's for an individual player, or a team?? Players make business decisions often to sign with teams because of big contracts. It's actually refreshing to see management do the reverse...
I am with you two. Given his age he will need to look at a 7 year contract maybe 8. Not sure why $25MIL a year isn't sufficient. Not sure if the push for the higher contract is to make up for his last one that was only $94 Mil. He appears to be gunning to surpass A-Rod. As Mike and Mike talk about this morning if the average number of homers continue for the both Puljos and A-Rod he still will not pass him for All Time. Now Puljos has never been linked to Roids.
Being from Minnesota, I am still not sold Mauer was worth his contract.
Neither would I. But IF he is the best player in baseball...she should be paid that way. Pay him and give him 5 years.
IF you were considered the best in your field...would YOU think you deserve the best pay in that field?
So let me get this straight...
You blame the owners when they hand out bad contracts, but you blame the owners when they don't want to hand out what they think may be another bad contract.
Got it.
Sandra
Last edited:
It's a free market. Does he have to take the Cards' best offer?? No. He's free to go to the highest bidder if he chooses.
Exactly. How is paying the best player in baseball a bad contract in baseball? I agreed he should not get 10 years, the guy is 31. But why can't he get it for 5 years as the highest paid?
You guys kills me with sh** you guys pull out of your sitting quarters. The guys so far, is HANDS DOWN, the best player, been the cleanest and best example of a complete and total professional...and NOW that is it his turn to get not only what he is due because he IS the best player in the game, but has been the biggest name that has kept himself out of trouble and has shown the utmost class in doing so... and now, he is only asking that IF he he the best player in game, she should be payed that way....and you say no...?
I will say this because I wanna avoid the usual BS of extending this more than it should. IF you disagree with my stance, then just say "I disagree" and leave it at that.
I agree 1000%. But IF YOU, in the free market, in whatever you do, was considered the best at what you do, would YOU want to be paid like the best?
I agree...but there will be ALOT more than people think once they realize he really is available.
Wow. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the right to get the most money he can in the best opportunity he can. Of course he does.
But why the hell does it have to be the Cardinals?? If they can't or don't want to shell out the kind of money he wants, he is free to go somewhere else instead. Why is that so hard to understand??
Using your line of thinking, free agency for superstar players would be a thing of the past because all teams would be expected to sign those expensive players or face the wrath of fans like you.
Why can't the Cardinals just be upfront with their fans and Albert's agent and say, "sorry, we not only cannot afford him...but we do not plan to pay what he wants"..? Why is that so hard for owners to understand?
My logic is simple, your team has a free agent that not only is the fan favorite, but the most consistent and best player in the entire league for the last 10 years or so...you either tell everyone you cannot afford or plan to pay for him, or you do a lot better than offering the 18th or 19th best contract in the league.
THAT is my logic.
Why?? Because the Wednesday deadline was an arbitrary one, set by Pujols. The team was under no legal obligation to settle at that time.
Think about it. Why would the Cardinals make such a ridiculous statement like that?? What would the effect be on Pujols, his teammates, and the fans, knowing that he's in a lame-duck year.
This is where your simple logic is incorrect. There is a tactic, commonly used in business, called negotiation. Negotiation is defined as "the bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict."
This is what the Cardinals are attempting to do, but the process was made public because of this artificial deadline imposed by Pujols. There will be a window of time after the season for the two sides to negotiate further.
Yeah, really. The bottom line is the Cardinals are allowed to make a business decision. Is Pujols the best hitter in the game right now? Yes. Does that mean the Cardinals HAVE TO pay him for the next 5-10 years like he will be the best hitter in the game during the whole contract? Of course not.
It's not a question of whether they can afford him, I'm sure they can. It's a question of whether $30 million per year or whatever is spent wisely on one person, whose production will most likely not increase, and could easily go down.
Sandra
Theo Epstein was on WEEI this morning and they talked about the younger people not having an interest in baseball . MLB is trying to do something about it. Theo also said the games need to be shorter. I agree.
- Status
Similar threads
