More of the negativity seems to be focused on his choice to leave St. Louis and that his decision is worse than the one Lebron James made to leave Cleveland for Miami.
Ten years is a long time but, as you said, he's one of the greatest hitters of all-time. It's in line with what A-Rod gets and I would say Pujols is the better player.
I assume that being signed by the Angels is an automatic indication that there is something wrong with Pujols and Wilson. That same front office traded Mike Napoli for Vernon Wells.
I can't click those links, so I will guess what they say. :>) Ordinary people telling extremely talented and in-demand people where they should work - and for how much money - because of some intangible "greater good" for their chosen industry is pretty near the height of obnoxiousness. So they should STFU ASAP!
I wonder what that NESN person would say if I opined that he should stay at NESN for the rest of his career - even if ESPN offers a plum job at 5x the money? He'd probably say, "Who the fuck are you to tell me which job to take? Go mind your own business, doucheweed." Not parallel cases, I know, but ....
So you're saying if someone paid you enough, you'd start a Yankees blog? And stop watching the Red Sox, being a fan of the Red Sox, or anything to do with the Red Sox?
So you're saying if someone paid you enough, you'd start a Yankees blog? And stop watching the Red Sox, being a fan of the Red Sox, or anything to do with the Red Sox?
First, someone has to pay me for this blog. Still fuckin waiting on that ....
More to the point, if I did choose to do that, it would be my choice. Obviously. And I would tell any stranger out there who said I HAD to do something other than what I wanted to do to go fuck themselves.
But your example is really apples and whales to Pujols, since being a fan (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond) has very little, or nothing, to do with his decision.
It would be more like a writer being affiliated with one publisher and then, after 10 years of great success and sales, deciding after his contract ran out to go to another publisher that offered a better deal.
So, you have to have 35+ years in something for the bond to be more emotional?
If I am a fan of yacht racing for 35 years, but if I only went to or watched one race a year, and the guy who lives next door to me has been a fan for only 15 but he goes to every race, who has more of an emotional bond?
Who can even say?
Do you love your new dog less than your old dog because your new dog is new?
But your example is really apples and whales to Pujols, since being a fan (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond) has very little, or nothing, to do with his decision.
It would be more like a writer being affiliated with one publisher and then, after 10 years of great success and sales, deciding after his contract ran out to go to another publisher that offered a better deal.
In case this is not clear, I will attempt to clarify Allan's very clear English.
Allan is a Red Sox fan with a deep emotional attachment to the Red Sox, and a deep emotional hatred of the Yankees. Therefore he blogs about the Red Sox, and would not be interested in blogging about the Yankees, even if he were offered money to do so. Allan does not blog to generate income.
Albert Pujols is a professional baseball player. He does not play for a team because of a lifelong emotional attachment to a team, but because it is his job. Like most people, Albert Pujols wants the best value from his job that he can get.
Unlike most people, however, Pujols can only perform his job optimally for a few years, relative to, say, a writer or a lawyer or an accountant. Because of this, Pujols' lifelong earnings are collapsed into relatively short-term contracts - contracts that generate a lot of money for both parties that sign them.
Because of these facts and many others, Pujols' decisions on how to proceed with his career are not the slightest bit analogous to the decision of a Red Sox fan as to what team to blog about.
Usually it is not. "Better deal" is usually objective. People may disagree on which of several deals is better, but they are still arguing about objective facts, not subjective perceptions.
Whether objective or subjective, however, the only opinion that matters about Albert Pujols' deal is Albert Pujols.
Albert Pujols is a professional baseball player. He does not play for a team because of a lifelong emotional attachment to a team, but because it is his job. Like most people, Albert Pujols wants the best value from his job that he can get.
Here is where it was said or implied: (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond)
Clearly, it is implied that being a fan of 35+ years makes the bond more emotional.
Clearly, you are having trouble understanding what Allan wrote. See my translation, perhaps that will help.
You said: People may disagree on which of several deals is better
I'm saying that, what you just said, is what makes it subjective.
You may be unclear about the meaning of objectivity and subjectivity. People can disagree on things that are objective. The fact that something can be debated does not make it subjective.
For what its worth, I would not just take any job that offered me more money.
I'm of the opinion you are splitting hairs on what I am saying
I'm of the opinion I am disagreeing utterly, wholeheartedly and emphatically with what you are saying (when it makes sense, that is (i.e., not the dogs, yachts, and stuff about your parents).
John Thorn educates us about the good old days before the reserve clause when players jumped teams about as often as they changed their underpants.
"But at the dawn of Major League Baseball, before the advent of the reserve clause, [most] player contracts ran for the length of the playing schedule only ... Some owners, seeking to gain an edge, offered contracts in midseason that, after mutual signatures, they mothballed and then postdated. Players sometimes signed with one club in this fashion but, knowing that the deal was secret because it was out of bounds, proceeded to sign with another club after the season if it offered better terms."
The best value for a job may not be the highest salary. I'm sure we can all imagine situations where we would work for less money in order to have (eg) greater job satisfaction or better working conditions. That's why I said "value" not "highest paid".
But if working conditions were essentially the same, and the job satisfaction was essentially the same, and all other factors were pretty much equal, most of us - if not all of us - would rather be paid more than less. I would even venture to say that earning the most we can (again, all other factors being equal) is a responsibility to ourselves and our families.
For what its worth, I would not just take any job that offered me more money. I was raised better than that.
So you are implying that these players weren't "raised better" than you? What is your basis for that? It seems like you are painting with a broad brush here.
Loyalty is a word that is bandied about all too often in professional sports. For perhaps the 20 years after free agency came to baseball in 1976, sportswriters, taking their lead from baseball owners, were quick to accuse ballplayers of not showing "loyalty" to their old teams when they went to a new one.
It took years of counterarguments from the players and a handful of contrarian-minded writers to finally get it into everyone's head that loyalty is a door that swings both ways. When teams got a better offer and pulled up stakes for a new city, loyalty was almost never mentioned. Those in the media simply took it for granted the right of a businessman to relocate anywhere that was more favorable to his business. ...
Misty-eyed nostalgists decried the new way that off-season baseball was played. "Players didn't switch teams like that in my day," they'd say. "They had a sense of loyalty." Yes, they did, and no they didn't. ...
I'm all for Albert Pujols getting a 10-year, $250 million deal from the Los Angeles Angels ...
It's none of my business why Pujols chose the Angels' offer over the Cardinals' reported ten-year, $220 million. ...
But it is entirely my business as a baseball fan to pass judgment and say that Albert Pujols has no concept of loyalty. One of the main reasons he has seemed like such a hero—not just to Cardinals fans but to fans everywhere—has been his oft-stated devotion to St. Louis, to the team, and to their fans. ... [H]e chose to walk away from them for an additional $30 million.
Albert Pujols made $30 million by going to California, but it will cost him an awful lot. I wonder if he has truly stopped to add it up? Above all, he's lost something he's not ever likely to get back: the loyalty of a city and its fans.
Well, Barra says that Pujols talked about that many times, about being to St. Louis what Musial is. Otherwise, I don't think he'd put so much weight on it.
27 comments:
Goin' for it in Disneyland!
Wow, a lot of negative response to this.
Poo-holes is one of the greatest hitters of all-time, but 10 years is a loooooooong time.
More of the negativity seems to be focused on his choice to leave St. Louis and that his decision is worse than the one Lebron James made to leave Cleveland for Miami.
One example from NESN.com...
Another...
Ten years is a long time but, as you said, he's one of the greatest hitters of all-time. It's in line with what A-Rod gets and I would say Pujols is the better player.
I assume that being signed by the Angels is an automatic indication that there is something wrong with Pujols and Wilson. That same front office traded Mike Napoli for Vernon Wells.
I can't click those links, so I will guess what they say. :>) Ordinary people telling extremely talented and in-demand people where they should work - and for how much money - because of some intangible "greater good" for their chosen industry is pretty near the height of obnoxiousness. So they should STFU ASAP!
I wonder what that NESN person would say if I opined that he should stay at NESN for the rest of his career - even if ESPN offers a plum job at 5x the money? He'd probably say, "Who the fuck are you to tell me which job to take? Go mind your own business, doucheweed." Not parallel cases, I know, but ....
Ah, Vernon Wells, who gave the Angels a .248 OBP last year in exchange for $23,000,000.
He turned 33 yesterday. And he is owed $63,000,000 for the next 3 seasons!
So you're saying if someone paid you enough, you'd start a Yankees blog? And stop watching the Red Sox, being a fan of the Red Sox, or anything to do with the Red Sox?
So you're saying if someone paid you enough, you'd start a Yankees blog? And stop watching the Red Sox, being a fan of the Red Sox, or anything to do with the Red Sox?
First, someone has to pay me for this blog. Still fuckin waiting on that ....
More to the point, if I did choose to do that, it would be my choice. Obviously. And I would tell any stranger out there who said I HAD to do something other than what I wanted to do to go fuck themselves.
But your example is really apples and whales to Pujols, since being a fan (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond) has very little, or nothing, to do with his decision.
It would be more like a writer being affiliated with one publisher and then, after 10 years of great success and sales, deciding after his contract ran out to go to another publisher that offered a better deal.
So, you have to have 35+ years in something for the bond to be more emotional?
If I am a fan of yacht racing for 35 years, but if I only went to or watched one race a year, and the guy who lives next door to me has been a fan for only 15 but he goes to every race, who has more of an emotional bond?
Who can even say?
Do you love your new dog less than your old dog because your new dog is new?
And "better deal" is subjective, is it not?
So, you have to have 35+ years in something for the bond to be more emotional?
Where in this thread is that said or implied? Please show me.
But your example is really apples and whales to Pujols, since being a fan (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond) has very little, or nothing, to do with his decision.
It would be more like a writer being affiliated with one publisher and then, after 10 years of great success and sales, deciding after his contract ran out to go to another publisher that offered a better deal.
In case this is not clear, I will attempt to clarify Allan's very clear English.
Allan is a Red Sox fan with a deep emotional attachment to the Red Sox, and a deep emotional hatred of the Yankees. Therefore he blogs about the Red Sox, and would not be interested in blogging about the Yankees, even if he were offered money to do so. Allan does not blog to generate income.
Albert Pujols is a professional baseball player. He does not play for a team because of a lifelong emotional attachment to a team, but because it is his job. Like most people, Albert Pujols wants the best value from his job that he can get.
Unlike most people, however, Pujols can only perform his job optimally for a few years, relative to, say, a writer or a lawyer or an accountant. Because of this, Pujols' lifelong earnings are collapsed into relatively short-term contracts - contracts that generate a lot of money for both parties that sign them.
Because of these facts and many others, Pujols' decisions on how to proceed with his career are not the slightest bit analogous to the decision of a Red Sox fan as to what team to blog about.
And "better deal" is subjective, is it not?
Usually it is not. "Better deal" is usually objective. People may disagree on which of several deals is better, but they are still arguing about objective facts, not subjective perceptions.
Whether objective or subjective, however, the only opinion that matters about Albert Pujols' deal is Albert Pujols.
I can't click those links, so I will guess what they say. :>)
Whoops -- my bad!
Albert Pujols Chases the Money, Proves He's No Better Than Any Big-Money Free Agent
Albert Pujols Could Surpass LeBron James as Most Vilified Sports Star in America
Albert Pujols is a professional baseball player. He does not play for a team because of a lifelong emotional attachment to a team, but because it is his job. Like most people, Albert Pujols wants the best value from his job that he can get.
Per usual, you nailed it on the head, Laura.
You said: "Where in this thread is that said or implied? Please show me."
Here is where it was said or implied: (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond)
Clearly, it is implied that being a fan of 35+ years makes the bond more emotional.
So if it is your job, its ok to throw loyalty out the window for a bigger paycheck?
You said: People may disagree on which of several deals is better
I'm saying that, what you just said, is what makes it subjective.
As for the rest, we can agree to disagree because I'm of the opinion you are splitting hairs on what I am saying.
For what its worth, I would not just take any job that offered me more money. I was raised better than that.
Here is where it was said or implied: (a fan of 35+ years, which means a deeper emotional bond)
Clearly, it is implied that being a fan of 35+ years makes the bond more emotional.
Clearly, you are having trouble understanding what Allan wrote. See my translation, perhaps that will help.
You said: People may disagree on which of several deals is better
I'm saying that, what you just said, is what makes it subjective.
You may be unclear about the meaning of objectivity and subjectivity. People can disagree on things that are objective. The fact that something can be debated does not make it subjective.
For what its worth, I would not just take any job that offered me more money.
It's worth nothing.
I'm of the opinion you are splitting hairs on what I am saying
I'm of the opinion I am disagreeing utterly, wholeheartedly and emphatically with what you are saying (when it makes sense, that is (i.e., not the dogs, yachts, and stuff about your parents).
John Thorn educates us about the good old days before the reserve clause when players jumped teams about as often as they changed their underpants.
"But at the dawn of Major League Baseball, before the advent of the reserve clause, [most] player contracts ran for the length of the playing schedule only ... Some owners, seeking to gain an edge, offered contracts in midseason that, after mutual signatures, they mothballed and then postdated. Players sometimes signed with one club in this fashion but, knowing that the deal was secret because it was out of bounds, proceeded to sign with another club after the season if it offered better terms."
FenFan, many thanks. :)
The best value for a job may not be the highest salary. I'm sure we can all imagine situations where we would work for less money in order to have (eg) greater job satisfaction or better working conditions. That's why I said "value" not "highest paid".
But if working conditions were essentially the same, and the job satisfaction was essentially the same, and all other factors were pretty much equal, most of us - if not all of us - would rather be paid more than less. I would even venture to say that earning the most we can (again, all other factors being equal) is a responsibility to ourselves and our families.
For what its worth, I would not just take any job that offered me more money. I was raised better than that.
So you are implying that these players weren't "raised better" than you? What is your basis for that? It seems like you are painting with a broad brush here.
A lot of hoopla here about Albert.
Seeing this won't really effect us til October..
Jeremy are you a Cardinal fan?
Allen Barra:
Loyalty is a word that is bandied about all too often in professional sports. For perhaps the 20 years after free agency came to baseball in 1976, sportswriters, taking their lead from baseball owners, were quick to accuse ballplayers of not showing "loyalty" to their old teams when they went to a new one.
It took years of counterarguments from the players and a handful of contrarian-minded writers to finally get it into everyone's head that loyalty is a door that swings both ways. When teams got a better offer and pulled up stakes for a new city, loyalty was almost never mentioned. Those in the media simply took it for granted the right of a businessman to relocate anywhere that was more favorable to his business. ...
Misty-eyed nostalgists decried the new way that off-season baseball was played. "Players didn't switch teams like that in my day," they'd say. "They had a sense of loyalty." Yes, they did, and no they didn't. ...
I'm all for Albert Pujols getting a 10-year, $250 million deal from the Los Angeles Angels ...
It's none of my business why Pujols chose the Angels' offer over the Cardinals' reported ten-year, $220 million. ...
But it is entirely my business as a baseball fan to pass judgment and say that Albert Pujols has no concept of loyalty. One of the main reasons he has seemed like such a hero—not just to Cardinals fans but to fans everywhere—has been his oft-stated devotion to St. Louis, to the team, and to their fans. ... [H]e chose to walk away from them for an additional $30 million.
Albert Pujols made $30 million by going to California, but it will cost him an awful lot. I wonder if he has truly stopped to add it up? Above all, he's lost something he's not ever likely to get back: the loyalty of a city and its fans.
***
Above all, he's lost something he's not ever likely to get back: the loyalty of a city and its fans.
Quite honestly, I don't know why Pujols would care about this. It's another intangible - a pretty make-believe.
Good piece by Barra, other than that bit.
Well, Barra says that Pujols talked about that many times, about being to St. Louis what Musial is. Otherwise, I don't think he'd put so much weight on it.
That makes more sense, then. It makes Pujol's choice more puzzling, or at least in need of explanation.
Post a Comment