Thursday, February 17, 2011

Seeing Red

Alas, just when I was about to become a true fan of baseball again, it is looking highly unlikely that arguably the best player in the game today will be with my team longer than this next season.  For the [St. Louis Cardinals] let [the deadline pass] without making [Albert Pujols] on offer that he couldn’t refuse.

Subsequently, this has left me seeing red.  No, not Cardinal red—boiling mad red!  For I am too angry to spit over the Cardinals refusing to meet his demands, and just as flustered over Pujols demanding so much.

It has been reported that he seeking $30 million a year for 10 years, which boggles my mind, but when what he means to the team is factored in, is it really too much to ask?  I mean, he has never had a bad season, and without him, the Cardinals would be doing well to stay out of the cellar of the [National League’s Central Division].

Besides, it’s not like the Cardinals cannot afford to pay him what he wants.  For they are owned by [Anheuser-Busch], and the team has a quite rabid national following, which probably doesn’t have all that much to do with beer.

Yeah, having the means to pay is beside the point to most.  “No one is worth that much,” is an old argument, and with millions still being without a paycheck of any amount, you would think that Pujols would be receiving death threats.

There might even be some justification for such extreme vitriol if he was taking food out of starving mouths, but Pujols’ [humanitarian efforts] are legendary.  So, who is being hurt more by not paying him what the market will sustain?

No, I have no doubt that representatives from several teams will be lined-up at his locker after the last pitch of this coming season has been thrown, and with there being no salary cap in place, there is no telling how high the bidding will go.  He wants to stay a Cardinal.  Should they not pay him enough to make it worth his while?

Please Also Visit:
and

2 comments:

Adullamite said...

$30 million to play rounders? Ptah!

It is interesting to cogitate (look it up) on what sport of whatever sort means to people. Football (the real stuff) is often called 'war without weapons.' It allows nations to be vehement at one another and then shake hands. Winning or losing any game can however lead to ecstasy or depression!

In the US sport is also used to bring a township together, the 'college' games gather strong support in a way school games in the UK never do. Maybe that is a subject to ponder. After all we pay sportsmen vast sums, usually through TV deals, and respond to their success or lack of it with great emotion.

FishHawk said...

Thanks for stopping by again, my dear Adullamite!!! You have hit on a very important point that far too many just do not get. For the success (or failure) of a local team often sets the mood for the entire community, which touches even those who despise sports. It is for this reason that I hope the St. Louis Cardinals can sign Pujols, but considering their track-record, it is not looking good.

By the way, I can't remember the exact numbers, but the combined salaries of Manchester United and Manchester City is three times the highest combined salaries of the two highest teams in our four major sports of baseball, basketball, football and hockey. I believe it was $850 million for the Manchesters while the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox (baseball) were at around $237 million. Mind you, these figures are per year!