Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
That ball is still flying.
I do think it hurts his legacy. In the Hall of Fame class of a few years ago, Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripkin Jr. were reveared and got over 90% of the voting alot due to playing an entire career with one team.
The more rare it is for a player to play his entire career for one team in todays game, the more valued it is. Pujols has now lost this.
|
I agree in that there is value for a player's legacy to play his whole career out in one city - but with the way revenues vary throughout the league, you can't blame some of these players for chasing the money either. What if Pujols was a Pittsburgh Pirate per se - would people still feel the same way? What is Pittsburgh was 40 mill short on a 200 million dollar offer from another club? Do people still feel the same way, I don't know. Money is money, and I will never be fortunate enough to know the difference between 200 million and 240 million - but regardless, it is still 40 million, and something most, if not all, will ever experience.
Or is this simply because St Louis has been successful with him, and were able to offer similiar *me assuming* dollars to what Pujols accepted in Anaheim? Essentially, what I am getting at, is it all comes down to dollars in the end. Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Jose Reyes, Manny Ramirez, Nick Hundley (
) - the greatest players of our time, all have chased the money. I wish it were different, as I miss the days where the crest on the jersey meant more than the thickness of ones wallet. But reality says those days are long gone - as it has become more of a status claiming ritual. I am better than player x, so I will get more money than him - regardless if it is with their hometown club or not. It really is a sad state, and I do feel terrible for Cardinal fans especially, as they are probably the best fans the MLB has to offer. I would only imagine this feels a lot like losing a son.