Pujols submitted list of teams for potential trade

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_ba ... trade.html?

I'm not sure how many people saw this, but I stumbled across it this morning. He gave a small list of teams that he would be open playing for if he were to be traded. Now, I believe he will likely remain a Cardinal, but being a Dodger fan, it brought me a little glimmer of hope. If the McCourt's can get the divorce mess finalized, the Dodgers might be able to compete for him provided the money is there.

tommyfro21 said:

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_baseball_marlins/2010/09/florida-marlins-among-teams-to-which-albert-pujols-would-accept-a-trade.html?

I'm not sure how many people saw this, but I stumbled across it this morning. He gave a small list of teams that he would be open playing for if he were to be traded. Now, I believe he will likely remain a Cardinal, but being a Dodger fan, it brought me a little glimmer of hope. If the McCourt's can get the divorce mess finalized, the Dodgers might be able to compete for him provided the money is there.

Click to expand...

I read the Rangers inked a new TV deal with FOX which will make them a ton of money per-season. The Dodgers are in a similar position with their TV deal with FOX (whose broadcast duo I cannot stomach). The discussion could lead to an extension with FOX which could lead to more money for the team OR the Dodgers could go the route of the Yankees and Red Sox and create a TV channel of their own giving them MORE money to spend.

Who wouldn't want to see Pujols in a Dodger uni? I'd love from Matt Kemp to have Pujols as a player-mentor.

The problem: the more lucrative Dodger TV route is expensive up front and with the current McCourt situation it'll be difficult to say how much $$ owners will be willing to spend.

Albert will go to were ever the money is. He will stay and then ask for way to much from the Cardinals and then the Yankees will sign him to 400 million a season for 10 seasons. and they will dump Tex in the process.

WHAT... No O's.... :shock: :shock:

:twisted: :twisted:







:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

The rangers deal I believe will net them 150 million a year. That would be 3 times the current payroll for the rangers. The park would be an awesome place for pujols

What do you all think potential trades would be for each team? The posted article mentions potential deals with the Marlins, centered around Hanley.

But for you guys saying Dodgers and Rangers, who do you think your team would have to give up to trade for Pujols?

bouwob said:

The rangers deal I believe will net them 150 million a year. That would be 3 times the current payroll for the rangers. The park would be an awesome place for pujols

Click to expand...

That number is 100% false. Their deal is in the 75-76 million per year range.

No Rays. Damn.

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

lol wft

taking it to a further galaxy

rico08 said:

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

lol wft

taking it to a further galaxy

Click to expand...

Not sure what the issue is. I'm simply illustrating how signing with another team has nothing to do with being a good guy.

bouwob said:

The rangers deal I believe will net them 150 million a year. That would be 3 times the current payroll for the rangers. The park would be an awesome place for pujols

Click to expand...

can you imagine the hr numbers he would put up in that park

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

What do you all think potential trades would be for each team? The posted article mentions potential deals with the Marlins, centered around Hanley.

But for you guys saying Dodgers and Rangers, who do you think your team would have to give up to trade for Pujols?

Click to expand...

I would think the Dodgers would be asked to give up something like Billingsley and Loney plus 2 key prospects. Of course, this would only happen pending a long term deal with the Dodgers prior to the trade.

tommyfro21 said:

ALL_THE_HYPE said:

What do you all think potential trades would be for each team? The posted article mentions potential deals with the Marlins, centered around Hanley.

But for you guys saying Dodgers and Rangers, who do you think your team would have to give up to trade for Pujols?

Click to expand...

I would think the Dodgers would be asked to give up something like Billingsley and Loney plus 2 key prospects. Of course, this would only happen pending a long term deal with the Dodgers prior to the trade.

Click to expand...

Billingsley is gone from LA the first chance he gets, so it'd make sense for the Dodgers to move him for something while they have him. Realistically, it'd take Bills, Jensen, Loney, and Jerry Sands for Pujols (w/ an extension already worked out). For the Rangers, they'd probably start at Feliz, Andrus, Martin Perez, plus a mid tier prospect. And since the Angels are on his list as well, I'd have to think the deal would be centered around Trout, Napoli, Walden, and Chatwood.

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

The comments weren't directly related. The first was my opinion and hopes on Pujols so that fellow Cardinals fans understood where I was coming from. I then explained that you can't be about winning while financially hand-cuffing an organization for the length of your stay.

He could sign with a another team for more money and I will still view him as a good guy. But, if he does that then he is full of hot air and a lot of his comments will come back to haunt him...much like LeBron James and his stunt.

Adamsince1981 said:

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

The comments weren't directly related. The first was my opinion and hopes on Pujols so that fellow Cardinals fans understood where I was coming from. I then explained that you can't be about winning while financially hand-cuffing an organization for the length of your stay.

He could sign with a another team for more money and I will still view him as a good guy. But, if he does that then he is full of hot air and a lot of his comments will come back to haunt him...much like LeBron James and his stunt.

Click to expand...

but lebron james signed for less money than what cleveland would have gave him because he wanted to win.

KOBEARODLT said:

Adamsince1981 said:

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

The comments weren't directly related. The first was my opinion and hopes on Pujols so that fellow Cardinals fans understood where I was coming from. I then explained that you can't be about winning while financially hand-cuffing an organization for the length of your stay.

He could sign with a another team for more money and I will still view him as a good guy. But, if he does that then he is full of hot air and a lot of his comments will come back to haunt him...much like LeBron James and his stunt.

Click to expand...

but lebron james signed for less money than what cleveland would have gave him because he wanted to win.

Click to expand...

Depends on the taxes in each city he considered

But seriously, I don't care if he takes more money. And the James comment had nothing to do with how much money he accepted, it had to do with how he handled it.

The bottom line is I like Pujols, I hope he is a life-long Cardinal, and he is a good guy. But, if he doesn't re-sign with the Cardinals then he is full of crap and would have been better off keeping his mouth shut about his future and minded his own business during the Rasmus flare up.

Adamsince1981 said:

KOBEARODLT said:

Adamsince1981 said:

Topnotchsy said:

Adamsince1981 said:

The Pujols watch is going to get really interesting. Between his comments on winning and his comments towards Rasmus during that whole fiasco; it seems as though as long as the Cardinals treat him fairly and he agrees to defer some of his contract, he should be a Cardinal for life.

As a Cardinals fan, I want Pujols to be a Cardinal for life and I truly believe he is a good guy that cares about winning and doing good works.

However, if he proves to only be about the most amount of money possible and really holds the Cardinals to the fire; then I would have to lean towards trading him in 2011. After all, if we can't sign anyone else; then how are we expected to put a winning team together for him? I love Pujols and would want nothing more than to see him play every game of his MLB career with the birds across his chest. But at the same time, I don't want to watch a financially crippled team that are continually cycling through AAAA reserve OFers and project pitchers as our 3, 4, and 5 guys in the rotation.

Any way, I hope Pujols is a Cardinal in 2012; but I only hope that if it is good for the organization.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what the connection between being a "good guy" and trying to get the most money possible is? If trying to get the highest salary eliminates someone from being a "good guy" there are very few good guys out there in the world.
Taking it a little further, if Pujols considers an offer from the Cardinals, accepts an offer from another team for more and uses the difference to fund his charity work, would that not mean he is a good guy?

Click to expand...

The comments weren't directly related. The first was my opinion and hopes on Pujols so that fellow Cardinals fans understood where I was coming from. I then explained that you can't be about winning while financially hand-cuffing an organization for the length of your stay.

He could sign with a another team for more money and I will still view him as a good guy. But, if he does that then he is full of hot air and a lot of his comments will come back to haunt him...much like LeBron James and his stunt.

Click to expand...

but lebron james signed for less money than what cleveland would have gave him because he wanted to win.

Click to expand...

Depends on the taxes in each city he considered

But seriously, I don't care if he takes more money. And the James comment had nothing to do with how much money he accepted, it had to do with how he handled it.

The bottom line is I like Pujols, I hope he is a life-long Cardinal, and he is a good guy. But, if he doesn't re-sign with the Cardinals then he is full of crap and would have been better off keeping his mouth shut about his future and minded his own business during the Rasmus flare up.

Click to expand...

Pujols asking to be paid the going market rate has nothing to do with "financially handcuffing the organization". If Pujols signs for a hometown discount, the owners who (already make millions in profits off the team each year) are the ones who reap the benefits. When the Cards front office says 'we can't sign Pujols and that extra starting pitcher we need', what they neglect to say is '... because it will eat into OUR $20 million profit on the team'.

What would be fair is for the Cards to work out a deal where for every dollar they underpay Pujols, they add $2 to the payroll over the life of his contract. Otherwise, he's the only one giving up anything.

Of course, if ownership refuses to do that, then they're not about winning and should just shut their yaps.

No Yanks, he could play outfield like he used to!