Starved for baseball news of any kind and especially frantically searching for any smoke signals from the continuing contract negotiations between superstar Albert Pujols and the St. Louis Cardinals, a segment of the fans and media went nuts Saturday when ESPN’s Buster Olney reported a rumor that the first baseman would veto any trades presented him.
National media like Sporting News and even MLB.com amplified the report. In every rehashed version I read, the fact it was an unsubstantiated rumor was conveniently left out, instead representing this as bonafide news from the Pujols camp.
Doesn’t anyone out there have a common sense filter? Someone needs to bring a group of Cardinals fans down from the ledge. I am going to try to do my best here to talk some reason into them.
Of course, Pujols does not want to be traded. The whole thing is one big hypothetical exercise.
From a business perspective, as a player with ten years as a major leaguer, the last five with one team, Pujols enjoys full no-trade protection. Sure, the club could try to buy him out of it, but why would they even risk trying? Consider the potential negative ramifications of going down that path.
First and foremost, why would Pujols want to give up the built-in contract leverage he enjoys by being the face of the Cardinals franchise? If he wants to remain a career-long Cardinal as he has stated many times, he would be motivated to remain with the team and try to work out a deal, even if negotiations stretch into the fall and winter.
From a personal perspective, why would Pujols want to turn himself into a baseball vagabond, playing one uncertain season with a new club leading up to free agency and likely moving to a third team next winter?
For a player who intensely focuses on preparation for every game and does not want in-season contract distractions, a trade to a new city would increase his 2011 year-long distraction level many fold. Perhaps Pujols could block it all out and have a typical MVP-level season, but what if not?
Pujols’ only reasons for considering the above would be a desire to chase the largest contract possible via free agency. That is a position he has yet to take, at least publicly.
Then we have the fact that the Cardinals have never even hinted to anyone that they would consider dealing Pujols away, in the past or present.
Could the idea have been floated as a negotiating tactic? Could it have been leaked by one camp to send a message to the other? Perhaps, but we have no way of knowing one way or another. Even if was mentioned in their talks, it doesn’t mean there is any substance behind it.
Should the Cardinals have discussed the subject internally? One would hope they have long considered all alternatives, but any realistic Pujols trade scenarios evaporated at last year’s July 31 non-waiver trade deadline.
Until Pujols reached his ten-year MLB anniversary last season, the Cardinals could have dealt him without his consent. His contract did have a short list of teams with whom he would not play, but surely one of the many others would have wanted up to two years of his services had he been made available.
The Cardinals did not pursue that avenue in 2010 and prior, surely because they expected to re-sign their first baseman. At this point, they should be given the time to try to do just that. There are no indications that the team is anywhere near frustrated enough with negotiations to have reached the point of no return – a trade.
At the current time, Pujols’ relative market value would be depressed, anyway. While the take could be more than the two draft picks the club would receive if Pujols walks next fall, it might not be substantially greater. Reference this analysis of a comparable situation with Mark Teixeira to appreciate the decline in trade value of a top player as free agency approaches.
Folks should hold the over-reaction until there is actual substance to react to, something that is actually news. Olney’s common sense rumor clearly isn’t it.
Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
The story is also on the Cardinals official website. Just sayin.
Yes, in fact I linked to the MLB.com article above. All they did was what a hundred bloggers also did, which was to shave the rough edges off Olney’s rumor to make it appear as an absolute, straight from Albert’s lips.
You would think the Cardinals official site wouldn’t pass on unsubstantated rumor regarding the Albert negotiation. Unless they have no control over their site linking to the story from MLB.com. Or unless they want it passed on. Most likely, Olney didn’t just make it up, somebody probably told him. We don’t know the source, maybe the Cards, maybe not
The teams do not control the editorial content of what appears on the site or no self-respecting professional journalist like Matthew Leach would bother working there. Certainly, MLB.com is not anywhere near the bleeding edge in terms of rumor reporting or anything that might embarrass teams, but it is really a big stretch to assume a rumor is legitimate just because they wrote that someone else wrote about it.
And even if the rumor is true, so what? Like I said before, it is common sense that Pujols would not want to be traded. It isn’t much of a news flash, IMO.
If the Cards reach the conclusion they can not / will not re-sign Pujols than a trade could make sense for both sides. That assumes it comes with a pre-negotiated contract extension. The Cards would get more than the 2 comp draft picks, Pujols would assumingly get the contract he wants and the stability of not having to go through a lame duck contract year. He gets to move his family and get settled sooner rather than later.
The Adrian Gonzalez situation is a perfect example of this — an apparent win-win-win for the PAdres, Red Sox, and Gonzalez.
The Gonzalez haul is a better indication of Pujols trade value. Padres got significantly more value than 2 draft picks and Pujols would undoubtedly bring a bigger haul.
I am not surprised that the rumors exists but much like I never once believed that Franklin would retire after 2010 I dont believe in the right situation that Pujols would not accept a trade.
CC, while your scenario is certainly realistic, there are two reasons why I do not believe it is practical – lack of motivation and lack of time, even if there was motivation.
I believe Pujols when he says he does not want to be bothered with any contract discussions while he is focused on baseball. That would certainly include an even more disruptive trade. While I don’t know him well, I have established this perception from years of watching and listening.
Taking that at face value means the Cardinals would have two weeks to:
1) Come to the conclusion they cannot sign Pujols now or later. This is a HUGE decision to make.
2) Approach him about waiving his no-trade protection, something Olney reports would not be successful.
3) Work an acceptable trade with another club.
4) Ensure the trade partner develops a viable contract extension proposal.
5) Convince Pujols to accept both the trade and the extension.
Once the Cardinals would decide to head down this path, if ANY ONE of those steps fail before camp begins, you may as well write off the 2011 season. Pujols becomes the biggest unhappy lame duck in MLB history. The Cardinals are vilifed for blowing the negotiations and everything swirls down the proverbial toilet.
I don’t often agree with RCW, but one place where we do agree is that the realistic trade window for Pujols passed last year.
It isn’t about or going to be about getting the biggest haul for him in trade. I firmly believe that at this point, the Cardinals are “all in” on keeping Pujols. Of course, Team Pujols knows that, too…
I have no idea if this would happen but it is not hard to imagine. And in response to your point, there is plenty of time still to make this happen..
Responses in order
1) For all we know they may have reached this conclusion. If after talking for weeks they dont have a good feel for this than are so outclassed in the negotiationg game they should default to this conclusion.
2) A phone call away – since we have no idea if Olney has a clue, for all we know the Pujols camp has said they would accept a trade. In any case, this is not much of a time consumer.
3) probably the long tail here, if they have any doubts at all about signing him (which they should know at this point) they should have been working on this already.
4) Many examples of this being done quickly in a 3 day window.
5) See #2 — not sure what they can do to convince to him. Either he will see the advantages for him – resolving his future quickly, removing the risk of injury, etc. or he wont.
I’ve never accused Gm’s of being the brightest bulbs, so their ability to proceed down dual paths simultaneously is certainly open to question.
Well, they’re certainly not as smart as us!
……………..Albert will be signed by the Cardinals…..sooner or later and its going to be for BIG money. Both sides are just PR bombing each other in order to try to force the other side to give a little.
I know Brian disagrees but this deal was fumbled from jump street by the Cardinals it appears today. But that being said, maybe the Cardinals knew they were gonna have to break the bank eventually and have decided to just milk the situation and hope to play off a possible desire by Albert to stay in St. Louis.
Its just time killer reading these articles or tweets and such because in the end Albert will sign with the cardinals because all other scenarios leave the Cardinals looking like the biggest flop at amateur night at the apollo.
RC, you and I are on the same wavelength today. I am marking it down!
Just so we don’t become too sympatico around here, this is for RC, crdswmn and others who feel the Cardinals should have signed Pujols early.
What would have it taken to get Pujols motivated to give up his leverage and do that? If one believes the A-Rod deal is the benchmark, it was the same benchmark then, just as it is now. Everything that has happened since, Holliday, Howard, Werth, etc., is entirely irrelevant to Pujols.
If you believe the Cards should have gotten it done earlier, you either think:
1) Pujols would have accepted a discount off the A-Rod amount, settling early for less than the top-paid player.
or
2) The Cardinals should have offered A-Rod money all along.
Personally, I don’t think #1 would have happened and the timing for #2 is immaterial – signing a record deal then or now is the same end result.
What is your basis for believing #1 would not have happened? It appears to me that you are assuming money would have been THE only motivating factor at that time. Maybe Pujols would have demanded A-Rod money at that time, but maybe he wouldn’t have. We don’t know what his motivations would have been at that time. When one is given time to determine what aspects of the contract are the most important, money isn’t always the primary factor. I have seen people who have settled cases based on non-monetary issues all the time when give time to evaluate what is important to them. Most of my settlements occurred over a period of 6 months to a year. Many times these people have issues that are important to them that don’t involve money. However, when you put pressure on people, the inate F you comes out, and the whole dynamic changes. People become unreasonable, irrational, and downright nasty.
I’m not saying for a certainty that Pujols would not have taken the big money stand a year ago. What I am saying is that the chances that he would not were better a year ago than they are today. Now he is probably in F you mode, and as RC says, the Cardinals are going to have to take one up the tailpipe or suffer the consequences.
We don’t know. We have to make our own educated guesses. I could see zero motivation for Pujols to sign early (in 2010 for example) unless it was a deal that blew him away – the same kind of deal it will take now. If I was his agent, that is how I would have played it.
If we believe what Joe Strauss reports, the terms the Pujols camp gave the Cardinals last year was 10 years/$300 million. If true, I can understand why the Cardinals did not hop all over that.
You think Pujols is angry and wants to stick it to the team. I didn’t come away from listening to him with that perspective, but we don’t know.
Well we keep seeing that angry Albert photo
I don’t know that he is angry I only know that in high pressure negotiations such as this one, anger is often present. By the same token, Albert may not be the only one who is angry. Like you said , we don’t know.
This is where Me and Brian differ in our thought process.
I believe that the cardinals could have gotten either Albert to re-up for great money, just not record breaking money a year or so back before he reached 10/5 status if Albert had been truthful about wanting to stay in St. Louis.
And if he didn’t agree to sign for great money then he should have been dealt after the club made it real public that Albert wouldn’t sign for great money. His halo would have been tarnished and the majority of fans wouldn’t have given a hoot if Albert would have then been traded for what could have arguable been the biggest haul of prospects ever traded for.
The club imo either misread Albert by not forcing him to make a public decision to either sign or look like a money grubbing guy.
And now we have reached a point where the Cardinals cannot afford for Albert to leave at the end of the year because two players for Albert leaving would put the Cardinals right up there next to the Red Sox and the Babe Ruth deal.
So Albert knows this and won’t bite on any deal less than record breaking because he knows there is nothing the Cardinals can do but pay him. Alberts people are not dummies, they have played this thing as solidly as one can play it.
And then there is this……If the above is not correct then the Cardinals knew all along that they would come to this point and didn’t sign Albert early because of possible injury concerns and knew that they would be in this very position and ultimately hoped that they could save a few bucks somewhere along the line but were going to eventually break the bank and sign Albert to ARod money.
Pujols did say he wanted to stay in St. Louis. However, he never said how much money it would take to accomplish that. Folks expecting a home town discount before or after may be a bit naive.
I personally believe this was the plan all along for Albert but the “I want to stay in St. Louis” stuff was spoken in order to keep the club at bay and give them a sense of Albert wanting to be in St.Louis was going to help them in negotiations.
Wronggggggg!!!
A great man once said,” the Cardinals position in the market is the foundation for the AP strategy”.
Correction to my comment just above. Joe Strauss recently reported that the Pujols camp last year did tell the Cardinals what they wanted – 10 years, $300 million. Why would the team have snapped that up early? I am pretty sure, angry or not, they could get the same deal today…
I had a case where my client asked for 75 million dollars to settle a $5,000 case. It settled for $6,000. Of course the Pujols camp came in with that figure. So what? Is that proof they intended to stick to it? No half brained negotiator would come in with an extreme highball amount and expect to get it.
And yes, they could get it now because they have the Cardinals by the balls. Not so a year ago.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe they had the Cardinals last year, too. All time has allowed is a tighter grip. End result is the same. Either Cards pay big money or he is gone.
How did they have the Cardinals last year? He didn’t have his 10/5 rights. They could have told him to come off his demands or they would trade his sorry ass to Pittsburgh.
Well, that would have definitely have created an adversarial environment. I am just being repetitive so I will stop, but the Cardinals’ entire strategy has to have been predicated on them believing they could eventually sign him without considerable broken glass.
I’m a lawyer it is my nature to be adversarial.
I gave an extreme example, but the point is the Cardinals did have some leverage a year ago that they don’t have today. If the Cardinals strategy was/is as you say, then somebody in the FO flunked negotiation 101.
I was going to quote Sun Tsu about losing battle and winning war, but decided not to…
All this 10-5… only getting two players in draft for Albert if he goes to FA is based on a false notion… the idea that trading is the only way to recoup Albert’s loss… if that happens. But it’s not. If he goes FA and is signed elsewhere, the team gets the picks PLUS it has the money in hand they were prepared to play Albert to use in the free agent market or in a combinations of trades and FA signings.
Ownership is on record… both BDII and BDIII saying they were unwilling to pay $30M/year. If other teams like the Yankees and Phils want to do that.. well, good on them. No reason the Cards should be stupid too… even to keep one of the game’s iconic players. NO player, IMO, is worth that much and to concentrate that much of the team payroll in one place would be a bad move that would eventually hurt the team.
Albert’s said repeatedly he’s all about winning, not about money. If that turns out to have been BS, then no big loss… he wasn’t the man nor the Cardinal we thought he was.
Common ground!
There’s another one for Brian’s calendar!!!
Even if the Cardinals got two highly rated players via a trade they would be more proven that the compensation picks that the Cardinals will receive if Albert were to leave. The end of round one plus a comp pick is still a couple of long odds of being dominant players. Whereas the players acquired in a trade would likely already be proven somewhat. But my guess is that if Albert had been dealt the cardinals would have received a good bit more than 2 players.
Agree that had he been dealt previously, the take would have been greater. The whole Teixeira example showed how the players received in return dropped from five top prospects 1 1/2 years out to two lesser players 1/2 year away from free agency.
A small point, but if Pujols signs elsewhere, the first pick received could be as early as #16 (or as late as #30 as you said or, gasp, a second-rounder after the sandwich pick). We all know someone taken at 28th overall in 2005, though the lost development time until the pick became major league-ready is a very valid point. One has to hope it doesn’t get to that or I will join you in saying the team’s negotiating strategy failed.
You’re still missing it a little RC… it’s not just the draft picks vs. prospects. It’s (perhaps) $25M+ in hand to use in the free agent market PLUS those draft picks. In the FA market you can get experienced players, same as in trade. For instance, that $25M might fetch Holliday and Berkman… I get your point that draft picks won’t be as far along the development ladder as top-level prospects… but that’s only part of the picture.
Personally, I don’t think a trade has ever been considered. The team has repeatedly said they want to keep him and Albert’s said he wants to stay. Question is, can they agree on dollars and length of contract? Using the threat of trade, prior to 5-10, would have been a hostile 7 aggressive move… not to mention at cross-purposes with the team’s stated goal.
HB, Trust me when I tell you I get your point about Alberts salary allowing the cardinals to sign other players.
Look at Texas this year. Read this article and tell me you still think that the Cardinals couldn’t have done better than two possibly low picks.
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/mlb/columns/story?columnist=durrett_richard&id=5686534
And after getting a bunch of more proven prospects they would have still been able to sign players with Alberts money. Which deal do you think would be better? No way you can’t see that by trading Albert way back (if he didn’t choose to re-up) the Cardinals could have added serious good pieces to their team.
RC — Don’t have any problem acknowledging your point, just don’t agree that was the club’s goal, and never saw you factoring in my point about using Albert’s potential pay for other players (until just now). You’ve only been talking draft picks.
The team’s goal was/is to sign and keep Albert, and you don’t do that by trading him or by threatening to trade him. I think the team will make him a fair offer, but not top dollar for 10 years. If he doesn’t sign, the Cardinals will survive. If he does, the Cardinals will survive. This was a storied and successful franchise before he came and will be after he’s done.
Rangers improved after trading Texeira and didn’t even raise payroll.
The ultimatum thing causing bad blood is a red Herring. You simply tell Albert (at the time) that if he doesn’t sign for what is a fair offer the team will have to explore it’s options. If he signs, everybody is happy. Albert is rich, the profit rolls in, and there would have been no real trade talk to be upset about. If he doesn’t sign, he is traded (And gets rich elsewhere) but if he’s pissed that is some other team’s problem.
HB, the way this has been played is just bad business imo. Giving Albert an ultimatum with a contract that still could have been 26 or so million bucks a year would have been good business.
Because had Albert decided that he wanted something more than what was doable for the Cardinals they could have traded him and really helped the team ala the Texas Rangers in the process.
No matter how you shake it out giving him 300 million bucks for 10 years is absolutely ridiculous bad business. And imo the Cardinals cannot afford to do that deal and still field a team capable of winning. Albert is a stud but watch him run….he isn’t far from falling apart body wise. He will be a shell of his former self in 6 years…possibly before and you will have a Barry Zito contract on your hand.
But the cardinals will give it to Albert because of how poorly this situation was handled by them. At this point, like I stated earlier, they will look like a bunch of business school flunkies if Albert walks and they get two picks, a low round one pick or like Brian said possibly a round two pick, plus a supplemental pick. They would be a laughing stock. They won’t let that happen at this point.
RC – I don’t think the Cards will give AP anything like 10/30… I agree that would be a bad deal and it’s precisely why they won’t make it. You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of this ownership group. If you and I can see it, they can too.
Should AP not sign and depart via FA, there will be fan discontent. But it will be tempered by the knowledge that the team made him a fair offer, and that he turned it down to seek the big money somewhere else. That will set him up as a hypocrite, for saying winning meant more to him than money, and then going for the money, for saying he wanted to be a Cardinal for life and then leaving for money. He’ll be the one who set up a deadline and who refuses a trade if a deal isn’t done. That makes HIM the bad guy, not ownership.
Greed won’t sell in this environment or in the city of StL, where baseball is more than just a game or a business. Not being a Cards fan, you may not fully appreciate the attachment and loyalty our fans have to this team over any ONE player.
If the team had traded him, as you suggest, they could improve the team… but it’s not the only way to do it… and it sets up ownership as the bad guy… no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Not to get into Westy territory here… but I think they’re playing this as well as they possibly can… and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see Albert fold his hand and sign up for a reasonable deal that isn’t top dollar or set up to pay him into his 40′s.
HB, I have to agree with RC. I have been a Cardinals fan since I was old enough to know what baseball was. Up until now, at this time, with this player, I would agree with everything you said about Cardinals fans loyalty to the team. But at least in my lifetime, the Cardinal fans have not experienced a player like Pujols. Great players have come and gone with fan dismay and disappointment but life went on. It is different now with Albert and if he leaves, I think you will see the fan reaction will be much different than you think it will be. ‘Make him a reasonable offer and if he leaves the fans will get over it’, is not going to play in this situation.
Personally, I will get over it if he leaves. Not so sure about the rest of Cardinal Nation.
crdswmn — The Nation has no two more rabid fans than we are… If we can deal with it, so will the rest… especially if Albert plays the role of villain. Hopefully, it won’t come to that.
I think you are mistaken HB, but we’ll see.
Underestimating the intelligence of this ownership group?
There is no way to shake this thing out where the cardinals fail to sign Albert. But for some reason if they didn’t sign him I would take issue with your intelligence statement. This would have been bungled and I mean Big time if Albert were not to sign.
I do understand the passion that cards fans have for their team. One need not be a cards fan to see that their love for the cardinals is rare indeed and serious.
It could have been played where the clubs offer was on the front page of the paper and if that offer was upwards of 25 million then there is no way the club would have been the villain if Albert had turned them down. Albert would have and then should have been dealt.
Your last comment goes back to your point about how much Cards fans love their team and believe in its ownership. Only a cards fan could believe that this thing was being handled correctly at this point by ownership. Now it may turn out that you are right but at this point it doesn’t appear to be the case.
With all due respect, RC, that is a broad generalization that is inherently untrue. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, as we all are here, but I suggest you stop short of characterizing them as being representative of a majority view of any group, Cardinals fans or not.
None of us have enough facts on an incomplete subject to render a final grade.
Even before the deal is done, some people seem to have already made up their minds. If the two sides agree, then you’ll say they paid too much by waiting no matter what the dollars and years are. If they don’t agree to terms, then the team will have screwed up by not trading him.
Can we all do that quote thing or just those with your access?
I disagree with RC’s characterization, but I agree with his premise. If the Cardinals end up giving AP $300 million, they screwed up. If he doesn’t sign and the Cardinals end up with nothing, they screwed up. The only way this plays out where the organization doesn’t look like Dumb and Dumber is if they get Albert to sign for under $250 million. Yes, that is my opinion and it is worth spit, but that is the way I see it.
CC, all you have to do is use these HTML commands before and after: blockquote /blockquote. You need a left carrot (less than sign for mathematicians) ahead of each word and right carrot behind (greater than sign). I can’t type them as they should because the system thinks they are actual commands!
crdswmn, you can always turn that spit into shine!
crdswmn — I don’t see the team signing AP for 10 yers at $30M per… no way, now how. If he doesn’t sign the team doesn’t end up with ‘nothing’… it gets two high draft picks PLUS it has (likely) $25M or more in hand to spend on other players. As I noted earlier, $25M is exactly what the team is paying for Matt Holliday and Lance Berkman this year. That’s not Albert, but it’s not nothing…
They get two draft picks, a crap shoot, and money to spend on other players, which except for Holliday, their track record in that department is bad. Like I said, nothing.
Well I did say (A) Cards fan, not all Cards fans. But I don’t see how anyone could argue the point that Cardinal fans are some of the more easy going, trusting people around. I actually made the comment as more of a compliment than a knock. Most people in todays world are pessimists but I find in my travels that Cards fans lean more toward being optimists. Thats where the comment was going.
I also told HB that when all the dust settle he may be right but from my vantage point it doesn’t look that way today…..in so many words.
crdswmn — OK, have it your way. No use trying to reason with someone who’s being unreasonble.
Having we all realized by this point that a few us believe what we believe and there is not going to be any signing day thought swaps?
Like RC has said HB, the informed are always the unreasonable ones.
crdswwn — Any team can help itself with $25M to spend. I’d characterize an insistance to the contrary as something falling woefully short of ‘informed’. It’s unreasonable.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Sure a team can help themselves with $25 million extra cash. The question is do they? The fact that I question the talent judgments of the FO/manager doesn’t make me unreasonable. As for my statement on being informed, that was just a generalization based on your prior arguments with me on topics of which you were grossly misinformed.
On a lighter side check out these good looking baseball players. The player pics just came out so it is my duty to plug them.
http://www.elonphoenix.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=1805&path=baseball
http://www.libertyflames.com/index.cfm?PID=10872&RosterID=2486&TeamID=1
Much to be proud of. Congrats!
If I’m not mistaken, that makes a pitcher, a catcher, a SS, and a CF. Strong up the middle.
What position do you play at the family get togethers, RC?
I am betting owner, GM and manager…
You forgot rabble-rousing columnist… Bernie Jr.!!
I love you guys……………..:razz:
Brian……………..Buster is in business……..to stay in his position…….you must pay your dues
by carrying the water at times………….. he did…………… if he made that up…….he looses TWO important players……….. who would then likely use someone else………. why do that?
Lozano finally made this answering move to the “deadline” leak by Mo/BD………the offer comes in shortly……………
this leak does nothing more than imply that Cardinals must be doing something, since they aren’t making their 1st offer know…………………. this is all part of the game…………………
No matter who leaked what to whom, I do agree it is part of the negotiating game. I am just surprised more people don’t accept that for what it is.
Everyone is trying to understand the nature of these events………it isn’t about baseball on the diamond…….its about baseball in an international market……….it about profit and precedent.
AP reads the press……..Lozano really needs to keep him pissed and focused, or he looses him to BD and his offer. BD who has given him Tony, and a media core to wipe his azz. A kingdom if you will………… You must sense the racial animosity that BD feels for a high school educated Latin kid…………..wanting a big share of his business……. if you haven’t, or don’t recognize the condescension……open your eyes………………. don’t even think to challenge me on that, because I am aware that you have no idea who BD really is, or who he runs with, or what they believe……………. over cigars and cherry…………
Let’s back off on the perceived racial implications, please. Same as politics and religion. Areas we don’t go here. Thanks.
I realize that no meaningful equation capable of answering the questions here, lies within the boundaries of said limitations…………………. I understand……. so I make many veiled insinuations, for those capable of a more complete understanding……… for whatever thats worth anyway. St. Louis fields a team. They fulfill their schedule obligations. Try the garlic fries……….
Thanks for writing this up Brian, couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thanks back at you, but you probably could have said it with fewer words!
Good, balanced update from Joe Strauss, courtesy of Channel 5.
I’m speechless. The Tool actually made some sense. Maybe it was because he was on video and not hiding behind a computer.
Good job by Joe. Wow is he running for political office and just honing his skills at doing that in this interview or what? Great job by him of just laying the facts out there as he knows them. No extra sauce.
No contact in the last twelve days????????????? Looks like the leak “was” a Lozano move to me. The innuendo was that the Cardinals must have been sending low ball offers that ended in a frustrated Cardinal request for a trade scenario, requiring AP’s subsequent denial………. solid pawn move……the Cardinal “public” record breaking offer is being beckoned for by Lozano……….. he seems worried about having time for his counter move before the deadline………… is it starting to make sense yet…………?