Scale.
That's about it, really. And the fact that Albert Pujols had been a lifelong Cardinal up until 2011 and that Kyle Lohse had been a journeyman. But when it comes down to it, from THEIR perspective, Pujols and Lohse did the exact same thing. Each took more years and more money to go to a slightly worse team. And both had fans upset that they did not give a fairly unrealistic "hometown discount" to the Cardinals (in spite of the fact that Lohse is from California and Pujols is from Kansas City by way of the Dominican Republic). But much, MUCH moreso with Pujols was there red-hot anger. But why?
With both Albert Pujols and Kyle Lohse, my feeling when I heard they had officially signed with Not The Cardinals was not happy nor was it sad--it was relieved. Albert Pujols was the best player over the previous decade but there was no way in hell he was going to, starting at age 31, be worth $254 million over ten years. Not a chance. With Kyle Lohse it was even more obvious--besides the fact that Kyle Lohse at his absolute peak wasn't a GREAT pitcher, the Cardinals had a stable full of young arms ready to go. So why burn money on an unnecessary veteran?
Yet even with the many fans who agree with this and that 10/254 for Pujols would have been a waste of resources, they STILL despise him. Yet Lohse they're fine with. I legitimately am just trying to figure out what the difference is, why fans would be okay with Lohse yet angry at Pujols. Do we just expect Albert Pujols to be a commodity for the Cardinals whereas Kyle Lohse is a fully functioning human being? Do fans really think Albert Pujols was more "just in it for the money" than Kyle Lohse (spoiler alert: They both were, and that's their rights as goddamned Americans)? Just wondering. Any alternative theories would be terrific in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment