OnlyBucs

The Angels just designated Albert Pujhols (and his $30 mil contract) for assignment. Albert was one of the most feared hitters I ever saw play when he was with the Cardinals. While his prowess clearly has diminished in the past several years, the Angels have decided to tell a likely future Hall of Famer that his services are no longer necessary.



Polanco never was and never will be the force that Pujhols was on the field. Management for the Angels decided it was time to bid Mr. Pujhols good-bye. Mr. Nutting, please allow BC to do the same with Polanco. Whjle it has been said that the players on the team love Polanco, it is sad (and more importantly unforgivable) to play someone in RF who cannot make a throw to a cut-off man. Pittsburgh fans deserve better.

Oops. Sorry for not spelling Pujols correctly. This is a mistake that I have yet to overcome.

Pujols is 41, hitting .198 with 5 HRs and 12 RBIs. That would be good enough to lead the Pirates in HRs and only 3 Pirates have more RBIs. Polanco is only hitting .002 points better at .200 and Newman, Tom, Perez and T. Frazier aren't even that high. It says a lot that the Angels are willing to eat most of this year's $30 million contract to release someone who is outperforming most of the Pirates.

The most difficult thing in sports is to master the dismount. Few have done it, and it's sad to see Albert's one.

.

Know when it's time to exit the stage gracefully.



Sad to see from a guy whose only falter was that he wasn't a Pirate.

Huge difference and you all are looking at it wrong. The Angels have had to carry Pujols like an albatross the entire contract. He was never worth one single year of his contract.



Now that he's in his final year he was released at a time where I'm guessing they don't lose a year of control over someone.

311710050C00170109620 wrote: Huge difference and you all are looking at it wrong. The Angels have had to carry Pujols like an albatross the entire contract. He was never worth one single year of his career.



Now that he's in his final year he was released at a time where I'm guessing they don't lose a year of control over someone.


It was a ridiculous contract. 240 million over 10 years and he was already 32 years old at the time.

He's worth what someone's willing to pay. That was the going rate to put his name on the marquee. Nice gig while it lasted.

Surgebuck --- While I will acknowledge your assessment of Pujols never living up to his contract, Polanco similarly has never lived up to his more modest contract. Also, who cares if the Bucs are losing a year of control (an option) on Polanco. Polanco has no value, and should no longer be on the field in Pittaburgh unless he miraculously restores some health in his shoulder.

427760606B5260606B6C60050 wrote: He's worth what someone's willing to pay. That was the going rate to put his name on the marquee.  Nice gig while it lasted.
By that standard there is no such thing as the concept of anything not being worth the price. If you buy a car and it's a lemon, it was worth the price because that was the cost of bringing the car home. If you pay a plumber to fix your pipes but they still leak afterwards, it was worth the price because that's what it cost to hire him. If the worth of anything is what it costs then why do we need some other concept of "worth"? We could just delete the word "worth" from the dictionary because it would be redundant.



The Angels paid Pujols a ton of money to be a major offensive force for them based on what he had done for the Cardinals. But having his name in the lineup did not produce the anticipated results when he was lured to the team with all that money.



More importantly, having his name on the marquee should have resulted in an attendance boost if fans were going to come out to see the Angels with Pujols as opposed to the Angels without him. He was obtained for the 2012 season. In the 8 preceding years of 2004 thru 2011 the Angels' lowest attendance was 3,166,321. The highest attendance since Pujols joined the team was 3,095,935. So the Angels have experienced a drop in attendance since they put Pujols' name on the marquee. I'm guessing the Angels front office does not agree with you that Pujols was worth what they paid him.

Puljos and a few others were surely given > than what their previous performance justified. It's what guys get or got for "lifetime achievement."



We don't see much of it in some clubs. LA is the city of stars. No stars, no interest out there. The Angels owner happily paid to land the biggest diamond. Never surrounded Puljos & Trout with ruby pitching.



I highly doubt that the Angels expected Puljos to play much after 40 in the first place. They paid high to take him home with them.



All it takes is one owner. Albert probably didn't care what any others (except the Cardinals, maybe) felt he was worth to them.