Pujols, I don't get it...

[jonumberone]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Ruth and Mays were traded (Ruth before he was established, and then again in 35 after he was through). Same for Mays. He was traded after he was washed up. In both cases the ownership should have showed some loyalty to these guys. Shame on them for trading them away after they gave so much (yet it was time for them both to retire). Aaron was released from his contract. Bonds was legit when he left Pittsburgh, but he wasn't a legend who played for 11 years with one team before he went to San Fran. It's the 11 year thing with one team being the best that I had a problem with.
If Pujols only played with the team for 4 or 5 years, then I would understand.

Andy, Prior to 1975 all players needed to be traded due to the reserve clause.
My point was more to the fact that over time, this never affected their Legacy.
Obviously, Players bolting for more dough is now the rule, rather than the exception.
I think this is another reason in the end it will not tarnish his legacy.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by jonumberone

Andy, Prior to 1975 all players needed to be traded due to the reserve clause.
My point was more to the fact that over time, this never affected their Legacy.
Obviously, Players bolting for more dough is now the rule, rather than the exception.
I think this is another reason in the end it will not tarnish his legacy.

Nail on the head. That's my biggest issue with pro sports. In a lot of cases, it's not an issue, but for a case like this, where he had one of the rare chances to play his entire career for one team would be awesome. Ozzie Smith, Barry Larkin, Derek Jeter are a rare occurrence since the beginning of free agency. It's starting to turn me away from the MLB. I stuck behind and supported them during the MLB strike in 94, but it's just starting to be too much. Pro sports wouldn't be around if there weren't money to be made, but at the end of the day, the teams are around b/c of the fans and their support.