Show Me the Money...and Show Me Other Stuff, too

Many years ago, I had a chance to upgrade my family’s financial picture by moving to Detroit, but it was a move that neither I nor my wife were interested in making mainly because it would mean abandoning things that mattered more to us than money – primarily, but not exclusively, family, friends, and general comfort and familiarity. Our decision was perhaps not the one that would most often be made in those circumstances, but neither was it anything like unheard of. People do exactly that all the time – assign various weights to various factors in deciding whether to change employers. Those factors would almost certainly include money, but it wouldn’t be abnormal if they also included a wide range of other considerations: projected job security and job surroundings, school quality, housing stock, climate, and on and on – including the aforementioned concern about abandoning a friends/family comfort zone.

Net: Yes, It’s about the money – something we like to say when we want to come across as a guy whose opinions and decisions spring from cold hard facts and not from squishy emotions – but it’s almost never only about the money. Most people probably go for the dough, but far from all. People in all walks of life decide to stay put – and forego money – because other things are more important to them. And if an ordinary joe for whom a raise in pay actually matters can make a decision in that fashion, then surely so can an extraordinarily well-paid joe for whom the bump would be from, say, $9-million to $9.25 million. In short, it is and always has been nonsense to say it’s just about the money. It may be cool to say it, but it’s not the reality.

Which brings us to, first, Lance Berkman and then Albert Pujols. Berkman, seemingly a thoughtful fellow and certainly a congenial one, said recently about Pujols’ salary negations that, in the end, it was about the money only, it was always about the money, and “the money” would ultimately decide Pujols’ fate. But then, something like 24 hours later, Berkman signed a contract with the Cardinals which he himself said, or at least seemed to say, was for less, in terms of cash and duration, than he could have gotten elsewhere, but that he liked and was comfortable with his situation in St. Louis. I point this out not to gig Berkman but to demonstrate that a person of his baseball stature can freely make a decision about his job that is not based solely on money, and he apparently did so. And, significantly, he did not permit his ego to make that call for him.

And so, Albert Pujols. Will he or won't he, and will considerations other than money enter into his deliberations? They can, and probably should, but at this point, who knows? As we ponder that, something to discuss amongst yourselves: I may be projecting my sensibilities onto other people when I say this, but I get the feeling that folks are beginning to resign themselves to life without Pujols, for a couple of reasons: They are beginning to see his side of the negotiation as mainly ego-driven and that’s at least off-putting to them; and as this thing has dragged on they’ve had time to come to the realization that the Cardinals won championships before Albert Pujols existed and will do so after he is gone. (The front office, of course understands this. They know that people will come out to watch the Cardinals if they are in contention for a championship, no matter who’s on the field; and, conversely, they will stay home if the team is not in contention – again, no matter who’s on the field.) At any rate, to the fans losing Pujols was once unthinkable. It is now…well, thinkable. That he has contributed mightily over the last decade to what matters attendance-wise – being in contention – goes without saying. The fans like him and the things he does. But that doesn’t mean the Cardinals can’t be in contention without him. They can.

Pujols did not help himself in the fans-on-his-side department by saying at one point that the process and its outcome were out of his control. It is far from clear what Pujols was trying to convey by saying such a nonsensical thing, but fans and observers can be forgiven for reading it one of three ways: (1) His agent is in control and Pujols works for him; (2) The Cardinals own the process because its up to them to give him what he wants, or not, and if not he’s outa here; or (3) a process has been set in motion that cannot now be stopped. Folks recognize all of that for the nonsense that it is, and their intelligence was insulted when he said it. And so they wonder, legitimately, exactly where he’s coming from in all of this.

Does he want to be the highest paid player in the game, to reflect his stature as the best player in the game? If so, fair enough. But for how long? A long-term deal that continues to pay Pujols millions when he’s in his forties is bad enough from the Cardinals point of view. But for them to make him the best-paid player for the duration of such a contract – say eight or nine or ten years -- would mean the deal would have to include escalations in pay each year, since, over time, others would surely catch up to and surpass his yearly take. In short, the combination of long-term and best-paid is an impossibility.

A reasonable course for the Cardinals, it would seem, is to make Pujols an offer that makes him the highest-paid player but is only good for a couple or three years. If that doesn’t work for him, let the free-agent market works its magic. He leaves or he stays. Either way, life goes on. What they can’t do – and what no reasonable person should ask or expect them to do – is put the effective long-term money-and-personnel management of the enterprise in jeopardy for the sake of one employee.

Meanwhile, will non-monetary considerations enter into Pujols’ thinking in this? We shall see. And, of course, all of this hinges on the proffer of a free-agent deal that’s more remunerative than what the Cardinals are offering. The assumption is that such an offer will be forthcoming from somewhere. We shall see about that, too.