The A’s, which have been working with Oakland for years on a new stadium, without success, have MLB’s blessing on a possible relocation.
There is some controversy about this and about Pujols true age. Why did Pujols go from being an alltime great in SL to being simply good in Anaheim (after signing his megadeal)?
His ‘high school’ pic would embarrass Dannie Almonte (Danny Almonte - Wikipedia).
And he seems questionable as a teammate.
https://sports.yahoo.com/nightengales-notebook-albert-pujols-final-113924193.html
One wonders where there is to go. They do need a viable landing site to get Oakland off its ass about the Howard Terminal plan.
One does not need to create a conspiracy theory about his age; he was 32 when he went to Anaheim, an age at which is is very common for players to begin a rapid decline. He was then injured at 33, which is when he really started to decline.
Pujols was and is a big guy, not very fast, and such players often decline extremely quickly in their thirties. Jimmie Foxx, IMHO the most similar player in all of MLB history, fell apart at age 34. Miguel Cabrera, also very similar, has a nearly identical decline path.
I will tell you this; if Albert Pujols was going to falsify a birth certificate back in the day, I’d think a guy with good English would have at least thought to create a last name for his new identity that wasn’t pronounced “Poo Holes.”
This might be the pic of a high-schooler but I doubt it.
It’s an excellent question. In 2018, Rob Manfred listed some possible cities for expansion: Portland, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Nashville, Montreal, and Vancouver. This recent article on The Athletic (behind a sign-in wall, but it’s a free article if you sign in) looks at various factors for the markets, and it appears that Charlotte and Portland would be the strongest candidates, but there isn’t any city that’s an obvious slam dunk.
I wish the MLB would go back to Montreal. In the right deal with a good stadium.
I assume the preference would be the West. Can Las Vegas really support 3 pro sports teams? I have my doubts. Portland has a very loud activist population that would surely be a pain in the ass.
As the Athletic article indicates, the Trail Blazers, Timbers, and Thorns (women’s soccer) all have strong fan bases and good attendance. If the “loud activist population” in Portland shows up at games (or protests outside games), it may not be hurting the teams much, if at all.
Building a stadium in the city with public money? I’ll have my popcorn ready for this.
Both the Blazers and Timbers have built/renovated their stadiums with a combination of public and private funds. There’s nothing magical about lefty Portland that says there’s no way a stadium can be built there with a public funding component.
But, more broadly, nearly every team which has been seeking new stadiums through public financing in the past 20 years has faced serious headwinds; taxpayers have (rightfully so) become increasingly opposed to tax dollars being used to build stadiums for wealthy teams and wealthy owners. It’s not just the A’s – the Raiders left Oakland, and the Chargers left San Diego, after long-running campaigns to get new stadiums built. The Rays have been trying to get a new stadium built in Tampa for 15 years, with no real progress.
And, I think that’s the heart of the question that RickJay asked – could the A’s get a legitimate suitor, with a legitimate plan for a stadium, anywhere?
Said another way …
Starting in 2021, teams in every sport everywhere must pay the full price to build or renovate their own stadiums. The taxpayers everywhere are mostly done with that con.
We’ll soon see how much they really “need” a new one every decade.
I wish the Jays could play the Braves every day. 6-0 against them this year.
In alarming news for the Braves. they are 14-4 this year when leading a game after six innings. That’s not good. Last year they were 27-0 (!!!) in such games. When tied after eight innings they’re 0-7.
It’d be interesting to look at that 14-4 record in more detail.
If they lost the 4 against solid competitors in see-saw games that more by luck of the timing than anything else were leaning +1 towards ATL at the end of 6 that’s one thing.
OTOH, if they’re dumping games they were comprehensively leading by 3+ runs by the 6th that’s a totally different scenario. And if this is the case, it’d be interesting and important to know whether it’s pitching, fielding, batting, or managing that’s dropping those should-be-easy last three innings.
In many ways the 2021 season is one big asterisk. We aren’t out of COVID and we aren’t out of the recovery from the consequences of COVID either. Its not as huge an asterisk as 2020 was, but this ain’t normalcy either. Not the old normal, nor the “new normal”.
two things ive seen today :
Nice deal that the angels are paying for … will he actually do much for the dodgers tho ?
Some are serious and some are funny …
Don’t get Pujols to the Dodgers at all, he’s nothing but a bench bat. They don’t him to put butts in the stands. I’m sure he’s a great clubhouse veteran but a World Series team probably doesn’t need that.
It makes slightly more sense after Cory Seager broke his hand last night but this deal was in the works before that.
The rumor I read was the idea was for pujols to most be a bench bat but also spend time at 1st base giving Muncy the ability to start at second or third and in the end give a bit of relief to Lux who is struggling this season. Still really dumb waste of a roster spot.
Yeah, getting a bench bat with a bit of pop (but in Dodger Stadium) and a massive defense liability makes no sense, but I’ve never won a World Series either
He3 almost certainly will not. Unless the Dodgers’ scouting department sees some mechanical issue in his swing they feel they can repair, the odds of Pujols being a good player for the Dodgers aren’t even a hundred to one. (Where would he play anyway? LA’s first baseman is really good.) He’s almost free though so it’s virtually no risk and maybe they want him as a coach in the future.
Ref my somewhat under-informed comment upthread about the history of Pujols’ move from STL to LAA, this is another apparently mysterious deal I’d love to have the inside scoop on.
Who was thinking what when and why?
Is it plausible that the deal was in the works, but being slow-rolled by some or all sides when suddenly the Seager injury caused the Dodgers management to force a decision in a moment of panic? Perhaps one that will turn out to be … unwise?
ESPN was reporting this as a done deal before the game yesterday so it shouldn’t have much to do with Seager.
I agree I’d love to know what they’re thinking since it seems crazy.