One-Timers: Does Pujols’ Exodus Mean Loyalty Is Dead in Baseball?
Albert Pujols was supposed be the next Stan Musial: a lifelong Cardinal who would represent St. Louis baseball with awesome talent on the field and admirable dignity of it. Over the past decade, the succession from Stan the Man to Prince Albert seemed so natural, as if both men descended from the same line of baseball immortals. Now, however, there are over 250 million reasons why it won't happen.
You can debate whether Pujols or the Cardinals undervalued the importance of legacy, or whether it is even important at all, but, regardless, the fact that Albert Pujols will not retire in St. Louis has been the cause of great lament. According to the common woe, the days of players spending their entire careers with one team have become a thing of the past. Gone is the purity of loyalty, and its place, the greed of business has taken hold. But does such sentiment reflect reality? Have modern baseball players cast loyalty aside in favor of chasing the very last dollar?
Most Seasons with One Team, Since 1901
Source: Baseball-reference.com
Since 1901, only 146 players (90 position players and 56 pitchers) have had lengthy careers with only one team (see below for criteria), so it seems as if staying in one place has never really been prevalent. And, contrary to popular belief, one-team players aren't a relic of the golden age. During the modern era, the number of those wearing one uniform has fluctuated (based on retirement year) by decade, but not at levels that would suggest a major sea change. Although the number of players retiring as one-team loyalists has gradually declined from a peak during the 1980s, recent totals do not qualify as historical outliers. Granted, there are several mitigating factors to consider. On the one hand, having more teams means more players, so the relative numbers are much smaller than the nominal. However, when you consider free agency was not implemented until 1976 and players' careers are much longer, both providing opportunities for migration, the comparison remains in line.
Distribution of One-Team Players by Decade, 1901-2010
Note: Based on a minimum of 10 seasons and 4,000 plate appearances with one team for positions players, and 10 seasons for pitchers. Year of retirement is used as basis for enumeration.
Source: Baseball-reference.com
Besides Albert Pujols, Mark Buehrle, who spent 12 seasons with the White Sox, is another example of a player who broke the bonds of a one-team relationship this offseason. And, with Jorge Posada, Jason Varitek, Michael Cuddyer, Aaron Cook, and Jimmy Rollins all on the market, there could be more to follow. However, it should be noted that with the exception of Rollins, if any of the aforementioned names don a new uniform next season, it will be because their old teams no longer wanted them. Fans usually think of a loyalty as a one-way street heading in the team's direction, but often times, when a long-time favorite parts company, it's because he has no other choice.
One-Team Players by Franchise
Note: Based on a minimum of 10 seasons and 4,000 plate appearances with one team for positions players, and 10 seasons for pitchers. Year of retirement is used as basis for enumeration.
Source: Baseball-reference.com
In addition to the five players mentioned previously, there are nine others who currently meet the one-team criteria outlined above. Included in that group are four sure-fire first ballot Hall of Famers (Chipper Jones, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and Ichiro Suzuki), two of which are Yankees. The latter fact is not surprising because no team has had more legacy players than the Bronx Bombers, who stand to add three more if Posada, Jeter, and Rivera retire in pinstripes. The high percentage of Hall of Famers also shouldn't be a surprise. Approximately 25% of those enshrined in Cooperstown played for only one team (versus less than 10% for all "long-time" players).
Hall of Famers, by Franchise Count
Note: Total numbers may vary from official Hall of Fame figures because of classifications like executive, manager and umpire, as well as players who spent most of their careers in the Negro Leagues.
Source: baseball-reference.com
Even though there may not be as many one-team players as the recent past, they are far from a dying breed. With young superstars like Troy Tulowitzki, Ryan Braun, Matt Kemp, and Joe Mauer, all of whom recently signed long-term contracts with their maiden team, poised to assume the mantle, the next decade is sure to have it share of legacy players. If you're a Cardinals' fan, it's ok to cry because you lost Pujols. However, baseball fans have no reason to lament. Loyalty still exists in the game. Well, at least as much as it ever has.
38 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Who knows how much the Cardinals were offering
and maybe it was ‘just’ $30mil less then the Angels, but $30mill is $30mill. I’m surprised he didn’t go to Florida, then again I’m not surprised he didn’t want to play with Ozzie Guillen.
I’d say a large reason why Pujols didn’t sign in St. Louis is LaRussa retired.
Last night, a comedian died in New York. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows
I think the no trade clause was a big deal with Florida
First because as a 10/5 player, Pujols already had no-trade protection which he would have been giving up, and second because although it would be almost impossible to trade that contract, Florida does have a reputation for firesales.
The idea of DHing down the road was probably a credit for Anaheim.
The Cardinals messed this up on a lot of levels. First, they wouldn’t offer him the 10th year last off-season, which may have prevented him from even going to free agency. They waited a while to even present their best offer this year, which probably annoyed him. For some reason they didn’t hire Jose Oquendo, who was Pujols’ first choice to replace LaRussa. Maybe deep down the Cards were hoping Pujols would go elsewhere to save them the money, but they really didn’t act like a team who wanted him back that badly.
by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Dec 10, 2011 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
they wanted him back but they clearly didn't see him being worth that money
especially when it could hamper the building of the team around him.
NOOOOOOOOOO WE'RE DOOMED!
colin curtis was dfa’d
Boone Logan is a good boy. So is David Robertson. Team A.J.
Hey! what gives?
I clicked post in that other new thread…gone.
by MichaelGGBGrabow on Dec 10, 2011 12:42 PM EST reply actions
Maybe it's just how the game is played now?
These players ask for too much and really the team knows your paying him for what he’s done and not for what you’re getting. Which isn’t how it works. At least in my mind.
Realist.
we're stuck in a cycle right now
maybe one day things will change like more Matt Moore type deals to keep young talent with their team and maybe people will stop throwing out millions of extra dollars on someone that just won’t be able to make up that money
As we talked about on twitter, I’m amazed at the core four (+Bernie) in the context of all this.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
I wonder if Colin Curtis has anything to share in this matter.
by Scooby Snacks on Dec 10, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
No, I don;t think so. I considered that when I wrote my comment, but even if you take him out and add in Bernie it’s remarkable.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
"Core Four" is pretty meaningless
It’s just something someone made up because core happens to rhyme with four.
by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Dec 10, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
Jeff Sullivan @LookoutLanding
Albert Pujols just called Jered Weaver ‘Jeff’
Rec Generating Database
Jedi Master A-Rod is a poster on Pinstripe Alley. He can be reached by clicking the "Reply" button below his comments.
by Jedi Master A-Rod on Dec 10, 2011 2:56 PM EST reply actions
hahah!!
hopefully he got smacked for that sort of disrespect
by MichaelGGBGrabow on Dec 10, 2011 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
http://twitter.com//MattSebek/status/145592828427374592
"in order that you will write correctly of wat you really see if you dint go around with your eyes shut"
Cricket blog?
Wonder how many of those 1-team players were due to the Reserve Clause
If the Cardinals really wanted to keep him, they should have given him the A-Rod treatment instead of signing him for that chincy 8/116 in 2004. They could have kept him til 35, then priced him on a Jeter deal for his final years.
Cards basically made a couple hundred million in surplus value on him over his first 10 years, then got gun shy at a $30 million overpay.
If you look back before free agency
there were not as many one-team players as you might expect, because teams had little compunction about trading players if they thought it would be advantageous. Even Hall of Famers were not exempt; if you look through their bios, not that many of them played for only one team. The Yankees even attempted at one time to trade Joe DiMaggio (the face of the Yankees at that time and perhaps the best-known player in baseball) for Ted Williams; the deal fell though because the Yankees would not include Yogi Berra.
People concerned about player loyalty to teams overlook the lack of team loyalty to players.
Mickey C
You are correct
Loyalty is a two way street. And baseball is not the only business where people forget this. Many companies expect loyalty from their workers without wanting to give any loyalty in return and vise versa.
"I don't want one of those guys who'll drive in two but let in three every game." Casey Stengel
by tnredneckyankeesfan on Dec 10, 2011 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
Loyalty still exist in the MLB.
However, the group of players that stay loyal is pretty small compared to the players that switch teams, especially when comparing elite baseball players. The “Core Four” is such a rarity that I doubt we that again for a long time. Elite players will continue to want to get paid especially if its their last deal and have a chance to win a WS ring.
Only 3 of the Core 4 played their entire career w. the Yankees!
Possibly 2, depending on what happens to Sado.
by PortlandYankee on Dec 10, 2011 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
And none of them took anything that could be confused with a hometown discount to stay in New York.
Baseball Statistics and Acronyms Explained
Follow me on the tweetbox - @LordDuggan12
This
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." --Rogers Hornsby
by Chris McKeown on Dec 10, 2011 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
Great post.
There are a multitude of factors that go into the decision of what team to sign with (assuming a player as multiple offers), so every situation is unique. While it’s certainly admirable to remain with one franchise for an entire career, there’s nothing wrong with leaving for somewhere else.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." --Rogers Hornsby
A lot of the all time greats who played prior to free agency spent time at the end of their careers with another team, because they team they gained their fame with released or traded them.
Just going down the all time WAR list:
Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Tris Speaker
Rogers Hornsby
Frank Robinson
Pete Alexander
Nap Lajoie
Kid Nichols
That’s 10 of the 20 most valuable players who played prior to free agency that spend at least a season or two at the end of their careers with some random team.
Jesus Montero has to be a full-time catcher, or the Yankees have to trade him. One or the other. Based on the age and contracts of the other players on this team, that's the only place he fits long-term on the Yankees roster.
The free agent era began in the 1970s. This article would have been more timely if it had been written 35 years ago.
Players who became free agents in the ‘70s were regarded as ungrateful, greedy egomaniacs who were ruining the game by wrecking the salary structure and competitive balance. Kuri and MickeyC are correct- prior to the free agent era, the only way players, especially good ones, moved from team to team was by trade. If there weren’t many single-teamers, that speaks to the loyalty of management, not of the players.
In any event, the most stable eras are 1940- 1960 and 1971 to 1990, the latter during the free agent era. (The 1940-60 period has more on a per capita basis). The prevalence of Yankees on the list speaks both to the team’s valuing its best players and the financial stability of the franchise. During the 1920- 1970 period many teams sold off stars simply to make payroll. The MLB does not permit that to happen anymore- it loans failing teams money itself to prevent that. I think the concept of ‘loyalty’ doesn’t really have a place in this discussion.
by designatedquitter on Dec 12, 2011 12:08 PM EST reply actions

by 






































