So ESPN’s chat with Jerry Crasnick today is asking the question: if you had to build a team, would you choose A-Rod or Albert Pujols as your first building block?
In reality, you’d probably choose neither and instead choose an elite player who is still cost controlled and younger. But that’s not the question. And honestly, I’m not really all that interested in the answer since it’s a stupid question. But I am interested in some of the answers that have come in that are even more idiotic.
A few people claim it must be Pujols because he has a ring. David Eckstein has a ring. Would you rather have him than A-Rod?
But my favorite came from, of course, a guy from MA:
Jesse (Cambridge, MA): Since I’m from Boston, where almost every pro team (Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics, and Revolution) are winning because of what Bill Simmons calls “chemacterility,” I have to go with Pujols over A-Rod if I’m starting a MLB team today. Pujols is definitely a guy in the Brady, Garnett, Varitek mold; guys who clearly earn the respect of their peers by their work ethic, character, and genuine likability. As much as A-Rod produces massive numbers, I think having the ability to take your team to the next level, a la Garnett, is much more important because there’s no way any player, no matter how good, can do it alone
What I love about this comment is that just a year ago, Garnett was A-Rod to Duncan’s Pujols. Garnett put up the stats but he wasn’t a “winner” like Duncan. Now he’s on a better team with better plays and he’s winning. How can anyone possibly say that Garnett has the ability to take his team to the next level? How well did he take it to the next level when his teammates were Ricky Davis and company? And not to mention, let’s see Garnett win a title or even get to the Finals before we proclaim him the ultimate winner. A-Rod and the Yankees have won a lot of regular season games too you know.