And did people read the same article I did?!? This guy acknowledges he didn't think Pujols was going to be great - and no one else did either.
"I will say one thing. If there's anybody that can stand there and tell me truthfully this is what they thought he'd do, I would call them a liar to their face and never flinch."
-- Dave Karaff about Albert Pujols
Mostly, he charted people who'd never spend a day in the big leagues. Then there was this young man in Kansas City. Albert Pujols. He had obvious skills. The Cardinals' scouting form gave players a grade between two and eight, Karaff says, with each prospect getting a present and future score in each category. A "five" is considered major-league average.
"I probably made him a six hitter future," Karaff says, "but he probably was a four hitter present."
And no one said anything that Pujols had anything to do with his firing - just that Pujols' comments seemed harsh in light of the fact the guy was fired 3 years ago and went from dream job to stock-boy. (And do people truly know what sarcasm is? Pujols comments were far from). Point is, though, that Pujols could have made no comment or just said he didn't want to talk about the guy. Instead he makes public comments trashing the guy? Why? What benefit does Pujols get from that? He could have taken the high road and he didn't. Doesn't make him a jerk, per se, but it doesn't exude class, either.
I'm sure the ESPN story was done b/c it was picked up from an earlier story about the scout - the guy who signed Pujols being out of a job as a scout. Maybe he got fired b/c he couldn't actually evaluate talent. Maybe he got fired b/c Pujols was his only significant sign (it isn't as if the Cards have a great minor league system). Whatever. It is a news piece and is "one-sided" simply because that was the point - it was just telling the story of the guy who scouted Pujols no longer being a scout. Had Pujols made no comment, it would have still been a story.
Instead, Pujols trashed the guy, which makes the story bigger. The guy doesn't seem to care (though his wife and family still do). But whether Pujols is a jerk or not, he obviously needs someone to let him know he isn't helping his self image. When the KC Star came to him the first time in the story about the scout, he could have simply made no comment or a "I'm sorry that he got fired, but I didn't know him well". Whatever. Point is, by making the comments he did, it allowed him to be portrayed as a jerk when he had no reason to comment in the first place. He may not have liked the guy, and he may have been glad he got fired. But, in public, slamming a guy who got fired generally doesn't endear yourself to Joe Public.