A tale of 2 deals: Pujols adored, LeBron despised

There are several reasons, one supposes, why Albert Pujols isn't being vilified for abandoning St. Louis the way LeBron James was - and still is - for ditching Cleveland.

For sure, the scenarios differ. So do the personalities and public personas of the men. Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert can explain all that.

If not him, plenty of LeBron detractors will eagerly come forward to provide details for why James remains the Worst Person in the World.

Meanwhile, Pujols is allowed, more or less, to skate.

Athletes who lifted their franchises to impressive heights and were the focal points of community pride, both James and Pujols used their status as free agents to relocate. And, not to put too fine a point on it, they both relocated to milder climes.

But James took less money - about $15 million less - over the life of his contract to sign with the Miami Heat.

Pujols turned down the Cardinals' generous offer - a reported $210 million over 10 years - to take the Angels' deal of $254 million over 10 years.

He agreed to the second-biggest contract in baseball history, behind only that signed by Alex Rodriguez with the Yankees. But nooo, it wasn't about the money.

Pujols and franchise owner Arte Moreno explained that what sealed the deal was the Angels' commitment to community service and the Southern California lifestyle. Isn't that nice?

Does Pujols understand that the cost of living in SoCal is so much higher than in St. Louis that his actual earning power with the Angels is less than it would have been had he accepted the Cardinals' offer? There must be some charity work left to do in Missouri.

But it's his life, his decision. He had every right to change scenery. LeBron James, however, apparently didn't.

Had LeBron left behind a championship or two, along with his best years, in Cleveland, as Pujols did in St. Louis, the vitriol over his parting surely would have been less heated.

But James went to Miami because he thought - correctly - that he couldn't win a title with Cleveland. Pujols is leaving behind a championship franchise with a great history for a few dollars more. Is one really worse than the other?

Perhaps James will never live down his infamous TV special - the one-hour debacle during which he announced that he was taking his talents to South Beach.

James fulfilled every critic's fantasy when he failed to carry the Heat over the finish line last spring and even showed signs of more choking. Only in the minds of LeBron haters, though, does reaching Game 6 of the NBA Finals qualify as abject failure.

The Cardinals will be OK without Pujols. Top to bottom, they're a solid franchise. St. Louis enjoyed Pujols' best seasons; the Angels will pay for his declining ones.

The Cavaliers fell off the radar without James. They aren't coming back anytime soon.

Maybe fans and character assassins factor in this sort of stuff when deciding who deserves most of their wrath. More likely, it comes from the gut, therefore without much reflection.

As cottage industries go, ripping LeBron has become as insipid as keeping up with the Kardashians.

It's been played out, in other words.

The Cardinals and the city of St. Louis must be bitterly disappointed, but after taking everything into account - and with time to reflect - a mature ownership and fan base will let it go.

When are LeBron's fiercest critics going to let go?

Bob Molinaro (757) 446-2373 bob.molinaro@pilotonline.com