Faceman

It's a fact that sober drivers kill people all the time. Not saying that driving impaired is good, but you could say it's luck anytime you step foot in a car and don't get in an accident. You can't pin all those accidents on the alcohol. Again, not excusing LaRussa. All DUI's are not equal.

Howard had a great year. No argument. Always a question of what's most "valuable" I suppose. . In other news. . . this article suggests Pujols words were misinterpreted. . . . . doesn't really matter as his head has been growing since that homer off Lidge. . but here it is http://www.riverfronttimes.com/blogs/?p=97 An excerpt: Given, Pujols’ logic seems flawed, especially when you consider that Howard’s team won two more games than the Cardinals during the regular season. But anybody out there read Spanish? The Dominican Republic’s Spanish-language newspapers, which also covered the press conference in Santo Domingo yesterday that gave rise to the stories, offered a more nuanced take on Pujols’ remarks. (Forgive the rough translations.) In Listín Diario, a story by Pedro G. Briceño was headlined “Pujols cree se merecía MVP; dice tuvo los mejores números”: Pujols believes he deserved the MVP; he says he had the best numbers. Translated quote: “I was a little hurt because I think I deserved the award, considering I had better numbers than Howard, but these things happen.” Translated quote: “A player who doesn’t help his team make the playoffs isn’t the MVP. That’s what I think, but, sadly, I don’t vote.” Under a headline that translates to “Pujols said he deserved the MVP more than Ryan Howard,” Juan Mercado of El Dia wrote essentially the same thing — that the Cardinals first baseman felt his numbers were better and that no player who failed to lead his team to the postseason should be named MVP. “Eso es lo que yo pienso, pero yo no voto,” Pujols added: That’s what I think, but I don’t vote. At first it hurt that he didn’t win, Pujols admitted. “But I won the MVP in 2005 and said I’d trade it for a World Series ring, and that’s what happened this year.” José Caceres of Hoy posted two short pieces, one of which was headlined “Confiesa se puso triste por no ganar Más Valioso”: [Pujols] confesses he was hurt that he didn’t win the MVP. Caceres has Pujols saying: “Yo puse los números suficientes para ser por segundo año el más valioso, pero son los periodistas que votan y no tengo eso bajo control”: I put up good enough numbers to be MVP again, but it’s the baseball writers who vote and it’s not within my power. That said, Pujols added, the past is the past, and his present goal is to win another World Series title for Cardinals fans.

Regardless, the Giants won 91 games that year, missing the playoffs by just one game. Clearly without Bonds, they would've been nowhere near the playoffs. Also, were five runs from leading the NL in runs scored - despite having all of TWO regulars aside from Bonds who had an OPS+ above 100 that year. He carried that team. Well, with a lineup of Utley, Burrell, and 2/3 Abreu, wouldn't Howard have had a better lineup than the Cards lineup? The Cards lineup was very weak without AP. Names like Edmonds and Rolen yes, but they are shells of their former selves. So carrying the team seems to go year to year also.

why would 2004 VORP matter? EDIT: your walks and games totals are 2004 also. . . just noticed.

He did? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml .341/.529/.749, 231 OPS+ .359/.439/.667, 189 OPS+ Yes he did, and it wasn't even close. Yes, I'm sure the writers were checking that OPS+ figure. . By the way, at what point is that OPS+ as valuable on 390 AB (+ 150 BB) vs. AP's 591 AB with 80 BB. . Part of the criteria is playing every day right? I mean Albert was penalized this year for missing 15 games right?

He did? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml

You know he signed that deal at 28 and will be 36 when it's done. I'm pretty sure he was 36 when he signed it, 44 when it's done. The Cardinals thought it weird that one of his contract demands was to be paid in Confederate dollars. I thought he wanted to be paid in shekles. Would he get a free supply of HGH for the duration of his contract as well? Clearly a cheater. . . he's got the chisled body of a Mac / Sosa / Bonds

wow . . . 149 pages

Congratulations to Howard for winning the most homeruns hit contest. . .

$17 million could be a bargain 8 years from now. . . It's expensive, but the Cubs aren't hurting for money. . .

Cubs want JD Drew and possibly Jason Marquis? http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-061115rogers,1,1613350.column?coll=cs-home-headlines Lou Piniella will kill each of them with his bare hands before the all-star break. . . WOW

Wouldn't that have been something - Cubs, Sox, Sox all end droughts in 3 consecutive years. Now maybe the Cards on top of it. As a Cards fan with a lot of good friends who live and die Cubs, that loss pained me quite a bit. As long as the Cards aren't involved, I root Cubs. No reason not too - too many good baseball fans on the north side. Unfortunately, spending money is no guarantee. The Cards penny pinched this year, somewhat anyway, and they are 1 win away. . Here's to hoping the Cubs get off the schneid soon - just not at the hands of the Cards. . . 8)

The Cardinals have had more than their share of postseason misfortune. . . injuries, bad calls, etc. The ball is definitely bouncing their way this postseason but that is a rare change for the norm. . Not looking for sympathy - just saying.

Well stated - I agree 100%. The only question I would have is - is 10% underperforming enough? I would say no, it should be more than 60/40 favorite. But I have no basis for that I suppose. . JMO.

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them. There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it. The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams. Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges. The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't. The World Series - yes they were. If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include: A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets. 5 of 6 series. Last year underdog wins: Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks 3 out of 7 series 2 years ago underdog wins: RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves 3 out of 7 series The 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels and Giants SHould I keep going? So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs? This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage. Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much? My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year. You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today. Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998. You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998. I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal. Got it ? You don't get it. If you claim being the underdog is definitely the role to be in, you are claiming it is an advantage. Read your own words. OK - let me rephrase. You are reading this a little too literally, no? The advantage in being the underdog is in the pressure or expectation, or lack of it. The underdog role is not an advantage if you are a significantly lesser team. I believe the differences in teams are exaggerated in the postseason, where one pitcher or hitter can get hot and carry a team. When you take a team like the Mets, who weren't as dominating as everyone made them out to be, and pit them against the Cards, whose record should have been better than 83-78 - not great but better than that - you have a huge mismatch on paper. When in reality the two teams weren't 14 games different. Yet the expectation and pressure was there for the Mets, not for the Cards. If you don't see a benefit to having no expectations - and thus no pressure - we'll I just can't believe a Cub fan wouldn't see that. Check the Cubs in 2003 vs 2004. Cards fans understand it also. There is a benefit to no expectation / pressure. Do you disagree with that?

I'm hoping Boras (God save me) is trying to convince ARod that the people of Chicago would make him forget of the "unfinished business" he has left in Noo Yawk. And trust me, ARod will never be accepted in noo Yawk. That's interesting. Does A-Rod feel it is imperative to right the legacy in New York? Or would he rather write a new one somewhere else? If he could lead the Cubs to the Series, he would do more than he ever could in that packed New York lineup.

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them. There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it. The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams. Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges. The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't. The World Series - yes they were. If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include: A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets. 5 of 6 series. Last year underdog wins: Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks 3 out of 7 series 2 years ago underdog wins: RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves 3 out of 7 series The 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels and Giants SHould I keep going? So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs? This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage. Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much? My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year. You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today. Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998. You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998. I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal. Got it ?

Why don't you compare them to what they were last year, and expected / needed to be this year. A solid #2 to Carp and an good but not great closer. Just because the Cards have been living without those 2 for longer, doesn't mean they weren't huge losses. Pedro wasn't lighting anything up this year either.

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them. There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it. The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams. Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges. The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't. The World Series - yes they were. If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include: A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets. 5 of 6 series. Last year underdog wins: Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks 3 out of 7 series 2 years ago underdog wins: RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves 3 out of 7 series The 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels and Giants SHould I keep going?

I don't see how you you can rag LaRussa for playoff success or failure. Isn't that like calling the last guy getting into Harvard "one of the dumbest guys to get into Harvard?" He's still made it to Harvard. Playoffs are tough - good teams there. This will be his 5th world series appearance. Calling him a poor postseason manager is a stretch, IMO.

Playoffs are indeed a crapshoot. I also think we are seeing what happens to teams with no expectations vs the favorites. . Yanks continually choke. 100 win Cards teams haven't gotten it done. Being the underdog is definitely the role to be in. And I think the 2-3-2 format somewhat favors the team with 3 games in a row at home. Kinda like playing defense first in a football game, you want to get warmed up on defense before you have to move the ball on offense. In baseball, you have to win your home games - so you might as well get warmed up on the road, with no pressure.

You wouldn't trade ARam for ARod? I can see Z and DLee, but you GOTTA deal Ramirez for ARod. You can't deal ARam for ARod. If ARam resigns with the Cubs, he's going to be staying with the Cubs. He's not going to be part of a sign-and-trade. True - I was thinking of the players and average annual salary, not necessarily length of deal remaining. .

You wouldn't trade ARam for ARod? I can see Z and DLee, but you GOTTA deal Ramirez for ARod.

If there is, I'm sorry. I didn't know there was a transactions thread, and I didn't know this was a transaction. . Is there a speculations forum? :lol: I noticed you're new to the forum. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time. As a few already stated, speculation trades do go in the Transactions forum typically, and you'll see there is a 7 page A-Rod discussion under-way, where Zambrano's name is frequently tossed around. Welcome and enjoy. Thanks. I was trying to be funny. In short - I don't think you trade Z for A-Rod. If you can go Prior and a prospect or two, you do it. Zambrano is a horse and a Cy Young favorite when the team gets better. When the Cubs get back to postseason, he's the guy.

I hate Bucker. It was so obvious last night that he didnt want to announce the game anymore after the Mets turned the game into a route. http://www.thephatphree.com/Features.asp?SectionID=2&StoryID=3061&LayoutType=1 =D> From a die hard Cards fan . . . Joe Buck is absolutely arrogant, moronic with humor, and a horrible announcer. THe Randy Moss thing just put the icing on the cake. Azzclown doesn't do it justice.