K-Town

1) I agree. 2) I agree. 3) I don't have 5-year splits, but the 3 year splits show that Pujols has been quite a bit better than A-rod over the last 3 years offensively. Probably enough to make up for A-rod's defensive value.

I agree (on both issues!).

I'll give you that one. Pujols=Best Hitter ARod=Best Player Eh......... Pujols' VORP and Win Shares were both slightly better (or right even with) A-rod, and Pujols is 5 years younger. I'd take Pujols.

Good luck to the Astros. They are clearly better than the Cards. Now go sweep those White Sox!! Well, they were better this week, anyway. I think that 162 games proves out the "better team", but it doesn't win championships for you. Good luck to the 'Stros! The Stros were a better team for the postseason. You can't complain about having a team not built for the way the league is set up. No complaints. Just disappointed.

Edmonds has a "limited" no-trade claus in his contract. I also think his contract is up after 2006 (with a team option for 2007), so I wouldn't be devastated if the Cards try to get something for him. He'd be extremely hard to replace, however. What I have says he has a 23 team no-trade clause. Who knows who the 7 teams are he'd approve a trade to. We also don't know if he gets to change that list every year or if it's set in stone at the time of the signing. My understanding is that he gets to submit a new list each year. He doesn't seem like the type of guy to me that would be content playing for the Yankees, but who knows.

Edmonds has a "limited" no-trade claus in his contract. I also think his contract is up after 2006 (with a team option for 2007), so I wouldn't be devastated if the Cards try to get something for him. He'd be extremely hard to replace, however.

I agree....... last night wasn't nearly as painful as I had imagined. Maybe we're becoming immune, like Braves' fans? I think you mean a lefty to go with Flores, not Reyes. I'm wondering if Tyler Johnson could be the second lefty in the pen. He's almost unhittable as a lefty when he can find the plate. He was REALLY good the 2nd half of the year at Memphis, and he's still only 24 years old.

Just curious about Suppan. Isn't his contract up? Or at least a rather large team or player option? I seem to recall one or the other. $4 mil club option for 2006 (same as he made in 2005). He's easily worth that, in my opinion. Heck, he had a 2.78 ERA in his 14 starts after the All-Star break.

3/39 will not get it done with Giles. Considering he's 35 years old, I think it will easily get it done. I could be wrong. Heck, the best player in baseball (Pujols) only makes 14.2 mil per year. You think Giles is worth that kind of money?

I have a hunch that signing Brian Giles is going to be top priority. He seems to fit the mold of mid-30's outfielder that the Cards have pursued in the recent past. I realize that other teams (Cubs?) will also have alot of interest, but I'm hoping that Jocketty can spin his magic. I'd like to see Reggie back, just because he's such a solid influence in the clubhouse. Taguchi isn't the worst 5th outfielder in the world, either. A healthy Rolen is a must. The lineup obviously isn't the same without him. Add Rolen and Giles to the current lineup, and it looks a whole lot more imposing. Re-sign Grudz at a reasonable price. He's no All-Star, but his bat was solid, and his defense was actually very good, in my opinion. He and Eck seemed to find a pretty good groove. That would allow Nunez (if he stays) and Luna to provide infield depth. Rotation: Carp Mulder Suppan Reyes Marquis or Free Agent (in which case Marquis becomes trade bait). Bye bye Matt Morris. Thanks for the effort. Major overhaul of the bullpen. Brad Thompson, Izzy, and Flores are probably sure-things. Wainwright? Possibly. Tavarez is too goofy..... I won't be disappointed if he's gone. Tyler Johnson could be something special as a LOOGY (along the lines of Sisco), but he needs to prove himself. Jocketty doesn't have NEARLY as much work to do this winter as last. In my opinion, last winter he had his hands full, just to keep the Cards competetive. This winter, I think that the right tweaking could make the team scary-good.

Thats true. St louis has great fans, but Chicago has great fans as well. I dont see how there is an way to distinguish which ones are "the best". There isn't. All I was saying is that the players prefer St. Louis fans. "The best" is a pretty arbitrary term, though.

Good luck to the Astros. They are clearly better than the Cards. Now go sweep those White Sox!! Well, they were better this week, anyway. I think that 162 games proves out the "better team", but it doesn't win championships for you. Good luck to the 'Stros!

I echo that. They played a nice series, and Oswalt was just too much.

Still waiting, I see. :wink: I haven't seen much of that on ANY boards. I'll be rooting for the NL (Astros). I think they have a good shot.

Right, but those things weren't necessarily happening when players like McGwire and Edmonds were raving about playing for the Cardinals, and that history wasn't necessarily there when the poll was taken (mid-season in 2003). The recent history supports your argument, but I think that St. Louis has been perceived by the players as a good place to play, long before any of those things were true (5 division titles and such). Since 2003 lands smack dab in the middle of the most recent run, I would say it certainly does qualify. The other things I mentioned do too. It is a storied franchise (gawd, I hated writing that, but it's true). The best fans thing is, at best, for the fans. Besides, I think players think of themselves when choosing where to play, and I sincerely doubt that they reference some cnn poll..... No, I wasn't suggesting that they were referencing a poll. My point was that the players, for whatever reason, believe that St. Louis has the best fans, and so that may factor into where they want to play. Maybe it wouldn't factor. I think that your list of 3 things is probably far more relevant, but it's harder to quantify, I suppose.

Buy into what? IMO, that poll is meaningless, within the context of whether or not a player signs below market. The real reasons, IMO, are: 1) Good organization 2) Good chance to get a WS ring 3) Good chance to play integral part (start) Logic being that the money will be there, one way or the other (endorsements). If you don't have the three items above, you are very unlikely to get a player to take below market to sign with you. Is it not ironic that the Cardinal just happen to have an excellent organization and a good chance at the WS just about every year? I'm not sure I understand the irony in it. Explain. I don't disagree with your assessment. The irony is that you are using some fallacious poll to support your argument, when it is much more likely that the real reasons are much simpler, transparent, and right in front of everyone's eyes. However, you chose to select the weakest evidence available to support your argument. I think that there are alot of factors. I simply pointed out one of them. Yours aren't necessarily quantified. Do you have a resource that tells what players' opinions are on those three measures? How do we know that players believe that the Cardinals have a "good organization" or a "good chance to play an integral part"? You're using arbitrary terms, in my opinion. Your reasons may be "simple" and "transparent", but around here that doesn't cut it. You'd better have something to back it up if you're going to deal with the folks on this board. Their track record speaks volumes. What is it now? Five division titles in six years, what, some fifteen world championships, how many pennants? 24? It pains me so so recount these successes, but let's just say there is plenty of real historical evidence within the public domain to prove that they have an excellent organization, and that they are almost always contendres. It is also very logical that players being of the nature that winning is one of their primary goals, that they would indeed want to play for that team. I think that pretty well 'cuts it', and I believe that just about anybody (a fan of any team) would pretty much concur. Right, but those things weren't necessarily happening when players like McGwire and Edmonds were raving about playing for the Cardinals, and that history wasn't necessarily there when the poll was taken (mid-season in 2003). The recent history supports your argument, but I think that St. Louis has been perceived by the players as a good place to play, long before any of those things were true (5 division titles and such).

Well, look athis post Sounds like he was saying they were the best fans. He makes no qualifications there. To me, I don't appreciate it that BS. I called him on it, and I'm not going to let it slide. Ever. I'm glad you referenced my comments. It puts it in perfect context of what we were discussing (contracts, players, home discounts, etc.). I basically said that, in the eyes of players, the city of St. Louis has the best fans. Then I supported it. I'll stand by that. It's not BS, unless the players' opinions don't matter to you.

They're a difinitive source, in the context of what we were discussing. They have interaction with fans, and players from other teams. I'm sure that's what they're basing their opinions on. What do YOU think they're basing their opinions on? As pointed out, it's not a scientific poll, but it works for the context that we need it to work. Just because a player gives a team a discount because he thinks the fans are great, does not make it so. By the same token, an unfair, outdated players poll doesn't prove it either. In the players' opinion, it is so. That's all that matters, in the context of what we're talking about. The poll is only a year and a half old. You think that Cardinal fans have done something to go from 50% (verses 13% for 2nd place) to something much less than that? The poll wasn't even close. It's 2 and a half years old. You said that St. Louis is known for having the best fans. Vance said that having the best fans is a myth. He's right, and no player poll will change that. It's impossible to determine. I intended for my remark to be taken within the context of the discussion that we were having. I should have clarified, I suppose...... but I thought it was a given. In the context of what we were talking about, my remark was relevant, and right on the money, and supported by evidence. You're right, the poll is 2 and a half years old. My mistake.

This is also the reason I don't think Mulder will sign with St. Louis after next year. What can you do in other baseball cities that you can't do in St. Louis? And who says that Cardinal players have to live in St. Louis anyway? Edmonds doesn't. McGwire didn't. Walker doesn't. Yet they all love the organization and the fans, and probably wouldn't want to play anywhere else. Go out in the city and have a good time any night of the week. The St. Louis downtown area sucks for the most part. Also, there are very few cultural things to go out and do on a regular basis. That's not really true, I don't think.

Buy into what? IMO, that poll is meaningless, within the context of whether or not a player signs below market. The real reasons, IMO, are: 1) Good organization 2) Good chance to get a WS ring 3) Good chance to play integral part (start) Logic being that the money will be there, one way or the other (endorsements). If you don't have the three items above, you are very unlikely to get a player to take below market to sign with you. Is it not ironic that the Cardinal just happen to have an excellent organization and a good chance at the WS just about every year? I'm not sure I understand the irony in it. Explain. I don't disagree with your assessment. The irony is that you are using some fallacious poll to support your argument, when it is much more likely that the real reasons are much simpler, transparent, and right in front of everyone's eyes. However, you chose to select the weakest evidence available to support your argument. I think that there are alot of factors. I simply pointed out one of them. Yours aren't necessarily quantified. Do you have a resource that tells what players' opinions are on those three measures? How do we know that players believe that the Cardinals have a "good organization" or a "good chance to play an integral part"? You're using arbitrary terms, in my opinion. Your reasons may be "simple" and "transparent", but around here that doesn't cut it. You'd better have something to back it up if you're going to deal with the folks on this board.

This is also the reason I don't think Mulder will sign with St. Louis after next year. What can you do in other baseball cities that you can't do in St. Louis? And who says that Cardinal players have to live in St. Louis anyway? Edmonds doesn't. McGwire didn't. Walker doesn't. Yet they all love the organization and the fans, and probably wouldn't want to play anywhere else.

Buy into what? IMO, that poll is meaningless, within the context of whether or not a player signs below market. The real reasons, IMO, are: 1) Good organization 2) Good chance to get a WS ring 3) Good chance to play integral part (start) Logic being that the money will be there, one way or the other (endorsements). If you don't have the three items above, you are very unlikely to get a player to take below market to sign with you. Is it not ironic that the Cardinal just happen to have an excellent organization and a good chance at the WS just about every year? I'm not sure I understand the irony in it. Explain. I don't disagree with your assessment.

Tell it to the players, not me. They're the ones who believe it.

Buy into what?

They're a difinitive source, in the context of what we were discussing. They have interaction with fans, and players from other teams. I'm sure that's what they're basing their opinions on. What do YOU think they're basing their opinions on? As pointed out, it's not a scientific poll, but it works for the context that we need it to work. Look at what he said. Why weren't White Sox fans and Cubs fans separated in that poll? Might it have mattered? Who knows? But a lot of AL players wouldn't have chosen "Chicago" because they don't think "best fans" when they consider the scum they deal with at the cell. (My. Dybas, we're looking at you.) The poll means nothing, and if you think it means something, please tell me, who is the best manager? Surely I'd take the players word on that over best fans. I have no idea what would happen if you seperated Chicago fans. I know that about 50% of National League players believe that St. Louis has the best fans. That's pretty decisive, especially in the context of what we're talking about. I have my own opinion on who the best manager in baseball is. That has nothing to do with players giving home town discounts.