K-Town

Wow, no 6 run homer by Pujols? Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen are all out with nagging injuries.

Where's the link to those stories, just out of curiosity. If he's 28, so what? He's signed for 5 more years. He'll be a Cardinal through his prime, regardless of how old he is. Frankly, until somebody can show some evidence that he's older than he says, it's all sour grapes as far as I'm concerned.

Why so bitter??

Isn't it a bit of stretch (even for a Cardinal fan) to compare Pujols to Jesus Christ? :? Granted there age (both over 30) are similar but . . . Yup. It's absurd.

Dyslexic? He apologized because of respect for the game. He showed up a pitcher because he wanted revenge. And if anyone can show up a pitcher, its probably the best hitter in baseball. If he had respect for the game, he would not have showed up a pitcher. He can say whatever he wants after the fact, but he can't take back his actions. If you want to see respect for the game look at Rolen. Do not look at a guy who shows up the opposition like albert pujols You can't judge a guy based on one isolated incident. Well, you can......... but you're pretty much using Jesus Christ as your standard, at that point.

The Cards have the 2nd best ERA in the NL. Do you have a theory about them somehow facing the other teams' worst hitters at the most opportune times?? Come on. When you've got one of the best pitching staffs in baseball, baseball's best offensive force, and you play good defense..............you're going to win games. This "luck" theory is just bunk.

If Pujols is 30, then there's still hope for Rick Ankiel to become a slugger. After all, that would mean that Pujols didn't learn to hit until he was about 25. I don't buy it.

Actually, the Cards only lose when it counts (playoffs, and games against the Cubs). Seriously, when you have the 2nd best pitchings staff in all of baseball, and you have Albert Pujols, you're going to win some games. Also, the competition has been pretty weak so far. They'll lose plenty of games......... trust me. There's no way they'll run away with the division this year............ I just don't see it.

Get another hobby? You have almost 5,000 posts here, for crying out loud.

Maybe you and your Iowa friends can create a new message board. We participate on boards. It's all civil. Who are you kidding dude, it would be pretty easy to find multiple instances of you being "uncivil" or taking shots at other posters. We probably wouldn't have to go past the first couple threads in this forum. I'll wait patiently........

Maybe you and your Iowa friends can create a new message board. We participate on boards. It's all civil.

No, not fair enough. The rules of the board are pretty clear that you don't take shots at other posters. We're making fun of Edmonds, not you. I haven't take shots at any other posters, have I? I'm simply giving an opposing view to the Edmonds opinions. No, you're complaning that the orignal Edmonds opinion was made in the first place...ON A CUBS BOARD. So? Like I said, do you want a board with no opposition? Is that the intent? Like I said, you don't want a board where a guy posts something, and everyone else says "Yeah, you're right". What's the point of that? I think we have plenty of dissent around here. We have good discussions. What does grow weary is a Cardinal fan who mucks up threads because we made fun of his boyfriend. It's also worse when such poster decides to accuse others of being homophobic or whatever because they made fun of his boyfriend. We have other Cardinal fans here who don't feel the need to jump in these threads and act like complete douches. I lurk at Cardinal sites as well as other places. If I see someone refer to Zambrano as a "head case" I rarely will even bother to defend him. It's pointless. If I did, I certainly wouldn't do it ad naseum. If there was a discussion of best pitchers of all-time, I might offer my prespective...or even on other baseball related issues, but certainly I'd know that making disparaging remarks against the Cubs would be just part of the territory. Giving your opinion is ok. I'm glad we have differing views, and in fact I have what I'd call some pretty good relationships with some of the other Card fans here. But you seem to argue just for the sake of it and frankly it gets old. Then why participate? Aren't you fueling the fire here every bit as much as I am? I'll make you a deal. I'll stay out of such threads on all Cardinal forums and you stay out of them here. You can join them all you want on ESPN and Cubs.com. In fact, if you agree, I'll even start an Edmonds is Gay thread once a week on Cubs.com so you can argue with those folks until your heart is content. I'll make YOU a better deal. You participate on whatever message boards you choose, and in whichever threads you choose, confine yourself to the format and rules of whatever message board you're on, and try to stay on the high road (avoid name-calling, for starters). And I'll participate on the boards and threads that I choose (you can choose to read my stuff or ignore it completely). I'll ALSO agree to stay within the boundaries of the board monitors. Makes sense, huh?

Good grief. I live in Iowa (Cub territory), and most of my pals are Cub fans. They pick on me, and I pick back. If they implied that Edmonds was gay, I'd call them homophobes. They'd laugh and carry on. What's with you people? Edmonds is a gay arrogant jerk. Is that what you want to hear. Do you feel better about yourselves now?

No, not fair enough. The rules of the board are pretty clear that you don't take shots at other posters. We're making fun of Edmonds, not you. I haven't take shots at any other posters, have I? I'm simply giving an opposing view to the Edmonds opinions. No, you're complaning that the orignal Edmonds opinion was made in the first place...ON A CUBS BOARD. So? Like I said, do you want a board with no opposition? Is that the intent? Like I said, you don't want a board where a guy posts something, and everyone else says "Yeah, you're right". What's the point of that? I think we have plenty of dissent around here. We have good discussions. What does grow weary is a Cardinal fan who mucks up threads because we made fun of his boyfriend. It's also worse when such poster decides to accuse others of being homophobic or whatever because they made fun of his boyfriend. We have other Cardinal fans here who don't feel the need to jump in these threads and act like complete douches. I lurk at Cardinal sites as well as other places. If I see someone refer to Zambrano as a "head case" I rarely will even bother to defend him. It's pointless. If I did, I certainly wouldn't do it ad naseum. If there was a discussion of best pitchers of all-time, I might offer my prespective...or even on other baseball related issues, but certainly I'd know that making disparaging remarks against the Cubs would be just part of the territory. Giving your opinion is ok. I'm glad we have differing views, and in fact I have what I'd call some pretty good relationships with some of the other Card fans here. But you seem to argue just for the sake of it and frankly it gets old. Then why participate? Aren't you fueling the fire here every bit as much as I am?

Isn't that what the "Rivalries" section is all about?

No, not fair enough. The rules of the board are pretty clear that you don't take shots at other posters. We're making fun of Edmonds, not you. I haven't take shots at any other posters, have I? I'm simply giving an opposing view to the Edmonds opinions. No, you're complaning that the orignal Edmonds opinion was made in the first place...ON A CUBS BOARD. So? Like I said, do you want a board with no opposition? Is that the intent? Like I said, you don't want a board where a guy posts something, and everyone else says "Yeah, you're right". What's the point of that?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent of the "Rivalries" forum. If I am, then please feel free to re-explain the rules and format to me. Rivalries doesn't mean, place where Cubs fans can't make fun of Cardinals. This is still a Cubs-centric website built and run by Cubs fans with a vast majority of Cubs fans as users. I never told you to stop making fun. I'm simply telling you why I don't agree with your opinion.

No, not fair enough. The rules of the board are pretty clear that you don't take shots at other posters. We're making fun of Edmonds, not you. I haven't take shots at any other posters, have I? I'm simply giving an opposing view to the Edmonds opinions.

Sure. I have no problem with that....... and I haven't called any of you jerks. On that forum, people took shots at Edmonds, and he took shots back. Fair enough. On this forum, some of you take shots at Edmonds, and I take shots in the opposite direction. Fair enough?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent of the "Rivalries" forum. If I am, then please feel free to re-explain the rules and format to me.

Context. It was a tongue-in-cheek question, and a tongue-in-cheek answer. Yeah, he's a little arrogant. So what?

I know that is considered by the HOF voters, but it is so completely irrelevant. see Palmiero's GG when he was a DH, and Jeter's two GGs. and like I pointed out, Abreu every bit the defender, probably better, and racked up a bunch of stolen bases in his career. career OPS+ Abreu 138 Edmonds 138 so if you say yes to Edmonds, you have to say yes to Abreu, right? now is Bobby Abreu a sure fire HOFer? neither is Edmonds. Kirby Puckett got in with a career OPS+ of 124. Dave Winfield got in with a career OPS+ of 129. Carl Yastrzemski was 130. Reggie Jackson was 139, and never won a Gold Glove. Eddie Murray was 129. That doesn't mean that Edmonds is a lock, by any stretch. But you have to consider it. you also have to consider those were career numbers that do not include the inevitable decline years at the end. all of those players with the exception of Puckett (why does he get in on the sympathy vote, but Santo is excluded because the voters don't want to look like they are giving sympathy votes?) had a few clunker years at the end that dragged their numbers down. Murray had six or seven of those years. Fred Lynn. some of the greatest defensive centerfielder play for a good six or seven year stretch. career OPS+ of 130. HOF'er? neither is Edmonds. I'm not really disagreeing with you. I definitely think he's got some work to do if he wants to get in. I'd definitely say it's a long shot, but it's worth discussing.

Why? Do you honestly take this stuff that seriously? If you're honestly annoyed by a little opposition on a meaningless message board, then you've got bigger fish to fry than just hoping that I go away, my friend.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

He answered a smart-ass question (about himself) with a smart-ass answer. He didn't begin a thread to talk about someone else's homosexuality. That's not what I'm talking about. Wow. Absolutely absurd homophobia by Jim in that chat. Any comments? Reaction? He was asked a gay question, and responded with a gay answer. Wow. I thought you were a defender of homophobia but as it turns out you are just a defender of Cardinals. Jim Edmonds is clearly a massive homophobe yet you give him a free pass while chastising this message board. What gives? Jim Edmonds didn't start this thread. Nor did he start the other one. Nor did he ask the gay question. He responded to a gay question, with a gay answer. I don't defend all Cardinals. Encarnacion is worthless. The numbers say so. Sidney Ponson has lived his life as a jerk. His history is well-documented. If there's founded criticism, then have at it. Making gay jokes isn't "founded criticism". It's nothing more than an attempt to get a reaction. Congrats.......... you've gotten one. It's no big deal though, because gay questions and answers are more or less ho-hum in this country, right? Pretty much. I'm not even sure why it's an issue here.