kujay

Both should be able to recruit better than any of the lesser-known guys being discussed.

But his friend said he wants to play for the Cubs.

Good, keep him in the AL.

He was upset because the Cards didn't want to give him 10yrs 250-275m. You mean his now established market worth? If the Cards would have offered Puhols an 8/180 deal when Mark Tiexeira signed his contract with the Yankees, I bet he would have taken it. They decided to let him keep playing at a discount. They made their business decision. Puhols just made his. Yeah it's undeniable that the Cards made their bed here. The media has been talking the last three years about "whether now is the time to try to lock up Pujols," and the team didn't do it. I guess we don't know for sure, but there were no reported offers until the one last spring.

The Cardinals now look a million times better on paper without Pujols in the lineup. :roll: Does the cash they saved outweigh his absence? If their payroll stays the same, then Pujols would've more or less used up their resources. What's not clear is if they'll be raising the payroll after 8 playoff home games. DeWitt has said the Cards are not raising payroll due to the playoff revenue.

I hope a lot of people already bought Pujols jerseys as xmas gifts for their kids.

Cards Talk, that outpost of intelligent discussion, is down.

Holy [expletive] I hope this is true. Perfect.

The rational Cards fans I have talked to today are saying exactly this.

Fans here aren't bitter like Cleveland fans because they've won a lot and there is such (over the top, disgusting) pride in the franchise. If Albert signs with Florida, his first game back here he will be cheered loudly.

I think they just have to do enough to keep it close. If they're close, he'll stay. And the Cards would almost certainly give him the NTC. Not that they could ever get away with trading him.

Finally just watched that video of Tootoo destroying Miller last Saturday night. Suspended two games, which I think is about right. It's arguable whether he was actually trying to injure Miller -- he could have been trying to get out of the way. I wouldn't have argued though with a few more games given Tootoo's history. At least the Sabres actually did something this time. There were three dudes (including Miller) punching any part of Tootoo's body they could get to.

My two favorite things about this new plan is that they will be able to have only one western swing (that's if the league allows them to do all 4 coastal teams plus the 2 Alberta teams) and they will be in every city once a year. No more worrying about whether I can see them in NY, NJ, PHI, PIT or the other cities. Hopefully they do the November/February road trips in a reasonable way, one out west and one out east, in relative proximity. I'll bet the circus trip ends up incorporating trips to Denver/Phoenix/Dallas and there will be a separate trip to western Canada, probably tying in one of the 'Peg games. I think that will be my hockey road trip with my dad next year -- to see the Hawks in Winnipeg.

Holy _______. If we could trade for Hanley and add Pujols or Fielder.... (Hanley might come a little cheaper coming off a down year) What would a realistic package look like to send for Hanley?

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams. I read somewhere that this isn't decided yet.

I figured Wings fans might be upset for that very reason, but they still get what they wanted. Fewer games that start at 10:30 eastern time.

If a chronic gambler triples his paycheck at the craps table a few times in a row, it doesn't mean it was a good bet. We haven't won a WS in 103 years. If you tell me we will win it all next season and then finish DEAD LAST for the next 5 years (or even 10), I'll take it.

Your answer completely ignores the point. A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist. You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now. 7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides. The only benefit is cutting down on travel costs. 7 and 8 seeds regularly advance a round or two. But this system will have what would be 9 or 10 seeds advancing, and every year you will have lesser teams making it as far as the semifinals. You are increasing the amount of good teams that won't make it and replacing them with lesser teams who are lucky to play in a weak division. And as for your previous comment about how they did this in the "back in the day", how long did that last, 5 years? It's a bad plan. It actually increases travel costs for most clubs, especially the eastern teams that will go to the entire west coast a couple times. I've read estimates of $500K to $1M in increased travel costs.

Your answer completely ignores the point. A division winner can make the playoffs in the NFL (just like the NHL and every sport), but in this case 4 teams from each conference are guaranteed to make the playoffs, that's dumb. You play your "conference" all year long, and then play them in the first two rounds of the playoffs, that's dumb. A weak conference will happen probably every year, and possibly a couple times a year, and those weak conferences will not only be able to produce the occasional Seahawks team, but will regularly put weak teams into the semi finals. The fact that the identity of that weak conference might change from year to year is pointless. It will exist. You play 1/2 of the schedule against the conference. It's not like they are playing 60 or 70 games against these same teams. They are playing the same (or less) against these teams than they are against division opponents now. 7 and 8 seeds regularly advance in the NHL playoffs. There's a lot of parity, hot goalies, etc. It's not that big of a deal. And most importantly, the benefits of this new plan far outweigh the possible downsides.

They are re-seeded after the "conference" playoffs, rather than locked into Norris vs. Smythe and Patrick vs. Adams. So there's a possibility that the Hawks and Canucks, for example, could play for the Stanley Cup? That's kind of cool. The crappy thing about this is that there is going to be a lot of unfamiliarity with the majority of the league. Unless you get to the old conference finals round, you will only play the other 22 teams a maximum of 2 times per season. The playoff set-up is a horrible idea. It's all about keeping travel costs down and completely ignores everything else. What's the point of an 82 game season with a heavy emphasis on a 7 team conference schedule and then having to play those same conference foes in the first two rounds of the playoffs. It will create and/or build on already established rivalries (Detroit could play Chicago every year in the playoffs, same with Devils/Rangers or San Jose/Vancouver), but you are making it wide open for lesser teams to advance if they are lucky to be in a weak division that year. Plenty of weaker teams will make it now, since they only have to contend with their 7 or 8 rivals. What is now called conference C could easily be filled with garbage teams. Like the Seahawks making the playoffs last year. It happens. You can't look at it now and say a certain conference will be garbage. Who knows what those franchises will look like in 10 years. The divisional playoffs "back in the day" were great. I love the idea of playing St. Louis and Detroit in the first couple rounds of the playoffs instead of playing Phoenix or Dallas. And the intra-conference schedule won't be emphasized any more than division matchups are now. The difference is instead of going to SJ, LA and ANA twice, we get to go to Toronto, Montreal and Philly every year. That's a huge positive.

I'm in favor of it. Keeps rivalry with Detroit. I understand there will be home and homes with every team, every season. So that's good. Our division (conference) is also pretty good. I like the possibility of renewing the rivalry with MN.

Emery might as well not even be in the net. Terrible.

Holy hell! Come on Hoss!

Toews is so good. What a game this has turned out to be.