gus_dog

For waffle, bukie & Derwood... http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/index.php?s=

Watching this World Series is like watching two of the ugliest people you know making love….it is repulsive to see, but you just can’t turn away.

This is spot-on the truth. Damn the Sox, I say!

More than Marquis' bad season is the fact that Walt doesn't do FA's. He doesn't like to commit to big fa contracts. Marquis will be dealt for an Of'er. If the Cards don't want Marquis for the price that he'll command this year, what makes you think that another team will, and that they'll be willing to give up something of value for him? Because other teams need starting pitching. You don't think a team like the Devil Rays, Reds, etc wouldn't want Marquis for around 6 mil? I could see the Reds doing that, but not the Devil Rays. Even the Pirates or Padres

People usually try that, but many of the posters on cards talk aren't much more than trolls on their own forum, so they can't resist. Like moths to the flame....

I like both of those changes. Seed 'em up, and play 'em off. May the best team win.

Especially when compared to 'The Great Macias', huh? :?

I consider myself a traditionalist, however I really favour keeping the Wild Card. Here's why: IMO, prior to divisional play, there was no LCS. I always thought this was very unfair because I felt many of the second place teams deserved a shot at the playoffs. Divisional play came along and then expansion, again, and this worked for awhile, until the most recent expansion forced realignment (adding two new divisions), and forced MLB to find the 'extra' team (the Wild Card) to balance out the playoffs. This is something that obviously the fans enjoy. If the Wild Card team did not 'deserve' to be there, they would not have been so successful, would they? Additionally, under the old formats, when a team ran away with the lead, there was nothing (except pride) for the other teams to play for. Now there is added incentive to. This has made the season more interesting for all of us. Even with the Wild Card, there has been incidents of very good teams not making the play-offs. A case-in-point is the 2002 AL standings. Seattle finishes third in the AL West and Boston finishes second in the AL East with identical records of 93-69, yet cannot play in the post-season because the second place Angels won 99 games! :shock: Seriously, you could make a case for either/or Boston/Seattle being playoff-worthy. I like the idea of allowing another Wild Card team in, and forcing them to play each other for the right to play a division winner. The season would need to be shortened - maybe back to 154 games. As long as it does not affect player salaries, I don't know why the player's association would care, except it would cut back on revenue to share (8 games * (30 teams/2) = 120 games worth of revenue). The Wild Card, as it now formatted, has NO advantage, IMO. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If a division winner is unprepared come play-off time, they have nobody to blame but themselves. As it is, division winners get home-field, for whatever it's worth. IMO, the best teams don't really care where they play - as long as it is a baseball diamond, they'll win. I have always felt that the old way was VERY unfair, because you could have an excellent season, but have to stay home because there were not enough play-off slots available for ALL the good teams. Talk about unfair?

You really think there's going to be a sweepstakes for Sosa's services? I wouldn't be shocked to see him go unsigned....

No, but I had a chance to go. I hemmed and hawed about it, but I couldn't miss any more work, and had to decline my friend's offer of tix.

Willie McGee had power? :-s OK, maybe ya got me there. I sure thought I remembered him getting alot of doubles/triples, but he only averaged about 29 XBH's per year. Not great power, average power, I guess...

Oswalt probably should have been in the mix of this discussion.

That was fast....I heard he discussed it earlier in the season, and it sounded like he would.

Just my own observation, but the Cardinals without Rolen in there are much less imposing. Walker needs to retire (and I think he will), Edmonds seems to be slipping a bit (offencively), and so teams can pitch around Pujols to a higher degree. I don't think career minor-leaguer 'J-Rod' is your answer. IMO, they need an offencive impact player in the outfield to protect Pujols in the batting order. A Willie McGee-type of guy - speed, power, defence, and hits for average. They might lose Morris, but otherwise their starters are fine. Their bullpen will need some help. They will still be a very good team for awhile.

Don't think so. Selig didn't like it when the Cards and Dodgers did it last year and said no more. I wonder why...every other sport does it, and in baseball they do it all the way through college. Seems to make sense..., I guess that's why MLB disapproves.

I didn't notice the Cardinals shaking hands with the Astros after that series. Did it happen?

Wish I would have seen this thread sooner...I'd like to meet indifferent

What link? I can't find a link in Tim's sig.

=D> =D> =D> =D> You know, as much as I absolutely detest the White Sox, I continued to watch the post-game when they clinched, and I even smiled when I saw all the folks expressing joy....It brought back memories (very few) of when the Cubs won the division and then beat the Braves. I have a Sox hat in my closet (a halloween costume prop from year of the William Ligue incident), and that is where it always stays, but I would wear it, along with my Cubs jersey. I would love to go see a World Series game.

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.....

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. It's partially true, you can find these things to do, there's just not as many choices. Unless Mulder gets married in the next year, I think he's gone. I'm from OH, an original midwesterner, so I find St. Louis perfectly fine. Mulder is a single guy from CA and I think he'd prefer a bigger city on either coast. Mulder is from the Chicago suburbs

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.

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.

Tell it to the players, not me. They're the ones who believe it. You use the poll for evidence in your argument, ergo you believe it too. You're buying into it.

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?