- This topic has 119 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With today being trade deadline day it occurred to me that many of us (myself included) were exasperated last year when the Cards did relatively nothing at the deadline while their competitors made multiple moves.
So what happened? The Cards got on a roll, won the division, and ended up in the NLCS. How about a repeat of that?
Last year, VEB did an article on the trade deadline over the last bunch of years and found that the less active the Cards were at the deadline, the better the end result. It was basically without exception.
I don’t understand taking Gomber out in the 9th for Woodford. Jake just threw 62 pitches 3 days ago and it was clear that 2 days off wasn’t enough for him. Moreover, Dakota going 7 innings ended up being moot for the bullpen because Shildt still used 3 relievers when he should have just left Gomber in the game.
Get your #stlcards Monday game recap as well as a summary of the tean's player news, with both articles free at The Cardinal Nation. https://t.co/8giCTQyF1I pic.twitter.com/PFqjBnTPGf
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) September 1, 2020
Brian wrote: Just for the swoosh, Nike is paying MLB $1 billion for the next 10 years. That works out to $3.33 MM per year per team.
Wonder if they would accept a contract with something like BLM? I hate to see the uniforms decorated like a Christmas tree. Look at the NOOSECAR uniforms and see sponsorship run amok but then they don’t get a cut back from the administrators of the sport. Still I don’t like that Nike symbol because of some of the things they are associated with but nowadays it is hard to pick anything that is not associated with something that has a history.
MM I don’t think MLB i dumb enough to do a contract with BLM as that would be a major, MAJOR turn off to alot of fans where they would’t even bother watching anymore….
I don’t get it. Does BLM have a billion dollars for sports sponsorships? The idea is so ridiculous that it seems more like a thinly-veiled approach to turn yet another thread into the personal political diatribes we are trying to stop.
bccran, you know MLB does not care about what we might think. They took the $1 billion offer and are likely entertaining their next moves in this area.
Was there any significance to Thomas coming into the game last night? Or was it late defensive replacement?
Hold on UCONN. Those initials were on every major league mound on Opening Day and on several for a few days after that. MLB supported it and still does to the best of my knowledge. In fact just try spelling MLB backwards.
The idea is so ridiculous that it seems more like a thinly-veiled approach to turn yet another thread into the personal political diatribes we are trying to stop.
You are wrong on that one Brian. But you have to admit that Nike has it’s own detractors and that logo of the political organization you don’t want us to mention was fully supported by MLB on opening day to the point where kneeling and painting their acronym on the back of mounds was done. So if you want to point fingers, point them at the administrators of this sport for dragging out their own political diatribe and expecting fans to keep their traps shut.
BHC wrote: Also the NOOSECAR comment is pathetic and another political comment.
How is that political BHC? I was a NASCAR fan for 52 years and have never been more disappointed. That NOOSECAR name is just what many former fans are calling it these days. They, the organization not the driver, had the opportunity to apologize to its fans for leading them on a witch hunt which wound up with egg on their own faces and NO apology so the NOOSECAR name is more a putdown of them for failing to apologize than any political motive.
This is a game thread. About the St. Louis Cardinals game. There is no place for personal views on BLM or NASCAR here. Just keep the discussion on baseball. PLEASE.
All posters, please do not get drawn into non-game discussion on this thread. Thank you.
C27 asked:
Was there any significance to Thomas coming into the game last night? Or was it late defensive replacement?
Shildt was asked that question and he said it was nothing more than giving Thomas “a chance to get a few at-bats”.
On Thomas, Shildt noted that “Mo decided he was a good guy to have back.”
I thought that was an odd choice of words used by Shildt. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.