Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, if they make the change, I will be watching.
If they don’t make the change, I will be watching.
I enjoy watching the Cardinals play. If there is a game on that I don’t enjoy watching (most all games without the Cardinals), then I don’t watch. It’s as simple as that. This rule could make it so that there are more Cardinals games on for me to watch than there would have been without the rule – so I’m not going to get too worked up over it.
More baseball. More playoff baseball. More games late in the season that matter.
Are you going to stop watching the regular season? I’m not.
And I’ve heard the “it will cheapen the regular season” argument in every sport every time an expansion of playoffs happens. It never does.
These are are grown ass men being fed the equivalent of an elementary school lunch.
Every single one of them is capable of going somewhere else and making a lot more money. Yet very few choose to do that. They are not as miserable as is being made out.
I remember when all this started, I said that if this movement is successful to pay player more, it will result in less pro baseball jobs (basic economics). And yet the same people who bellyache about low pay also bellyache over the (shocking) development that there is likely to be less minor league teams soon.
This happens all the time in life, with the same results, and it always results in the people who wanted to help harming the very people they wanted to help. Those who don’t learn from history…
I remember there being a pretty good 83-win team back in 2006.
I know that change is hard for a lot of people, but more baseball, more playoff baseball, and more games deep into the season that matter doesn’t seem so bad to me.
You guys will still have your back in my day stories to tell. Back in my day, baseball players were hooked on speed, but we pretend they were puritans and that steroids corrupted the game.
I sure am glad no one is coming to kidnap me and make me a baseball slave.
Edit: Because I prefer turkey.
At least we’re not politicians (guessing).
This, especially the “guessing” part really made me laugh. I agree with the rest, though. Let’s hope that Schildt has a major problem with having to sit guys who are performing because we have more good players than positions.
If you don’t like our organization depth in the low minors right now, I’ve got some good news for you on what MLB is looking at doing to alleviate some of that issue. 😉
It’s funny how so many posters only remember being right. I remember getting heckled in the Astros cheating thread for having the audacity to suggest that amphetamines were widely used in baseball, both before and after the phone “rule against illegal drugs.” I was called on it, and practically insulted for suggesting it. Then after I post the proof that was asked of me – crickets. Not a single person responded to that. One to the next thing. I guess no one was wrong about that.
And that, Brian, is why your posters all seem to have a 1.000 batting average.
Switch hitting is not an asset unless you can hit lefties and righties. Edman did well against both last year, but he was definitely better against lefties. And being better against lefties is an asset on this team, since we have so many guys who look like a drunk man trying to swat flies against lefties.
If Edman doesn’t continue to hit righties well, he will essentially become a platoon player against lefty pitchers.
Which begs the question, if someone doesn’t like it why are they watching it?
Why are people watching the Super Bowl?
George Costanza: Because it’s on TV.
There was also actual pole dancing. But when you get artists who are more sexually appealing than musically talented, what would anyone expect?
I don’t care what they do, but parents just have to know to keep their kids distracted during halftime. I go to a party every year that has tons of kids. They barely pay attention to the game at all, the ones that are young enough to worry about anyway.
But still, pole dancing and S&M innuendo? That seems a bit much.
I agree with Brian. I think he’s gone for good, or, any future role he may have will be a big downgrade.
I’d say it’s likely he did all the things that Correa (or whomever the Cardinals wanna be hacker was) suspected him of doing. Dude doesn’t have standup bone in his body.
Commodities? I get what he is saying, but how does he think most people are treated at their job? Poor millionaires, they have to move and travel a lot.
Yeah, Brian, that Taveras thing really hit the Cardinals hard in a lasting way. Not to downplay the human tragedy of it all, but I’ve said in the past that particular event had a pretty massive effect on the Cardinals organization that ripples to this day.
What I meant by not great on its face is that the value the Braves got for him in trade was far greater than the value they gave up to get him (plus other pieces of value). Oddly, it seems, that almost every piece of both deals has turned to crap.
So, yeah, in hindsight, the net result is Hudson – not dismiss Heyward’s great season.
atriple, you actually believe the Cards signed Fowler because of “Cubs envy”? Really? I have to admit that is a first, at least for me…
That’s not a good summary of what I said. It wasn’t why, but their complete misevaluation on Fowler has to be explained somehow – unless we go with brazen stupidity in looking just looking at one year of data and making a conclusion.
It was also a joke. I think they panicked with the Fowler signing, just as they panicked with the Heyward trade a year before. The Heyward trade wasn’t great on its face, but at least the one year we had him for he went bananas and put up his best season as a pro (and then fell off a cliff after the Cubs signed him due to Cardinals envy 😉 ).
My main point was that if we are going to pay a heavy price, let’s pay for Arenado.
Bryant is the same age as Arenado and not nearly as good of a player. If we are going to give up that package, or anything near it, go get Arenado.
Then again, this is the front office that has Cubs-envy enough that they made a huge mistake with Fowler, so you never know.
I was spit-balling. I’m not a fan of it being drawn out either. The service time manipulation is something players need to address in the next CBA. They can blame owners all they want, but they are responsible for the loopholes that they agree to.
Can anyone explain why it took going on five years to settle this grievance case?
Because there was no reason to litigate it if the two sides came to a contract extension agreement beforehand?
I mean, it does affect leverage in those discussions. And it affects value. But, as it turns out, those things would have artificially tilted in the player’s direction.
The one thing that stood out was the author’s statement that they are not looking to shed payroll. I’m skeptical on that claim since they were obviously shopping him this winter.
