The A-Rod Bash

"He's also a gigantic, whining pansy who wears pink low-cut underwear to bed at night and wakes up each morning complaining about a hangnail."

That's how I put it. Has this guy lost his mind? Has he gone straight mad? And why aren't more people outraged about his childish tendencies on the baseball diamond?

His latest episode: screaming in the John McDonald's ear as he passed by, forcing McDonald to drop the ball. This is the kind of crap that happens in t-ball. Not professional sports. This happens in the movies. Not in real-life on a diamond with a bunch of adults.

I'm sorry if you're starting to feel like this post is becoming an A-Rod bashing, but I can't help myself. This idiot should be fined, embarrassed, and suspended for acting like a 6 year old.

Does it not just make you cringe seeing him on Sportscenter, laughing like the whole situation was funny.

That's two Sportscenter episodes thus far this summer, and both of them have caught A-Rod acting like a pansy.

Baby Dolls are for Yankees

It was a week of firsts for me. It was the first time I was able to catch an entire Sportscenter episode since the summer began. And it was also the first time I got to watch any bit of Cardinal substance on TV. On Sportscenter, I, fittingly, caught the evening that contained A-Rod's cheap shot at Boston second baseman Dustin Pedroia. Obviously A-Rod's cowardliness came to no surprise and I was left laughing at his stupid post-game comments.

Let's get one thing straight. This kid is a hell of a baseball player. But he's also a gigantic, whining pansy who wears pink low-cut underwear to bed at night and wakes up each morning complaining about a hangnail. Then proceeds to take cheap shots during baseball games the way someone who's on baseball's highest pay-roll team and is 11 games out of first place would. The Yankees suck. And I'll be the first to say nothing makes me happier.

The Cardinal game I got to catch was yesterday's 6-2 let-down at Coor's against the Rocks. I was hoping, and was supposed to, make the trek north to catch the series but I got sidetracked with a better option. Can you believe that? A better option than watching the Cardinal game? Never thought I'd say it.

It blows my mind however that my first Cardinal game of the summer came without Rolen, Edmonds, and Duncan in the line-up. I don't understand why Tony does this. Why take all the homerun threats (besides Pujols and Taguchi) out of the lineup? Our lineup isn't scary when it's at its best, and it looks like a team the Nationals would field without Edmonds, Ballgame, and Baby Dunc. Sit them one at a time if they need rest, but not all three. C'mon, Tony. Are you losing your edge?

Is Tony losing his edge?

Game 2. Softball. Tomorrow night. Jose...any predictions?

The Things I Hate Most

Wow, I didn't know anybody cared about the NBA. I wasn't even aware that anybody cared enough to get mad about it. I was listening to Dan Patrick's interview with David Stern and, basically, Dan told him exactly what you guys are saying. Dan said it was a conspiracy theory and the punishment actually benefited the aggressor. Stern's response: rules are rules.

Rules are rules. I've been a Suns fan since day one. I hate the NBA, but if I had to choose a team it would still be the Suns. And I would make Paul Westphal the GM. They did get screwed. But rules are rules and Mr. Amare came off the bench and that entitles him to a one game suspension.

But save yourself the misery and watch something better.

Larry...everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But smashing hockey right to my face is risky. C'mon. Hockey is a GREAT sport.

I appreciate the stats, Jose. Although it's fairly difficult to strike out looking. But since you're so concerned and interested, here's my line.
1st - Groundout to third.
3rd - Line drive basehit to left
5th - Walk
6 - Homer to left

20-8 was the final. Good guys.

The post-game, beer consuming conversation came to our most hated athletes. Spawned by our hatred for all things NBA. I thought I'd pass on my ten most-hated baseball players, and the reasons why.

#10 - Jose Reyes: My kind of baseball player, but why the hell does he have to whine and moan every time a strike is called against him? Shut up and play ball. Quit looking for the camera.
#9 - JD Drew: It's too bad he's never really been THAT good. Then I'd really hate him. But bottom line is that he's a money dweller. And he's overpaid.
#8 - Michael Barrett: It's tough to hate a guy that's not really any good. At all. But the kid's a Cardinal killer.
#7 - Carlos Zambrano: Shut up and pitch.
#6 - Johnny Damon: Speaking of money dwellers. This guy had the entire city of Boston at his fingertips. He was the poster boy for baseball. He was everywhere. Then he split town to play for the hated Yanks and take more money. They once said that 2004 Boston team was "a bunch of idiots." Damon is the biggest one of them all.
#5 - Barry Bonds: Steroids aside, this guy is a jackass asshole. His own recliner? His own TV? Jackass. Asshole.
#4 - Gary Sheffield: It all stems from one play. A couple years back. Ball goes into the corner, Gary goes after it, fan interferes, Gery throws punch. It happened. It was obvious. The camera's caught it. The fan was in the wrong as well, I'll admit. And I wouldn't have cared so much about the play but my cousin Paul swears to his grave that the fan threw a punch (when, in reality, he simply got excited, reached down, and tried to grab a ball - it happens EVERY SINGLE GAME. Why would a fan throw a punch at Gary Sheffield? This doesn't make sense. Was he sitting there telling his buddy: "hey, Mike, if someone hits a ball into the corner this game and Sheffield somehow happens to be right in front of us as the ball passes, I'm going to throw a cheap shot at him. It'll be perfect.") Paul also swears that Shef didn't throw a punch in retaliation. Why he feels the need to wrongly defend a Yankee (at the time) is beyond me. The fan got excited, Shef threw a punch (and missed). And he landed in my top four because of Paul.
#3 - Derek Jeter: Solid ballplayer. I mean GOOD. But ESPN makes this guy out to be the second coming of Christ. He's not from Nazareth, people. And the play a couple years ago where he caught the ball in fair territory then dove into the stands for no apparent reason wasn't THAT great of play. It happens all the time, but ESPN glorified it and made it the PLAY OF THE YEAR? C'mon. This was the same season Jim Edmonds went 25 yards back on a ball against the Reds, scaled the wall, and with his backhand took a homerun away that was a good four feet over the wall. Jimmy's play was ten times better than Jeter's. And Jeter's ugly.
#2 - Alex Rodriguez: One of the best players in baseball. Bottom line. But for some reason, in 2004, he felt the need to swat at Doug Mirabelli's glove in the ALCS to knock a ball out on a play at first. This is something a sore losing, schoolboy pansy does. THEN he proceeds to pretend he did nothing wrong, the way a three year-old girl cries to her mommy when someone takes a piece of her toy train set. The cameras were on, he was guilty. Own up to it and be a man. For crying out loud.
#1 - Roger Clemens: Wow. He's not that good. What he is though is a self-indebted, attention-wanting, over-paid, old man. The last time he pitched in the powerful American League, his ERA was near 4.00. He can only last five innings. And, brace yourself, he took steroids. The league covered it up. Wow. I really really really dislike this guy.


In a New York subway series, I'm taking the Mets. EVERY SINGLE TIME. But that won't ever happen because Carlos Beltran can't hit Adam Wainwright when it counts. Therefore, the Mets will never get back to the series.

That was knee-buckling. Who's your top ten? Go Cards.

Give Me Back MY PULSE.

To put it simply: I've been without a pulse. Finals week engulfed me. A roadtrip across the country exhausted me. I finished school, moved to Durango, Colorado, and have been working ten hours a day every day since. I'm sick, tired, and I need to blog.

So..fresh from my new digs in D-Town, let's get back to the basics. Here's how sad it is...I've been given late night access to the local newspaper office (thanks to the Durango Herald Sports Staff) and I can't find the Cardinals on the TV. Why the hell aren't the Cardinals televised all across the world? The lack of respect for the World Champs is disgusting. I could care less about the Suns-Spurs or the Cavs-Nets. The NBA sucks. I want the Cardinals.

So..I need help. Until today, I've had no internet access. Local sports radio only gives the score of the Cardinal game, no details provided. Three consective shutouts? Two for the other team. Nasty. Who's been doing what?
*Is Albert a king once again?
*Has Jimmy got RBI number 2 yet?
*Is Duncan still mashing? Does our pitching staff still look like pigs rolling in shi*?
*Have any of you naysayers given in and adopted the name "Ballgame" for Scotty Rolen yet?

Can anybody help? I'll get back in the mix, I promise. But for now, I need help catching help. And can any of you with mad smarts and wiring capability somehow wire the Cardinal game to the drive-in theater screen located behind my house? With our technology, surely this can be done. By tomorrow.

Not that anybody cares, but I have my first softball game on Wednesday night. Any predictions?

Sincerely,
Lost

News of Hancock Prompts Beer Ban

The news is out, Cardinal pitcher Josh Hancock was legally drunk at the time of his wreck, at almost twice the legal limit. Apparently he was talking on his cell phone at the time of the crash as well. So the speculation is over and the worst nightmares are confirmed. Nonetheless, it's sad to see him go.

The news, reported by the St. Louis Police Department this morning, has prompted a St. Louis Cardinals Organization press conference. The conference is taking place as I type and the basic idea behind it is that the team will be incorporating a zero-tolerance policy on the organization's members. The details are sketchy at this point, but it sounds like there will be no more beer in the clubhouse and no more drinking after games. It's hard to say what "zero-tolerance" means at this point. I would imagine it's not legal for the Cardinals to say to its members, "you can't drink at all." But who knows? Maybe there's a legal clause that states when an organization is paying you millions and millions of dollars, they have control over your social life as well. We should know all the details soon.

Many locals have been calling for this. Others won't understand it. There's two ways of looking at it, I guess. Most of the time, you're not allowed to crack into a cold beer at the office after a long day of work. Essentially, that's what the Cardinals are doing. Their job is baseball. Their office is the clubhouse. If you can't do it at a sky rise while working for a multi-million dollar industry, then why can you do it while working on a baseball field?

On the other hand, beer has always been a part of baseball. Banning beer from the clubhouse is like banning cigarettes at bars. It's UN-American, but they're doing it anyway. In the end, they're both a good thing - there's no debating that. But how far do we go? Yes, the athletes are old enough to be responsible for themselves. But, on the other hand, Major League Baseball probably shouldn't allow their players to drink at the ballpark and then drive home...simply for the safety of other people.

I'd be down with a two beer limit to all players while at the ballpark. Or having Major League teams install a breathalyzer that players must blow into before they're allowed to leave the clubhouse. This wouldn't be expensive, and it would make things safe.

I don't agree, however, with banning beer completely. This is baseball. Let's make it safe while still honoring the tradition.

I understand it's not about the legends of baseball at this point, it's only about saving lives and making things as safe as possible. But you have to admit that imagining Babe Ruth up there in baseball heaven during the Cardinals press conference today is entertaining. With the news of a beer ban in the clubhouse, you can just see Babe leaning on a wooden bat with a big ole fat cigar hanging from his mouth and a beer in his right hand. He's probably looking at Gehrig and grumbling, "damnit, Lou, you believe this shit?"

Sadly Enough, American Media has Come to This

For the second time in a week, The St. Louis Post Dispatch has fallen on harsh criticism. Last week, readers were ignited by Cardinal coach Tony LaRussa over an article that ran on the front page of the sports section bashed the history of the division rival Chicago Cubs. This week, the paper found itself neck deep in debate again after a story ran on the front page of the paper suggesting that Josh Hancock had been drinking at the time of his fatal accident.

Last week's basis: a franchise that hasn't won a World Series since it wouldn't accept a goat's ticket 98 years ago.
This week's basis: an account from "a man named Vince."

Has the Post Dispatch crossed the line? The topic is certainly up for debate and opinions regarding the paper are forming rapidly. Many locals are in rage over the paper's "sketchy" reporting but are left with nowhere else to go for their news, considering the Post Dispatch is St. Louis' single source for city-wide news. Other citizens are standing behind the paper's editors and reporters, claiming they're simply doing their job. So who's right and who's wrong?

The debate will go on, but there's one thing for certain: the Post Dispatch did not run Tuesday's article concerning Hancock's alcohol consumption without being sure it had its back covered. For those that think "Vince" simply called up the paper's front desk Monday evening and started rattling on about his night at Mike Shannon's bar with Josh Hancock, you're wrong. In the contemporary age of easily-brought lawsuits that we live in, there is absolutely NO WAY that the Post Dispatch didn't have numerous sources and and accurate accounts of Hancock's night before it ran this story. They protected their backs. If not, then they're are in for some serious court time.

The real dimwits in this situation are "Vince" and his "anonymous" wife. For what reason did they feel the need to report their knowledge to the Post Dispatch? The right thing to do would have been to call the St. Louis Police Department and tell them what they know, leaving the rest up to authorities. For some reason, this wasn't the case. They wanted publicity and they were cowards about it, refusing to give up their full names. The way I see it, if you're so sure that Hancock was under the influence then why try to hide your identities? If they weren't willing to put their reputation on the line with this testimony, then they never should have come forward to the local media.

I have no problem with "Vince" telling what he knows, but I do think he went about it the wrong way. He told the wrong people what he knows and he did it as a publicity stunt. There is no other way of looking at. He could certainly give us the excuse of "I wanted the people of St. Louis to know what really happened." This is hogwash, the truth would've come out soon enough. Eventually we all are going to know the whole truth behind the tragic events, we didn't need to learn it from an anonymous source. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and "Vince" and his faceless wife should be ashamed. If they had a son or a daughter killed in an accident such as this, would they want some "no-namer" without any pure evidence leaking the story to the press? No, they wouldn't it.

So, considering all that, do I think the Post Dispatch was wrong in relaying the story? No, I don't. I think it's shady, and if I would've been the editor of that paper than I certainly wouldn't have allowed the story to run. But I'm not the editor, and I realize that the Post Dispatch has an agenda and it was simply trying to fulfill that agenda. It's job is to report ON the news, not necessarily to simply report the news. Comparing it to another contemporary event taking place, do you really think even half the crap the Post Dispatch reports about the War in Iraq is completely accurate? Absolutely not. And that goes for every newspaper in this country. The stuff they print about the war is no more grounded in fact than this story about Hancock was. And it's probably even worse, considering the government has access to most of those stories first and can certainly hide some things, while twisting others. Reporting ON the news is what America media is all about, and that won't change. Bottom line.

It's a shame we had to hear the news like this, but the Post Dispatch has people talking about their newspaper. And that's what they want. The paper itself is national news right now, the sports columnist's are national news, the editors are national news. I'm not saying their goal is to reap fame from Hancock's tragedy, but I don't they're losing sleep over it.

The truth is, whether the story came from "Vince," another local, or from one of their columnists - it was coming. St. Louis wasn't going to wait until the toxicology report came back. And you'd probably be lying if you said you didn't suspect, almost immediately, that Hancock had a few drinks that evening. The speculation was coming, and the news will come next week. We all know that chances are good they'll say the same thing.

For now, since the report has been broken, I'm ok with the Post Dipatch continuing with this story. The family has already heard their suspicions confirmed and now we must treat this as a lesson. If it takes continued reporting on this issue to get it through people's heads that drinking and driving is dangerous, then keep on reporting it. Hancock's death was tragic and unfortunate, but we must learn from it.

Majerus or Not, SLU is still SLU

Lets get one thing straight right now, Rick Majerus is a badass basketball coach. He's good. Check his credentials. He's on the map. His name can be whispered in the same sentence as Coach K, Roy Williams, and Bob Knight. Bottom line. He may not have the wins those three big timers have, but there's no doubt that, given the players they have, Majerus would be considered one of the greatest coaches in the history of the game.

SLU's hiring of him is a great move, probably the best move they could've made in terms of enhancing their basketball program. But there's one thing it seems all the big time professional columnists and experts are missing: SLU is still just SLU. In case you've never been to SLU's campus on a Friday afternoon, it resembles a nursing home at 1 o'clock in the morning. The place is a ghost town. It's dead. Lifeless. All the students are gone for the weekend, commuted back to their off-campus homes, out of the gates that surround the campus. There are no student demonstration rallies taking place, there are no students lounging in the grass, there are no students riding bikes or skate boards around the campus sidewalks. Everybody's gone. The biggest weekend gathering around SLU's campus, from what I can tell, is the post-bar munchie line at the Del Taco across the street. And rumor has it, Del Taco doesn't even exist anymore. Probably because their food sucks...but that's beside the point.

Tell me, how impressed is a student-athlete going to be when they get the routine campus tour of ghost-town on a spring time Friday afternoon? Probably not very impressed.

You want another reason Majerus will be incapable of turning this program into a national top 50 like everybody thinks he can, how about the other local schools he's competing against? We've got a top 25 Southern Illinois program just across the river, a respectable program in Illinois who's made a recent final four run, a solid rising program at Missouri State, and an improving Missouri Tiger team right up I-70. Every one of these schools has a campus life, whether it be Friday afternoon or Sunday evening. These campus' are alive with energy. They aren't commuter campus' that quickly release students when the weekends come around. The action is the campus. SLU has a broad downtown St. Louis that spreads everybody apart. They have Laclede's Landing as their party spot, a commuting distance from campus, that mixes SLU students with the local eight to fivers. It's easy to see, SLU simply is not conducent to student life. In reality, the only thing that seperates SLU from the often-dissed UMSL is a better education. How is SLU going to compete recruiting wise?

The only benefit they have at this point is Majerus. And let's be honest. A 59 year-old man that weighs around 350 pounds and has had a serious dose of heart problems that have caused him to quit midseason three different times isn't going to be around forever. Let's hope the best for his health and for this program. But don't buy into the Post Dispatch's frenzy about SLU all of a sudden being a midwest powerhouse. It simply won't happen. The best we can hope for is that Majerus straightens this awful program out and gets it moving in the right direction for the next guy in the coaching line.