Randy Moss being traded.

According to multiple news outlets, Randy Moss is about to be traded to the Minnesota Vikings.






Where art thou Billy Devanney?

Blues final roster.

The blues today sent down Ian Cole and Nick Drazenovich to Peoria to finalize their roster.

I have no idea if this was the correct move since I haven't had the chance to watch much of training camp but from what the twittersphere is saying it sounds like Cole deserved to stay.

I give up on doing this prospect stuff with the blues. Just get on the ice and perform or go home!

Enough. Hes coming back!

I'm sick and tired of this "drama" with Tony La Russa. Will he stay or will he go?

I'll answer the question below.



















HES COMING BACK!

HES COMING BACK!

HES COMING BACK!

HES COMING BACK!

There you go. Does that make it clear? Can we move on now?

(although if by some miracle he does leave, I will be throwing a party for all of St. Louis)

Blues Prediction.

Yes, I have been very skeptical about the blues this year since they decided not to pursue any scoring help in the offseason. Still, I am very excited that the season is about to begin. Mostly because the blues are going to do what I have been asking for a while.

LET THE KIDS PLAY!!

I never understood the Blues so called "youth movement" these last few years. Especially under coach Andy Murray with his treatment of Perron and almost every other young player.
Also, the front office's baby treatment of Pie is something I have never understood.

And, yes I'm probably the only one in St. Louis who is still skeptical about the Halak move.

Still, I'm excited for this season. Finally, the blues seem to be telling the young kids to "get out there and show us what you got."

Which is what I wanted to see the last couple of years, but didn't happen. My biggest worry about the season is the blues seem to be moving "all in" this year with the youth. If the blues take another path like last year, then what?

But my gut tells me that won't happen. We'll see.

my projected blues roster.. (yikes! in my opinion)

2010-11 St. Louis Blues (via capgeek.com)

PLAYER BONUS CAP HIT

FORWARDS
Andy McDonald -- $4,700,000
Brad Boyes -- $4,000,000
Alexander Steen -- $3,362,500
* David Perron -- $3,000,000
David Backes -- $2,500,000
Jay McClement -- $1,450,000
T.J. Oshie -- $1,275,000
Patrik Berglund -- $1,246,667
* Cam Janssen -- $1,000,000
B.J. Crombeen -- $872,500
Vladimir Sobotka -- $750,000
* Brad Winchester -- $700,000
Matt D'Agostini -- $550,000

DEFENSEMEN
Eric Brewer — $4,250,000
* Erik Johnson — $4,000,000
Barrett Jackman — $3,625,000
Alex Pietrangelo - $3,166,667
* Carlo Colaiacovo — $2,125,000
* Mike Weaver — $1,200,000
Roman Polak — $1,100,000

GOALTENDERS
* Jaroslav Halak — $4,000,000
Ty Conklin — $1,300,000

BUYOUTS
Jay McKee — $1,333,333

LOST VIA REENTRY WAIVERS
NONE

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS
ROSTER SIZE 22
SALARY CAP $59,400,000
PAYROLL $51,506,666
BONUSES $3,175,000
CAP SPACE $11,068,33

Checketts has a lot of Nerve

Im starting to draw a picture of Dave Checketts in my mind. Its one of a little boy crying out, "please can I please raise ticket prices? I really really want to have higher ticket prices!" I remember that the first decision Checketts made when he first bought the team was to raise ticket prices. Thankfully, Checketts saw the light back then and changed his mind on the price increase. Still, it was a stupid decision to raise ticket prices then and it is a stupid decision now.

According to Jeremy Rutherford, Blues writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, season tickets are going up by an average of 14 percent. The spin being put on by the blues is that the current tickets is in the bottom fifth of the league and the new prices will still be one of the lowest. They act as if this is a huge bargain. They act as if the Blues have been playing like Stanley Cup contenders these last couple of seasons. What team has Checketts and John Davidson been watching?

Since they seem to have forgotten, I will remind them of this. The team hasn't been very good! Paying low ticket prices for a team that isn't very good isn't a bargain. It is an even trade! Yes, I do remember that the blues were a playoff team last season. However, that was due to a miraculous late season surge in to the playoffs. Even though they made the playoffs, the team still played poorly for most of the year and I dont think I have to remind blues fans how the blues have played this season.

Another excuse the Blues have given is that they need these increases to resign their young guys. That may be true, but simply resigning the players you have won't make the team that much better. The blues youth are not ready to carry this team right now, especially with the way Patrick Berglund has played and the inconsistency of David Perron and Erik Johnson. So how can we have any confidence that the team is going to be any better the next couple of seasons?

There is only way this ticket increase would be acceptable. Thats if the Blues bring in a superstar talent during the offseason, like a Kolvalchuck. Other than that, it is inexcusable.

Two Words for the Blues: Do Nothing!

The olympics are almost over. The trade dealine in the NHL is getting closer and closer. Trade rumors are all over the internet (including the blues looking for a goalie). Mens hockey is on a 24 hour break. This just might be a good time for blues trade talk.

Actually its more like non-trade talk in this post. My belief is the blues shouldn't make a move at the deadline.

This is my case:

Let's assume the blues do acquire someone at the deadline and that acquisition gets them into the playoffs this season. Then what? Do they win the cup? I doubt it. (unless they miraculously acquire a Crosby or Ovechkin caliber player) So why make a trade and give up prospects/picks for at best an early playoff exit? I know this season will be considered a disappointment and a failure if the blues don't make the playoffs, but is it worth throwing away the future of the franchise away for the sake of salvaging one season?

If you follow me on twitter, then you probably remember me advocating for the blues to trade Keith Tkachuck and Paul Kariya. I still believe they should trade them if they don't think its possible to make the playoffs this season. However, if you believe making the playoffs are a possibility then you cant let them go. It makes no sense to break up a team before attempting to make a playoff run, especially when the blues are only sitting four points out of the last playoff spot ( and consider where the blues would be right now with out all this awful officiating they've had to put up with). Also, what kind of players do you expect to get in return for an overpaid Kariya and an aging Tkachuck? Certainly not anyone that will lead them to a cup this year or anytime in the near future.

By the way, why are the blues even considering trading for a goalie? I know I'm not the most knowledgeable about hockey but I do believe that Chris Mason has been having a great couple of seasons with the Blues. How could the Blues even consider letting this guy walk away after what hes done for this team? I realize that he may be a little costly to resign in the offseason but it will be more costly for the team to let him go.


My only execption to this plan is if the blues can somehow acquire a good sniper and sign him long term, but how many teams are going to part with one of those? Any other trade would be pointless. No player the blues could acquire is going to lead them to a cup this season. Because the blues are only four points out of the last playoff spot, I don't believe they should be sellers either. The best bet for making the playoffs this year and keeping the future alive and well for the blues is to stand pat at the deadline and to try to fight their way into the playoffs with what they currently have.


A trade for a sniper, or a trade thats a huge steal for the blues are the only deals the blues should even consider pulling off. Anything else would make the "Whatever it takes" and "building from within" slogans a crock.

My take on the Matt Holliday signing.

It's official. Matt Holliday will be back in a Cardinals uniform for the next seven years at a cost of 120 million dollars. If you didn't read my earlier blog post on Holliday, then I'll remind you that I said I'm against resigning Holliday. The biggest reason was the cost to resign him. I outlined how the Cardinals could have filled their holes at third base, left field, and in the bullpen for the cost it would take to resign Holliday. My only knock on Holliday as a player was his abysmal performance in the first half of last season. My point being that it's not very safe to give a long term deal worth 16 to 18 million per season to someone who only showed up the last half of the season. That sums up my earlier post.

I was against signing Matt Holliday then and I'm also against it now. The biggest reason is that it brings more questions than it answers. The biggest one is how does this make the 2010 Cardinals any better than the 2009 team? You have the same lineup as last year minus Mark DeRosa, you haven't addressed the bullpen, and you currently don't have a third baseman. We also have to consider the following question marks:

Why did you give him so much money and so many years?

How are you possibly going to resign Pujols?

If you do resign Pujols, how are you going to keep Wainwright and Carpenter?

These questions lead me to this conclusion. I believe that either this signing was made to shut up the critics of owner Bill Dewitt on not spending money and to keep the stadium filled for at least the next two to three years until the Dewitt group sells the team, or the team has no intention of resigning Pujols. Take a look at the evidence.

Let's look at the first question. Why was he given so many years and so much money when according to most reports that there were no other competitors for Matt Holliday? Jason Bay, the most similar player to Holliday on the market, by comparison only got 4 years worth 66 million dollars from the NEW YORK Mets. According to Buster Olney of ESPN, the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox (after signing John Lackey), Angels, and Dodgers had no interest in Holliday. He also said that the only other team interested in Holliday, the Baltimore Orioles, only offered 70 million. So market wise, the Cardinals had no reason to give Holliday the contract they gave him. So, why do it? I'll hold off answering that for a little while.

Now let's take a look at the last two questions I asked. How does this signing allow for the Cardinals to resign Pujols? Do you really expect the Cardinals to resign Pujols at the 25 to 30 million dollars that he will likely command? Now I admit that I would have never expected the Cardinals to sign Holliday at 7 years, 120 million dollars, so for the sake of argument let's assume they do sign Pujols. This brings a new question mark. How will the Cardinals be able to keep a team around Pujols and Holliday? I'll use the conservative estimate on resigning Pujols at 25 million. So that means that Pujols and Holliday combined will cost the Cardinals 42 million dollars. If we add Chris Carpenters 13 million dollars to the mix, that brings the total up to 55 million dollars for three players. Now let's throw in Adam Wainwright. Wainwright in 2012 will make 9 million dollars. The total is now up to 64 million dollars on FOUR players.

So now lets assume the Cardinals, over the next several years, will keep a 100 million dollar payroll. Now what kind of team are the Cardinals going to put around their four-pillars for 36 million dollars? There are still 21 positions to fill. (Okay, ill take out one for the backup catcher. ) So, thats 20 positions to fill, and the Cardinals have only an average of 1.8 million dollars to spend on each player. What kind of team do you think the Cardinals are going to be able to field with that little amount of money left? It's hard to tell exactly but its safe to say that it won't be a good one.

So whats the point of all of this? Bill Dewitt and John Mozeliak are not stupid people. If this meaningless blogger has gone through this and figured this out, then we know they have too.

This leads to my final question. If they already know this, then why would they do it? This Holliday signing may make sense in the short term, but it makes no sense in the long run. So why would Bill Dewitt, a guy who has gained a reputation of being a guy who only looks out for his own bottom line, do something that hurts them in the long run? As I mentioned before, one of the only two possible explanations is that Dewitt is looking to sell the team. That would explain why the Dewitts don't care about the team long term. They could just milk as much money as they can out of Cardinals fans by marketing Pujols and Holliday and then sell the team. The only other possibility is that the team has no intention of resigning Pujols. The Cardinals not resigning Pujols would be the only way for the Cardinals to spend the money that they need to put a competitive team out on the field. Then giving Holliday this contract despite his lack of demand in the free agent market would make sense. It leaves the Cardinals a backup plan for if they do not sign Pujols and leave money on the table to keep a competitive team on the field.

Which do you think is going to happen?

Why Suh?

Short and sweet today, i got something else on my mind right now. If your interested in what that is then go here

OK, here is the next thing I don't understand about St. Louis sports.

What's with all the Rams fans desperately wanting the Rams to draft Suh?

My point being that with the Rams deep history of drafting awful defensive tackles, why are so many Rams fans so desperate do draft another defensive tackle? Furthermore, why are so many Rams fans wanting to draft anyone on defense with the first overall pick when the team has so many glaring wholes in the offense. Particularly at the quarterback and receiver position.

Now I'll admit that I've never watched Suh play a game. For those who are still reading this post, my case against drafting Suh doesn't have anything to do with him. A team with so many holes, and so many high draft picks already on the defensive line, does not need another tackle! That's regardless whether or not he really is the player everyone is hyping him up to be.

Let's throw some numbers out there. The Rams ranked 29th in the league in yards per game and 31st in points per game. So the answer for the Rams is to draft defense? I know having a good defense is very important, but if you cant score any points then isn't having a good defense kind of meaningless? Furthermore, I doubt that adding a guy like Suh (even if he lives up to the hype) would all of the sudden make the Rams defense a strong defense. So why Suh?

Why do the cardinals need to sign Holliday?

It seems like I am one of the very few Cardinals fans out there that does NOT want the Cardinals to re-sign Matt Holliday. "ARE YOU AN IDIOT? WE HAVE TO PROTECT PUJOLS," some might be saying right now. But is that really true? It seems like I'm also in the minority of Cardinals fans that remember that Pujols actually hit better without Holliday than he did with Holliday. Pujols hit .332 in the first half of the season and .322 in the second half.

Am I also the only Cardinals fan that has not forgotten that Matt Holliday was embarrassingly terrible in Oakland? Was it due to the leg-kick thing? Was it the huge ballpark in Oakland? Maybe, but does that really make you feel comfortable giving him somewhere in the neighborhood of a 7 year contract worth 16 to 18 million a year? I don't feel good about that at all and I'm stunned that the Cardinals are interested in signing anyone not named Albert Pujols to that kind of contract.

So if not Holliday, then what?

Well, lets go "shopping" with the money that would have been spent on Holliday. Since the latest reports are saying that Holliday wants 18 million per season, that's the number I'll use.

What could the cardinals have gotten for 18 million a year? Let's take a look at the guys that have already signed that I would have signed instead of waiting for Holliday. I've set my eyes on the following guys and have listed the contracts they've signed (not including bonuses and incentives).

Chone Figgins 3B 4 years 9 million per.

Mark DeRosa LF 2 years 6 million per.

Takashi Saito RP 1 year 3.2 million.

(Ok I went over by 200k. The Cardinals can afford it!)

With Figgins, you add something the Cardinals have not had in a very long time. That is a guy that can hit at the top of the line-up and steal bases! Figgins hit .298 last year and stole 42 bases. The only down side with Figgins is that he doesn't play great defense at third base.

I don't understand the Cardinals decision to let DeRosa walk away at all. He plays just about every position in the field, is a great guy in the clubhouse, and last but not least a very good hitter! He also doesn't cost that much considering all the attributes he bring to the table at 6 million per year. DeRosa would have been my left fielder.

Saito is a guy that would have been perfect for the Cardinals. He can be your set-up guy for Franklin, or you could move Franklin back to the set-up role (which is what i would do) and have Saito close.

There you have it. In my plan, I signed a third baseman, left fielder, and upgraded the bullpen. Now all of these guys have already been taken off the market, but if I'm the Cardinals I would pursue a plan like this. The Cardinals, instead, want to give all that money to ONE guy who may or may not be the same guy that we all saw in the second half of last season. My plan also does not tie up a bunch of money over the next six to seven years on ONE guy. This leaves the door open to the possibility of resigning Pujols when his contract comes up. Signing Holliday makes that nearly impossible.

So, again, I ask why do the Cardinals need to sign Holliday?

oh really?

Today as I was listening to the local talk radio shows talk about the firing of blues coach Andy Murray, I was pretty amazed at what I heard. So amazed, that it got me to start this blog.

On more than one show, the theory put forward was that all the players conspired to get Murray fired by laying down in the games. Really? For those who subscribe to this theory then please explain the following.

First, how does that explain their terrific road record? If the players were intentionally trying to get the coach fired, then why would they show up to play for him on the road? Doesn't it seem just a tad bit counterproductive to lay down on the coach at home and go on the road and not only win games but have one of the best road records in the NHL?

Second, let's take a look at the contract situation for some of the blues players this season. Paul Kariya, Keith Tkachuck, Alex Steen, David Perron, Brad Winchester, Cam Janssen, Erik Johnson, Carlo Colaiacovo, Daryl Sydor, and Mike Weaver are all going to be looking for new contracts at the end of this season. In this world, where the dollar seems to be the motivation for almost everything (especially in professional athletes), do you really believe that so many players would sacrifice their own wallets for the sake of getting a coach fired? If they are, then the blues have a whole new problem. They have some of the dumbest players in the league! I don't believe that to be the case.

I know that the whole roster isn't up for free agency, but if I were one of those 10 players I mentioned and saw the other guys slacking off or suggesting that we should lay down to get the coach fired, not only would I say, "HELL NO" but I would also report them to the coaching staff or management in hopes of getting them off the team. There is no way that any player would knowingly allow another player to do anything to hurt their wallet and future in the NHL.

Also, I highly doubt that guys like David Backes and T.J. Oshie were throwing games while trying to make the U.S. Olympic team!

It's one thing to debate whether or not that firing Murray was the right thing or not. But let's not throw logic completely out the window and launch ridiculous conspiracy theories. Instead, let's look at the more logical explanation that Murray's system wasn't working!