nyy28 wrote:Between not being able to resign Pujols and the Wainwright injury this season is obviously off to a not so great start for the Cards this year. Wainwright was one of the top 3 SP in all of baseball last season, and I just don't see the Cards seriously competing for a playoff spot without him.
It also is pretty apparent that the Cardinals are not willing to meet the contract demands of Pujols (if they were, they probably would have already signed him). If they fall behind in the standings early in the season, could we potentially see a blockbuster deal at the deadline involving Pujols?
Obviously this would not happen if they are in playoff contention, but if they have a rough start to the season and it becomes clear they are not a playoff team in 2010 (which lets face it, without Wainwright, they're not) then why wouldn't they want to trade him at the deadline for a plethora of talent rather than losing him via free agency?
You've been sipping the media's kool-aid. I remember when the Cardinals lost Jason Isringhausen went down in 2006. All of the experts said that the Cards are goin' nowhere without Izzy. Well a rookie stepped out of nowhere and won a world series. That rookie was Waino. To say flat out that they're not in it is just jumping the gun. spoken as a true dummy.
First off, you might wanna learn how to do a quote correctly before you call someone else a "true dummy."
Second, the guy never, at any point said "flat out they're not going to contend." In the quote (you butchered) it states very clearly that he just doesn't see them contending, and that "if they fall behind", "could this be something that happens?"
He even goes so far as to state that this obviously would not happen if they were in playoff contention.
Many people thought the Reds and Brewers were better even before this injury.
So it's no stretch to pose the question (observation) would this perhaps change things
on the Pujols trade front.