CowboyB

If Albert Pujols were to go down for an extended amount of time, I strongly believe Chris Duncan should not be called up. I know that according to Bernie Miklas and Randy, there is this supposed rabid force of Cardinals fans out to lynch Duncan, but I am not apart of that group. I just realize that Chris Duncan has not proved that he can sustain a large period of time in the majors as of now. He needs to remain in AAA where he can play on an everyday basis in order to figure out left-handed pitching. If he can do that (he is batting .190 in AAA), the Cardinals need to market him to the rest of the league as a first baseman. He has also shown that despite a slight improvement in the outfield among some really good catches, that he is not comfortable running down some routine fly balls and is more a liability than an asset in the outfield. A liability due to lacking of skills and more important taking away time from players that deserve it more.

I think there are 2 options the Cardinals should examine before bringing up Duncan and they both rest on placing the large frame of Joe Mather at 1B. The Cardinals already have 4 outfielders that they can count on. Obviously Mather was brought up in order to have another guy that can hit left handed pitching so I think the Cardinals should try Nick Stavinoha. The guy is tearing it up in Memphis batting .342 wit 7 HRs and 13 doubles. He does strikeout more than he walks, but he is another solid defender that bats right handed.

If that is not an option because the Cards may assess themselves as having sufficient offensive depth even with moving Mather to 1st, then the Cardinals should try either John Wasdin or Jaime Garcia in the bullpen. Wasdin isn't lighting it up for Memphis but they both posses dominant K/BB ratios, which I believe gives Dave Duncan the most to work with. Wasdin is a right handed starter and Jaime is a left-handed starter recently brought up from Springfield and is responding well with a 3.16 ERA.

What do you think and explain why.

As they do every year, the NFL Rules commission is meeting in West Palm Beach for the NFL Spring Meetings discussing potential new rules for the 2008 season. Mostly the decisions are voted on by the owners, as far as I know. This year, they have so far approved a rule that will completely eliminate rulings of force outs, unless the receiver is actually carried out of bounds. I like this new rule and believe a defender should have the right to force a receiver out of bounds. The owners also have approved a communication device to be installed in one of a defensive players helmet, surprisingly by just one vote. Why any owner would oppose a rule that would help communication between defensive staff and personnel, I have absolutely no clue.

On the other hand, they are walking some SUPER fine lines with the discussion of banning hair sticking out of helmets. So far this new rule has been tabled for later discussion. I have absolutely no idea why these guys would have the brass to even think about a rule that would create an obvious civil rights dilemma. It is no secret that although there are some white athletes that have long hair that sticks out of their helmet, it is obvious which demographic the owners are targeting at this point. Over the last 5-7 years there has been an increasing popularity for black athletes to have long dreads or braids. While there are many sophisticated and intellectual men with dreads/braids, there are too many people that see this hair style as a style reserved for thugs, scumbags, and Pac Man Jones. I know this first hand by simply sitting at a Rams game and hearing the remarks many middle aged white fans have made towards the all-pro running back.

I am not saying that the owners are trying to outlaw this hairstyle because of their racist and prejudice inhibitions. I am just saying that they are walking a VERY FINE LINE and that they should maybe rethink this one and save us one more racial debacle.

What are your thoughts on this potential rule and the others that will be implemented in 2008?