Next? Jim Edmonds and Doug Weight. Two extremely classy guys. Both headed out west. And two guys that, although they'll be on other teams, will be extremely hard to ever root against.

When Edmonds was acquired by Walt Jocketty in the spring training of 2000, the first thing that came to mind was the unbelievable catch he made as an Angel, diving away from home plate to take extra bases away from Kansas City's David Howard. And how many times did he make similarly terrific catches as a Cardinal? I wonder if new Cards catcher Jason LaRue was expecting to have a sit-down with Edmonds about being robbed of a home run (I mean legitimately robbed) by Jimmy in Cincinnati? And it's not to hard to think of several more highlight reel grabs turned in by Mr. Edmonds.

He certainly had a Hollywood flair for the dramatic. The catches, the clutch homers (sure, I still have Thom Brennaman's call in 2004 reverberating between my ears---"And we are going to game seven in the National League Championship Series!"), the catches, and of course, the times he lay on the turf stunned, shaken up, or hurt, only to slowly pick himself up and continue on. Yet, he quietly went about his business the rest of the time, quietly and deftly provided leadership, and quietly and reluctantly was a go-to guy in the clubhouse for the media. I always found his perspective to be just a little bit different, maybe going down the outer road of opinion, rather than the standard freeway, 15-second hackneyed, cliche-riddled sound bite.

Has their ever been a quieter star than Doug Weight? Maybe as quiet, but none quieter. Never brought attention to himself, except maybe with one of his slick passes. But in the 'room he was the grinder he couldn't be on the ice: a standup guy, win or lose, humble but always with an opinion, solid, someone the younger 'Notes could use as an example of how it's done. The last two weeks was typical Doug Weight: after going goal-less for the first 25 games (with no complaints about limited ice time, or even complaints about anything, for that matter), he heated up with four goals in three games (along with a great between the legs pass to Brad Boyes against Edmonton on Tuesday).

I'll always remember how the Blues traded him to Carolina so he could get the real shot at a championship he wasn't going to get here, and then after he got to hoist the Cup, he came back here as a free agent to try to get it done again.

Is That All There Is? How many of you came away from Thursday's Mitchell Report "revelations" unimpressed like I was? Stop me if I missed something: some players used performing enhancing drugs, baseball looked the other way for several key years, and Bud Selig is going to do his gosh-darndest to see that it doesn't happen again. Oh, and Donald Fehr and the Players Association feel that the policy in place is a good one, and let's see how it works for a couple of more years. (Even when baseball's labor agreement isn't due up anytime soon, the icy cold, stone-faced Fehr still seems like he's in negotiation. Does the man ever let his guard down for anything? Anything?)

One problem with Thursday's grandstanding was that even as those news conferences were blathering on, the cheaters were moving ahead of the detectors. Great, we learned about steroid-use now as the HGH-era kicks into full swing---the currently undetectable HGH. And once it becomes detectable, the cheaters will have moved on to the next form of undetectable enhancement. And fortunately (for those who will use them) or unfortunately (everybody else that cares), that's the way it will always be.

The other issue is the naming of names. Now I can be naive, but not enough to believe that those that were actually named in the Mitchell Report are innocent. But why should they be publicly named (other than for the shock value---let's be honest, how many of us would have actually paid attention to any of all that droning drivel if there weren't going to be some names named?) based on accusations and without more substantive evidence? And then there was the irresponbility of those that released names (incorrectly) before the report came out. Yikes. Sure, the line between being the first to a story and really making sure it's right is very fine, but is it that important to be the first with the information? And how would you like to be one of the ones who mentioned Albert Pujols' name and then have to face him in February in Florida? Try to pass it off that it was bad information from a network or out-of-town report that came out on your air and see where that gets you. But it seems that those who are the quickest to run with things like that aren't the ones who have to deal with the person on a regular basis.

Can't We Just Get Along? I'll be the first to tell you that relationships can be a tricky thing. But there is no rule written anywhere that says a player has to get along with his coach or manager. Joe Dimaggio hated Casey Stengel. There was a pretty long list of Yankees who couldn't stand Billy Martin. The only thing Da 1985 Bears agreed on was disagreeing with Mike Ditka. Scotty Bowman wouldn't have won many popularity contests in his own team's dressing room, until it was time to go out and accept Lord Stanley's hardware. Again.

Anyway, I see where Tony La Russa reiterated his stance that if Scott Rolen wants to be in a different uniform next season, he's going to have to prove he's as close to top-notch as his surgically-repaired shoulder will allow. Because right now the Cardinals will not get a team to help with his salary and/or provide significant compensation in order to acquire Mr. Rolen. And Rolen knows that, and is laying well below the surface as the tempest goes on above him. Notice that only one side has really been doing any talking on the subject? But both sides are right in their strategies. Rolen hates the spotlight being on him, which happened when his continuing problems with his manager were revealed. But now I'm sure he's quietly gearing up to come to camp in his best-ever shape, ready to fire out of the gate. And the ever-savvy La Russa is doing what any good coach or manager would do: find the best way to motivate and get the best possible performance he can from a player. And if appearing in the media periodically, poking at the bear in the cage, gets Rolen to produce and gives Albert protection in the order, then I'm sure La Russa could care less if his guy at third base likes him or even gives him so much as a "hello." ¶ 8:56 PM 1 comments

What's the Point? We've just had the greatest college football season that I can remember, a topsy-turvy, Screamin' Eagle of a thrill ride from Appalachian State's win over Michigan to Pitt's upset of West Virginia (and yes, Missouri's dismantling by Oklahoma). And so now it's time to settle into bowl season. And my reaction?

Eh.

Sort of that feeling you get from eating too big a holiday meal, and you just sit there and feel like you never want to eat that kind of food again.

BC-Schmess.

For all of the NCAA's trumpeting that the BCS was going to be the next best thing to having a playoff in college football, this year proves how flawed that system is. Actually, there's a word for it but my employers would rather I not use it in this forum.

I'm not nearly as rabid a Missouri fan as many I come in contact with, but boy do they have a gripe. If you're going to use the BCS rankings to determine who goes to the BCS bowls, then the top ten teams should go. Period. If not, then just blow up the BCS computer, say it was a nice try, and then move on to something that's not thinly disguised as a sham.

I understand that there is a rule that only two teams from any of the BCS power conferences can go (hence, Missouri's exclusion), with the reason being that those fat cat conferences can't load up their coffers with three and four shares of the pot. The rich getting richer, with the Boise States and Hawaiis from mid-major conferences only getting occasional slices of the pie.
But if the rankings say that it's a particularly strong year for the Big 12, for example, then let the system play out, and then dole out the extra share(s) to a charitable fund. Or perhaps a general scholarship fund for non-athletes---you know, a way to give back.

I know what you're thinking. What is the color of the sky in my world?

I understand it's a very naive thought, but why play out a season full of upsets, with one of those hoppers that pull the lottery numbers out (What do they call those things? Lottery number hoppers?) determining the rankings each week, only to have the computer's selections overwritten because of politics, money, and all those other things that aren't supposed to get in the way of amateur athletics. (Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge.)

I am really glad for Illinois and Kansas. But I should also be allowed to be happy for Mizzou.

Now, the Cotton Bowl is a fine game. National TV. New Year's Day (albeit at 10:30 in the morning. Truly New Year's Day.). A matchup against Heisman Trophy winner Darren McFadden and Arkansas that will be a great game. But all MU fans will have one thought in the backs of their minds, no matter how great a game, no matter how great the atmosphere, and no matter how great a party the Cotton Bowl committee throws:

Mizz-screwed.

In its purest form, the BCS rankings should take the human element out of this next month. Have the national championship game host rotate among the four major bowls like it does now, with the BCS championship site hosting the #9 vs. #10 teams in their bowl game the previous week. Another bowl hosts #7 vs. #8, another gets #5 vs. #6, and the fourth gets the #3 vs. #4 game. The bowls would then rotate the seeding of their games yearly. Neat. No muss. No fuss. Not even any hanging chad.

Or else don't do it.

The previous system didn't work, either, with the final polls determining the "mythical" national champions. You might have co-national champions, or a school from out of nowhere (see BYU, 1984) would only occasionally have a shot at being the champions. All the polls did was create arguments.

Arguments without the numbers to back it up.

Now you at least have both.

But it could be better. ¶ 1:30 PM 0 comments