GatewayRedbirds.com

I remember in 2005 when the Cardinals were still good, but not nearly as good as they were in 2004, people were overrating them. The offense was stripped down to Pujols and Edmonds, and while the pitching was magnificent, it felt like they really weren't this great, dominating team, and I think it stemmed from the run in 2004. It was just a carry-over.

Now, I realize that ESPN's power rankings mean nothing. But the Mets are #1, which means that people in Bristol still see a team from 2006 rather than the current one on the field. They aren't even the best team in their division right now, yet people still pretend like this is some fire-breathing monster that can cut down pitching staffs in a hurry.

They started out 4-0 and scored 31 runs while allowing just three. But they lost two of three to the Braves, put up 11 runs against Philly then scored just seven runs combined in the next two. In their past six games, they've scored 26 runs, and much of that is credited to that 11-run burst against Philly.

I know it's stupid, petty crap to fret about what ESPN is saying, but it bothers me that they can't even do the legwork and realize that the team they think is the best in all of baseball has been an extremely average team since the first four games of the season.

New York fans make them a hell of a lot more money than Atlanta or Philly fans. I understand why they want to appeal to New York fans, because they are a North East network.

That's why I like FSN. They do straight up highlights, they are evenly spread out into regions, so it's not NY biased.

I stopped watching ESPN because of all of the football talk. They are making me hate the NFL.

Meh, I really doubt it's an East Coast Bias thing and just a "we're-too-stupid-to-know-any-better" thing.

GatewaySnayke wrote:Meh, I really doubt it's an East Coast Bias thing and just a "we're-too-stupid-to-know-any-better" thing.

They are pretty stupid. But I think it's a NY biased thing, not necessarily an East coast. They talk about the BoSox a lot because they are NY's rivals.

The only writers that I like there are Peter Gammons, Jayson Stark, and Tim Kurkjain (sp?).

I think Keith Law and Buster Olney are O.K. But Law is usually too pessimistic and Olney kind of does the "hot topic" stories like Bonds and Rodriguez.

My favorite writer by far is Ken Rosenthal from Fox sports. He tells is like it is.

They just do this just to piss off the yankee fans

Yeah the Braves are the team to beat in that divison and perhaps the National League..

They've got their bullpen fixed..and if Chipper and Andruw stay healthy I believe they'll run away with that divison..

I think some of you are jumping the gun with Atlanta.

I'll still take the Mets.

BW42 wrote:I think some of you are jumping the gun with Atlanta.

I'll still take the Mets.

Same here, the Mets will add an ace-like pitcher at the trade deadline no matter what it costs them (or at least the best SP available) and will be the best team in that division by a long shot.

What makes you believe the Braves won't improve their club at the deadline..

The Mets don't have enough starting pitching..

cabby7588 wrote:

BW42 wrote:I think some of you are jumping the gun with Atlanta.

I'll still take the Mets.

Same here, the Mets will add an ace-like pitcher at the trade deadline no matter what it costs them (or at least the best SP available) and will be the best team in that division by a long shot.

I don't agree. There will be no ace type pitchers available at the deadline. And the only thing the Mets have to offer is Humber.

Atlanta had a better offense than New York last season, a fact that seems to escape the biggest Met homers. They have a better rotation and I'd call their bullpens even. Saying that the Mets would be the best team by a long shot is seriously, seriously overrating them.