Rain Fog/Mist ~
High: 83°F ~ Low: 69°F
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Beltran? another option?Posted Saturday, December 17, 2011, at 7:15 PM
Just a short note tonight, but I thought I should throw it out there. Several St. Louis Cardinals fan pages, believed to be maintained by the Cardinals organization, shared a link to Carlos Beltran's fan page about an hour ago. While it doesn't necessarily mean anything, the same thing happened shortly before the team announced the signing of Furcal in August.
Also, Joe Strauss from the Post Dispatch sent out some slightly cryptic messages on Twitter saying that the Cubs may not be as interested in Prince Fielder as believed. When asked whether this would pique Mos's interest in the 27-year-old first baseman, he "hinted" there may or may not be interest. Again, that may mean nothing, but it is a change from the outspoken "no" stance we've heard over the last two weeks. Strauss insinuated that this could be the reason for the Cardinals dragging their feet in a possible move for Beltran. Of course, a Beltran signing, which seems quite possible in the not so distant future, would mean an end to the Fielder possibility. Things could get interesting.
Thanks for reading.
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires free registration:
Balls & Strikes
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed
- Send email to Corey Noles
Corey Noles, staff writer for The Daily Statesman and Editor of The North Stoddard Countian, is the author of a regular baseball/St. Louis Cardinals column and also uses his blog to sound off on various happenings in sports. He also operates a weekly baseball mailbag column.
Hot topicsYouth will have to show maturity for Cardinals to weather Wacha/Garcia loss
(28 ~ 5:57 AM, Aug 14)
Wainwright to make his Saturday start
Holliday's 1,000th RBI is the sign of a career of consistency
MLB needs to drop the circus, do instant replay the right way
Oscar Taveras may be heading to St. Louis, but here are 5 things he is not...