Good morning.

Let's get started ...

Reading Time 5 Minutes:

* I see where Cardinals fans are complaining about the Albert Pujols/Angels coverage in St. Louis. Many seem to be saying: he's gone, who cares, let's turn the page and focus on the 2012 Cardinals.

I have mixed feelings on that. Please let me try to explain.

As a fan, I basically agree with those who say "move on" ... but not entirely. I love to watch baseball games, and I am a night owl. I like to catch those late-night games from the West Coast. So when the Angels are playing, sure I'll watch. Baseball is baseball. And sure, I'll be curious to watch how Pujols is handling the new league and environment.  And if there's anything interesting going on with him, I'll occasionally offer a few notes here on the blog, or in the Saturday "Bernie Bits."

I'm just not that interested in play-by-play rundowns of every Pujols at-bat or every word that he says. I have no interest in engaging in anti-Pujols hatred or resentment, or pro-Pujols mewling and gushing. In that context I agree with the fans who say "enough" on Pujols. It would be pathetic for STL media to obsess over Pujols when there's a damned good baseball team in this town, a team that happens to be the defending World Series champs, a team that will take compelling story lines into the 2012 season. When the real games get underway,  obviously my interest will be centered around the Cardinals and their division.

However, it's also silly for anyone to expect the Post-Dispatch, STLtoday.com or any other STL media outlet to institute some sort of unofficial Pujols news blackout. And to suggest so is ridiculous. Because even though many fans claim that they have no interest in Pujols, I am certain that people are clicking on links to Pujols' stories, whether they want to admit to it or not.

At the time I write this, two Pujols-related pieces rank among the top three in the "most commented" category on STLtoday.com. There is most definitely a curiousity factor in play here, and to deny that is silly. That doesn't mean STL media news outlets should be dwelling on Pujols at the expense of covering the Cardinals. And if you've seen the excellent and thorough spring-training coverage being provided by Derrick Goold, Joe Strauss and Rick Hummel from Jupiter, the Post-Dispatch will give you all of the Cardinals' material that you can handle.

But some periodic check-ins on Pujols are appopriate. It seems that way to me, anyway. I don't speak for the newspaper or the web site. I'm not in charge. That's just my opinion.

I wear two hats ...

As a fan, personally I don't have a great deal of interest in Albert Pujols other than to watch some of those late-night ballgames from Anaheim.  

As a journalist, I believe that Pujols' coverage is justified. It's not as if by running a Pujols story in the P-D sports section or on the site, we're cutting Cardinals' coverage or reducing the amount of attention being paid to the team. Not a chance.  

Again, that's just my opinion.

Moving On ...

 * With Yadier Molina's contract expiring after the season, the Cardinals obviously are in the position of losing him to free agency. In his comments so far, Molina made it clear that the money matters, and that he'll leave if he doesn't get what he wants from the Cardinals. I respect that. I respect that Molina is being candid and straightforward instead of being a phony and playing to the crowd to score cheap PR points.

* I wonder if the Cardinals' will keep Molina's contract status in mind as they go through the season and make a plan for their young catcher, Tony Cruz. I'm not saying Cruz is a lock to make the team this season, or that the Cardinals view him as their catcher of the future. But Cruz certainly made a positive impression last year, and he seems to have the tools.

* So here's a question that requires no answer at the moment: will the Cardinals try to give Cruz some extra playing time (starts) behind the plate with the thought of getting him some experience should he have to take over for Molina in 2013?

* It's really not a crazy question. Go back to 2004. Mike Matheny was the catcher, but he was in his walk year. The Cardinals sensed there was a good chance of Matheny receiving a big offer from another team, which he did (the SF Giants.) The Cardinals weren't going to overpay for Matheny, not with Molina waiting to take over. The rookie Molina was called up from the minors on June 3, and he was given a solid amount of playing time the rest of the way. From June 3 until the end of the regular season, Matheny started 68 games. Molina started 39. Matheny had 257 plate appearances; Molina has 151. In the postseason Matheny started 15 games; Molina started two. But the team made sure to give Molina a start in the World Series. That extra preparation helped get Molina ready to take over as the starter in 2005.

* I'm not suggesting that the Cruz of 2012 is as ready or as highly regarded as the Molina of 2004. I'm not suggesting a time-share program, because Molina is a superb catcher and a team leader. He'll be in there a lot, obviously. Again, I'm not even saying that it's a lock for Cruz to be the No. 2 catcher -- though it makes sense because (A) he's good; and (B) he can also play other positions, which provides flexibility for manager Matheny. But if Cruz is here, I wonder if the Cardinals will try to get him more starts than they'd normally assign to the No. 2 catcher. That's especially true if Molina's knee is barking at him, and he could use a little extra rest.  

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie