[The UCB preseason roundtable continued over the weekend with a double play of questions from Mike Metzger of Stan Musial's Stance.]

1. Which Cardinal do you expect to have a big 2010 season and why? And you can’t pick AP, he has a big season every year.

2. There are millions of Cardinal fans across the country and around the world, but only a handful decided to write, either professionally or for fun, about the team. What compelled you to start writing about the Cardinals? Or for our professional brethren, what led you to a career in sports journalism?

1. Jason Motte will have a relatively big season. He had an abnormally high HR/FB rate in 2009 (especially given his home park) and healthy K/9 and K/BB (second-best among relievers) numbers. His BABIP against was slightly high at .308 despite having a low line-drive rate (16.7%). If La Russa gives him some opportunities, he’ll be the setup man and possibly the closer by the end of the season.

2. It’s ironic that we now write about the Cardinals, since when we began Fungoes back in 2004, we were still a Mets fan. The blog actually started as way to share our thoughts with some friends on the playoffs that year (the original name was “Fall Classic”). We loved writing about baseball so much that we simply kept going, retitling the blog and focusing more on the Cardinals. Having been cursed to follow the Mets, we found that blogging about the Cardinals was a way to escape our fate and enjoy a more salutary relationship with the game (and it probably allowed us to cover the team with a little more objectivity). We converted (or, as we like to say, reverted) to the Cardinals after they broke the Curse of Keith Hernandez, which we wrote about back in 2006.

[Wednesday's UCB roundtable question came from Joseph McBrayer of The McBrayer-Baseball Blog.]

Do you all collect baseball cards and if so, what cards are in your top 5 of all time favorite?

Baseball cards accounted for at least half of our childhood experience with baseball. The first cards we collected were 1978 Topps, and as a little kid, we would go to the monthly flea market with our mom and kid brother to visit the baseball card vendors (incidentally, one of the young men who sold cards would, 25 years later, be sitting next to us at a local SABR roundtable meeting). During our freshman year in high school, we even opened a little baseball card shop with our friend (our highlight was when Cardinal coach Rich Hacker dropped by).

It will come as little surprise to anyone who knows us (or at least our writing) that we claim to have the most different variations of Keith Hernandez cards. Our favorite was always his 1981 Topps, which showed his tiger-like fielding stance, his striped socks, flip-up sunglasses and a beautiful view of his mitt, which we always lusted for (we settled for a Hutch fielder’s glove with no signature). Other favorites:

• 1954 Jackie Robinson: This one belonged to our father-in-law, a lifelong Dodgers’ fan, when he was a kid. A special gift, and a special player.
• 1956 Sandy Koufax rookie: Ditto
• 1981 Fleer George Brett: In the spot on the card where mortal players’ positions were listed, Brett’s instead had “390 Average.” How cool is that?
• 1984 Donruss Don Mattingly rookie: A beautiful card that everyone wanted back in the day. Heck, that 1984 Donruss design was so elegant that it made cards of guys like Scott Garrelts look magnificent. Almost.
• 1987 Topps BJ Surhoff “Future Star”: We actually mailed it to Surhoff and he returned it autographed. Loved the Future Stars logo, though not as much as the Topps All-Star Rookie Cup that it replaced.

[The UCB preseason roundtable continued Tuesday with Jack Kelly's question.]

If you were dropped on planet Earth an expert on baseball but with no favorite team, what team would you most enjoy watching? Would it be the Cardinals or would it be another team and why?

Love the question. As I was once a Cardinal fan, then a Met fan (for a very dark period in my life, I assure you), and now a Cardinal fan again, I’ve thought about this before; here are some of my considerations:

1. Team history: Longevity is probably as important as success, though that’s certainly helpful. It’s hard to see the three newest teams as anything but upstarts. Short list: Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Phillies, Cubs, Reds, Tigers, Pirates.
2. Ballpark experience: An enjoyable ballpark experience goes a long way toward how much I’d want to follow my team; I could endure a lot of losing if the park were an idyllic place to watch a game. Therefore, you’re automatically out if you play in a dome or have too many gimmicks (Astros) or exchange a grand old park for a grotesquely configured band box (Yankees). I haven’t been to all the parks, but I’ve seen enough. Top locations: Orioles, Pirates, Cardinals, Giants, Cubs.
3. Fan culture: Fans are an extension of a team. With whom do I want to be associated: obnoxious boors, lovable but drunken losers, sarcastic smartypants, beach-ball-obsessed Hollyweirdos, battery-throwing goons, fairweather rascals? Cardinal Nation has lost some of its claim to fame, but they’re still among the best, at least in terms of loyalty: Cardinals, Pirates, Cubs, Red Sox, Rangers.
4. Organization: Of course, the organization itself matters, from the ownership to the executive management to the manager to the players. The Cardinals barely make the list for the entire McGwire affair, but their history and current crop of uniformed talent (their manager notwithstanding) helps. Short list: Rockies, Cardinals, Rays, A’s.

The Cardinals may not be first in every category, but they’re the only team among the best in each (though, curiously, the Pirates were well-represented).

[The UCB roundtable continues with Monday's question from Whiteyball's Michael Riehn.]

The upcoming contract of Albert Pujols has been through much speculation this offseason. While the future Hall of Famer has two years remaining on his contract, it has been cause for concern for many in Cardinal nation. The question that hasn’t been asked, because it seems obvious, is SHOULD we sign Pujols to a longterm contract? This question isn’t as easy as you might think at first glance.

What say you Cardinal bloggers? Is Pujols worth 10 years 25 million dollars? Would you sign him for 10 years 30 million? Are you confident he will be worth it? If so why? What would he have to produce over 10 years as a break even?

As Daniel and Chris have noted, the statistical comparisons of Pujols and Thomas are perhaps insufficient, but mostly because of fielding, which granted is no small thing. But given their wOBA through their age-29 seasons — .436 and .447, respectively — it’s difficult to argue that Pujols is a better hitter. The point that we think Michael is making here is salutary: As fans we tend to think that players — especially great ones — aren’t subject to the laws of science, specifically aging. And in that, Thomas should make us pause and dispassionately consider how neither Pujols is above the effects of aging and decay. Thomas’s latter-career physical breakdown is more the rule than an exception. The simple reality is that by the time Pujols’s current contract ends, we likely will have seen his best, and not only will he fail to improve, he’ll actually get worse. True, worse is a relative term: Even diminished, Pujols is still better that most players (as Thomas was). But there’s a lot of money between “better than average” and $30 million a year. As much as Cardinal fans clamor for the team to “do whatever it takes” to keep Pujols a Cardinal for the rest of his career, given their treatment of past players who made considerably less money, we seriously doubt their ability to graciously endure a player whose declining production increases the disparity between his value and his pay and quite possibly inhibits the team’s ability to win.

We propose something a bit radical (big surprise, we know): If, as Pujols, claims, it’s not principally about the money but on being part of a competitive team, the Cardinals can honor their superstar with a lifetime contract, but one whose value is based on Pujols’s actual current performance (and not his past) and that allows Pujols to opt-out if the team is no longer competitive. For example, Fangraphs estimates the three-time MVP to have a free-agent value of between $32 and $35 million in 2010. If he were to sign such a contract extension/restructure this spring and performed as expected, his salary for 2010 would be between $32-35 million (rather than the $16 million he is currently to receive). As he went on playing, his salaries might be something like $30m, $25m, $20m, $15m, $11m, $7m, etc. That would represent good faith on his part: He would be paid approximately what he was worth (at least on the playing field, which, granted, is only part of his total value). For the Cardinals’ part, they would provide a clause whereby Pujols could become a free agent if they, for example, had back-to-back losing seasons (or three of five, etc.). Will it happen? Of course not. But come 2011, both parties — either Pujols, due to a career-threatening injury, or the Cardinals due to the siren song of east-coast dollars — may find themselves wishing they would have.

[Following is our response to HotStove.com's question: David Freese is the current favorite to win the third base job for the Cards this season. Are you comfortable with him manning the hot corner in 2010, or should the team have looked to the free agent market this offseason to fill that role?]

Adding Felipe Lopez certainly hedges the team’s bet at third base. As we noted a couple of weeks ago when discussing whether the team should sign him, he’s more apt as a third-base option than as insurance at shortstop. And given the pattern of David Freese’s offseason idiocy, third base is more in question than shortstop, even considering Brendan Ryan’s wrist injury. Freese projects to hit better (.340ish wOBA) than FeLo (.330ish) and has a reputation as a solid fielder, so, ceteris parabus in spring, he should get the nod. But the Cardinals should keep him on a short leash, both on and off the field, since they now have a reliable backup in Lopez. Compared to last year at this time, when the team entered the season with a trio of lesser lights — Joe Thurston, Brian Barden and a year-less-experienced Freese — the Cardinals are in a much better situation at the hot corner. And with Lopez, they likely won’t need to sacrifice prospects in midseason to shore up as they had to in 2009.