Michael “Irreducible Complexity” Behe, the Lehigh biochemist famous for flagella, mousetraps and black boxes, took the stand in the Dover, Pennsylvania trial Monday Oct. 17. This was widely reported, such as in New Scientist, MSNBC News and the Washington Post. For an ID-friendly report with more detail of the actual proceedings, see EvolutionNews. Behe snowed some of the listeners with technical jargon, but otherwise maintained his position that evidence for intelligent design in biology is overwhelming, based on positive evidence, not admissions of ignorance. He also took swipes at the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to explain molecular machines. Other school boards are watching this trial with both interest and trepidation. The Washington Post said,More school boards are considering mandating mention of intelligent design. Randy Tomasacci, a school board member from Shickshinny, north of Harrisburg, said his board is debating whether to require teachers to spend a few days on intelligent design. We’re thinking about it,” he said. “But we don’t want to get sued out of existence.”For Behe’s part, he is safe. Though Lehigh University, where he teaches, has repudiated intelligent design, Behe has tenure and (unlike some other ID supporters) cannot be terminated for his views. Reporters and critics, meanwhile, seemed fixated on Behe’s Catholicism and on whether he believed the Designer is God.Can’t the reporters get fixated on the evidence instead? Maybe they would learn something about science instead of the secret motivations of their caricatured foes. At least anti-ID reporter Alan Boyle is working his way through Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator among his stack of pro-evolution books and websites (see MSNBC), perhaps after being sufficiently hammered by emails from readers about his bias. MSNBC also printed a story about a parent worried that his daughter might not be accepted by other students if she doesn’t agree with ID. No worries. Christians don’t believe in doing unto others as they did unto us.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
TagsTransfersLoan MarketAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Torino going back to Chelsea for second loan signingby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveTorino are going back to Chelsea this month for a second loan signing.After the success of Ola Aina this season, Toro now want to sign his Chelsea teammate, Lucas Piazon.The Granata plan to move to Piazon this month, with plans for an initial loan arrangement.The Brazilian is tied to Chelsea until 2020, though has struggled for first team action as a Blues player.The most success Piazon has enjoyed in England was a loan spell with Fulham in the Championship.
Barcelona fined £265 for Griezmann signingby Ian Ferrisa month agoSend to a friendShare the loveBarcelona have been fined only 300 euros (£265) by the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) for their approach to Antoine Griezmann while he was at La Liga rivals Atletico Madrid, reports BBC Sport.Spanish champions Barcelona signed Griezmann after paying his 120m-euro (£107m) buyout clause on 1 July.But the federation said Barca broke its rules by negotiating with Griezmann without Atletico’s permission.Atletico believed his buyout clause should have been 200m euros (£179m).They claimed that Barca began talking to the player in March, when that was the size of his buyout clause.His cost then dropped to 120m euros at the start of July, which was when he signed for Barca, but Atletico claimed the “commitment of the player and Barcelona was closed” prior to the clause reducing.The player was absolved of any responsibility by the federation. TagsSpanish Football NewsAbout the authorIan FerrisShare the loveHave your say
LUXEMBOURG – The moods in Britain and the European Union swung between hope and gloom on Monday over an intractable dispute about the Irish border — shifts that came only two days ahead of a summit once seen as the last moment to reach a deal on Britain’s divorce from the bloc.After a flurry of weekend meetings had raised expectations for a Brexit agreement only to dash them again, EU and British leaders sought to keep alive the possibility that Wednesday’s summit could see a Brexit breakthrough, despite their conflicting stances.After a year and a half of talks aimed at a smooth breakup, both sides were still dogged by the same issue — how to ensure that no hard border is created between the EU’s Ireland and Britain’s Northern Ireland once Brexit happens on March 29.EU Council president and summit host Donald Tusk searched for a positive outlook.He used a quote saying “It always seems impossible until it’s done” before adding himself “let us not give up.” At the same time, he acknowledged that a breakup with no rules in place “is more likely than ever before.”Despite a failed meeting Sunday between the two sides’ Brexit negotiators, British Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons in London on Monday that “I do not believe the EU and the UK are far apart.”Yet a chasm remains over a solution for the Irish border.The EU wants Northern Ireland to stay in its customs union to avoid a hard, policed land border between it and Ireland. But May says that would create “a border in the Irish Sea” between two parts of the United Kingdom — a scenario that she and Britain will not accept.Britain is proposing instead to keep all of the U.K. in a customs union with the bloc — but only temporarily. Tying Britain to the EU on customs would limit the U.K.’s power to strike new trade deals around the world — a key goal of those who voted to leave the EU.“I need to be able to look the British people in the eye and say this ‘backstop’ is a temporary solution,” May told the lawmakers.Insisting that a Brexit divorce deal was “achievable,” May said the border dispute should not “derail the prospects of a good deal and leave us with the no-deal outcome that no one wants.”May is under intense pressure from her Conservative Party and its parliamentary allies not to give any more ground in Brexit negotiations.May’s political allies in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, stand ready to scuttle a Brexit deal over the Irish border issue. DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson said “it is probably inevitable that we will end up with a no-deal scenario” over Brexit.Many fear that any return to customs checks and other controls on the Ireland-Northern Ireland border could revive tensions between Northern Ireland’s Irish Catholic community and its British Protestant one. More than 3,700 people were killed in Northern Ireland amid 30 years of violence between the two groups and Britain before a 1998 peace deal.Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, speaking at a meeting Monday of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, said the delays in solving the border issue were frustrating. He suggested that May was reneging on part of Britain’s commitment, made in December, to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.He said a backstop “cannot be time-limited.”“Nobody wants to ever trigger the backstop, but it needs to be there as an insurance mechanism, to calm nerves that we’re not going to see physical border infrastructure re-emerging,” Coveney said.The border impasse makes it is almost impossible that EU leaders will reach a Brexit deal at their summit this week. The British and EU parliaments need to approve any deal, a process that could take months.German Chancellor Angela Merkel, perhaps the strongest voice in the EU, insisted Monday that May should not count on the EU to blink first for fear of losing valuable business. Merkel said Germany wants an orderly departure of Britain from the bloc “but not at any price.”EU negotiators and leaders have said that Britain should not seek to cherry-pick the best parts of staying in the EU without the costs and responsibilities.“We must not allow our single market, which is really our competitive advantage, to be destroyed by such a withdrawal,” Merkel said told Germany’s main exporters’ association. “And if it doesn’t work out this week, we must continue negotiating, that is clear — but time is pressing.”If Britain leaves the EU without an agreement on future relations, there could be chaos — tariffs would go up on trade, airlines could no longer have permits to fly between the two regions, and freight could be lined up for miles at border crossings as customs checks are restored overnight.The EU has said it is willing to call an extra meeting in November if needed to seal a Brexit deal, but only if there was decisive progress this week.“I figure November or December is the best opportunity for a deal,” said Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. “This is a dynamic situation.”As the chances of Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal rise, so do calls from pro-EU campaigners in Britain for a new referendum — dubbed a “People’s Vote” — on whether to accept a divorce deal or stay in the bloc.Several opposition lawmakers, and even a few Conservatives, stood in Parliament on Monday to call for a new Brexit referendum.“We had a people’s vote,” May replied. “It was called the referendum and the people voted to leave.”___Lawless reported from London. Geir Moulson in Berlin and Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed.
There were 22 additional B.C. residents employed on Site C as contractors, making up 83 percent of contractors and bringing the total to 1,331. The number of Peace River Regional District resident contractors dropped from 642 to 598. The percentage of PRRD resident contractors dropped from 41 percent to 37 percent during the month.According to the rest of the statistics, there were only three temporary foreign workers employed at Site C during the month. There were also 22 apprentices, along with 256 women and 213 Indigenous workers. FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — BC Hydro has released the employment statistics for the Site C dam during the month of March, which shows the dam’s workforce did increase during the third month of this year, though not nearly as much as it did in February.In March, there were 2,124 workers directly employed on the Site C project in some capacity. The number of contractors on site jumped by 54 compared to February to 1,611, while the number of engineers and project team members fell by 16. Photo by BC Hydro Photo by BC Hydro
Mumbai: Actor Shreyas Talpade, who is gearing up for the release of his next film titled ‘Setters’, has said that there are no similarities between his film and Emraan Hashmi starrer ‘Why Cheat India’. Shreyas Talpade, accompanied by his co-actors Aftab Shivdasani, Ishita Dutta, Sonnalli Seygall, director Ashwini Chaudhary and producers Vikash Mani and Narendra Hirawat, was interacting with the media at the trailer launch of his upcoming film in Mumbai on Thursday. ‘Setters’ sheds light on the mafia and corrupt practices prevailing in the Indian education system. Notably, Emraan Hashmi’s recent release ‘Why Cheat India’ also highlighted corruption in the education system. When asked about the similarities between the two films, Shreyas said, “I haven’t watched ‘Why Cheat India’ yet. People may try to find similarity between the two films but I feel both films are really different.” “The modus operandi of the people that we have shown in our film is very fascinating. When I heard story of this film, I felt that their way of operating is bit filmy but later, I realised that such incidents still take place in our country,” Shreyas added. Shreyas said he learned Banarasi language to play the film’s character. “I have learnt Banarasi language to play my character in the film. I have also worked on how these people operate, how they carry themselves in public and how they behave with each other,” he said. Shreyas said that he feels fortunate to be a part of the film, “I feel fortunate that Ashwini (Choudhary) ji thought of me to play this particular character as I have played comic characters in my career in most films. I feel really happy to be part of this film because as an actor, you always try to play various kinds of characters. So, once I got the opportunity I put in complete effort to play this character.’ Set in Banaras, Jaipur, Mumbai and Delhi, ‘Setters’ is scheduled for release on May 3, 2019.
Every year, MLB’s All-Star game brings together the best players from each league to form two superteams. For one game, we get to see Jose Fernandez as a reliever against lineups in which Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera hit back to back. But unlike the NBA’s fantasy rosters made real, we never get to glimpse how dominant such a talent-laden squad would be against normal MLB competition. So with a little statistical analysis and some conjecture, I took a guess at how well an MLB All-Star team would fare in a regular season — and even how often they’d go a perfect 162-0.1This piece was prompted by an email from reader Rich Chiesa, so thanks, Rich.To get an idea of how good each All-Star team would be, I added up the wins above replacement2The FanGraphs version. for every All-Star team’s best player at each position since 1933 (the first year of the All-Star Game). To further make things comparable to regular-season teams, I summed the top five pitchers’ WAR totals to get a rotation’s worth of pitching WAR.3I excluded relievers from the rosters in order to make an apples-to-apples comparison across history, since relief pitching didn’t really exist in anything like its current form until the 1970s. I also did not consider any WAR contributed by the designated hitter for each All-Star and regular season team, since the DH did not exist before 1973. The result of all this was a predicted WAR total for each All-Star team, which I could use as a comparison against real regular-season teams.Not surprisingly, All-Star teams tend to carry far more talent in their ranks than most normal teams. The average All-Star squad put 60 full-season WAR on the field, which is about the same as the 1976 Reds — widely regarded as one of the best teams in MLB history. No regular-season team in history exceeded the 1927 Yankees’ 66.3 WAR, but about 30 percent of All-Star teams would have if given the chance to play together in the regular season.But 66.3 WAR is kind of an abstract idea; what most fans care about is Ws and Ls. To establish how well these All-Star rosters might have fared in the standings, I used regular-season teams as a guide. I regressed their winning percentages against the total WAR on their rosters to get a sense for how much each additional WAR was worth.4I used a logit transformation on these winning percentages, since I expected them to become asymptotic at some point (i.e., no team can win more than 100 percent of its games). The correlation between a team’s WAR total and its winning percentage was a robust and statistically significant 0.82. As expected, each win above replacement contributed to a team increases winning percentage by roughly 0.7 points, or the equivalent of about one win in a 162-game schedule. By this method, practically every All-Star team would be predicted to have a winning record, and the average All-Star squad would be predicted to win 73.4 percent of its games.5The sole All-Star team predicted to have a losing record was the 1933 National League’s outfit, and this is largely by virtue of the fact that they listed only four pitchers on their roster. In a 162-game schedule a .734 winning percentage would lead to 120 wins, a feat no real-life team has ever achieved. And that’s just the average; the very best All-Star teams — the top 10 percent — would be predicted to win more than 81 percent of their games, or 132 contests in a regular season.Standing atop that group as the best All-Star team ever was the 1997 National League squad. (Which, by the way, lost to the AL 3-1, a reminder that in any one game a superteam can lose to a merely great team, especially if there isn’t much at stake.) Seven players from that roster have already made the Hall of Fame, with two more (third baseman Chipper Jones and pitcher Curt Schilling) likely to reach induction in the near future, and a few others (such as outfielder Barry Bonds and first baseman Jeff Bagwell) mainly excluded over performance-enhancing drug concerns. (By comparison, only five players from the AL team that opposed them have made the hall so far.) Combined, the top players on the ’97 NL team produced 86.2 WAR; six of them reached the MVP level threshold of 6 WAR; their worst position player, Jones, ended up producing 3.7 WAR — still 23rd best in the NL.We can’t say for sure how such a team might have fared over a 162-game schedule; the assumptions of any model can break down at the extremes, particularly since we’re trying to extrapolate from a sample of regular-season teams that have never been anywhere near as powerful. But by the model outlined above, the 1997 NL All-Stars would have been predicted to win 87 percent of their games, or 140 times in a season. Even given the amount of luck in baseball records,6Random variation can can cause a team’s win total to fluctuate by something like 6 to 10 wins per year. the ’97 NL would hypothetically go undefeated only once every six billion seasons. (So the best team in baseball history — by a huge margin — would still be the longest of long shots for a perfect record.)I can, of course, take things a step further and assemble the all-time greatest All-Star team. By assembling the greatest single-season performances at each position throughout history, I can build a team with almost 137 WAR, more than 50 percent better than the greatest single All-Star team ever. This team — with Lou Gehrig from 1934 manning first base, Barry Bonds from 2002 in the outfield, and ’99 Pedro Martinez sharing a rotation with ’72 Steve Carlton — would be predicted to win 96.8 percent of its games, becoming the first 157-game winner. With a lot of luck, it could eke out an undefeated regular season, but even for them it would be far from a certainty. (According to the binomial distribution, it would happen once every 200 or so seasons.)Obviously, no such team will ever play the regular season, and this simplified approach ignores many factors that limit teams from such otherworldly performance, such as injuries and the grind of the long schedule. Even so, it’s intriguing to consider how overwhelming an All-Star team likely would be in the face of regular-season competition. For a game in which the default is to fail seven times out of 10, most All-Star teams would suddenly make baseball look quite easy.Check out our latest MLB predictions.
13Auburn def. Alabama37.732.3+5.3 Which of Penn State’s games holds the most weight?PSU’s remaining 2017 matchups by the impact they have on the team’s playoff chances 13Michigan def. Ohio State35.419.2+16.3 12Nebraska99.892.4+7.4 10NC State def. Clemson41.530.6+10.9 13Maryland99.688.8+10.8 11Michigan State def. Ohio State16.17.0+9.1 Each week in this space, we examine all the things a certain contending team needs to have happen in order for it to make the College Football Playoff. This week, we look at the Penn State Nittany Lions, who suffered their first loss of the season Saturday after a fourth-quarter collapse on the road against Ohio State.Current situation: Undefeated and ranked No. 2 in the country, Penn State had a clear playoff path laid out in front of it — provided it could beat the Buckeyes, that is, in what was the program’s biggest game since the late 1990s. The Nittany Lions scored on the game’s first play and held control for three quarters, but Ohio State kept chipping away at PSU’s lead late, capping off a 19-3 fourth-quarter run with a go-ahead touchdown pass from which Penn State never recovered. Now ranked seventh in the first edition of the CFP committee rankings, the Lions have only a 14 percent chance of making the playoff, according to the FiveThirtyEight model.What the Lions can do: Because the loss came relatively late in the season, it left Penn State without much time to rebuild its playoff status. Even if the Lions win the rest of their games, our model gives them only a 20 percent chance of making the playoff. One important factor driving that number is a lack of opportunities for another signature win down the season’s final stretch: According to ESPN’s Football Power Index, Penn State’s future strength of schedule ranks just 67th in the country — easily the worst among the top 15 teams in the country by FPI. The only ranked team remaining on Penn State’s schedule (assuming it doesn’t go to the Big Ten championship) is Michigan State — and if PSU beats Michigan State, the Spartans will surely lose their ranking, which is currently only No. 24. With this weak slate of remaining games, it will be difficult for the Lions to impress the committee solely with their performance on the field before season’s end.Even so, here are the most important games left in the regular season for Penn State, based on the biggest difference in winning percentages between our simulations where the Lions make the playoff and ones where they don’t: WKOPPONENTMAKES PLAYOFFDOESN’T MAKE PLAYOFFDIFF. The other games that need to go right for the Nittany LionsNon-Penn State matchups that have the biggest impact on the team’s playoff chances 11Stanford def. Washington46.440.7+5.7 Differences may not add up because of rounding. 13Stanford def. Notre Dame43.435.7+7.7 Where they need help: As if losing to the Buckeyes wasn’t enough, Penn State fans now need to keep a close eye on every Ohio State game from here out. Because the teams share a division and because OSU now holds a head-to-head tiebreaker over Penn State, Ohio State will need to lose twice in conference play to give PSU a shot at winning the East. That’s not very likely; our model gives Ohio State a 44 percent chance of winning every remaining regular-season game, much less winning at least three of four. But OSU’s best chances to lose will come in its games at Iowa this weekend and at Michigan on Nov. 25, so those are also Penn State’s highest-leverage games left in the season (aside from the Lions’ own matchup against Michigan State on Saturday). 10Iowa def. Ohio State34.1%12.7%+21.5 PROBABILITY BY PENN STATE OUTCOME 13Georgia Tech def. Georgia29.522.9+6.6 11Rutgers99.996.3+3.6 10Michigan State99.4%79.2%+20.1 11Miami (FL) def. Notre Dame42.035.2+6.8 13South Carolina def. Clemson27.521.2+6.3 WKRESULTMAKES PLAYOFFDOESN’T MAKE PLAYOFFDIFF. PENN STATE WIN % BY OUTCOME Based on two sets of simulations: one where the team makes the playoff and one where it doesn’t. Differences may not add up exactly because of rounding. Of course, it’s also possible that the committee could slot in both Penn State and Ohio State come selection day. (In 28 percent of simulations where the Lions make the CFP, the Buckeyes are also in, making OSU Penn State’s fourth-most-likely playoff “companion” behind Alabama, Georgia and Clemson.) But the chance of two Big Ten teams making the playoff is pretty remote; our model gives it an 8.3 percent probability of happening, mainly because it would require some major shakeups elsewhere in the country — most likely losses by Clemson, Washington, Notre Dame and/or one of the Big 12 front-runners — to clear space. And although the most common combination among those multiple-Big Ten-playoff-team universes features Penn State and Ohio State making the playoff together (47 percent of the times that two Big Ten teams make it), our model assigns a 27 percent chance to a scenario where Ohio State and Wisconsin are the Big Ten picks, and the Nittany Lions are left out.1And in 22 of our 20,000 simulations — or 0.1 percent of the time — three Big Ten teams somehow make the playoff.But maybe that’s also an area where the model doesn’t have enough information yet. If Wisconsin and OSU are on a collision course in the Big Ten championship (and they appear to be), then those Badger-Buckeye universes would mean that the committee selected a conference title-game loser for a playoff spot. That may not be very realistic: In 12 chances over three seasons, only once — Ohio State in 2016 — did the real-life committee pick a team that didn’t win its conference (and those Buckeyes didn’t lose their championship game but rather missed it entirely on a tiebreaker).That should give Penn State hope that its current odds are being slightly understated by our model — that if they just keep winning and get a little lucky, the Lions could slip in as a second Big Ten playoff bid at the very least. Then again, if college football’s playoff era has proven nothing else, it’s that the committee might do something we’ve never seen before. We’ll see whether that works in Penn State’s favor or not.Check out our latest college football predictions. Also, see what it will take for Notre Dame, Clemson, Washington and Oklahoma to still make the playoff.
OSU junior running back Ezekiel Elliott (15) carries the ball while Michigan linebacker Ben Gedeon (42) attempts to tackle him during a game on Nov. 28. OSU won, 42-13. Credit: Muyao Shen | Assistant Photo EditorThe annual rivalry game between the Ohio State Buckeyes and the University of Michigan Wolverines has produced many great and tightly contested games throughout the years. This year’s matchup was not one of those.OSU, after being humbled by Michigan State last week, rushed passed one the nation’s elite defenses en route to a convincing 42-13 victory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.OSU struck first with a seven-yard touchdown run by redshirt sophomore quarterback J.T. Barrett as the Buckeyes claimed a 7-0 lead by the end of the first quarter. Michigan got on the board with a field goal in the second and both teams exchanged touchdowns as the Buckeyes took a hard-fought 14-10 halftime lead into the locker room.The second half was an entirely different ball game, however. OSU scored a touchdown on its opening drive and never looked back. After being bullied all night against Michigan State last week, OSU dominated the Wolverines in the trenches, as the Buckeyes forced their power run game all day. On the day, OSU went through the Wolverines for 369 rushing yards, more than four times the amount it managed against the Spartans (86).Junior running back Ezekiel Elliott, after publicly criticizing the play-calling and his lack of touches in last week’s loss, put forth a herculean effort against a stout Michigan defense. For the game, he rushed for 214 yards and two touchdowns on 30 carries. Barrett also added 139 yards rushing and three touchdowns on the ground to go along with 113 yards and a touchdown through the air.Redshirt senior transfer from Iowa Jake Rudock picked apart the Buckeyes through three quarters as he racked up 263 yards passing and a touchdown, his fourth straight game with 250-plus yards. However, a heavy hit by junior Joey Bosa, a former high school teammate, early in the fourth quarter left him injured and unable to finish the game.Michigan failed to impose their rushing game as it was limited to 57 yards. Sophomore Jabrill Peppers led the Wolverines with 29 yards on seven carries.With the win, the Buckeyes finished their regular season at 11-1, while Michigan ends its at 9-3. With Michigan State’s victory over Penn State, the Spartans will represent the East Division in the Big Ten Championship Game. The Buckeyes and Wolverines, meanwhile, will be sitting at home and watching to see how the College Football Playoff committee evaluates their seasons and selects what bowl games they will represent the Big Ten in during the postseason. By the numbers:2: With his fantastic performance, Elliott has now moved into second in the all-time rushing leader category at OSU, only trailing behind two-time Heisman Trophy winner Archie Griffin.19: Michigan and Ohio State, two of the top five winningest college football teams in the country, have combined for 19 national titles throughout history (eight for the Buckeyes, 11 for Michigan).77: The two programs have combined for 77 Big Ten championships, 35 of which came from OSU.3: Elliott rushed for 214 yards at Michigan Stadium, which is the third-highest total given up to an individual in Michigan football history.42: The Buckeyes lucky’ number against the Wolverines. OSU has now scored 42 points against Michigan in three consecutive games, all victories.482: A week after putting forth one of the worst offensive performances in recent memories, the Buckeyes racked up 482 yards of offense on the road against one of the best defenses in the nation.5: Michigan had only allowed teams in the red zone to score a rushing touchdown on it five times through its first 11 games. Against the Buckeyes, they double that mark with another five.11/12: OSU has now won 11 of the last 12 meetings against the Wolverines, including six of the last eight games played in Ann Arbor.19: OSU has now won 19 straight road games, the longest active streak in college football.2: OSU only officially punted twice against Michigan, the least amount of punts in any game this year.
You would think the only player in Major League Baseball history to hit .300, have 30 home runs and drive in 100 runs for 10 consecutive seasons would be the highest-paid player in baseball — but he’s not. St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols isn’t even the highest-paid player on his team. That would be outfielder Matt Holliday, whose $120 million contract he signed last year is $20 million more than what Pujols received in 2004. Don’t get me wrong, $100 million is a lot of money. But when it comes to professional sports, and especially baseball, Pujols is vastly underpaid for the numbers he puts up. The fact that Hiroki Kuroda made more during the 2010 season than Pujols just doesn’t make sense. And that you just asked yourself who Hiroki Kuroda is, is my point exactly. Now, maybe you’re thinking that the Cardinals just pulled a Bronx Bombers and have two of the highest-paid guys in the league — but Pujols isn’t even in the top 25 when it comes to his annual salary as of the end of the 2010 season. That’s a little hard to wrap my head around, considering former Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Cox said he would give Pujols $50 million a season. Cox is not far off. A good barometer of where Pujols stands is comparing him to New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. They both have put up consistent numbers over the years, except for income. For the 2010 season, they put up somewhat similar numbers, with Pujols batting .042 higher with 12 more home runs and A-Rod having seven more RBIs. Rodriguez’s annual salary for the 2010 season, $33 million, was more than double what Pujols made. Pujols will creep a little closer to that $33 million because of the Cardinals exercising their option for 2011, which will put him at a base salary of $16 million for 2011. But still nowhere close to A-Rod status. The Cardinals had offered Pujols a contract extension earlier in the year, which some baseball insiders reported to be in the vicinity of 10 years, $200 million, but Pujols respectfully declined. And he was right to decline that. He knows what his value is, and the Cardinals are coming up short on their offer. It’s like any other profession: If you are great at what you do, someone will pay you what you are worth. It has been rumored that Pujols is looking for $300 million, but there is no way he’s going to get that, especially if he “wants to be a Cardinal forever,” like he says. $300 million would be a little steep for a team whose payroll is just more than $93 million. But that is the beauty of America and free agency: If you don’t like the offer, you can look somewhere else. It won’t come down to that, though. The Cardinals and Pujols will secretly negotiate during the season and work out a deal that satisfies both parties. Prediction: 9 years, $262 million.