text: do you think the larger sports media is biased against the stl cardinals? evidence:   they were pretty much hated and disrespected in the postseason, despite legitimate wins over pads and mets (detroit kinda caved).  they pretty much made the writers look bad.  pujols was denied the mvp by what logic i can only imagine (the phillies had more wins???) and carpenter was denied the cy young (ok, it was very close with webb).  both awards are decided by writers - the same ones that put bonds over pujols despite obvious steroid usage. the other guy ahead of me is completely incorrect.  the cardinals have a storied past and have added to baseball's great history with many of baseball's greatest players and teams.  the media is biased against the cardinals but not because, as the other guy incorrectly stated, the cardinals don't have a storied past.  they are biased against teams with smaller payrolls, unlike the dodgers, yankees and the like.  the east and west coast tend to shun the midwest and anyone else who doesn't buy the souls of the greatest players walking.  if i was as rich as some of those guys, i'd have a championship team right now.  anybody can do that.  it takes a team like the cardinals, though, to come out as heroes.  they will always have that special place in baseball - the hardworking midwesterners.