Offline
Descalso isnt Rolen but he has got some kind of arm.
Offline
How does a guy change his name from Francisco De La Cruz to Jose Arredondo?
Offline
tkihshbt wrote:
Nice play by DeShields.
I think a Delino reference is an automatic ten bucks.
Offline
Hey Tone. Swipe a bag here.
Offline
If Theriot wins the game right here, Hrabosky is going to blump him in the clubhouse later.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
Hey Tone. Swipe a bag here.
That works, too.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
If Theriot wins the game right here, Hrabosky is going to blump him in the clubhouse later.
Rec.
Thanks to Theriot for giving me blue balls. He missed a slider that didn't slide, then swung at some crap that bounced on the plate.
Offline
I came in late. Why have there been so many John Mabry references tonight?
Offline
That was just a lousy at-bat by Freese.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
I came in late. Why have there been so many John Mabry references tonight?
The May 2005 game in Cincinnati when Mabry completed a six-run ninth inning comeback by homering off of Graves.
Offline
That's that. The offense was taking way too many shitty at-bats.
Offline
tkihshbt wrote:
Descalso can't do it every time.
This is Jake Westbrook's fault.
why not cut to the chase and blame mozeliak for trading ludwick to get a guy who probably would have been released the next day, and then feeling so guilty about trading away ludwick for a guy who did not perform well enough to get us over the hump and into the playoffs, that he then signed him to a ridiculous contract for what, 3 years???, just to prove he was right in the first place.
Offline
Max wrote:
tkihshbt wrote:
Descalso can't do it every time.
This is Jake Westbrook's fault.why not cut to the chase and blame mozeliak for trading ludwick to get a guy who probably would have been released the next day, and then feeling so guilty about trading away ludwick for a guy who did not perform well enough to get us over the hump and into the playoffs, that he then signed him to a ridiculous contract for what, 3 years???, just to prove he was right in the first place.
Let's just blame Ludwick.
Offline
tkihshbt wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
I came in late. Why have there been so many John Mabry references tonight?
The May 2005 game in Cincinnati when Mabry completed a six-run ninth inning comeback by homering off of Graves.
I could have homered off Graves that night.
Offline
Not for nuthin', but if you rally from eight runs down and send the game into extra innings, aren't you ultimately supposed to win?
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
Not for nuthin', but if you rally from eight runs down and send the game into extra innings, aren't you ultimately supposed to win?
Not if Sylvester Stallone write the script.
Offline
Max wrote:
tkihshbt wrote:
Descalso can't do it every time.
This is Jake Westbrook's fault.why not cut to the chase and blame mozeliak for trading ludwick to get a guy who probably would have been released the next day, and then feeling so guilty about trading away ludwick for a guy who did not perform well enough to get us over the hump and into the playoffs, that he then signed him to a ridiculous contract for what, 3 years???, just to prove he was right in the first place.
It was La Russa and Duncan who were pushing for the trade of a starting pitcher.
Jake Westbrook gave the Cardinals 75 innings and a 3.48 ERA, so it seems silly to lay the Cardinals not winning 92 games at his feet.
When Westbrook was acquired, the Cardinals were giving starts to Blake Hawksworth and Kyle Lohse.
It's preposterous to suggest that "guilt" was the reason the Cardinals re-signed Westbrook. Given his repertoire and the fact that he was a solid No. 4, Westbrook becoming completely ineffective at just 33 was not something anyone could have foreseen.
And Westbrook was NOT going to be released. You just completely made that up.
Offline
"And Westbrook was NOT going to be released. You just completely made that up."
And if he had been, there's no way he would have cleared waivers and become a free agent.
Westbrook was already in the shower by the time I got home last night, but I'm guessing he fell behind hitters early in the count in the first inning.
There are two Jake Westbrooks. The one we saw in Tampa over the weekend who works ahead in the count, and the other who is afraid to throw strikes because the guy at the plate might take him deep.
At some point, he's got to figure out that it's better to throw one pitch in an at bat that might catch too much of the plate than it is to try to throw five pitches outside of the zone hoping the batter will go fishing.
Offline
tkihshbt wrote:
Max wrote:
tkihshbt wrote:
Descalso can't do it every time.
This is Jake Westbrook's fault.why not cut to the chase and blame mozeliak for trading ludwick to get a guy who probably would have been released the next day, and then feeling so guilty about trading away ludwick for a guy who did not perform well enough to get us over the hump and into the playoffs, that he then signed him to a ridiculous contract for what, 3 years???, just to prove he was right in the first place.
It was La Russa and Duncan who were pushing for the trade of a starting pitcher.
Jake Westbrook gave the Cardinals 75 innings and a 3.48 ERA, so it seems silly to lay the Cardinals not winning 92 games at his feet.
When Westbrook was acquired, the Cardinals were giving starts to Blake Hawksworth and Kyle Lohse.
It's preposterous to suggest that "guilt" was the reason the Cardinals re-signed Westbrook. Given his repertoire and the fact that he was a solid No. 4, Westbrook becoming completely ineffective at just 33 was not something anyone could have foreseen.
And Westbrook was NOT going to be released. You just completely made that up.
You sound very defensive of Mozeliak, which is a bit ironic since your take at the time was that it had all the hallmarks of the front office lining up a salary dump for 2011. Instead, Westbrook was rewarded with, what, a three year deal at north of $8 million per year, unless I am mistaken.
Last edited by Max (7/07/2011 3:33 pm)
Offline
You're mistaken. Westbrook's deal is only for 2 years.
Offline
Good, relieved to hear that. So it was something like $17 million for two years? In any case, definitely not a salary dump in the end.
Offline
$16.5M/2 years
Offline
tkihshbt wrote:
Jake Westbrook gave the Cardinals 75 innings and a 3.48 ERA, so it seems silly to lay the Cardinals not winning 92 games at his feet.
Cardinal starters 2010 stats after Westbrook acquired
Wainwright- 11 starts, 6-5, 77 IP, 2.81 ERA, 1.09 WHIP
Carpenter- 12 starts, 5-6, 78.1 IP, 3.79 ERA, 1.19 WHIP
Garcia- 8 starts, 4-4, 47.1 IP, 3.61 ERA, 1.39 WHIP
Westbrook- 12 starts, 4-4, 75 IP, 3.48 ERA, 1.25 WHIP
Lohse- 9 starts, 3-4, 44.2 IP, 7.25 ERA, 1.95 WHIP
Offline
I think we know who the culprit of the 2010 rotation is.
You sound very defensive of Mozeliak, which is a bit ironic since your take at the time was that it had all the hallmarks of the front office lining up a salary dump for 2011.
And I still think it was, though I supported the acquisition of Westbrook.
The Cardinals lost in 2010 because their offense was non-existent in the last two months of the season. They got nothing from catcher, second base, third base (obviously), shortstop and eventually right field. The starting pitching was fine; the bullpen and offense was not.