artie_fufkin wrote:

LOL. The Tigers radio announcers are referring to Westbrook and Lohse like they're the second coming of Koufax and Drysdale.

And on cue, Prince Fielder reminds Kyle Lohse he's Kyle Lohse.

Strike 2 to Holliday was nowhere fucking close.

Oh and this lineup sucks.

don.rob11 wrote:

Lohse was not too shabby today , our bats still falling short ...

They had nine baserunners against Turner in five innings. Three straight times they went to 3-1 against him, twice it resulted in groundouts. They're just in a deep, deep funk.

Well Zep certainly did his job, he kept Fielder from hitting it over the roof ..

I didnt even know it was a day game but I guess my day was more productive because of it.  Scrable sucks!

APIAD wrote:

I would like to see the Cardinals take a chance on Brad Lidge.  He has been DFA.

Strauss addressed this in his chat yesterday. Apparently, Satan will be ice skating along the River Styx before we see Lidge in a Cardinals' uniform.

That wasn't the worst comment regarding Miller.  There were a couple where Miller was compared to Rasmus, and not in a flattering way.  Another compared him to Anthony Reyes.

Bernie does a nice wrap-up on this hideous series in Detroit.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-bytes-cardinals-in-a-serious-rut/article_8f4772b6-bbe8-11e1-90e2-001a4bcf6878.html

I'm not sure what to say. They just...suck. There's no excuse for the futility. If anyone from the front office tries to blame this on Berkman or Jay or Carpenter's injuries then they can get bent because this team has plenty of reinforcements. I hate drawing opinions like this, but could it be the fault of Matheny? Is it the coaching staff?

forsberg_us wrote:

That wasn't the worst comment regarding Miller.  There were a couple where Miller was compared to Rasmus, and not in a flattering way.  Another compared him to Anthony Reyes.

The one area where I tend to part company with Strauss more than any other is his attitude toward prospects. His criticism of fans for going overboard about highly-touted prospects isn't unfair, but he tends to go too far the other way. Strauss has a good eye, but he hasn't seen Miller pitch since Spring Training.

tkihshbt wrote:

Was it Strauss that compared him to Reyes?

The issues with Miller seem real, but the Cardinals shouldn't disparage him and drag down his trade value like they did with Rasmus. For all of Miller's faults, he's still 21-years-old and has plenty of time to hone his secondary pitches. Unless someone of real value is coming over -- not Octavio Dotel, a lefthanded reliever and an average starting pitcher -- then they need to just hang on.

Here's the specific comments regarding Miller (besides the one AP already posted)

Q: With Miller's pitches being called by the bench, do you think that he has the make up to put his heart into those pitches?

A: Well, results haven't been too encouraging doing it Miller's way. If this defeats him, the club made a poor evaluation when it drafted him. The willingness by some among the fan base to rationalize a prospect's shortcomings is astounding. Of course, the temptation to assume knowledge beyond what the organization possesses must be strong. Bottom line: Miller needs to mature as a pitcher and as an adult. Constructing his legend a la Rasmus before reaching the major leagues doesn't offer much benefit.


Q: Sir Snark --- you mentioned earlier some in the organization have removed the "untouchable" label from Sandy Koufax er....ah.....Shelby Miller. Not that he's going to be traded by the end of the week, what's gone haywire? Does this tie-back to the off the field "oppportunities" in I believe Springfield last season?

A: He's dealing with some of what hindered Anthony Reyes. Hey, even Nolan Ryan had an outstanding curveball. I have no indication of continued off-field issues with him. However, the ability to take instruction is a sign of maturity.


Q: Re: removing the "untouchable" label from Shelby Miller. Terrible idea, no? Not saying we will trade him now, but wouldn't this be the classic example of selling low?

A: Just because you put your house on the market doesn't mean you're going to sell.

forsberg_us wrote:

Q: Re: removing the "untouchable" label from Shelby Miller. Terrible idea, no? Not saying we will trade him now, but wouldn't this be the classic example of selling low?

A: Just because you put your house on the market doesn't mean you're going to sell.

As for Strauss' opinion on this I think it is valid but since Anthony Reyes has been thrown out there think about him.  I think the club would have traded him sooner but felt they would have been trading when his value was the lowest.  Then when they did end up trading him he had zero value.  Then you look at Brent Wallace.  He was traded when his value was the highest and went on to unimpress.

"Then you look at Brent Wallace.  He was traded when his value was the highest and went on to unimpress."

I'm still not waving the white flag on Wallace. He hit .333 with a 1.012 OPS before he got sent down when Carlos Lee came off the DL. Wallace's problem is he doesn't have a position except for first base, and and he hasn't shown enough production yet to justify playing him at first base.
What we all found out after Luhnow left was when Luhnow drafted him, he assured the organization Wallace could play third. He couldn't. So the Cardinals, thinking they would have Pujols for life, essentially wasted a first round pick on a backup first baseman because of Luhnow's recommendation.
Certainly, the first three years Matt Holliday was worth the price of Brett Wallace, but I don't know if we're still going to be able to say that with as much confidence five years from now if  Holliday's offensive skills have eroded and his defense continues to plummet toward the Adam Kingman abyss, while he's still making eight figures a year.