artie_fufkin wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I don't know why you all bitched about pitching depth. This rotation is dandy.

Who were they going to go out and get, TK? Short of Cliff Lee, whose name was out there who would have been a substantial upgrade?
Miller gave up one run to the Braves in his last start. He's a 20-year-old rookie. To expect him to be Greg Maddux every fifth day at this point in his career is a little ambitious.
 

I think he's 22, but that's neither here nor there; my issue isn't with Miller not pitching like Greg Maddux, but that the Cardinals need Miller to pitch like that, and it's impossible to expect him to, or think he can. It'd be awfully Maxian of me to start throwing out what the Cardinals should have done, but I do think Ricky Nolasco would have been a guy that can a) throw innings and b) be serviceable. And I'm not using his success with the Dodgers as hindsight, either. Plus, given the Cardinals' stated desire to limit Wacha and Martinez's usage, it's kind of silly not to have a better plan on dealing with the unsurprising blow up of Jake Westbrook. 

Not saying I have all the right answers here, but is this rotation good enough to carry the Cardinals to a division title and avoid a stupid one-game playoff? I hope they did everything they could to add veteran pitching, and if the market was demanding too much, that's completely understandable. 

ETA: I do not think the Cardinals should've added Lee or Peavy.

Last edited by tkihshbt (8/30/2013 11:30 pm)

tkihshbt wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

I obviously made the right call. Our high school's 2012 team won 1 game. They're opening against last year's State champs and with 9 minutes left in the game we're down 28-21, but we're driving. 

So your school is playing either Kirkwood or John Burroughs. Either way, that's a pretty strong showing in Week One.

We live in the Pattonville district and opened with Kirkwood. We kicked a field goal that got it to 18-24, but Kirkwood returned the kickoff for a TD. Their defense held an there was a problem on te snap on the punt which Kirkwood recovered at the 1. That made it 42-24. The teams traded late scores and the final was 49-31, but it was 28-24 with 7:30 left in the 4th. A very good showing by Pattonville considering where they were last year.

That's a great story!

So uhh...your son is really tall for a 13-year-old. Now you just need to get him eating about eight times a day. 

tkihshbt wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I don't know why you all bitched about pitching depth. This rotation is dandy.

Who were they going to go out and get, TK? Short of Cliff Lee, whose name was out there who would have been a substantial upgrade?
Miller gave up one run to the Braves in his last start. He's a 20-year-old rookie. To expect him to be Greg Maddux every fifth day at this point in his career is a little ambitious.
 

I think he's 22, but that's neither here nor there; my issue isn't with Miller not pitching like Greg Maddux, but that the Cardinals need Miller to pitch like that, and it's impossible to expect him to, or think he can. It'd be awfully Maxian of me to start throwing out what the Cardinals should have done, but I do think Ricky Nolasco would have been a guy that can a) throw innings and b) be serviceable. And I'm not using his success with the Dodgers as hindsight, either. Plus, given the Cardinals' stated desire to limit Wacha and Martinez's usage, it's kind of silly not to have a better plan on dealing with the unsurprising blow up of Jake Westbrook. 

Not saying I have all the right answers here, but is this rotation good enough to carry the Cardinals to a division title and avoid a stupid one-game playoff? I hope they did everything they could to add veteran pitching, and if the market was demanding too much, that's completely understandable. 

ETA: I do not think the Cardinals should've added Lee or Peavy.

OK. Miller is 22. Point conceded. I should pay better attention to detail and look things up before I post.
The point isn't Miller pitching like a rookie or Westbrook blowing up. Miller was supposed to be the fifth starter. Then they lost Carpenter. Then they lost Garcia. So now your #5 starter is the #3 starter. Was it foolish to think Carpenter was coming back? More than likely. Should they have accounted for Garcia's arm problems after the way he ended last season? Probably. But they let Lohse go because they thought they had enough pitching. That's a dangerous menality. Everyone was critical of the Dodgers for coming into the season with six starters, but look at them now.
Nolasco has proven to be a smart short-term move for them, but remember he's a guy who had one season with an ERA under 4.48 before this year. I don't know what the depth of the Dodgers' farm system is, but they gave up two major league ready relievers and a pitching prospect for Nolasco. Would you have been keen on the Cardinals trading for Nolasco if the package had been, say, Martinez, Siegrist and Jenkins?
 

Actually, if you think about it, if you go back to December/January, Miller was probably the #6 starter. At that point, the rotation was likely Wainwright, Carpenter, Garcia, Westbrook and Lynn. Miller, Rosenthal and Kelly represented the depth.

Carpenter went down before the season began. Motte followed which forced Rosenthal into a bullpen spot. Then Boggs imploded. The 3 guys who competes for the 5th starting spot all ended up with jobs on the big league roster and the depth got stretched. It was stretched further when Garcia went down, and it's beyond thin with Westbrook being ineffective.

I don't disagree that this team wouldn't have benefitted from a veteran arm.  I remember before the season began and there was talk about Bud Norris or Rick Porcello. No one wanted any part of that. The sense I have, and this is just my opinion, is the team isn't "desperate" to win a World Series, meaning they aren't going to trade long-term prospects for a short term rental. If they could acquire someone who'd offer multiple years of possible service, they'd listen.

I think Dewitt & Moz are content making the playoffs most years and taking their chances--even if it means playing the play-in game. The long term takes priority over 2013, at least that's the impression I have.