on underachievement

He'll probably post a career high for SLG and maybe HRs.  He'll probably post a career low in 2Bs.  Everything else will probably be near his career averages.  He's previously posted two OBPs higher than his current one, and his current BA would be the second lowest of his career.

He is entering his prime years.  I expected some improvement over the past.  I don't really see anything unusual.  Derrek Lee greatly overachieved last year.  Maybe my opinion of Pujols is too high.

At worst, I think you could say he slightly exceeded expectations, but "greatly overachieved?" Pujols?  That sounds silly to me.

Suppan has been considerably worse than league average this year.  His ERA is a full run higher than the last three years suggest.

Mulder rebounded from that poor second half in Oakland and had a pretty good season last year.  He's completely fallen apart this year.  His ERA is nearly twice what his career ERA was coming into the season.  Whether he was overrated during his Oakland years or not, he's certainly not this bad.

Izzy has been frustrating at times during his Cardinal tenure, and it's not shocking that this is his worst season.  He is not aging well.  But his HR and BB rates have doubled this year.

Like I said, one or even two of those guys losing it isn't a shock, but all four?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=stl

The payroll here is listed at 86 million which is not even close to the 95 million Dewitt reported on 590 the Fan yesterday in St. Louis. On top of the that the money owed by the Cardinals to Wilson and Weaver come out to around 100,000 each given the other club they originally signed with paid the rest.

I just hate how Dimwitt and company think we are stupid and ignorant of facts. Maybe Im missing something but when I see 86 million and then 95 million, I know they are two ver different numbers.

If I had submitted the list accompanied by negative comments then people might read the names with a negative attitude; I wanted to present it as "neutrally" as possible, though, and let the list speak for itself.

The current roster is filled with crappy players---if you're going to start a offensive non-contributor like Molina (whom I like, and I think will eventually hit much better than he has), then why sign an even WORSE bat like Gary Bennett? Your backup catcher should also be able to pinch-hit, and when the Reds get a catcher like David Ross for a 25-yr-old AA pitcher, then I'm gonna argue that Walt is not doing his homework.

I can't wait until 2012 or whenever when (I'm hoping) we'll finally have a few decent young players to plug in form our system rather than having to dredge up waiver-wire rejects and reclamation projects.

I paid ~$100 for a subscription to MLBTV.com so that I could watch my cardinals from Florida.  Lately, the games I've watched have been few and far between, and then only when I am extremely bored and the only other thing to do would be to watch City of Angels on HBO (showing for the 1000th time this month).  Even if I do watch, I know i'm only going to make it to the 3rd or 4th inning if Mulder/Marquis/Suppan are pitching, because by then I'm generally too disgusted to watch anymore.

Not saying I don't agree with you wholeheartedly; this season has been as frustrating as any I can remember. I'd love for ownership to take the blame for a change, but I don't think now is the time. Maybe after we limp into the playoffs and are swept in a best of five.

More relevant is what had been done recently, and the status of each pitcher at the time of the trade: Mulder was a high-priced veteran with declining peripherals across the board, coming off an atrocius second half and entering his age-27 season, while Haren was a league-minimum starter (under team control for another 5 years) entering his age-23 season, coming off an outstanding second half that included a 2.16 era in 5 post-season games.

Look at their stats from after the All-Star break (7/23 on) in 2004:

ERA  WHIP  K/9  BB/9  K/BB  HR/9
6.41  1.68  4.2  4.2  1.0  1.47
2.76  1.16  6.8  3.0  2.3  0.64

85.2 innings for Mulder, 42.1 ip for Haren.

Sure it's a small, cherry-picked sample size, but one of these pitchers was young, cheap and improving (led PCL in K's that year), and the other was four years older, 20 times as expensive, and declining.

And don't make me trot out, again, my December 2004 post made at the time of the trade that gave the deal a big thumbs-down, for the exact reasons I just posted.

But Mulder's a pitch to contact sinker baller, so they had to do it.  That philosophy is just killing this organization.

I'm still not sure what any supposed injury in '04 has to do with Mulder sucking this year, though.  He had a pretty good season last year and was very good in the second half.  Are people suggesting he did that in spite of injury?

What I really want to know is when and why did I fall for their "we don't have the money to spend" line?  Why did I accept it so blindly for so long?  Why wasn't I more upset when Matty Mo left?  Why did I think 'yeah, he isn't worth the money this late in his career.'  Why didn't I think, 'you've got the freaking money.  I don't care what the population of St Louis is.  You have a huge fan base and a sold out stadium ever day.'  

Finally, where is the freaking ownership group these days?  They took the money and ran.

My point is, how much faith do you have that the ownership group wouldn't have just pocketed the savings from inserting the younger players into the rotation.

I think its fair to assume that Wainwright, Reyes, Haren & Luna would contribute approximately equal (if not slightly better)production than what we are currently getting.  I don't have the data to figure out exactly the cost savings here, but for arguments sake let's say $15million (who knows?).  

I have my doubts that the owners would have taken that $15million and used it in an attempt to to sign a player or two deemed to "push the team over the edge" when they would be (hypothetically) getting the same production as they are now at a significantly lower cost.  

If they could win the division w/ a $60 to $70 million dollar payroll and get bounced in the playoffs as in years past (and that payroll figure seems reasonable w/ the younger players mentioned above ASSUMING they are producing at the levels of the current players) why wouldn't they?  It seems that's all they are after and a playoff birth is considered a sucessful season.

Again, I don't agree w/ this philosphy, but it is interesting to think about.  I think a true winner is built with a combination of money & proper talent evaluation.  Assume the yankees are one end of the spectrum (money) and the marlins are the other (talent evalution) if you can meet in the middle somewhere you are probably going to do pretty well.  Seems like that's what the cards go for, they just messed it up this year.

My $0.02