Is anyone else especially interested about this years All Star game?

Though I would suspect the Cards have only one or two allstars (Pujols, Izzy), I'm really interested to see how LaRussa manages this game.  I am certain he will manage to win, and probably have the 3x5 index cards in his back pocket with the esoteric stats he likes to refer to.

I think he will play the best players longer than normal for an all star game and it wouldn't surprise me if Pujols, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes get 5 innings or more just because of Tony's desire to win.

Here's how I project the lineup to start the game:

Reyes, SS
Beltran, CF
Pujols, 1B (or Fielder--he's currently leading in votes)
Wright, 3B
Utley, 2B
Soriano, LF (I think Matt Holliday replaces after Sori's first at-bat)
Griffey, RF
Martin, C
pitcher

Other interesting stories:

Will Tony select Matt Morris, Barry Bonds, or Carlos Zambrano for the team?  How about Jason Marquis?  I think that one is a clear NO, but he's got decent numbers.

How far does he go with his starter, and in the late innings how much does he rely on traditional bullpen guys, over a dominant starter like Matt Cain?

If Yadier were healthy, would he have gotten an invitation?  I'm thinking yes.

Would Tony manage any differently because his opponent is good friend Jim Leyland?  

Thoughts?

Despite the offense's woes early on, I really believe the Card's chances this season hinge on having Carpenter healthy, especially in the fall when the games will take on more urgency.

If Carpenter's out for anything longer than a couple of months, perhaps it would be better for the organization to shift focus to a youth movement.  I've enjoyed watching Rolen, Edmonds, Izzy and Eckstein a great deal, but I think the truth is that they'll provide less and less support for Pujols, Carpenter and co. from here on out.

I'd rather see the Cardinals take a hit in the short term and reload for 2008 or 2009.  Outside of Rasmus, Hawkesworth and possibly Jay, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot on the farm that can replace what we have now.  I'm talking about an equitable replacement--not simply a stopgap.  Rasmus would fit as he probably be a better overall player in 2008 or 2009 than Edmonds.  Hawkesworth might be as good or better than our incumbent #4 starter by then, too.  But beyond the 3 minor leaguers mentioned above, I don't think we have impact players at AA or higher.

I'd hate to see the old guard go, but maybe they would bring something good in return.  Healthy versions of Rolen, Izzy and Eckstein would probably fetch a few prospects.  With Edmonds, there is probably more room for doubt as he's simply so brittle.  I won't venture any specific ideas as to what those players would bring, but I definitely think this idea is something that Walt and co. should consider if it's looking like we have no shot this year.

The purpose of this is to get an idea of what the group thinks the Cardinals win total will be for the 2007 regular season.  Earlier this offseason a poll was put up to get a general idea, such as 80-85 wins, 85-90 wins.  This time, lets give a specific #, like 89.

Also, identify your offensive breakout candidate, and your pitching breakout candidate.

I guess I'll start the ball rolling....

Wins: 89
Offensive breakout: Rolen--I think he reestablishes himself as a 30-HR, 100-RBI player.
Pitching breakout: Anthony Reyes--I think 14 wins and an ERA around 3.70-3.80.

Lboros column got me thinking.  Some names I'd hope the Cardinals would at least ask about at the upcoming meetings in no particular order:

John Patterson, WAS---a stud who threw almost 200 innings in 2005 with great hit, walk and strikeout numbers---but who was injured in 2006 and only threw 40 or so innings.  Still his walk rate went down and his KO rate went up.  He'll be 29 when the season starts.  The fact that the Nationals won't be competetive next year should mean that they would listen to reasonable offers.  If the Cardinals can throw two prospects their way, maybe something gets done.  I'd suspect one or both players would have to be pitchers as the Nationals appear bereft of pitchers.  Maybe the Cards could send Duncan and Hawkesworth, though if I were the Nationals I'd want Reyes or Jaime Garcia as the other player.

Zack Greinke, KAN---a lefty with good control and good velocity, but questionable mental makeup.  He seems to be at a low point in terms of trade value.  The Royals have needs(SP, OF, probably a middle infielder) and haven't always used the best sense in assessing roster needs (i.e. signing pricey vets like Sanders and Grudz) when they are not competetive enough as a team to make a difference.  He's been more of a groundball pitcher than a flyball pitcher in his short career thus far.  I'd straight up Greinke for Encarnacion.

Esteban Loaiza, OAK---not that Oakland would trade him with Zito already leaving, but then again they would still have Harden, Haren, Blanton and Kennedy.  Loaiza seems to be an every other year sort of pitcher and/or a contract year sort of pitcher.  Following this logic, since 2006 was a bad year, 2007 stands to be decent.  And 2008 is his walk year so he could be motivated by that.  His early season struggles (low velocity, bad ERA) was rectified to some extent by an auspicious 4 win August and one solid playoff start versus Minnesota.  His availability depends on how competetive Beane belives the A's will be and what level of return he would seek in a trade.  I wouldn't give Duncan, etc., but a mid-level prospect like Stavinoha would be reasonable.

Jake Peavy, SD---he's very good.  We'll leave it at that.  And very young, 25 turning 26 in May.  Realistically, the Cardinals don't have enough to get him.  But let's assume they could swing a separate deal to land a prospect.  (Looper, Encarnacion, et al for any prospect another team would be dumb enough to give them)  If you could package said prospect with Colby Rasmus, I think you could get Peavy.  I think it takes two premium prospects to get Peavy.  I don't think the Pads would be interested in Duncan, primarily because Petco plays to strong defensive players which Duncan is not (yet, and probably never).  Two of the three of Reyes, Rasmus, Wainwright--that might do it, too, but that would be the LEAST it would take.  Atlanta has been rumored to have asked about Peavy and Schuerholz is shrewd, so the Cardinals would have some heady competition for Peavy if he were available.  Still, he is a difference maker and worth the steep price it would take to get him.

In terms of value, John Patterson is probably the best given his recent injury and high ceiling.  I'd love to see the Cardinals make a serious run at him.  But any of the four on this list warrant consideration if the Cardinals can match up trade-wise with the respective teams.

Go, Walt, Go.  Get us some pitchers.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/1987.shtml

Above is the link to the teams statistics.  This team won 85 games and lost 77, winning their division--before the wild card was a part of the playoff setup.  I don't think the 2006 Cardinals are a perfect comparison to the 1987 Twins, but looking at some of the stats offers hope.

Stat 1: Runs differential:  The Twins scored less runs (786) than they gave up (806).

Stat 2: Team ERA 4.63--only Frank Viola and Juan Berengeur had ERAs under 4.00.  

Stat 3: BA/OBP/SLG at C: .191/.252/.389
Stat 4: BA/OBP/SLG at 2B: .238/.298/.352
Stat 5: BA/OBP/SLG at SS: .265/.310/.430
Stat 6: BA/OBP/SLG at LF: .249/.312/.361

*Note these stats are for the regulars at the respective positions.

Lastly, look at the bullpen, numbers.  Jeff Reardon, the closer, had 8 losses and a 4.48 ERA thanks in part to 14 HRs allowed.

The Twins had one superstar: Kirby Puckett, 3-4 other solid hitters and 1 very good left handed starter that playoffs.  The point is, there is a precedent for a mediocre team making a run in October.  Let's hope that the Cardinals can harness some luck and keep the superstars healthy.  The National League is a collection of middleweights waiting to be mangled by the heavyweights of the American League.  Might as well be the Cardinals.