Skip to content

Shelby Miller could be in St. Louis soon

Aug 27, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT

What a difference a month and a half makes.  In mid July, Cardinals prospect Shelby Miller was being talked about as possible trade bait following a nightmare first go-around in the Pacific Coast League. Now, Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, Miller could find himself getting a late-season showcase on the surging Cardinals:

He’d be an interesting addition. While his overall numbers are very “meh” this season, he’s improved of late and, good and bad results notwithstanding, his strikeout rate has been solid this year (10.4 per nine innings) making him an intriguing bullpen option for the stretch run.

  1. blues1988 - Aug 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM

    he’s having a pretty similar season to waino, terrible start and is finishing strong. hope to see them in top form down the stretch. lets go birds!

  2. okwhitefalcon - Aug 27, 2012 at 12:34 PM

    He’s been great since the break, still giving up the long ball a bit too much but outstanding beyond that.

    I’d love to see the kid get a sniff in September whether it’s pitching if needed or observing and getting a feel for the big league experience.

  3. paperlions - Aug 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM

    Strauss is the same guy that was saying the Cardinals would consider trading Miller a couple months ago….and that was NEVER going to happen. The club has denied having any issues with Miller because they’ve never had any. Unlike, fans/media, they realize that a 21 yr old won’t always have a smooth go of it in AAA…plus, they realized that part of the problem was a miscommunication on conditioning (he did a lot of running/cardio and lost weight, they wanted him to get bigger/stronger/heavier….so, not the same “shape” he thought they meant) and the other part was that they screwed with his mechanics and they just weren’t working for him.

    He was never ever going anywhere. Strauss acts like rumors he heard that didn’t happen were all completely accurate and true, which is highly likely not to be the case.

    • okwhitefalcon - Aug 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

      Other guys beyond Strauss (Derrick Goold, Bernie Miklasz, Jeff Gordon, Rick Hummel and Rob Rains) all echoed the clubs dissatisfaction with Miller’s physical condition as well as his attitude in spring training with his lack of work ethic and attention to detail during his short stint in big league camp and being referred to by some within the organization “The Pitching Rasmus”.

      Not sure about the miscommunication either, they prescribed a regime and he failed to follow it -to the degree of losing 25 pounds and being passed up in the organization by Joe Kelley and Trevor Rosenthal and only getting 2 appearances before being exiled to minor league camp.

      No idea about the mechanics issue, from everything I’ve heard he turned the corner after they instituted a “no shake rule” got him more upright, skipped his turn in the rotation amid demotion and trade rumors and specifically told him it was their way or the highway.

      I absolutely think he could have been had in the right package (like anyone else I suppose), but that package never presented itself – as Keith Law said around the deadline concerning Miller “Why sell low?”

      Personally, I’m happy for the kid – and he is just a kid.

      I hope he gets the call in September and learns something from the experience, changes the perception he creaed for himself with the disappointing spring and soaks up everything he can from guys like Wainwright, Carpenter and Lohse.

      Here’e the feature on Miller from yesterday’s Post Dispatch by Strauss, he seems like a good kid who’s gotten the message and on the right track.

      • paperlions - Aug 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

        The loss of velocity was a mechanical issue, apparently due to a change the club instituted in the spring. They went back to his old mechanics and his control and velocity both returned….it had nothing to do with the alleged “no shake” rule.

        The guys you are citing up there are largely gossip mongers, that is their job, they have to have content every day…much of which is making mountains out of mole hills (or less).

        I don’t know what you are reading, but I’ve seen the mis-communication about the off-season workout goals cited in multiple places with the club stating it was as much their fault as Miller’s.

        Miller was not “passed up” by Joe Kelley or Trevor Rosenthal…because the best prospect list is not the same as the next guy to get called up list.

      • okwhitefalcon - Aug 27, 2012 at 5:56 PM

        Whoops, forgot the link to the above mentioned feature:

        I never said control/velocity improved to the “no shake rule”.

        Every beat reporter/columnist mentioned above is a gossip monger who bases no articles/columns on quality sources within the organization? Seriously..

        Blame can be placed on both for the off season regime for sure, the monitoring of his workout routine should have been more aggressive by the club but at some point (21 or not) the player has to be accountable – especially for a 25 pould weight loss.

        As far as being passed up by Rosenthal and Kelly, he’d obviously lost enough luster within the organization to not be “the next to be called up” or trusted to positively contribute at a time when the club was in dire need help on the staff.

        Prospect lists are just that, lists – fodder for conversation.

        Nice for fans to get fired up about but rarely the end all be all of how a player will perform when called upon.

        I mean c’mon – what would you rather be, higher on a “list” of prospects still in the minors or the guy(s) now in the big leagues who was/were ranked lower than you by a scribe who only makes mountains of mole hills to fill content?

        I’m fairly certain Miller himself prefers to be off “the list” and in the show.

        Hopefully he gets a shot and steps up if called upon.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2485)
  2. D. Span (2324)
  3. G. Stanton (2258)
  4. Y. Puig (2223)
  5. J. Fernandez (2179)
  1. B. Crawford (2004)
  2. G. Springer (2000)
  3. M. Sano (1803)
  4. M. Teixeira (1801)
  5. J. Hamilton (1721)