Robert Murray...Arnold "hesitant" to add a bat

[CheeseheadInQC]

23 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Read what i said please...EVERYONE is on the market if you offer enough. Everyone has a price. If they technically aren't "on the market" force them to be "on the market" with an offer they can't refuse.

So when none of them are dealt it will just be because all of the GMs are small time thinkers?

[JefferyLeonard]

3 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

I highly doubt the Cardinals would trade Arenado/Goldy to a division rival and vice versa, so your premise is faulty to begin with.

If they did and the Brewers won the WS it might be an overpay or it might not. What if the Cardinals subsequently won two World Series with Chourio/Misio?

Or for a tangible example that actually happened, what if the Brewers traded for Greinke to move the needle only to never make the World Series while the Royals won one and lost one with Cain, Escobar, and the guys they got for Odorizzi?

So what? You still should put yourself in the best possible position you can as a Franchise to get to the World series, right? To not do so, is neglect. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at least you can then say you did everything you could. It's hard to fault anyone for that, I sure wouldn't. But to keep going with this faulty premise of "run prevention" being the ticket, is a fallacy. So what if your staff gives up 2 runs, if you only score 1 you still lose. Now if you have a staff that only gives up 2-3 runs per game, but your LU is scoring 5-6+, doesn't that seem like a winning formula? The way they do things as far as relying on "run prevention" and always signing/trading for mediocre at best bats isn't going to be a winning formula in most years. It's just not. 

It is so painful watching this offense night in and night out. Is it fun for any of you watching Freddy strike out 13 guys, and being on pins and needles hoping he doesn't make a mistake and give up a solo shot that could end up being the game? Or watching this team go 2-16 with runners in scoring position? How much pressure do you think that puts on the staff every damn game when they know if they give up even two runs, there's a very real chance they lose the game. 

[JefferyLeonard]

8 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Brewers are not getting a Chourio if/when they trade Burnes and Woodruff in the offseason. You're talking about a consensus top 5 prospect in baseball and probably the highest-upside player in all the minors. 

So he's guaranteed to be a multi year All star and potential MLB MVP? 

[Brewcrew82]

14 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

So he's guaranteed to be a multi year All star and potential MLB MVP? 

Of course, not. No prospect is. But you're not replacing his talent in a Burnes/Woodruff trade, considering those types of prospects are never traded to begin with.

[Jim French Stepstool]

Actually, picking up a middling bat or two could make a huge difference in the fortunes of this team. The reason is that they're proficient at..........wait for it............run prevention.

[JefferyLeonard]

15 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Of course, not. No prospect is. But you're not replacing his talent in a Burnes/Woodruff trade, considering those types of prospects are never traded to begin with.

Exactly! Give me proven talent, over "potential" talent every single time. 

[JefferyLeonard]

11 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

Actually, picking up a middling bat or two could make a huge difference in the fortunes of this team. The reason is that they're proficient at..........wait for it............run prevention.

Not if they stay "middling". How many guys in this current lineup do you feel confident in right now that will get a big hit, in a big situation? Or maybe better stated, who do you even want up in those situations. Yelich and maybe Contreras. That's pathetic. look at the Braves lineup, or the Reds lineup(against everyone but the Brewers staff), look at the Dodgers lineup, The orioles, the Rays, the list goes on and on. 

There will also be games that the staff just doesn't have it on a certain night. then what? Not having it for them is giving up 4-5 runs, I have zero confidence that this team can score 5-6 on nights like those to win games. 

[Brewcrew82]

10 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Exactly! Give me proven talent, over "potential" talent every single time. 

Well, they're not trading Chourio. I can disabuse you of that notion right now. And you'll be glad we didn't in a year or two. Of course, I doubt you'll admit you were wrong.

According to your logic, the Angels would have been well-served trading Mike Trout in 2010. Or the Padres and Tatis Jr. in 2018. Or the Nationals and Juan Soto in 2018. Because that's the company Chourio's in with what he's currently doing as a teenager in AA. 

[Jim French Stepstool]

4 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Not if they stay "middling". How many guys in this current lineup do you feel confident in right now that will get a big hit, in a big situation? Or maybe better stated, who do you even want up in those situations. Yelich and maybe Contreras. That's pathetic. look at the Braves lineup, or the Reds lineup(against everyone but the Brewers staff), look at the Dodgers lineup, The orioles, the Rays, the list goes on and on. 

There will also be games that the staff just doesn't have it on a certain night. then what? Not having it for them is giving up 4-5 runs, I have zero confidence that this team can score 5-6 on nights like those to win games. 

By your own definition, most of the lineup is pathetic. So apparently a middling bat or two would, indeed, be an improvement.

I'd also suggest looking at the pitching staffs of the teams you just listed, one through thirteen, and compare them to Milwaukee's. I'm sorry, this is the way they do things, and I agree with it. What you suggest isn't going to happen, and IMO that's fortunate because they can't afford to be that near-sighted.

[JefferyLeonard]

7 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Well, they're not trading Chourio. I can disabuse you of that notion right now. And you'll be glad we didn't in a year or two. Of course, I doubt you'll admit you were wrong.

According to your logic, the Angels would have been well-served trading Mike Trout in 2010. Or the Padres and Tatis Jr. in 2018. Or the Nationals and Juan Soto in 2018. Because that's the company Chourio's in with what he's currently doing as a teenager in AA. 

Look, I don't want them to trade Chourio either. That being said, IF they have a chance to acquire an All star bat and the other team asked for him in return, I'm doing it every single time. I will gladly admit I'm wrong if he turns out to be a trout etc. But that's down the road, you know where I live? In the here and now. The future is the future, it will be what it will be. However you can control the here and now. 

[JefferyLeonard]

6 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

By your own definition, most of the lineup is pathetic. So apparently a middling bat or two would, indeed, be an improvement.

I'd also suggest looking at the pitching staffs of the teams you just listed, one through thirteen, and compare them to Milwaukee's. I'm sorry, this is the way they do things, and I agree with it. What you suggest isn't going to happen, and IMO that's fortunate because they can't afford to be that near-sighted.

Well you go ahead and get giddy when they acquire a middling bat, and it does essentially nothing to change the LU(still not able to score runs in key spots etc). I'm so tired of hearing "The Brewers can't afford this or that". It's a total cop out and it's obvious those lies have infiltrated a majority of the fanbase who buy into it. The Brewers CAN do whatever they want to do. Period. That is 100% factual. It's what they CHOOSE to do is the difference. there is a BIG distinction there. they are NOT the same thing. 

[Brewcrew82]

24 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Look, I don't want them to trade Chourio either. That being said, IF they have a chance to acquire an All star bat and the other team asked for him in return, I'm doing it every single time. I will gladly admit I'm wrong if he turns out to be a trout etc. But that's down the road, you know where I live? In the here and now. The future is the future, it will be what it will be. However you can control the here and now. 

Sounds like a great way to run a team into the ground and bring back the 1983-2008 Brewers. 

You can't guarantee the Brewers will win a World Series if they trade Chourio for an Alonso, for example. But I can guarantee you right now that the Brewers won't be signing guys with Chourio's talent in FA or trading for them in exchange for Burnes/Woodruff. 1.5 years of Alonso for a guaranteed 6+ years of Chourio? No way. 

The only types of players I would trade Chourio for (the Yordan Alvarezes, Julio Rodriguezes of the world, etc.) aren't available and won't be made available even if you offered up Chourio. 

The Brewers literally already tried this strategy in 2011 and it failed to bring Milwaukee a World Series, while fueling the Royals' consecutive World Series' runs, as @sveumrulespoints out. The MLB postseason is just too much of a crapshoot. 

[LouisEly]

1 hour ago, JefferyLeonard said:

Read what i said please...EVERYONE is on the market if you offer enough. Everyone has a price. If they technically aren't "on the market" force them to be "on the market" with an offer they can't refuse.

How's that been working out for San Diego?  How many World Series have they been to?

[JefferyLeonard]

4 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

How's that been working out for San Diego?  How many World Series have they been to?

How many do the Brewers have using their method? 

[LouisEly]

Who cares if a "bat" can play defense?

Bad defense makes pitchers throw more pitches.

More pitches thrown means:

1. More chances of a bad pitch that results in a hit (or HR), resulting in more runs given up
2. Starters getting tired earlier in the game, resulting in more chances of a bad pitch being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up
3. Relievers used earlier in games, resulting in more relievers being used over the course of the season, resulting in tired arms in the bullpen, resulting in more bad pitches being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up
4. More runs given up increases the chance of losing games
5. More pitches being thrown/pitchers being used increases the chance of pitchers getting injured, resulting in worse pitchers needing to be used to replace injured pitchers, resulting in more bad pitches being thrown...
6. See #1

[JefferyLeonard]

3 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Who cares if a "bat" can play defense?

Bad defense makes pitchers throw more pitches.

More pitches thrown means:

1. More chances of a bad pitch that results in a hit (or HR), resulting in more runs given up
2. Starters getting tired earlier in the game, resulting in more chances of a bad pitch being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up
3. Relievers used earlier in games, resulting in more relievers being used over the course of the season, resulting in tired arms in the bullpen, resulting in more bad pitches being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up
4. More runs given up increases the chance of losing games
5. More pitches being thrown/pitchers being used increases the chance of pitchers getting injured, resulting in worse pitchers needing to be used to replace injured pitchers, resulting in more bad pitches being thrown...
6. See #1

We can play this game all day long. I will win every single time, so let's do it. First of all, do DH's play defense? I mean there is a spot in the batting order now that allows a "bat" to be in the LU and not effect your defense, ordid they change the rules today?

More chances of a bad pitch that results in a hit (or HR), resulting in more runs given up...a big bat, means one swing, can alleviate this.

Starters getting tired earlier in the game, resulting in more chances of a bad pitch being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up.

Yes, giving up more runs now is almost a death sentence for this team, but another legit bat or two added to the lineup can alleviate this too. Give up 5? No problem, we'll score 6 or 7 or more.  or another way to look at it is...more Bats added to the LU can make this a moot point by scoring a lot of runs early enough that the Pitchers don't have to throw as many pitches(they can get pulled early).

Point being, I can counter every one of these by adding more quality(big) bats. Score more runs, less stress/pitches etc on the staff. It's really that simple. 

 

 

[Brewcrew82]

2 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

We can play this game all day long. I will win every single time, so let's do it. First of all, do DH's play defense? I mean there is a spot in the batting order now that allows a "bat" to be in the LU and not effect your defense, ordid they change the rules today?

More chances of a bad pitch that results in a hit (or HR), resulting in more runs given up...a big bat, means one swing, can alleviate this.

Starters getting tired earlier in the game, resulting in more chances of a bad pitch being thrown, resulting in more chances of hits (or HRs) given up, resulting in more runs given up.

Yes, giving up more runs now is almost a death sentence for this team, but another legit bat or two added to the lineup can alleviate this too. Give up 5? No problem, we'll score 6 or 7 or more.  or another way to look at it is...more Bats added to the LU can make this a moot point by scoring a lot of runs early enough that the Pitchers don't have to throw as many pitches(they can get pulled early).

Point being, I can counter every one of these by adding more quality(big) bats. Score more runs, less stress/pitches etc on the staff. It's really that simple. 

 

 

This team is constructed to win with its pitching and defense. You're not changing that at the deadline, nor should you try to. 

What you can do is add some bats so that you give your pitching and defense more "wiggle room", whereas right now they have very little. That doesn't contradict Arnold whatsoever.  

[LouisEly]

6 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

We can play this game all day long. I will win every single time, so let's do it. First of all, do DH's play defense? I mean there is a spot in the batting order now that allows a "bat" to be in the LU and not effect your defense, ordid they change the rules today?

More chances of a bad pitch that results in a hit (or HR), resulting in more runs given up...a big bat, means one swing, can alleviate this.

No, my argument wins every time because you are making one very faulty assumption in your argument - that the same pitchers are being used for the same number of pitches for the same % of innings.

More pitches thrown means more pitchers needing to be used in a game which means greater use of bad pitchers vs good pitchers.  It's the same as adding additional bad bench hitters to the lineup; yes, you cannot have more than 9 hitters in a lineup, but the analogy is that your good hitters have fewer % of the team's at bats (just like your good pitchers have fewer % of the teams innings), meaning more at bats going to bad hitters, which results in less runs scored.

You're very emotional right now.  I suggest shutting down the computer, going for a walk, and coming back tomorrow.

[edfunderburk]

2 hours ago, sveumrules said:

If the expectation is "overpay so much you make someone trade a player they had no intention of dealing in the first place"...then yeah, I don't think the Brewers will be doing that.

Nor should they

[JefferyLeonard]

15 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

No, my argument wins every time because you are making one very faulty assumption in your argument - that the same pitchers are being used for the same number of pitches for the same % of innings.

More pitches thrown means more pitchers needing to be used in a game which means greater use of bad pitchers vs good pitchers.  It's the same as adding additional bad bench hitters to the lineup; yes, you cannot have more than 9 hitters in a lineup, but the analogy is that your good hitters have fewer % of the team's at bats (just like your good pitchers have fewer % of the teams innings), meaning more at bats going to bad hitters, which results in less runs scored.

You're very emotional right now.  I suggest shutting down the computer, going for a walk, and coming back tomorrow.

I'm not emotional. I'm just tired of watching this lineup flounder night in and night out. Aren't you? I mean seriously, it's brutal to watch. Makes my eyes bleed. I just don't want them to add a mediocre bat or two and then when it inevitably doesn't work, they say at the end of the year "well we tried". No you didn't. You half assed it, and HOPED it MIGHT make a slight difference. That MIGHT be good enough to push you over for a division title, but it's almost certainly not going to be good enough to get you to the WS, let alone win it. 

The worst thing about it is, they do it to themselves. They put themselves in this position every single off season by signing washed up vets that have nothing left, thinking they can strike gold with them for a year. Who would have ever thought that was never going to work? Obviously not the Brewers. 😔 Because they keep doing it every single year.

[Brewcrew82]

19 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

I'm not emotional. I'm just tired of watching this lineup flounder night in and night out. Aren't you? I mean seriously, it's brutal to watch. Makes my eyes bleed. I just don't want them to add a mediocre bat or two and then when it inevitably doesn't work, they say at the end of the year "well we tried". No you didn't. You half assed it, and HOPED it MIGHT make a slight difference. That MIGHT be good enough to push you over for a division title, but it's almost certainly not going to be good enough to get you to the WS, let alone win it. 

The worst thing about it is, they do it to themselves. They put themselves in this position every single off season by signing washed up vets that have nothing left, thinking they can strike gold with them for a year. Who would have ever thought that was never going to work? Obviously not the Brewers. 😔 Because they keep doing it every single year.

Thing is your approach is almost certainly not going to be enough to get you to the WS, let alone win it either. The MLB postseason is a crapshoot. Better to get there as many times as you can and "get hot" at the right time a la. 2019 Nationals, 2021 Braves, etc. It's pretty much worked for the Rays (2 WS appearances in my lifetime) vs. the Brewers (0). 

FWIW, you do, in fact, seem to be emotional when you're constantly using caps in your posts. 

[JefferyLeonard]

6 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Thing is your approach is almost certainly not going to be enough to get you to the WS, let alone win it either. The MLB postseason is a crapshoot. Better to get there as many times as you can and "get hot" at the right time a la. 2019 Nationals, 2021 Braves, etc. It's pretty much worked for the Rays (2 WS appearances in my lifetime vs. the Brewers). 

It may not work, but at least it would show they were actually trying. And without at least another LEGIT bat or two in the lineup the odds of "getting hot" are slim. That's the point. 

[Brewcrew82]

2 minutes ago, JefferyLeonard said:

It may not work, but at least it would show they were actually trying. And without at least another LEGIT bat or two in the lineup the odds of "getting hot" are slim. That's the point. 

And with your approach of mortgaging the entire farm, we'll still almost certainly fail to win the World Series and won't even get back to the postseason for a good decade or so. 

Braves lost Acuna in 2021 and "only" added Pederson, Duvall, and Soler. That's along the line of moves you'll see from Arnold at the deadline. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that they need to add bats. But they're going to do it "responsibly", as they should. 

[HarveysWBs]

I understand that the OP is generally and vehemently opposed to the organizational philosophy of valuing prospects (in lieu of the money the org doesn’t have vis a vis the big clubs) and long-term viability over big swings and “all-in” moves.  This has been litigated and re-litigated elsewhere, in addition to this thread, and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else’s mind on this point (not that the attempts on all sides have not been valiant).

What I find interesting is what started this round of the debate:  Arnold giving a vague-sounding, wishy-washy answer to the media.  Let us say, for the sake of argument, that trading whoever we need to in order to acquire a “big time bat” (however we want to define that) is the right move.  In what universe does it make sense for Arnold to come out and essentially say to the world:  “Our offense stinks on ice, I have no confidence in the players on our roster fixing that, and I am absolutely desperate for one, maybe two huge bats and I must get them—no expenses spared!”?  I mean, I am loathe to re-ignite another Wisconsin sports debate that has been had ad nauseam, but being a general manager means, among other things, having to care about leverage (even writing the word makes me cringe after le affair de Rodgers).  It certainly undermines one’s negotiating position to so blatantly advertise one’s motives.  I would much rather they be cagey, as they have been traditionally.  Stearns and company were usually working on their best trades when they weren’t saying anything of substance to the media.

Long story short, if I were in agreement with @JefferyLeonard on strategy, Arnold’s answer is exactly what I would want Arnold to be saying publicly.  I find this funny and ironic, since I don’t really want any of the top-3 prospects going anywhere for anyone but Ohtani.

[JefferyLeonard]

9 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

I understand that the OP is generally and vehemently opposed to the organizational philosophy of valuing prospects (in lieu of the money the org doesn’t have vis a vis the big clubs) and long-term viability over big swings and “all-in” moves.  This has been litigated and re-litigated elsewhere, in addition to this thread, and I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else’s mind on this point (not that the attempts on all sides have not been valiant).

What I find interesting is what started this round of the debate:  Arnold giving a vague-sounding, wishy-washy answer to the media.  Let us say, for the sake of argument, that trading whoever we need to in order to acquire a “big time bat” (however we want to define that) is the right move.  In what universe does it make sense for Arnold to come out and essentially say to the world:  “Our offense stinks on ice, I have no confidence in the players on our roster fixing that, and I am absolutely desperate for one, maybe two huge bats and I must get them—no expenses spared!”?  I mean, I am loathe to re-ignite another Wisconsin sports debate that has been had ad nauseam, but being a general manager means, among other things, having to care about leverage (even writing the word makes me cringe after le affair de Rodgers).  It certainly undermines one’s negotiating position to so blatantly advertise one’s motives.  I would much rather they be cagey, as they have been traditionally.  Stearns and company were usually working on their best trades when they weren’t saying anything of substance to the media.

Long story short, if I were in agreement with @JefferyLeonard on strategy, Arnold’s answer is exactly what I would want Arnold to be saying publicly.  I find this funny and ironic, since I don’t really want any of the top-3 prospects going anywhere for anyone but Ohtani.

This is EXACTLY the type of big move I'm lobbying for. the brewers have the prospects to get it done, but they aren't bold enough to even attempt something like this because of "Muh prospects". The thing is Ohtani fills two spots..another starting pitcher, AND the best hitter in baseball. Even if it didn't get them a world series, I bet it would sell out the stadium almost every night the rest of the season, merchandise sales would soar, it would be a financial boon for Mark A. That's the kind of "out of the box" thinking I'd like to see from them. 

Sadly, I still think there would be some people here that wouldn't make this deal, because of the precious "prospects" the Crew would have to give up.