TooLiveBrew

Snide & rude? Wow, I really don't know how. I just meant to point out the opposing view that people with "gut feelings" on Mark A., without any real truth to back them up, are doing a disservice to themselves and others. Packer40, please tell me how the quote you chose from my post is "rude" to "a majority of posters here." I really don't know. I just wanted to praise Mark A.'s short, yet successful tenure. He has turned ownership and improvement of the Brewers into a proactive job, as opposed to just focusing on making a little money. I love that he recognizes that a good investment into gradually building a perenially strong team (which we're clearly still on the road to doing) is good for owner(s), fans, and employees alike. I love that a plan to improve is in place not just for the next season (a la Selig & the Tribune Co. - John Vander Wal, anyone?), but for many years to come. I guess, re-reading my post, I can see where the condescension may be found, but trust me, it wasn't intended: IMO, that probably applies to 99% of posters I see regularly. That's the main reason this site is sweeeeeeet - people care to go beyond the surface of issues (see a 19-page thread on a possible FA that hasn't even been tendered an offer by Melvin yet http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif ) As far as the "profit" notion, I think it is very fair to assert that the profit is actually being utilized for improvement of the team now ("competitive & profitable at the same time"), much moreso than under the Selig regime. I didn't think that was a controversial notion on this site. It appears that I didn't make myself clear enough, but man - I'm really shocked that anyone would be offended at what I wrote.

Reed, I think you make the perfect counter-argument to the notion that this forum is not representing the Brewer fan base. I, for one, tend to base my opinions on facts and reality, as opposed to some cockamamie notion that a multi-millionaire shoudn't continue to manage his money well, and that Attanasio is somehow not invested in the best interest of this club. Exactly the opposite -- his biggest concern is the performance and well-being of the Brewers. Milwaukee got burned for far too long by owners who actually were concerned with their own profit, so much so that they shyed away from taking (even calculated) risks. Those of us (I think you're included here, Reed - I know you're 'just the messenger') who follow the team closer than just whining over the trade of Carlos Lee, and not winning 85+ games, recognize that for the first time in over a decade, the ship is pointed in the right direction. That's a big first step. Although there is clearly much more work to be done, on & off the field, we know now for a fact that Attanasio has figured out a way to make the Brewers competitive and profitable at the same time. Seeing that for 2 full years in a row, I see no reason to doubt modest, yet positive growth for the franchise in the near future.

Agreed, Invader3K. Ben Sheets is a grown man. Plus, it's Benny. No 'feelings' are going to be involved here. Much more important is continuing to build a winner, and show our top players that we're committed to continual improvement. Signing Suppan would be another step in that direction, and would not be a big enough signing, dollars or years-wise, to handcuff the franchise when it comes time to re-sign the big guys we want to retain. Capuano & Hall are the only two players we' have to worry about being done with arbitration by the end of a 4-yr deal for Soup. Sheets is a FA after 2008, which would still have Cap & Hall under arbitration deals. Attanasio & Co. have shown a keen ability to gradually yet steadily increase income & player money, and I trust them to have the dollars in place to re-sign enough core guys to continue success. (I can admit that perhaps Sheets is not in the future for the Crew, Suppan or not. But, as I've said many times before (with the caveat that I don't want to lose Ben!), our trade return for him, if we are forced to deal, would be incredible - possibly exceeding Sheets's value to the team due to sheer number of quality players/prospects possible in return)

One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned in the thread so far is Taveras's defensive prowess. He is obviously blindingly fast, yet, unlike many 'speed guys', he actually has a good arm (IIRC). I know offense tends to be more valuable, but his defense is about as good as it gets in CF. I wish BF.net payed a little more attention to D, as it's easy to forget that, as good as a player can be at the plate, he can totally cancel that out by playing poorly in the field. That said, two more things - 1. I doubt the Rox wil trade him now. He's young, cheap, and fast as *BEEEEEP* http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- CF in Coors is massive, and he will bring them all the range of Juan Pierre, with a nice arm. 2. I don't want the Crew to go after him, unless it's for Clark/Mench/Jenks (guys with whom we want to part), nor do I think the Rox would deal Taveras for any of those guys ---------------------------------------------------- Edit/Note: "@#%$" zapped. If the cuss filter produces something like "@#%$", we ask that members please edit it out. Better yet, if you feel a cuss word coming on, use the Preview function for direction. Edit 2: fixed broken code in this footnote --1992casey

maybe it's just me, but shouldn't that website now be required to change to moderateprospectwithaboveaveragenamerecognitionalert.com

AJAY, IMO, this is Melvin reacting to the "We're waiting for Barry Zito to sign" comments from Soup's agent. The reason for the wait is that if NYM do not sign Zito, they are reported to want Suppan next. This will not drive his price up that much more, perhaps some, but it does leave more time for bidding & posturing. That's exactly how I see this from Doug. Even if it's not intentional, he has had enough time to take a step back and review the long-term & short term plusses & minuses of signing Suppan. So while I agree that it's much better to err on the side of aggressiveness, I think the time-frame is 100% the player's doing. Suppan wants to wait, and that's cool. Melvin, on the other hand, is benefitting from and using the extra time to see what his total range of options is. And I like that so much about him! (Edit: fixed broken code --1992casey)

Splitter, this is why I feel so anxious about Suppan. The amount of talent that we now actually have is indeed a draw for other FAs. I've felt this way all offseason, only to see targets head to different, less-talented destinations (Schmidt, Roberts, etc.). I just hope the talent can be the difference in this case

Thanks, Peavey. I appreciate the homework. It kind of reinforces my initial thought, but with a better perspective. PF, overall, is a relatively irrelevant stat, as most MLB parks are within .10 points of 1. What I now recognize as important though, is that there are a few parks - at the highest and lowest ends of the specturm - that do warrant special consideration. Chase Field is one of the few that rated over 1.10 (although not by much at 1.12). Just for fun, and because others might want to look at strictly MLB parks, without sifting, here are the rankings of the 30 MLB teams from the list: 1.34 -- Colorado 1.16 -- Texas 1.12 -- Arizona 1.10 -- Boston 1.10 -- Philadelphia 1.08 -- Toronto 1.06 -- Chicago (AL) 1.06 -- Minnesota 1.04 -- Atlanta 1.02 -- Chicago (NL)* 1.02 -- Cincinnati* 1.02 -- Houston* 1.02 -- Milwaukee* 1.00 -- Kansas City 1.00 -- New York (AL) 1.00 -- Oakland 1.00 -- San Francisco 0.98 -- New York (NL) 0.98 -- St. Louis* 0.94 -- Baltimore 0.94 -- Los Angeles (AL) 0.94 -- Pittsburgh* 0.92 -- Cleveland 0.92 -- Detroit 0.92 -- Tampa Bay 0.90 -- Los Angeles (NL) 0.90 -- Seattle 0.88 -- Washington 0.84 -- Florida 0.82 -- San Diego * NL Central teams (obviously) -- I find it very interesting that 4 of our 6 parks play at equal, and essentially neutral, levels. Call me simple or fickle, or whatever, but I like that our division doesn't have a statistical anomaly kind of park (Colorado, SD, etc.) Also, remember to keep in mind that these park factor numbers are three-year averages, and probably much more accurate than simply using one year

Peavey - Does anyone take into account that pitching staffs themselves play a role in formulating the Park Factor number? I know PF fluctuates from year to year (but I don't know by how much). What about teams that just have a lotta guys who give up round trippers or doubles or BBs and give up big innings? I think I see some value in park adjusted stats, but I just don't really care in what park a guy succeeds. He still has to earn it, and the seemingly fluid state of these park factor stats seem to suggest, to me, that they aren't all they're cracked up to be. I think park factor matters, but they're just not reliable enough measurements, IMO. Please correct me if I'm wrong

I see what you're getting at here; I was surprised to see the numbers on Bush. Remarkably, even with a 1.254 WHIP & 99 ERA+, only 5 undearned runs, and an excellent BB/K ratio (29/75 in 136 1/3 IP), Bush somehow went 5-11 in 2005. Now, I don't give Dave a free pass, as he certainly had some agency in those games, and getting only 5 wins in 24 starts is unacceptable. However, the numbers just don't seem to add up. I wonder if there are some other stats out there that tell more of the story. In particular, what about Double Plays Induced? I wonder if Suppan has gotten out of more jams due to his ability to get a ground ball. Another one - maybe Earned Runs/IP (is there any point in using that over ERA? Or is it just a wash?). It seems like an ER/IP ratio over .50 is not so great, while one under .50 is desirable. That's about the only 'stat' I can find where Suppan has the clear edge over Bush. As far as the "amazing defense" argument, I'll only take that with several grains of salt. Soup went 10-7 in 21 starts for the 2003 Pirates, who finished 75-87, with a pedestrian team fielding % -- nothing near the Card's statistical success from recent years. That seems to break the idea that the much of his success is really not his, but his fielders'. I agree a good defense is a plus, but it really is not an accurate barometer, as shown here. (I'd argue it's wwwaaayyyy more that stellar Cardinals offense than it is their D -- Brewer fans saw all year long in 2006 how much harder it is on a SP when his offense isn't giving him any margin for error) In fact, the 2005 Blue Jays fielded extremely well as a team, yet Bush ends up at 5-11. Perhaps I'm finding some statistical anomalies, but it seems the notion of "good defense makes decent pitcher look great" has been debunked, IMO. If someone has numbers or evidence to prove othewise, please let me know. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif So, while I was surprised to see the statistical success Bush has had, indisputably better than any 3-year stretch of Suppan's career, the bottom line is that the W-L record still really, really matters with a pitcher. What good are all those nice peripherals if they don't add up to wins? My point is that, while Bush has racked up some nice supporting stats, Suppan has been able to accrue the wins (even before joining St L). Even if his seasonal stats don't beat Bush's, the guy is at least equal to him, and, IMO the tie-breaker is his durability and longer track record. I don't suggest Bush is not durable, nor that he won't have a fine career. Just that Suppan's higher value right now is completely understandable & explainable

Brett -- Our INF defense of Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, Koskie, Graffy, & Counsell is actually a strong group of fielders. IMO, the only one with a question mark is Weeks, who certainly needs to prove that the last 40ish games of 2006 were no fluke. Again, IMO, judging from how he improved, not just that he improved, makes me have faith in Weeks. Aside from him, I don't understand how you'd have any question about anybody else's defensive capabilities on that list. With Hardy, I can see the durability question, but the backup SS is a slick fielder, and our emergency SS (Hall) is fine as well. I know we're not the Cards or Tigers, but that defense certainly won't yeild a 5.00 (+) ERA for Suppan, should he decide to join the Crew p.s. -- If you're counting Braun as a semi-regular MLB player in 2007, then I grant you another weak spot. But from what I've read, the club wants him to play AAA - almost exclusively to work on his D skills, where Melvin & Co. project him to be a stud in the near future, just as they did/do Weeks. Since I see results from the hype for Rickie, I tend to trust our Front Office

Wow. Where do I begin? I've already mini-ranted about labeling #s on pitchers, so I'll skip that. Let's start with the latter part of the quote, on CV. "Similar numbers" - not just vague, but arbitrary too! Sorry - joking aside, there is really no reason to expect that CV can come anywhere close to duplicating his success in a (for a SP) miniscule sample size. You tell me what opposing hitters & hitting coaches out there had tendency charts and delivery breakdowns for CV in 2006. I'm sure they had some info, but imagine what they'll know by the time we're into June 2007. Is an unheralded rookie prospect really going to have himself ready for guys knowing what he's gonna throw? I loved what CV did last year, and I hope he earns his roster spot & a spot in the rotation, for that matter. I just think it's being chalked up to 'near certainty' on this forum that he will do so, and that's flawed. To think of Suppan as a back-of-the-rotation (can we call this BOTR?) guy is a bit flawed. Anyone who has been around for that long, and had as much success as Jeff is certainly going to be a #3 or better on 95% of MLB teams, including ours. With apologies to Dave Bush, Soup would bump him down in the rotation. Sure, Bush had a fine 2006, but has a long, long way to go to prove he's every bit as reliable an option as Suppan. That being said, I hate ranking your pitchers 1-5, there's simply no point other than aesthetic. Once you hit the grind of the season, it all gets shaken up anyway. What we'd be paying for is a heckuva good SP, who's 32 on Opening Day 2007, gets the ball on the ground, and doesn't rely on velocity to get outs (read: he can pitch 'til he's 40).

I want to go back to RedbirdRay's post from pg. 3. He's a Cards fan, and clearly has a better perspective on Suppan than most on BF.net. he goes on - Now, I don't want to take issue with Ray, but the notion that our infield D isn't up to the job. IMO, when you take into account the huge improvement Weeks made in fielding in 2006 (something like 2 errors in his last 43 games), coupled with his athletic ability, along with the stalwart defense of Koskie & Hardy, and the surprising competence Fielder showed on D at age 22, I have to say that while it's no statistically rated #1 D, that infield is pretty darn good. It will both support Soup & thrive off of his ability to get the ball on the ground. I am admittedly an optimist, but not a blind one. I base this thought on the facts - both statistical & 'in-person' testimony. Ground balls never leave the yard - even if our D isn't the best in the NL, I still like the prospects of having Suppan around to roll the ball to our INF

From the Brewers.com article splitter references: and lastly, I like the sound of all this, especially the last part. X-mas ideas for Mench, Jenkins, Clark, TBow -- try samsonite.com/global/globl_homepage.jsp *"Samsonite! I was way off!"*

Yea, your note about Bush just reinforces my point even more. Suppan & Zito are "related" because nearly everyone scrutinizing the FA market professionally (or allegedly so) has drawn the corellation. Soup is widely regarded as the next-best pitcher available after Zito - thought of as at least slightly better than Lilly/Meche, and not up to the Zito slot. I agree that this doesn't seem to make a ton of sense, but it's what has been reported, after talking to Front Offices and agents, so I tend to trust it. But here's to hoping I'm proved wrong, and Soup is brought onboard by early next week!

On the Zito deal being Suppan's "Go" signal: This from Rotoworld (Source: Newsday) In addition to the Baseball Cowboys having a big offer, there's new Mgr. Ron Washington -- the Rangers weren't even in Zito's consideration initially. After they signed R-Dub, they instantly became one of his top choices. I expect the money to be about even in the end. Then it comes down to Zito's aspirations - the pressure but greater WS shot in Flushing, or the less-stressful, less likely shot in Arlington So, an end to the "24-hour" projection. Looks like we'll all have to wait until at least mid-week next. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have an ulcer by then

Reilly - I feel like Melvin has a nice opportunity here. He can improve the rotation & team by bringing in Suppan. Then, the situation works in both ways you reference: We need $$$ flexibility, we have over $10 mil to ditch in the 4 guys you cited. We also still have a need in the BP, and I continue to hold out hope that, between Mench, Jenkins, Clark, & TBow, there's at least one reliable late-innings arm to be had. So, one need plays into another -- our need for a BP arm plays into our need for $$ flexibility. I'm gonna go call Boras now, little kick in the butt to get the Zito deal done....

Wow, I hope you're right, mollyfan Just reading your post made me excited. One last thing to say (until the verdict is in on Soup -- come on Zito, sign already!) - I know people are going back & forth on what rotation slot Suppan would fill. I don't want to belittle these people, but it really doesn't matter. It's kind of like the leadoff spot in the batting order -- once you get past the first few weeks of the season, rotation # is really meaningless. What does matter, and I think anyone would agree, is that Suppan's a reliable, proven, successful MLB pitcher. He makes our team better by being on it, not necessarily filling a specified role. I'll echo Melvin continuously: It's about having depth of good baseball players. Where & when these guys play is significantly secondary. (Obviously you want your best players getting the most work) As if it weren't clear, I just don't give a crap what spot Suppan holds down, as long as he's wearing the 'M' & barley in 2007, and I think the debate on which rotation spot he deserves/projects to/etc. cheapens the argument of whether or not to add him.

good point, bs

DannyK, you're clearly forgetting Corey Hart's surprising speed. I agree that our current lineup isn't blazing fast, but with Rickie, Corey, & Bill, we're hardly wearing snowshoes

I think that's the most concisely stated version of the best point on this thread, Ennder. Is a 4 year, $45 mil contract big, especially to Milwaukee? Yes. But Soup is proven to be a durable, reliable, savvy pitcher. He's far superior, IMO to the Meches & Lillys of the world. His value is also enhanced by the fact that his game is not pitching power (see Capuano, Maddux, Glavine, etc.) -- allowing him to maintain his "stuff" for years longer than guys whose velocity deteriorates. FA prices are a factor, too. Although a correction will come in the not-too-distant future, they are unlikely to go down in the next year or two, and front-loading (again, props to RyDogg) his contract will make his $$ relatively inconsequential to future FA/Re-signing needs for the Crew. Additionally, it will make him easier to trade in the future. I think a front-loaded contract in the neighborhood of 4/$45-50 would not only land Suppan, but it would benefit the team in the short & long term. I like what the player brings on field & in clubhouse, and the money (structured correctly) will have the deal looking sweet by the time 2009 rolls around

I agree, but it definitely wouldn't be straight up TBow for Crisp. Epstein's language 'under-performed' definitely gives me hope that Turnbow (rumored long to be a target for BoSux) is one of the guys he's mentioning. For Crisp, I'd give up Mench or Jenkins (or both if, for some crazy reason BoSux wanted both) along with TBow. More? Perhaps, but not much more to land Crisp. I personally doubt Crisp is that 'available', since he's young & has a relatively cheap deal. However, Wily Mo Pena & Eric Hinske (Menasha, WI what!) both played very well last year. Mench makes more sense, since BoSux have a lot of options that hit RHP well already, and JD Drew, Hinske, & Big Papi all are LH hitters. A 'lefty killer' like Mench seems to fit better, plus coupling him with Kevin Youkilis would definitely result in "Largest combined cranium size between two teammates" in history! Plus, they're both white, pale, and shaved heads!

agreed

Probably not, Splitter, but I think it's a great idea for the Yanks. Pavano has mysterious value right now, probably because the big $$ contracts this season are making his remaining guaranteed money --- $10 mil (in '07) & $11 mil (in '08 -- there's a $13 mil club option for '09, w/ a $1.95 mil buyout) --- look 'reasonable. Especially if the Yanks eat some of those $$s, you're now talking about roughly $7-8 mil in '07, & $10ish mil in '08. I, personally, would never take on that uncertainty & risk. But there are a lot of GMs that would. Although Pavano has little real success in MLB, and a pretty serious injury situation, he still has this mysterious regard as a 'top pitcher' to some. Seattle has made clear they'd like to move Richie Sexson, and that's the kind of offer you receive when your guy is "available." Sea is smart to turn it down, but they may not see much better talent offered for Richie, and it was sort of a pipe dream by Cashman -- adding Sexson would have been delicious for the NYY lineup (and esp. the defense)

Oooooh! Ry, that front-loaded contract is sexy. It's little details like that which make & break FA signings. Nice idea - that gives us a lot of financial flexibility in the not-too-distant future, and gets Suppan his $$ right away, which I'm sure is attractive to the player. I also agree that offering/paying Soup the 4yr/$60 -- both in money & duration -- is the epitome of what people are leery regarding a 'big' contract. While we can all (relatively safely) assert Soup's future trade value, there are no givens, and once you have a big salary three or four years down the road, it's almost certain that you'll have to eat at least some of the remaining $$$ On to a little gripe I have: To respond to Brian the Automator (first quote) & JB12 (second quote) -- Pettite's deal is a one-year, $16 mil. deal, but there's a twist - it has a $16 mil. player option for 2008. It's not as simple as "shell out $16 mil. for one year & land him," and the value, as a two-year deal is $32 mil. I agree that Pettite wanted the deal done this way bc he's not sure about playing in '08, but it's very important to note that it took the team offering (from NYY's perspective) a two year deal. Thus, to examine this as a one-year deal is, although not completely, flawed. BrianAuto is right on with this notion: This is an excellent point, and really the only one I wrestle with in regards to signing Soup, who will reasonably command a 4 year deal. I am all in favor of getting that deal done, but I do worry about future implications on our core of younger players, and especially Benny. (This is precisely why I like RyDogg's front-loaded idea)