LouisEly

I'll make a pitch for Welch - mediocre season overall, but look at what he did after the All-Star break (can't find the stats) and in the WBC. Easy to stash a LHP in the pen for a year. Sure, unlikely to happen, however IIRC his ERA after the All Star break was well under 3.00 and he pitched as good as Bucci in the WBC. As for minor league free agents, I'd like to see Capuano, Corporan, and maybe Flores back, but the rest I couldn't care less about.

Manny Parra? The Tigers aren't trading for Bush - they need to shed payroll. Think major league minimum. I like what some have suggested. Gomez, Coffey, Villanueva, Salome, Peralta for Jackson and Granderson?

Wisconsin and Marquette seem to be opposites - Wisconsin has plenty of big bodies (five guys 6'8" or taller, another three 6'6" or 6'7") but is a little short on guards (will really be short next year w/the loss of Hughes and Bohannon); meanwhile Marquette only has two guys on the roster taller than 6'7". I think UW will be fine this year, but next year if Taylor gets hurt they will be in a world of hurt. Same with Marquette; if Otule goes down they are going to have a tough time defending down low.

Great googly-moogly. Only 3 points from the all-time rookie record in his 7th game. Meeks showing he's no slouch either, and LRMAM grabs 12 boards. What do you need Love for when you have LRMAM? This team might just have become... interesting.

Hits were up, walks were up, strikeouts were down, he's 35. Bingo. One thing to keep in mind when it comes to salary is that the economy isn't getting better. While the stock market is up (debate whether/not artificially), unemployment is up over 10% and more importantly corporations are still cutting costs. Because of unemployment (and underemployment/people making significantly less than they did) fewer fans will come to the ballpark and/or they will have to slash ticket prices in order to bring as many people in. Corporations will not be flocking to get those luxury suites and will spend less in advertising. I'm wondering how much of this is a directive from MA to cut costs. The positive is that now with Hardy, Looper, and Weathers gone and likely Cameron and (hopefully) Kendall, that amounts to ~$28M off the books. That can buy you some really good pitching; even if they bring in two starters that average a 4.00 ERA between them, the difference between that and Suppan/Looper over 380 innings I calculated to be over 50 earned runs over a season. And that is a lot. No anger and no regrets, Mr. Looper. You gave it your best shot but it's time to move on. Good luck. Please try the American League. Or the north side of Chicago.

I wouldn't put it past the 'stache. The reason the Tigers wanted nothing to do with Hardy is the same reason they want to move Jackson - they want to shed payroll. Adding Hardy's salary for Jackson would be treading water. This way the Brewers move Hardy, whom they probably view as too much of a risk for his salary and an equal and cheaper option ready in Escobar, and get the CF they want in Granderson. Granderson is only due $5.5M in 2010, so they clear $5M from Cameron there. The net would eventually be for Cameron's salary they get Granderson and Jackson plus shed Hardy's salary. Or for Cameron and Hardy (plus say Salome, Peralta and Rivas with Gomez) they get Granderson, Jackson, and ~$4M. They then get the SP for Hardy. Absolute genius if Melvin can pull this one off.

Another outstanding interview - well done! I concur - Spivey is a great interview and the way he describes things with passion and detail you can almost feel yourself present as he is reminiscing about something. It's too bad that quote robbed us of potentially a lot more good interviews like this when he played. I was going to comment on the quotes about Hardy as well, and the "it's something he's going to have to deal with/shoulder was never the same" quotes. It puts a different perspective on things, and may help explain why so little was being offered for him. It also highlights one of the biggest dilemmas for pro athletes of any sport - when you're hurt, do you try to play through it or do you rest it? If you rest it, which is usually the better option, do you get labeled as "soft" and "not a team player" and "injury prone"? If you try to play through it and your production suffers, do you get labeled as an underperformer and not given as many opportunities? Something Hardy may be struggling with too.

Counsell already has two WS rings - I don't think the contender thing is as important to him as other guys who have none. young as in major league experience not age. I would be far more comfortable with Heether in the minors waiting to come up for injury than having him as a primary contributor off the bench. In order to get experience, at some point you have to play the guy. Worked pretty well for McGehee last year. You don't get ML experience being sent down to the minors. What are they supposed to do - loan him to the Royals to get ML experience and then ask for him back?

You never know - everyone said McGehee would be marginal at best at the ML level and look what happened. This allows my prediction to still be possible - McGehee+Peralta+Rivas to Florida for Nolasco. Better yet, McGehee+Salome+Peralta+Rivas to FLA for Nolasco + John Baker (or Josh Johnson - stranger things have happened, look at what MIN got for Santana). Adding Bakers LH bat and .759 OPS in the catcher spot (compared to Kendall's .636) would really help neutralize the offensive dropoff from Cameron to Gomez. Heck, I might even take Ronny Paulino from them instead of Baker - either one is a significant upgrade offensively from Kendall. Then spend the $14M freed up from Hardy/Cameron on a legit #2 starter, then back up the Brinks truck to Fielder's doorstep after next season with the $20M from Suppan & Hall's expiring contracts. It's all coming together. I have a better chance of winning MegaMillions than all of those things happening, but I'll take either one. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

The team, as presently constructed, is totally reliant on Fielder and Braun. Excellent post Robert, and thank you for putting up the splits. The 2B numbers don't surprise me at all because Weeks had an .857 OPS and Lopez had a .855 OPS (and .407 OPB). While Escobar is no lock to be better offensively than Hardy, it's highly unlikely that he will be worse - chances are he will be slightly better. The other thing is that while Hardy is a good defensive SS, Escobar is even better - like someone else said they improved defensively at SS. It's also highly likely that they will be better offensively at C whether that means bringing in someone else or just giving Kendall fewer ABs. A full season of Gamel/McGehee at 3B will likely be better than what they got in 2009. While the difference between Cam and Gomez might not equal one pitcher, what they are trying to do is replace two pitchers - if they replace both Looper and Suppan with guys who average a 4.50 ERA, over 360 innings (average of 180 each - Loop and Sup combined for 355 innings last year) that amounts to 28 fewer earned runs. If they average a 4.00 ERA it amounts to 48 fewer earned runs over 360 innings. By saving $13-15M in this deal combined with dumping Looper and Weathers, that leaves over $20M to spend on pitching, which should get you good enough arms to save over 30 runs. I don't think the difference between Cam and Gomez is much more than 30 runs.

And then there's Kendall. Putting Kendall in a line up that sports Gomez, Escobar, a regressing to the norm McGehee, a below average Hart, and an uncertain Weeks, and you've got an offense that will be lucky to finish in the top half. But essentially that same lineup ended up with the 3rd most runs scored in the NL. Gomez = Hall, Escobar = Hardy, McGehee = Cameron, Hart is the same, Weeks is the same, Kendall is the same. And that is worst case scenario as Gomez > Hall (probably equal to combined performance of Hall + Counsell), Escobar can't be worse than 2009 Hardy, Weeks is likely to play more than 37 games, and anyone can't be worse than 2009 Kendall - even Kendall. The sky ain't falling.

JJ isn't going to fetch much. HE WAS SENT TO THE MINORS LAST YEAR! Teams know that he has no value for the Brewers so why would anyone give up anything. Bingo! I guess this saves 15 million if it means that Cameron isnt back next year. That has to be worth something. Bingo #2! Add in dumping Looper, Weathers, and Kendall and it is more like $26M. Add in Suppan and Hall after 2010 and it is $46M. That should buy you Prince plus two pitchers. If Jack had found us some pitching prospects maybe we would have been happy to get a bag of balls for a .200 hitting shortstop who makes $4 million. Bingo #3! I could see a Twins fan saying that about Hardy, except he actually was in the minors last year. Lets not forget, we didnt trade Cal Ripken, Jr. here. RyDogg, you and Invader are on a roll in this thread. So we're not resigning Cameron, and we're planning to have somewhere between two and four automatic outs in the batting order next year? Our ability to score runs has just taken a huge hit. Even with the God-awful offensive performances of Hardy, Kendall, and Hall, and the very mediocre performance of Hart the Brewers were 3rd in the NL in runs scored. The difference between Cam and Gomez offensively isn't going to make that much difference. Now they have Gamel/McGehee instead of Hall and it's likely that they'll get more than 37 games from Weeks. That will make up for a lot of the runs lost going from Cam to Gomez, and with the money saved the pitching should be better. Re: Lorenzo Cain Cain was hurt this year and did not pick up where he left off despite a very similar number of plate appearances at AA in 2009 as 2008. He is at least a year and a half away from the majors and needs to re-prove he can handle AA or above pitching. Maybe he packages Gamel and Salome for an established starter who's making a decent amount of money? That's my dark horse in this - Gamel, Salome, Peralta, and Rivas for Josh Johnson. Then buck up for Johnson.

UZR is just a "best guess" at defensive value. 'zactly - it is a "guess". I'm not saying they factor defense in perfectly, but because a metric doesn't match up with your perception is not reason enough to reject its findings. That's simply being close-minded. I feel bad for people who are so closed minded that they will just call Fangraphs ridiculous without trying to understand some of the information provided there. First, UZR is trying to estimate the value of performance, not true talent. And that is my issue - it's not that I don't understand UZR, it's that I think that lumping centerfielders and left fielders together for UZR ratings is a bunch of carp. Allow me to re-address my close-mindedness with specifics that I posted on October 9th. "Most hitters are right-handed, and when a hitter pulls the ball it gets hit hard and gets to it's destination very fast. (There's a reason why 3B is called "the hot corner"; balls pulled towards third base by RH hitters get there very, very fast - this I know from experience.) There are fewer left-hand hitters, but when they pull the ball it is to RF. The harder the ball is hit the less time it takes to get to where it lands, and the less chance that the fielder will catch it. Thus why I think UZR is biased against left-fielders and biased towards CFs; I will agree that LFs are generally the worst fielders overall but due to righties pulling the ball they have the least amount of time to get to it to catch it. Where I'm going with this is if you watched a lot of baseball games and calculated the average time that a ball was in the air when it was hit to LF or RF versus CF, I would be willing to bet that it would be a significant difference. You see very few screamers up the middle to CF; centerfielders have a lot more time to react to the ball and get under the ball and catch it because it is in the air longer. Thus I don't think that a good CF saves as many runs as UZR and Fangraphs thinks they do." My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that UZR basically calculates what percentage of balls hit to a fielder's zone are caught by that fielder relative to others at that position. With the specifics posted above, I don't think it's fair to compare LF to CF because of differences in the average length of time that a ball hit to LF is in the air versus CF. CFs have more time to catch it because it is in the air longer. I agree that generally LFs are the worst fielders, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference. You could put those CFs in LF and I don't think they would catch a lot more balls than most LFs do, with the exception of Carlos Lee and Manny Ramirez, and I don't think that the few more balls that they would catch would make that much of a difference in runs. Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines played LF, and I would be curious as to what their UZRs would be. Bottom line, I don't think that the % of balls caught by a CF is comparable to the % of balls caught by a LF, and thus their calculations of lumping in all OF positions is a bunch of carp. So I hope you see that I am not being "close-minded" - I am flat out disagreeing with their methodology with specifics.

Fangraphs way, way overvalues defense and how they lump all outfield positions together for UZR/defensive purposes way overvalues centerfielders. They have Nyjer Morgan as being more valuable than Ryan Braun.

I was going to say the same thing! That racket will never get old. Get a big mu-mu, tape a bunch of pillows to your belly, find eight cheap baby dolls and tie them to a rope and make up a big MediCal check and go as Octomom.

I've said it before, my bet is that Rogers is the first pitcher called up, and might very well stay up until he reaches his innings limit for the year.

When a warm-weather team plays in cold and rainy conditions funny things can, and often do, happen.

"The roommate who made the video, Dimitri Masouris, said he considered the police response unnecessary and excessive. The roommate sold the tape to Duyen Hoang Nguyen, the San Jose lawyer now representing Ho." Just sayin'...

Between this, Steve McNair, and the girls my 49-year-old playboy roommate brings home, while there is an exception to every rule I can say to any man that any girl that is more than 15 years younger than you and still in her 20s and is willing to hook up with you has serious issues.

Everyone was predicting the Broncos to be one of the 3-4 worst teams in the NFL this year too.

Not to get too political but the media is fairly hypocritical - they criticize businesses for profiting but when it is time to show the news it is whatever gets ratings. I too would love to see them slapped with that bill.

Thanks for posting the link - an interesting comparison. I'm not sure that their numbers are relevant now. A friend of mine just leased a new BMW 328i for $3000 down and $349/month, and that isn't a $20,000 car. I would like to see what the numbers look like for a $35K car. Another scenario is this: a few years ago a friend leased a small SUV; the lease was up last summer when gas prices had skyrocketed. There was also something wrong with the vehicle, but because of the terms of the lease the dealer had to take the vehicle back, and he got a much more fuel efficient vehicle. If he owned it he would have been stuck with it, and with the repair bill. (And it was a Toyota or Honda.) Without a doubt though, the best thing to do is buy a used vehicle that is 4-5 years old; the used car market has so much inventory now that the same $20K car in their example that is 4-5 years old could probably be had for $5K. Just hope you don't get a lemon; once the warranty is up on an "owned" vehicle it can be a gamble, but with the money you'll save versus buying new you can just buy another one if something major goes wrong. Also along the vehicle lines, increase your deductible to $1000 and if your vehicle is worth less than $4000 (and paid for) drop the comp/collision and just get liability.

I have advanded degrees in finance and economics and read one of Suze Orman's books back in college and it was rife with errors and half truths about financial topics. Amen brother. Everyone could get by on Ramen noodles, living in a dump, biking/biking/walking/ driving an old clunker, splittiing the layers of toliet paper etc. and die a lonely old man living on cat food so they can leave millions of dollars to some charity or their family having spent their life in misery just to show how much they could save. Afreakinmen - preach on brother! I have a car loan, it is at 0.9% interest for 5 years which in the long and short run makes sense for me because I can earn more than 0.9% interest on my money for the 5 year period. Well... yes, 0.9% is basically free, but I think it was either John D. Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan who once said buy things that appreciate, lease things that depreciate. For new cars I advocate leasing, but for used cars (if you run them into the ground) I'll go along with buying (as long as someone else took out most of the depreciation). Renting is literally thowing money down a hole and can be even worse than some ridiculously expensive car loan. Hmmm... I have to disagree with you there. The average real estate appreciation over any significant period of time is 5%, so even at todays 5% loan rates you are breaking even; you can deduct the interest, which decreases every year, but you have to pay for any repairs/upgrades/etc., which you can't deduct. (And if you can deduct, you only get at most 35% of the interest on what you spend back, for most people 20%.) Meanwhile you can take any 25 year period of the stock market and get at least 9% returns; so if one were to save $500 per month by renting (and with renting you don't have to pay for any repairs/upgrades/etc.) and invest it in the stock market at 9%, after 30 years you will have over $815K. The problem is that few people have the discipline to invest the difference. Of course it is all relative - depends on what the housing market is. If you bought a house at $250K and it appreciated at 5% per year for 30 years, it would be worth $1M (less the future value of money spent on repairs/upgrades). However where I live, the difference between renting and owning is at least $1000/month, which invested at 9% over 30 years would be worth $1.63M. Few people have that $1000 per month, and fewer can save up the money to make the $80-100K down payment (otherwise add an extra $150/month in PMI which you can't deduct). Add in that PMI and make it $1200/month that you are saving equals just under $2M that you would have if you invested the difference in rent, which is the same as a $500K house would have that appreciated 5% per year over 30 years. Rent is just as good as owning if you invest the difference; the problem is that few people invest the difference.

Oh the market is definitely up 55% since it's low... but I cashed out late fall last year (not early enough but well before bottom) and poured the money back in in March, and the bank stocks I bought in March are up 400% so I sold. Like playing cards, knowing when to fold them is just as important as knowing when to hold them. From an update I got - "Third quarter bank repossessions jumped 21 percent from the previous quarter due in large part to a surge in September. The jump in REOs, along with slight increases in default and auction notices, brought the third quarter total to the highest quarterly total on record." Another update: "The celebration over the Dow hitting 10,000 is over, and now the hangover is kicking in. We're probably in the middle of a new Dow bubble... To add some perspective here, BreakingViews notes that the Dow crossed 4,000 in February of 1995. That was probably a reasonable level, considering that the economy was in its fourth year of expansion and stock prices were 50% above their peak before the 1987 crash, according to BreakingViews. So, if you increase the Dow by the corresponding increase in gross domestic product since then, the Dow should be just north of 7,800." While I believe 7800 is a bit low, I wouldn't be surprised to see it under 9000 by the middle of November and staying around 9000 for another year or so. 3rd quarter numbers may look nice, but 4th quarter numbers I think will disappoint and the Holiday shopping season will disappoint as well.

Not for long. There is another wave of foreclosures coming. There has been a lot of activity on the MLS since the beginning of October, which is when I believe the moratorium on foreclosures was lifted. Either that or they wanted to wait until the 4th quarter so these didn't go on the books for the 3rd quarter results. Lots of new listings have come up in the areas I have been searching, many short-sales/REOs/bank owned.