gregmag

I dislike Garza intensely as a player and a persona (I wouldn't presume to say person), but even I think this move makes sense now. He's our best option for a fifth starter at the moment. If it helps us dump him, I'll hurt myself trying to do cartwheels. If any part of Wily's problem has to do with movement on his breaking pitches, which I assume it does, then I don't love Colorado Springs for him. It is what it is. I'm more concerned about what the place is doing to Lopez.

This is a general question rather than a 6-10 question, but does any of you draft savants have a sense for which if any of these college guys they might either put right into a full-season league or hope seriously to be able to promote to full-season this year? I'm just curious because we've taken so many high-round college guys. The Brewers generally have been conservative starting guys out, and they arguably got burned being aggressive with Harrison and Gatewood. But it wouldn't be crazy for a new development strategy to accompany this new college splurge.

In my original "who I would take post" I said I liked Corey Ray, though I'm not enamored with the pick because I wanted pitching, but I always want pitching. However, I'm not poo pooing the pick, there's quite a bit to like about Ray as a baseball player. He's not going to steal 40 bases and if he makes MLB the line-up will be completely dissimilar to what Braun had. I really wish posters would quit comparing prospects to the best players in the game, past and present, it's happening all over the message board these days. I've said many times that I don't deal in best case scenarios for players, I'm going to project a middle ground for any particular player until they prove to be elite, like a Gallardo or Braun. I remember similar arguments being made about Eric Farris... he was going to steal 40 bases because he was so smart and Milwaukee didn't have a long term 2B. I made the same arguments about him as I'm making now, it's way too early to predict an absolute best case before a player is even in AA. As to Villar, he's the SS version of Carlos Gomez, I find his continual mental mistakes infuriating, I don't think Ray is that kind of player and while I get what you are saying, I would have looked for a player with a similar all around skill set to make the argument with. I understand Villar is currently leading the league, but I don't find Ray and Villar similar from a make up perspective at all. Instead of wild speculation the conversation should be; how many players in the modern game are stealing 40 bases per year and how does Ray's skill set compare? The answer to that question was there were 3 last year. Is Corey Ray in the same class as Dee Gordon or Billy Hamilton? I could see a Charlie Blackmon argument, but then the next 2 questions become what kind of offensive team will he be playing for and how often will he be on base? I don't think any of us realistically know the answers to either right now. My gut feeling is that if Ray works out to be about average in MLB he'll steal 20-30 bases a year, probably eclipsing 30 in his peak seasons, but he doesn't strike me as special in any particular way other than his all around athleticism. I use "special" somewhat generously because he's not on the same level athletically as Brewer prospect Monte Harrison. Nor do I think he's a sure thing to be an every day MLB player, I always worry if players are going to hit enough. Or the conversation could be whatever the other posters here -- many of whom just may be even as smart as you are -- decide they want to talk about. As for me, I like the approach you describe of looking for a middle-ground projection. But (a) when you say "Ray won't steal 40 bases" that sounds to me like you're denying the possibility, not the likelihood, and you don't know enough to deny the possibility; (b) basing your analysis of Ray's potential for steals on last year seems to me shortsighted, because historically MLB strategic norms about steals have changed rapidly; and © I think you too easily dismissed the poster's reference to Villar, who --whatever else you think of him -- seems like an ordinary player who will steal 40, which makes a tough data point for your argument.

Don't be desperate. The man, he ain't so hard to understand.

No, just like the criticism of Melvin, and the Brewers in general for not being able to draft and develop pitching will never stop until they churn out a couple of top of rotation arms in the same rotation. As good as Jack Z was he wasn't immune to criticism... Right now we basically have to trade for impact pitching, the problem is that by the time that pitching hits AA it's incredibly expensive because now they are proven prospects and rated highly on every prospect list. This is not Stearns' draft, this isn't football, it's Montgomery's draft, he's making the picks. The Lind trade seems to represent Stearns' attempt to split this diiference. Not saying any of those three guys will be an ace, but he's clearly targeting pitchers post-draft and pre-AA.

+1 People are entitled to their opinions. It's pretty basic. You mean like "I don't give a flip about the other posters"?

My instinct is not to love this pick, mainly because he's 21. He'll need to develop in a hurry. But the single biggest thing I've heard about this draft is "weak at the top, no consensus," so I'm having a hard time getting agitated. This draft seems like an unusually strong case for trusting the scouts and analysts.

Clearly you're all right that Peralta is the worst of our current rotation. I also understand why Garza gets a shot when he comes back. But I put his chances of outpitching Wily at about 50-50.

MN Brew, your point about Melvin's success with free talent pickups is a good one. He did well with a bunch of those. It's hard to compare him and Stearns, like FV says. Melvin was always just plugging a roster hole here and there. Stearns is doing a wholesale casting call.

I think for most of us who were, and are, enthusiastic about getting these players, our enthusiasm reflects the low cost of getting them. All of these guys are cheap in three important ways: they haven`t required much talent or money to acquire; they aren`t blocking better players because we don`t have better players; and they aren`t hurting our chances of contending because we couldn`t realistically build a contending team right now anyway. Grading the pickups on that curve, I`m very happy. Obviously I wish Liriano and Nolin hadn`t gotten hurt. Villar and Guera have been very good. Niewenhuis has been serviceable. Perez has looked very good so far. Flores and Broxton have flashed enough talent that I want to see more of them. The relief guys I think are some kind of witness protection pipeline, but they all seem like reasonable guys to take a look at. The guys in the minors are working to play their way back: they`re better backup options than we`ve had at AAA in a while. Also, Hill has proved just how easy it is to find a better 2b option than Gennett.

I`m pushing 50, so I fall into the demo that can rightly be accused of nostalgia for loving the ball and glove. But so what? Anyone who complains that going back to the ball and glove is living in the past is as demographically biased as I am, just in the opposite direction. Have the Brewers ever really had a memorable logo other than that one? Does anyone for other than nostalgic reasons really admire any of the boring parade of M`s that have slogged their way through our collective memories? The ball and glove is the only original, memorable uni design element in Milwaukee sports history that I can think of. Why wouldn`t we exploit that? I wouldn`t mind a color tweak at all. Maybe that`s how to link the present and past. But the ball and glove should come back for good.

When a team claims a player off (non-revocable) waivers, isn't it always the case that no other team claimed him?

I love this. Can't wait to see if he can put it together.

Well, certainly Anderson was at least going to pitch into the 8th against the Cubs, said nobody ever.

Is there an available source that would tell us when a Brewers pitcher last did what Anderson is doing for five, or six, or however many innings? I can't remember seeing anything like this in a while, and it has me curious. Great way to keep the pitch count down.

I'm inclined to be very patient with these guys -- Cecchini, Perez, Walsh, Flores, Broxton -- because why shouldn't we be? Walsh is facing major league pitching above for the first time. It's a miracle he's doing anything well. He has one elite skill, and he's shown other skills in the minors. Why wouldn't you give a guy like that more rope? We sent Broxton down after 16 PAs. Sending him down to sort himself out was very reasonable, and he seems to have sorted himself out pretty well so far. He should get a longer look. Cecchini . . . I don't know why he crashed and burned after looking so good early in his career. I remember hearing that he had screwed up his approach somehow. Recovering from that takes time. We should give him at least a half season's worth of regular AAA PAs before we draw any conclusions. As for Flores, one poster here keeps repeating that all Flores can do well is draw walks. Actually, he's batted over .295 in four of seven minor league seasons. The last two seasons in the minors he slugged .454 and .487. He has shown promise as a hitter, and he's only 24. Perez is 25. His MLB record is bad. But a power uptick at his age could be a real thing, and if he can hit a few homers, he becomes somebody we can use, at least to tide us over during the rebuild. Give him semi-regular time and see what happens. I want to see more of all of these guys. I think every one of them still has a chance to be useful. Exploring those chances costs us nothing this year.

This is a fantastic analysis. I think you're right, that in an important sense high-minors roster spots matter more right now than majors roster spots. Bringing Presley up creates needed space for the guys we're trying to develop. I didn't think about it that way, but it makes perfect sense, and it's consistent with the premium that most of us want the organization to place on player development right now.

I don't think Reed could do any worse than anyone else they've had in CF so far. If defense is a concern than Broxton should have been called back up. Would have saved the option on him too. Flores and Presley aren't really CF either. Nieuwenhuis is okay defensively there but his swing has some big holes. The problem is not just CF, but every time Counsell wants to rest Braun it's an issue. The drop off is huge and leaves the lineup very vulnerable. But if they want defense and better offense than Broxton provided, why not jump Taylor up from AA and see what he can do? We know he can't do worse than Broxton. Right: Broxton has (1) hit in AAA better than Taylor has ever hit in full-season ball and (2) improved substantially over the course of his career while Taylor (so far) has hit worse with every promotion, but Broxton stunk up MLB for two weeks to start the year, so we should assume that Taylor would do a better job in MLB right now than Broxton. Small samples are great for reinforcing biases.

Clint Coulter with maybe the ultimate small sample correction game -- four hits through six innings to raise his BA to a still-bad-but-tolerable-for-April .235.

Exactly. I'm fine with sending Broxton down. The coaches look at him and think he needs reps in AAA to get right? Fair enough. But to pretend to make any conclusive judgments about the guy based on 18 PA is simply to betray the persistence of pre-existing bias.

My wife made me get out of my work wormhole by getting me tickets for tonight and tomorrow. So far so good. Hell, 4-4 against SF-Hou-StL seems like a minor miracle.

Welcome back and thanks in advance for all the great coverage! One thing -- it's Thursday 4/7. For a minute there, when I saw the thread title, I thought we had games yesterday, and I got all excited. Go easy on an old man!

Really fun read; thanks for posting. I didn't take the article as being very argumentative. I'm a total analytics nerd, so I wouldn't like the argument. I think it's mainly descriptive, using changing statistical benchmarks as a window into how the game has changed.

I have the same sense, but I'm not sure how much it's based on analysis and how much on hope. Everybody talks about how spring performance doesn't matter, and mostly they're right, but this sure seems like the mother of all exceptions to the rule. If anyone's been lowballing an offer because of Luc's health, that argument seems to have lost all traction. The key factor, I think, is that there needs to be more than one team interested, because with more than one suitor they all have an incentive to stop lowballing.

I predict that they will go 72 - 90, which puts them exactly the same distance from 82 wins as it does from 100 losses. :D This is funny because it's true, or at least plausible. People keep making these bold statements like "obviously this team can't win 82 games" or "obviously it can't lose 100," and those "obvious" arguments all stand on various subjective assessments of the team's talent level. I don't think projection systems are perfect, but they're a better starting point for discussion than any back-of-the-napkin rundown that I or anyone else here can do. Fangraphs projects the 2016 Brewers at 71 wins. Baseball Prospectus says 78. If Fangraphs is right, then obviously we're right between 62 and 82 wins, a hair closer to 62. If BP is right, then all we need is a modest dollop of luck to win 82. Based on how projection systems work, is there any reason to think they'd be highly underrating or overrating the Brewers? What might they likely miss? Mostly I'm not smart enough to answer that question with any confidence, but I can see two possible sources of variation. One, which some people have mentioned, is more trades. If we swap Luc and/or Smith for prospects, the projections need to be adjusted down. That could, if the Fangraphs projection is sound, put us in stumbling distance of 100 losses. The other source of variation, which cuts the other way, is that our AAA team will be loaded. If guys perform well there, we'll have an unusually strong ability to "sub out" poor MLB performers for AAA guys who develop ahead of schedule. If the BP projection is sound, that ability to optimize our innings and plate appearances could get us to 82 wins. IMHO calling either 82 wins or 100 losses "crazy," or "obviously" likely or unlikely, is a very hard claim to support with any credibility. The major characteristic of the 2016 Brewers is volatility. I'd bet on 82 wins over 62 right now, just based on the average of the two projections because I don't think I have better information than that. But I'd rather not make the bet at all.