gregmag

Happy for Aramis, happy with the return, but happiest that the org really has no playoff delusions. Aramis the rest of this year is likely to be a cery strong bat. I like Perez, but if what you care about is keeping win-today fans and vet players happy, you don't make this move. I'm much more convinced now that Parra and at least one vet pitcher are gone, and I'm hoping for more.

We need to get Matt Dominguez to work with Demi on his plate discipline. I know Hellweg is probably still recovering from his injury, but at some point doesn't running him out there every five days to get shelled for two innings become a bad thing for him? I just feel awful for him.

Mass, I think your thread title undersells the fun to be had here. I'd go with something like "The New York Media Delusional Fantasies Thread." NYC "journalists" live on a whole different planet where "our crap for their gold" trade proposals are concerned. Nobody else is that arrogant, not even Boston and L.A. media. "Why would they do that?" is not in these guys' vocabulary.

This is just a variation on what others have said, but it's a complex issue, so I'll take my shot. I think when most of us say "untouchable," what we really mean is something like "highly unlikely, based on what we know about past trades, to bring sufficient value back." The trick in fleshing out that idea, of course, is assessing "value." More precisely, some kinds of players are hard to value. A top, young prospect with lots of growth potential, like Arcia, is very tough to price. Trading him even for another team's equivalent prospect would be a crap shoot of epic proportions. At that point risk aversion kicks in, and you don't trade the guy. "Value" also means different things when a team is at different levels of success. An older or expiring (contract) player who's great right now is worth more to a contender than to the Brewers. A three years-away prospect is worth more to us than a contender. We all know these things. The complication is that the prospect is always harder to value, because he's developing. Thus, the team trading the reliable vet for prospects wants to price the prospects based on a conservative estimate of their value. Only a contender plugging a big need will play that game. What all that means for the Brewers' 25-man roster is that our young, good, team-control guys are (a) valuable to us in their own right, and (b) relatively hard to price, along with our inherent posture of © wanting to trade for other teams' hard-to-price prospects. That makes those guys almost "untouchable" in the sense I'm understanding that term. I think that group likely includes: Peralta Nelson Jungmann Fiers (not young, but very good and cost-controlled) Knebel (I don't care much about bullpen guys, but he's raw and unproven with tons of potential) That category arguably also includes: Lucroy (serious uncertainty for me whether he could be an asset to the next good Brewers team) Davis (I think people underestimate the value of his power bat, and if he consolidates his plate-discipline gains, look out) Smith (if Toby's right that he could start effectively) Blazek (if he can start) Jeffress (slightly over-ripe version of Knebel) Again, I'm not saying "don't take calls on any of these guys." I'm saying the calls you get are highly probable not to be worth taking. Braun's in a weird category by himself. He's very good, and I think he's going to age well. He's about to get very expensive. But if this team is ready to contend in, say, three years, he could still be a very useful player even at his salary. Or not. Also, teams now still want a discount on him based on The PEDs, The Lie, and The Past Two Crappy Seasons. At this point I'd probably want more for him than anyone would pay.

TheCrew07, when you say he's an easy low .700s hitter, it doesn't sound like you're talking about ceiling, right? That would seem like an awfully low ceiling projection for a guy who's OPSing .817 as a 20 year-old at AA. Low .700s seems like a good projection for what he'll do in MLB if he basically doesn't develop beyond where he is now. Ceiling projections always seem tough to me for young players with broad skill sets. Arcia now is hitting for average and very good doubles power (ISO near .150). He has good speed. His walk rate isn't awful for such a young guy, and his K rate isn't bad. He's gotten better as he's moved up, with major offensive improvement each year in the U.S. (assuming he doesn't slump badly the rest of this year). He's very young for his level, and now he's made the big jump to AA. He has a reputation as a hard worker and competitor. Basically he has about every available possibility for further development, other than raw body size. The guy he reminds me of (I'll show my age here) is Robbie Alomar. 6'0", middle IF, same breadth of skills at an early age. Alomar was already a good MLB hitter at Arcia's age, and he's a HOFer, so I'm not going to suggest Arcia is his equal. But as a wild stab at Arcia's ceiling I'll toss out 90 percent of Alomar, around 125 OPS+ in his peak seasons. How he gets there -- contact, walks, power -- I have no idea.

. . . And of course, Dominguez went out and walked twice tonight.

On the subject of Tyrone Perry, whom I like as much as anyone does . . . inevitably we're going to be comparing Perry and David Denson. I think Denson may be getting the short end of that comparison right now, because he's been scuffling around the organization for a couple of years and Perry has hit right out of the gate. Denson, though, is only nine months older than Perry, and he's fifth in the Pioneer League in OPS. (Small sample, of course, but you have to start somewhere). Watching these two guys develop is going to be a lot of fun.

This is a kindergarten question for people who really know advanced stats, but is there any reliable relationship between ground ball rate and BABIP? What I'm wondering, of course, is whether any part of Jungmann's deviation (so far) from a normal BABIP might owe to his ability to induce ground balls and not to luck.

Gatewood is likely to end up as a prospect at first or third base. I don't think you want to trade promising low-level shortstops, because often they're just at ss because they're good. I like your prospect-for-prospect idea generally, just because it's unorthodox and potentially useful. At the same time, I hesitate to focus too much on positional need.

Note the language that Tom H used about the Montgomery scenario: "aren't expected to." Always beware the passive voice, guys. That quote provides no actual information. People keep making the Mark A - Kohl comparison, and I agree that's how Mark A has been. But he's smart, and smart people learn from experience. I can see the logic of trying to compete every year given the team's situation from '08 on, even if I don't fully agree with it. But last year was a world-historic collapse, and the start of this year confirmed what a thin margin we were working on. My hope is that Mark A gets the need to rebuild now. We'll see.

I was just watching highlights, and Vin said that Puig spoke to Gomez "in his best Spanish, or Cuban." I'm sorry, but there's stupid, and then there's too stupid.

Trent Clark sucks. He can't even buy a single. (In related news, I can't figure out how to do blue text on my phone.) I know Nick Ramirez is 25, and "next Hunter Morris" oblivion looms, but jacking up the walk rate at AA like he has is pretty great. TheCrew07, those are really interesting (and typically knowledgeable) thoughts about the Brewers and Wisconsin scouting -- thanks.

Man, Haudricourt has a gift for weaving together the obvious and the conventional with barely serviceable prose. What percentage of the population could do his job better? At least 20, and I'm being nice.

I always look at the box scores from AAA down. After Helena, I was planning a "this is one of those days when everything sucks" post. Never has an Arizona game saved the day like this one. That team is looking stacked.

I know Coulter just had the game of his season, and he's been massively inconsistent. But he's had basically the same half-year Ryan Braun had at Brevard, only Coulter has been a bit better overall and is 8 months younger than Braun was. He doesn't have Braun's pedigree, of course, or his all-around athleticism. Still, I wonder if he'll get a bump up. How much does the inconsistency matter?

(I started to write this in the Jimmy Nelson thread, but I didn't want to hijack it.) Whatever people's views on the moral valence of luck or these kids and their newfangled stats, we pretty clearly need to improve our infield defense. We have groundball pitchers up and down the system, so this seems like a pretty major priority. How do we do it? I don't have much of a knowledge base (I don't see many games), but my sense is that Segura is our only reliable infield defender. Ramirez and Lind have very bad defensive reputations; Scooter seems to have a mediocre one. Is that how it has shaken out on the field, or am I missing something? Also, does anyone know how the utility guys are? Ramirez is gone at some point during or after this season. I assume we'll try to deal Lind (to the A.L.). We're likely to get better at those spots, or at very least we'll have the opportunity to do so. Is Scooter's his defense enough of a problem that he needs to be a plus bat to play, or is he okay? We've got shortstops in the pipeline, and we could plug one of them in at 2b if we soured on Scooter and/or when he gets expensive. Of course that raises the question of whether to trade Segura, now or later. I'd like to know what you all think.

This would accomplish pretty much nothing. What is the saved money going to be used for? More aging free agents? This franchise doesn't need money it needs talent. To give up someone who might actually be able to bring talent back just to not have to pay Garza seems like a backwards move to me. It could accomplish plenty. They could invest more in international free agents and rookies. It doesn't need to be a move for immediacy. I'm fine with an approach where they go with a tiny payroll for a few years, bank the profits, and use them to make a move to bulk it up when they see a window, or use it to keep future stars that they might be drafting in the next couple years, like a Marlins model. Shedding dead weight payroll would be a huge part of the rebuilding process. I'm not talking about giving them Gomez or Segura. It's not like K-Rod is going to net us a major prospect anyway. Is this right? The draft and international free agency rules limit the difference money can make. It doesn't seem like the Brewers are facing a huge opportunity cost with their payroll right now. I guess if you can dump salary you don't need, you might as well do it; but in that scenario, presumably you can get talent back if you eat some of the salary.

Maybe I was just in doom mode, but even after learning here that Clark wasn't paralyzed (which obviously was a huge relief, and the most important news), I've been sweating what his injury might mean for his career. So this article -- "a bit of trouble," one or two weeks out -- comes as another huge relief.

TF, that's an excellent post. I think you're exactly right. I think it's also fair to ask (as part of the broader inquiry you propose) whether the sort of plan the Brewers put into action was doomed to fail or was just badly executed. That's the question that I feel right now I'm too close to the situation, as a fan, to get a good handle on. I would also add that, back when the team cratered the last time, we definitely had a "build from within" strategy. I wonder if the strategy was always "build up from within, then sustain whatever plateau we get to through trades and FA" or if one plan gave way to the other.

How awful. Darryl was always a favorite, an exciting player and so recently a promising broadcaster. I thought this was a depressing season, but events of the past 24 hours put a lot in perspective.

Sad but true, and it took me about five seconds to get over the "sad" part. For me, living in StL, this is like the coolest drink on the hottest day.

I like Iskenderian's OBP-speed potential, and I think we're out of the era where HR power in particular is requisite for a 3b. (My affection for this player is in no way biased by our shared Armenian heritage. No, no, I would never succumb to ethnic homerism. Okay, maybe a little. Come on; there's only a few million of us running around.)

Brewers should get Giannis to call Orimoloye and tell him how awesome it is to be a Nigerian-born emigre athlete in Milwaukee. Brewers seem to be pushing against orthodoxy in these last two drafts. Last year: sidearmer, big shortstop, raw guy. This year: golf-grip hitter, a couple of injury-dropped pitchers, another raw guy. Seems like a very conscious strategy for pursuing upside.

For goodness' sake -- the kid got called up from AA for an emergency start against the team with Paul Goldschmidt on it. It's one game. He'll be back.

It just occurred to me -- I'm sure savvier people have said this before -- that if as seems likely we're mired in mediocrity, this deadly start is a gift. Fans aren't expecting a playoff run. Blah manager is gone. Arguably blah GMcan't possibly be safe. Everyone expects trades. I'm fine trading any vet except that I'm cautious on Luc. He actually could be part of the next good Brewers team. His contract and accomplishments make him one of the most vuable commodities in baseball. Teams that want him should be backing trucks up to Miller Park.