gregmag

Why on Earth wouldn't you fire the manager in this circumstance? Of course it doesn't fix deeper problems, but it's the best way to to a quick reset and get a clearer look at what we have and don't have.

The thing about the thumb injury is that it wasn't an abstraction. The guy was going to right field constantly last year, and he explained in detail how the thumb caused that. He looked like a guy who was playing with one hand tied behind his back. I just can't see any basis for doubting that the thumb severely compromised his hitting last year. Now, we can't say exactly how much it hurt him; we have no way to know what he would have produced without the injury. But we know he would have been able to pull the ball, and power hitters generally like to have that option. The PED speculation seems pointless to me. We don't know how much he took, when, or for how long. We don't know how it helped him, because info on performance effects of PEDs is sketchy. We know he didn't get bigger, Bonds style. Based on how his career has gone, I'm guessing he used PEDs mainly to avoid and bounce back from injury, but that's as much of a guess as anyone else's theory. We also know, as WTP pointed out, that he produced in a year when we can be as confident as possible that he wasn't using PEDs. He's on the wrong side of 30. Even great players experience dropoffs when they get to that point. I continue to love the idea of transitioning him to 1b.

I'm not worried about the bullpen, and I think people are almost uniformly underselling what Fiers has done. Peralta and Nelson have a good chance of contributing more than last year. I don't mind Jungmann as our #6 starter. I think we'll get more offensively this year out of 1b, ss, lf, and rf than we got last year. Parra helps with those outfield projections -- he's the only bench guy we have who can really step in as a starter. I'm very worried about Lohse, Garza, and Ramirez. It's hard to see any of those guys being better than he was last year. If the rotation flames out, we really are weak after Jungmann. In addition, it's hard to see Luc and Gomez matching what they did last year. That's not to say they won't continue to play at a great level, but both basically had career years. The bench adds almost nothing offensively. Overall, I see more likelihood of losing ground than gaining ground. We just don't have enough promising young players in the developmental stages of their careers, and we have some key veterans who should (based on typical aging patterns) get worse and could fall off a cliff. We do lack depth. I think the possibility of a train wreck is very real.

You can't just look at what happens at the moment a relief pitcher melts down and claim that's the cause of the loss. That makes no sense. What about the hitter who struck out with the bases loaded in the fourth inning, or the starting pitcher who gave up the other team's first four runs? Clearly they have to share some of the blame, maybe a lot of it. I understand the complaints about WAR in this setting, but at least WAR reflects a systematic effort to process all the relevant information. Using bullpen W-L record or isolated analysis of the relief pitcher while ignoring everything else that happened in the game is far less useful. If there's an analytic measure out there that shows the Brewers' pen was responsible for four to six losses in the second half, taking the rest of the team's performance into account, I would love to see it. It strikes me as nearly impossible that the claim is true.

Or it could have something to do with the absence of any evidence that they asked him to play OF before the season. I'm not saying you're definitively wrong. I can't prove a negative. But for you to accuse people of "rationalizing" by accepting the available evidence seems like a massive reach. "For all we know" isn't evidence.

I was just reading this yesterday. A lot of us thought Fielder would end up on this list. We dodged a bullet. That said, I love the guy, and I hope he comes back, earns his money, and proves us doubters wrong. I was half-expecting to see Braun's name on this list. Obviously this year is pivotal. If he can come back as some version of his productive self, his contract will look fine. Not great, but okay.

I like this trade a lot. Three young guys with upside, two of whom could fill roles on the team now. Each with a calling-card tool. The discussion of DM's trade history is always interesting, but I like the type of trade this is. Our last big deal with Texas, Carlos Lee (which I hated) makes a great contrast to this one. I also like that we gave up cash to increase the haul. I would have expected Mark A. To save the money for a vet 50-inning reliever or something. This is a good use of cash. Counting on Jungmann as our sixth starter is fine with me, but we need to identify 7 and 8. That will be interesting. The most interesting question is whether this trade portends a serious rebuild. My sense is they're going to see whether the current core can catch lightning in a bottle and sell some guys if they can't. I'm okay with that, as long as they're not ignoring good offers. Not being under pressure to trade is a good posture to trade from.

Sure Gagne and Riske were mistakes, and so was trading for Linebrink. But all of that was quite a few years ago. Melvin, like other human beings, learns and adapts from his experiences. His approach to bullpen construction has been hard to argue with over the past several years.

DHonks and LouisEly make a reasonable point for which they've offered ample grounding. I don't know for sure whether Gallardo's heritage would make a material difference in trade talks with teams in big Mexican-American markets, but the idea that it might make a difference, for the reasons DHonks and LouisEly suggest, seems very plausible. I remember being surprised, when we got Yo, at how relatively few players of Mexican descent were in the big leagues, given the size and proximity of Mexico, relative to players from elsewhere in Latin America. I don't think it's insulting to speculate that people would be jazzed for their team to have an affable, starting-caliber player of their own ethnicity, especially when the ethnic group is big locally and the player pool is relatively small. In that situation, I don't think the player has to be a superstar. Gallardo isn't prime Valenzuela, but he isn't chopped liver either. African Americans I know like to have an African-American player or three to root for. (I live in St. Louis, where that desire goes unfulfilled.) Hell, Jim Gantner and Jerry Augustine have been dining out on their Wisconsin roots for years in Milwaukee. None of this means that Mexican Americans or African Americans or Wisconsinites care about players' backgrounds more than winning, or that they have anything against other players. It's just one way in which fans relate to players, and that relatability contributes to how a lot of people enjoy sports.

Five of the first eight developing into MLB starters seems pretty good. Two of the next 13 seems pretty awful.

This is very close to a something for nothing deal. I don't mean that Estrada sucks; I actually like him. But the Brewers have younger, cheaper back-of-the-rotation candidates with higher upside. He helped us a lot as an innings-eating long reliever, but if we need him desperately in that role again we're toast anyway. Lind has obvious limitations, as Stache and others have pointed out, but he also has obvious strengths that fill a big hole on this team. He's being paid reasonable money for two years. As with the Ramirez option, I don't think this commitment is big enough to block us from getting a better, younger 1b if one magically becomes available. Marginal improvement at very low cost. Not a world-beating move, but under all the circumstances a smart one.

It really does feel like the end of an era. I always rooted hard for Rickie. He was a terrific player at his best, and I think sometimes people let his limitations overshadow his contributions. Then the injuries hit, and the limitations mostly swallowed the contributions. As others have said, he always worked hard and never complained. I just really, really liked the guy. 2b's tend to flame out early with injuries, but I'd love to see him find another burst of success elsewhere.

I'm also on the "Molitor as favorite player ever" bandwagon. He came up right when I became a big fan, and suddenly the team got really good. For ten year-old me, that was magical. Watching him play for all those years was the most fun I've ever had as a baseball fan. Between this and all my friends in the Twin Cities, I'll be rooting hard for the Twins.

I'm in the relative pessimist camp on Ramirez's health and production; I think all the points JohnBriggs made above are very sound. But this move doesn't bother me, because of how short the commitment is and the low opportunity cost. If Ramirez were obviously blocking somebody, it would be a different case, but we don't have anyone who's ready for a shot at 3b. I like Rogers, but I think the chance that he's an everyday 3b in the majors is very small. If a golden opportunity to get an everyday 3b falls out of the sky, this doesn't foreclose that. Any other FA option, assuming there is one, would cost more years. We don't have a burning need to put the $10 mil elsewhere. This is a pure "do no harm" move, and I'm okay with it on that basis.

Career Brewers WAR per baseball reference Gantner 22.3 Weeks 12.3 Per Fan Graphs Gantner 19.5 Weeks 18.2 I was going by Fangraphs, which has become my habit based on a lot of comments here. I didn't check Baseball Reference, and if their numbers provide a more accurate picture, then Gantner comes out on top. But it's closer than even the BR numbers make it look; and, if you believe the Fangraphs numbers, then Weeks comes out on top, and I don't think it's close. Why? Weeks: 11 seasons, 1142 games Gantner: 17 seasons, 1801 games WAR is a counting stat. Gantner took about 1.6 times as many games as Weeks did to rack up his higher career WAR. Now, you can cut the numbers different ways. You can say Gantner deserves credit for playing as long as he did. I buy that argument if the FG numbers are "right." But if the BR numbers are "right," I'm not calling it a positive for Gantner that he racked up 1.3 WAR in an extra 650 games. FWIW, the Fangraphs numbers feel more right to me, based on my memories of Gantner. The guy stuck around for years after his brief prime without doing much of anything. He was an outstanding defender when young and never less than capable, but his offense was a major drag on the lineup for most of his career. (Also, Weeks was exclusively a 2b, while Gantner spent meaningful time as 3b. That just means that some of Gantner's value came at another position, which may matter in "all-time [position]" discussions.) The comparison is interesting because they're almost mirror images of one another. Weeks was a plus offensive player because of his secondary offensive skills, but his defense was usually a negative, eventually a big one. Gantner was an offensive negative because of his lack of secondary offense, eventually a big negative, but he was a very strong defender.

That may be right, but I think Sal Bando's ego, incompetence, and flat-out lack of smarts played a larger role. If you made a list of the people, over the history of the Brewers' franchise, who did the most harm to the team, is anybody else even in Bando's area code? The only other serious contender is Selig, and I feel like he gets a pass for getting the team here to begin with. Sal Bando just signed a big contract, gave us two excellent years as a player and two lousy ones, and then did everything he could to destroy the team from the front office. Sorry . . . Oh, Molitor as manager. Right. What qualifies him? Fair question, except that I'm not sure what qualifies anybody. He's been coaching for quite a while, he seems unusually smart for a baseball guy, he appears to know how to deal with people, his success as a player testifies at least to his competitive drive. I think he's the kind of guy you interview and try to figure out if he has a feel for what managers are supposed to do. I think the implication of your question is, "Wouldn't we just be bringing him back because he's a beloved former player, and isn't that a bad reason to hire a guy as manager?" I do think that would be a bad reason, but I can easily imagine there might be good reasons to give him a shot.

Rickie Weeks is, for all practical purposes, done as a Brewer. I can't imagine a scenario in which both sides would want to continue the relationship. I've always liked Rickie as a player. As far as I could tell, he kept his head down, worked hard, and got what he could out of his talent. The talent was considerable. At his peak he was an All-Star and an exciting player. Unless Molitor or Money counts, I think he's had the best career of any Brewers 2b (though I realize a lot of people like Gantner much more than I do). He was a strange package of strengths and weaknesses that always seemed to leave us wanting more. On one hand, he had an elite combination of power, speed, and plate discipline at his position. On the other hand, he never fully solved his contact problems, he got hurt a lot, and his fielding maxed out at adequate (before it fell apart completely). He never quite put together everything he was capable of doing for an extended period; and, like a lot of second basemen, he got old fast. He's up there on some team leader boards, an important, long-time Brewer. I wish him the best, and I'd love (though I don't expect) to see him come back strong somewhere.

I'm sorry he lost his job, because that ends the fear of losing his job and the misery of managing an awful team. I deeply hope that he will immediately find many and varied forms of suffering to fill the void. People like Kirk Gibson (and Tony LaRussa) represent everything I hate about sports. May he rot.

I think owbc and So Cal make typically sensible points. In fact, I think the main reason DM is coming back next year is because '16 makes a little more sense as a tear-down year. Next year we'll hopefully have some prospects who succeed at AA, both pitchers and hitters. We'll have more money coming off the books. That may be a more sensible moment to bring in a new GM, when we have more pieces in place to contribute to a new direction. I think the most interesting thing in Mark A's comments is his musings about a rebuild. He's a smart guy; he understands his choices. He may be ready to come around to the view that the team needs to retool toward long-term success.

Nelson will be fine. He's a talented guy who, like many mortal pitchers, has to make adjustments as he advances. Remember Peralta's first season? I agree that picking up Yo's option was obviously the right move. At 1/13, he's a valuable asset. I think we need to explore trades for our three vet starters. We should pencil in Peralta, Fiers, and Nelson; assume that Jungmann can fill the #7 slot; and carefully assess where Thornburgh is in his recovery. Definitely one and maybe two of the vets should go. Young, cost-controlled starting pitching is a huge part of this team's future.

Logan -- Point taken, though I still wonder whether that was the whole of the reasoning. But yes, I remember that now. Pogo -- I think any move should be contingent on how we can improve the team. If we can add a difference maker at 1b, then we should definitely do it. But right now I think it's worth considering what the best deployment of our current players would be. I'm not quite sure I get your reasoning about how the move would just maintain the status quo. Moving Braun to 1b would essentially mean replacing Reynolds / Overbay with Parra. That's certainly likely to be an offensive upgrade, and you also get a big, big defensive upgrade in rf in exchange for probably a minor defensive downgrade at 1b.

I'm crushed and depressed by the collapse this year. Even so, I have no interest in pained posturing or grand pronouncements about the state of the franchise. All you can do at any given time is focus on the road ahead of you. The draft this year showed what I think most people here see as an improvement in strategy. That's good, and we need to hire Seid's replacement with a focus on entrenching the lessons we've learned. Player development seems healthy, in the sense that we had some prospects take steps forward this year, but I don't feel informed enough about that to make a judgment. The problem with improving the MLB roster is that it isn't like we're drowning in deadweight players. Weeks, Reynolds, and Overbay can/will be gone. Ramirez can be gone. Some of the bullpen guys, including K-Rod, will be gone. The only contract I might scrub is Garza, but objectively that's a decent value contract, which means it isn't without trade value. Lohse, Yo, and Broxton have short commitments, which makes them eminently tradeable. We have Gomez and Lucroy signed to obscenely team-friendly deals. We got Jeffress back for nothing, and he looks like a key bullpen guy going forward. Trying to look dispassionately at our present situation, with the ultimate goal of winning a championship, I don't see it as a train wreck. I think LouisEly's prescriptions above sound like a pretty smart strategy going forward. Basically, we need to increase the talent base and use resources in ways that don't hamstring us. Maybe a new GM could do that better than DM, maybe not. I just see a not-there-yet organization that needs to keep grinding toward improvement.

I've thought Braun to 1b was a good idea for quite a while, and it makes even more sense now than it did a year ago. He's a defensive liability in RF, and 1b is the last place you can hide his defense. I think he'd probably be okay defensively at 1b, but even if he isn't, the bottom line is that he has to play somewhere. I can't remember the last time I heard a team keeping a guy in the OF because they were afraid he'd be worse at 1b. We're analyzing this a lot, but 1b remains an easier position than corner OF, and it also remains a less important one (assuming your 1b can at least catch normal throws without dropping them).

Man, do we have some money coming off the books after 2015. If I'm remembering correctly, Gallardo, Lohse, and Broxton (assuming the Brewers pick up Gallardo's 2014 option) are all signed through 2014, and of course Ramirez could be gone after this season. Meanwhile, most of this year's A+ (level, not grade) prospects will spend 2015 making the big jump to AA, which means that any of them who excel there could be in the mix for 2016. If you like stability, then enjoy this off-season, because the next one looks like it could be eventful. Re: the pen, I'm always a fan of looking for free talent. We're in pretty good shape with the guys we have. I could see spending meaningful resources on a lefty who's capable of giving you 70 innings. I agree that Estrada will be gone, which means we'll need to identify a long man. Jeffress will get the main setup gig to audition for 2016 closer, right?

I worry about Stanton because of Tony Conigliaro, Dickie Thon, etc. It's great to hear that medically he's doing well. I worry about Mike Fiers because he seems like a very emotional guy, which is a quality I like in people, but it may make this tough for him to get over. Also, this is what he relies on: moving the ball around and fooling people. I mean, who's ever gotten leveled by an 88 mph fastball? When has a batter (let alone a two-batter tandem) ever struck out swinging on consecutive HBPs? I'm not sure any other pitcher could do that. Every pitching approach has a worst-case scenario. If Fiers has that constantly in his head, he won't be able to do what he does.