gregmag

I'm with pretty much everybody else. Gambling Mike Fiers + spare parts on a 26 year-old, buy-low former good prospect with decent secondary offensive skills seems like exactly the kind of thing the Brewers should be doing.

While I agree that the main basis should be the playing record........... 5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. That does specifically mention that integrity sportsmanship and character are part of the criteria. I know this is an old debate, but Ty Cobb and Cap Anson don't have an ounce of integrity, sportsmanship, or character between them. Actually, it's two old debates: (1) is juicing worse than exacerbating the color line / throwing the 1919 Series / drunken physical abuse / whatever, and (2) should the fact that old guys lack a qualification cause us to overlook that missing qualification in new guys. I don't have a great answer to either question. What I do believe, strongly, is that we do ourselves a disservice if we think those character standards actually have any relationship to the population of the Hall of Fame. They don't. There are more than a few utter scumbags in the Hall of Fame -- with Tony LaRussa the latest and one of the worst -- and the sooner we realize that talent for hitting or throwing a baseball has zero relationship to being a good human being, the better off we all are.

Not paying a premium for Hart was the right decision for this organization. Corey was a fine hitter for us, and he managed to resurrect his career when a lot of people wrote him off. I hope he finds great success in Seattle. I suspect, though, that Briggs is exactly right about the short-sightedness of going to an extreme pitcher's part when you're trying to revive your career again. As for playing him in RF . . . it makes me more inclined to believe that story from yesterday about how Jack Z doesn't know what the hell he's doing. My hope now is that DM's unwillingness to pony up real money for a popular incumbent means he won't pony up real money or talent for any similarly mediocre alternative. The great thing about 1b for the Brewers is that you could play almost anybody over there -- even Francisco, though please God no -- and improve over last year. I think people sometimes forget that our 1b's weren't just bad last year; they were almost impossibly bad, worse than all but a tiny handful of teams have managed in baseball history. If you just threw Halton out there every day, he would almost certainly do better. I don't think he would be good (although as part of a platoon, I've heard worse ideas), but he wouldn't be the worst 1b of all time, and that's basically the bar you have to clear if we're just talking about improving the position. I'll say what I've said before: I like Braun to 1b, even now that we've dealt Nori. Davis and Gomez are obviously set in left and center. I like Gindl, I'm not against giving Halton some PT, we have Schafer, and we have some guys like Kentrail Davis coming up who could play roles.

I've been out of touch, so when I first saw this trade, I wasn't sure what to think. As I read through the thread, I got increasingly happy. I think the arguments folks have made for this trade make a ton of sense. Nori was out; that was fairly clear. I'm big on Davis, but we also have Gindl and Schafer. Keeping Nori around would have been pointless. Smith isn't some middling bullpen asset. He's a young, team-controlled lefty who throws about 90, is still figuring things out, has shown signs of progress, and pitched effectively as a AAA starter this year. Some folks have argued for taking more of a longshot, and others have responded that longshots are risky. If you plot ceiling and floor on a curve, I think Smith lands in a very attractive spot on that curve. He looks like at worst (assuming he doesn't get hurt or just fall apart) a strong bullpen lefty who can get some righties out. He looks like a decent shot for the back of the rotation, and he has mid-rotation upside. That works for me. As for people who think we're overloading the "middling starter" population, you can never have too many of these guys. Some of them will get hurt or not perform; look at last year, when we were this close to sending a peanut vendor out there. We have no leadoff hitter, although Segura could figure out how to draw some walks. Well, we aren't a great team; we're missing a bunch of things.

This is historic. It may be the first time a New York sports fan responded to a "let's trade our crap for a midwestern team's silver" proposal by asking why, exactly, the midwestern team would do the trade. I know fans everywhere do that stuff, but New York fans generally think the whole MLB talent pool is their oyster.

When he took over the Yankees and bought them, the franchise was a mess. He oversaw basically two (arguably three) rebuilds of the Yankees that brought them multiple championships, etc. I hate what he did to the game in some respects, but he was unquestionably a successful owner. Fair enough, but is that kind of success something that the Hall of Fame should, or needs to, recognize? I think Whizkid is right, but let's set that aside. What does an owner have to do in order to deserve enshrinement in the Hall of Fame? The answer can't just be "win a lot." My gut sense is that an owner would have to be an innovator of some kind. Why Steinbrenner and not Charlie Finley? He built and actually ran a great team. Like Steinbrenner, he was an outsized personality. He tried some crazy innovations, most of which failed, but all of which contributed to the flavor of baseball in his era. I guess I'm just resisting the idea that owners generally belong in the Hall of Fame. Of the ones that are in, I can see Walter O'Malley for his important part in making MLB a truly national sport, and Charles Comiskey helped to build the American League. But Tom Yawkey? What did he do other than fail to win in one of baseball's premier markets while keeping his team white?

Okay, leaving aside my personal animus, why should Steinbrenner be in the Hall of Fame? He spent a bunch of money and won some championships. Good for him. But how is that Hall-worthy? I'm not being snarky here; I genuinely don't understand. I can't recall right now which other owners are in, so maybe that would help. I'm with RoCo on not expanding the "Hall of Very Good," although I get the equitable argument on behalf of a player like Parker. Baldkin, I take your point about Quisenberry, and I don't mean to knock him. I was a fan back then, and I remember how dominant he was. Still, I don't think he's close to Hall-worthy. Gossage pitched twice as long; there's really no comparison between them. Sutter, for me, shouldn't be in -- he's the poster child for overrating the importance of closers -- and I think his career pretty clearly exceeds Quisenberry's career. Relief pitchers just don't contribute as much as regulars, even when you take leverage into account. I think Quisenberry, as great as he was at his job, is the least valuable player on that list. On Garvey, I agree OPS+ tells you more than raw OPS; but a 117 OPS+ for a 1b just isn't impressive. To put it in perspective, I think most people assume Keith Hernandez needed his defense to make the Hall. Hernandez's OPS+ was 128. Cecil Cooper: 121. George Scott: 114. John Mayberry: 123. The 1b who I think deserves serious consideration is Fred McGriff. Longer career than anyone I've mentioned, OPS+ of 134. He was a poor defender but an insanely consistent middle-of-the-order hitter, giving him a career that I think stands right next to Hernandez and Tony Perez. In the end I think McGriff probably falls just short, but I think he's at least right up there with Dawson, Rice, and Perez.

If George Steinbrenner goes into the Hall of Fame, I may give up on baseball altogether. I hate Tony LaRussa as a human being, and I think he bears substantial blame for the steroid era, but he belongs. Cox obviously belongs; he was the best manager in the game for quite a while. Billy Martin, I think, is the managerial equivalent of Dick Allen, a guy whose borderline psychotic personality undermined a lot of his awesome talent. Allen, though, was great enough that I'd probably vote for him. Martin tended to come along, win early, burn out his pitchers while alienating everyone in sight, and leave a mess for his successors. I don't think his total package warrants a spot in the Hall. I'm not overly impressed with the players on the list. Parker and Garvey aren't even as good as guys like Rice and Dawson, who I don't think belong. Quisenberry was sensational in his prime, but we're finally getting past overrating the importance of closers, and I don't think a 12-year career with 20 saves a year is anything to get excited about. I'd definitely vote for Simmons -- catchers get shafted by the Hall, and he was a great one -- and I need to look harder at John and Concepcion. Miller's going to be controversial, and I get that baseball players are way overpaid, but he came along when they were indentured servants and led the way in changing the system. What we have now is ridiculous, but what we had back then was manifestly unjust.

Sayonara to one of the worst people MLB has coughed up in some time. I hope he has a miserable retirement.

Usually I don't like innuendo, but I live in StL and have to deal with Cardinals fans 24/7, plus this thought has occurred to me. It's biased and unfair, but I'll toss it out there: We're constantly talking about how the Cardinals, especially the LaRussa Cardinals, made players better than they were before or after they left. That might just be the mark of a great organization. LaRussa, in Oakland, basically was the midwife at the birth of the steroid era. Maybe he just didn't know what was up. But you have to wonder what 2 plus 2 really makes.

Congrats Brew Crew Forever! I'm right there with danzig and RoCo. I hate the "unwritten rules." I especially hate players and managers who take upon themselves the job of enforcing the "unwritten rules." It's all utter nonsense. I don't think Gomez should have wasted brain cells carrying that grudge all season, but if it doesn't affect his play, then who cares. The cultural point is interesting. I don't think it's about "racism" per se. I do think that things like "unwritten rules" are inherently meant to stop norms from changing. When you bring players from different cultures into the game in greater numbers, norms change. I think it's fair to criticize the "unwritten rules" and their self-appointed keepers on grounds of cultural insularity.

I agree with everything MNBrew said about the catchers angle. I think I'm on board with the "Sans Francisco" movement. I understand the desire to sign Hart less every day. A lot of smart people seem to like the idea more every day, so maybe I'm just not so smart. But we have, under contract, for almost no money (except of course the first guy on the list): Braun Davis Gindl Aoki Halton Gamel Green Morris. We have three corner starter positions to fill, plus a corner reserve. (Green could play 3b, and Gindl could back up in cf; otherwise, all those guys are limited to one or more non-3b corners.) I've listed those guys in approximate order of how much I value their bats, based on available evidence; your mileage may vary. Of those guys, Morris is the only one who I don't think has established a substantial chance to be more valuable next year than an aging, oft-injured, one-dimensional, pretty expensive Corey Hart. I would happily put money on Davis' and Gindl's likelihood of outhitting Hart, assuming they stay healthy and get to play. Now, you may say, Davis and Gindl (and Braun) aren't 1bs. Well, so what? This isn't like asking Bill Hall to play a new skill position every year until he loses his mind and bat. This is plugging in bats at a position where Prince freakin' Fielder is a viable MLB starter. Also, Hart wasn't a good 1b; he was a tall 1b. That's actually worth a fair amount, but I think we may have overvalued it after watching Fielder out there for six years. Every name on my list above has more mobility than Hart (assuming, in Gamel's case, that he doesn't break something). I'll admit that part of my position here stems from the fact that I don't think the Brewers are likely to contend next year; I know others disagree. But even if they're right, signing Hart doesn't move the needle much if at all. Good organizations develop young, cheap players. We're actually doing a decent job of that. But you have to play them. I like Hart, I think he's been underrated as a player, and I admire how hard he worked to revive and sustain his career. This isn't a dump on him. But in the best light of cold rationality that I can muster, signing him makes no sense for this team.

I don't really buy either the NBA comparison or the Fiers / Rogers comparison. As to the NBA, teams are still trying to win games, and teams in pennant races are playing harder now than at any point in the season. As to the pitchers, I think a lot of us thought Rogers' late-season performance was fools' gold. Fiers was good for much more than a September call-up, and I still think he may be good again; but if he fails, it will come down to a lack of stuff that a lot of people, again, have warned about for ages. The common denominator in all of these cases is minor league performance. We know a ton about these guys. I wouldn't judge them solely on their late-season numbers. Early season next year is no more probative than late season this year, and spring training is next to worthless as a basis for evaluation. But when guys perform at a certain level for years in the minors, and then come up and keep doing it . . . well, nothing is guaranteed in life, but that's pretty good information. I like Gindl a lot, and Briggs makes a good point about handedness. But there's a pretty decent chance that Davis is a lot better hitter than Gindl, and I think that makes it a tough choice. You can't send Davis back to AAA; he has nothing left to prove. In my perfect world, Braun would move to 1b and all the young guys (plus Aoki, who's still more useful than any of our apparent non-Braun 1b options, unless he's more useful still as trade bait) would rotate around Gomez in the of.

What I think makes the case for Cabrera stronger this year, and makes it look overwhelming to some people, is that Trout's advantages from last year have shrunk. (I'm looking at Fangraphs WAR here, and those numbers strike me as plausible given my own observations.) Based on pure hitting, Cabrera last year was just a hair better than Trout, but Trout was amazing in the field and on the bases. This year, Trout is hitting a bit better than he did last year, but Cabrera is hitting a lot better than last year. On top of that, Trout isn't fielding and baserunning at last year's ridiculous levels. The upshot of all this is that, if you thought Cabrera deserved the MVP last year, you have better reason to think so this year. On the other hand, if you thought Trout deserved the award last year (as I did), the question is whether Cabrera has closed the gap enough to overtake him. Again, you can't argue with Cabrera's superior bat. But Cabrera has been even worse in the field and on the bases this year than last, which has kept Trout's advantage in those areas high enough to overcome the hitting differential. Cabrera has closed the gap somewhat, but Trout IMHO still tops him by a comfortable margin as an all-around player. I wish people on both sides of this debate (not here, but in the wider world) had more fun and ground fewer axes. Yes, there's some traditional vs. advanced stats stuff going on here, but that's an interesting discussion, and there are a lot of interesting angles -- how confidently we believe we can assess defense, whether team performance should count, whether the MVP is really about hitting above all else, etc. When Cabrera gets the award, I'll probably think he robbed Trout twice, but so what? Cabrera's a great player, and if Trout keeps doing what he's doing, he'll sleepwalk into the Hall of Fame. We're lucky we get to watch both of them play.

Amen. I'll add that making an overgeneralized, unsupported statement about how other people are supposedly making overgeneralized, unsupported statements shows not just massive arrogance but a blind spot for irony.

It sure looks like a perfect platoon situation, given that Weeks is under contract and not convertible into other assets. My hope for Scooter is that he continues to develop -- maybe the small-sample power is real development already -- and putting him in positions to succeed at the outset seems like a smart strategy. Eventually the team may want to see if he can improve against LHPs, but having a platoon partner gives them flexibility in trying to make that transition.

Guys, it isn't an opinionated list. As I understand reillymcshane, he just took the lowest seasonal WAR for a player at each position. You can't criticize his judgment or "fairness" in including a particular player; he just used the numbers. If you want to argue subjectively about who was the worst, that's fine, but that isn't what he did.

Unless you're one of those people who think minor league stats don't mean anything, there's a lot more evidence of Davis' potential than his few good weeks in the majors. The guy has hit at every level. With the exception of an adjustment trauma in his first 135 PAs at AA in 2011, his .822 OPS at Nashville this year is his lowest at any minor league stop. That OPS was driven down by his unusually low .255 BA, so even there his secondary skills were consistent. He has a career .897 OPS in the minors. What Davis has done so far in the majors isn't enough to project anything, but it's also entirely consistent with his excellent career norms. Expecting an .800 OPS from him seems very reasonable. He definitely has earned a shot to be a starter at this level.

I haven't gotten to see Nelson pitch, but I assume he works low in the zone. Presumably the walks result in part from his trying to adjust that approach as he reaches a new level. Also, as much as I hate walks, they're somewhat less harmful to the scoreboard with a groundball / low-HR guy. They still ratchet up the pitch count, though. I'm excited about Nelson. I think they'll need to be patient with him at the beginning, but he does a lot of things right.

As far as possible in the roster-design process, we should always be looking for good, cheap players. As near as possible to the end of the roster-design process, we can start settling for mediocre, cheap players and/or decent, expensive players to fill the remaining holes. I get that Scooter's cheap (although of course there are ways other than premium free agency to fill holes with mediocre players). His cheapness and his youth are the reasons I'm perfectly happy giving him an extended look. At this moment, as you say, he's who we have, and we aren't likely to come up with a more attractive option without additional time and effort. But if he turns out to be mediocre -- you're right, that isn't worthless, but it isn't a whole lot. At that point, he's just another guy who isn't winning games. I don't think at that point we should just say "this is who we have" and stop looking for someone better. We should treat that spot as one where improvement is possible and desirable, just like we treat any other spot where we don't have a good, cheap player.

Because if there's one thing I've learned from this site and moderating this site, what you are asking people to do is just simply not allowed. (this was supposed to be in blue but the quote and edit functions aren't working.) Right, because no one is saying "I told you so" based on Scooter's success thus far. (See, for example, the first post in this thread.) Sorry, but I can't work up any sympathy for a speculative complaint that some Scooter doubters may someday behave like some Scooter boosters are behaving right now. I love that the guy is doing well. It's a joy. I've been a pessimist about him, and I hope this is the beginning of Scooter's proving me and other pessimists wrong. But you're saying you don't want people to discuss a player's future prospects based on the best honest insights they can bring to the discussion. On a baseball discussion board. I'm sorry if you guys can't sustain your desired buzz without everybody waving pom-poms around 24-7, but thankfully that's not how discussions work. Fluff, two things: First, Gantner was a productive player for maybe five years. He hit a little when he was young; then his defense carried his bat for a little while; then he hurt the team for quite a few years. His .670 OPS certainly isn't a selling point, and it was less bad in that era than it would be in this one. That's exactly why I worry about settling for mediocre production, not so much next year -- we're likely to stink, so it will be a great year to take the measure of a risky prospect -- but for the five years after that if next year produces mediocrity. Second, I think you're misreading jerichoholicninja's Yuni comparison. The point isn't "Gennett is of the same general quality of Yuni." The point is "We run the risk of attaching too much significance to a small sample, as we did with Yuni (and arguably Segura)." I think that's a fair point, and of course I also think (know) that Scooter has a much better chance to be a good player going forward than Yuni does.

This does make more sense than any other explanation, if you combine it with 502's versatility-pop thing. Doug Melvin is an intelligent person, and I can see how an intelligent person could follow that thought process. The fact that the thought process is hideously wrong makes this a very interesting case of cognitive and/or deductive failure. I'm not being snarky; I think this situation can teach us a lot about how mistakes happen. One other thing about this. If the Brewers really are keeping Yuni around because they think he adds meaningfully to the contentment / performance / whatever of their Spanish-speaking players, that's a huge mark of its own against the organization. Half the hemisphere, or close to it, speaks Spanish. Making your Spanish-speaking players comfortable should be a priority, but it shouldn't be that difficult. It shouldn't require the bizarre contortion of wasting a 25-man roster spot on the worst player in MLB.

Ax was probably my favorite Brewer on a personal level. I tend to like smart, quirky pitchers who seem to enjoy Milwaukee -- Ax, Greinke, Capuano. Dealing him makes plenty of sense. I wouldn't worry much that he'll come back to haunt us, because at his salary the Cards may well nontender him. He could end up anywhere. People often talk about an "in-division premium" in trades. I have no idea whether that idea is based on anything real, but I'll be interested to see whether we get someone useful from St. Louis.

I just want to mention -- because nobody else has in the past ten minutes or so -- that WE'RE PLAYING HIM AT FIRST BASE. This is a guy who couldn't help you at ss, and we're playing him at by far the easiest position on the field to find talent. Also, we're paying him almost a million dollars to lose games for us. We paid Weeks eleven million to do basically nothing, but that contract was predicated on the fact that Weeks used to win games. We knew with Yuni exactly what we were getting, and we still paid him, and we're still playing him -- even though we have obviously better options. To me, the discussion about whether or not to fire RR begins and ends with Yuni's continued presence on the lineup card.

I didn't think Hart was great at 1b. He had size, which is a big help, and sure hands. But his range wasn't much, and he's only getting less mobile as he gets older and the injuries pile up. It would be very unusual if a guy who can play competently in LF, has a history of playing the infield, and has good overall athleticism couldn't play 1b effectively. Maybe Braun's that guy. But moving him to 1b would make a ton of sense if he can play it, and I wouldn't want to assume he couldn't play the position without trying him there.