gregmag

I think Fondy's right to be high on Roache. Ordinarily I don't put a lot of stock in small samples, but Roache had a broken wrist. That's a classic long-recovery injury for a power hitter. There's unusually good reason to believe that what he's doing now is real -- not that he'll hit five home runs a week for the rest of his life, but that he'll do it often enough to succeed. I love the Delmonico pickup. I'm big on age for level, and this kid is advanced. His strikeout numbers aren't too high, which suggests the BA may improve. He has had a major increase in power between A and A+. I'll add my voice to the chorus of people who are saying he needs time at 3b. He's learning the position, and they put him there because they think he has the skills. That's why they call it "player development." Since this has people talking about top tens, here's mine: Nelson Taylor Delmonico Arcia Roache Jungmann Haniger Khris Davis Hellweg Morris. I don't inherently oppose ranking new draftees, but I just don't know yet what to do with them. Same with Coulter and Rizzo. Roache could slide, obviously.

This is a snappy line, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. I understand the implicit value judgment, which you long ago settled on. But I think the argument in the post you quoted was that, by backloading Ramirez's contract, we gained surplus value last year, and if we now pay some of that surplus value to make a trade happen, we can come out ahead in the aggregate. Whether that's true depends, of course, on how much money we put into the trade and what prospect(s) we get back. But how is deciding whether or not to put money into a trade "kind of like" rationalizing a poor decision in the past? I know your point here is to assert, without actually documenting, that you're smarter than other people. But I really have to call you on your claims (here and elsewhere) of persecution. Someone "ridiculed" you? Who? When? (Ground rule: disagreement is not the same thing as ridicule.)

Very good, nuanced analyses of the organization's successes and failings. Draft choices have clearly been subpar, although some guys still have time to pull a few drafts partway out of the fire. I have never heard a persuasive criticism of any of DM's trades over the past five years. His worst deals, I think, were Nelson Cruz, Doug Davis to AZ, Grant Balfour, and Joe Thatcher. Those all go back pretty far, and frankly only Cruz was a real impact mistake. Sabathia and Greinke were unalloyed wins. Marcum, in retrospect, looks like a wash, and it certainly seemed like a "give something to get something" deal at the time. It certainly got us what we needed when we needed it. Building the talent base is the heart of any development plan, but one of the reasons you build the talent base is to create trade chips.

I had the same thought as TF about how Peralta had a horrible first half last year and then turned it around. I wonder if there's any common element in his two straight long, slow starts. If so, the team needs to figure that out and correct it. Of course, it could just be dumb luck or unrelated factors. JB makes a good point about how Peralta's success immediately improves the team's prospects, making a rebuild strategy more complicated. However, the basic reality of our talent base hasn't changed. Gallardo and Lohse are short-term, unexceptional solutions for this team. If we can leverage either or both of them for longer-term assets, IMHO we should do so. Also, I'm not as confident as JB in the idea that Gorzelanny has become a rotation anchor, although stranger things have happened.

You keep making declarations like this, with great confidence, as if your view is obviously true. But it isn't obviously true, as you can tell from the fact that some reasonably smart people here disagree with you. I think, for whatever my novice's take is worth, that your assessment of Lohse's contract is probably wrong. If you take what he's doing now and assume normal age decline over the length of the contract, then the contract looks like a good market value. I think -- and here I may just be echoing part of your point -- that, even as a good market value, the contract probably doesn't make sense for the Brewers to hold onto. But it would seem to make much better sense for a team that thinks Lohse can help get it over the playoff hump, which is why I think Lohse has more trade value than you believe.

No one knows for sure why other teams wouldn't take on Lohse this offseason, but I would bet that a lot of teams didn't believe he could keep up his performance without the Cardinals' defense, coaching staff, and whatever other organizational voodoo allows them to squeeze blood out of stones year after year. Lohse has now proved that he can pitch at a high level for a bad team with big defensive holes. He has also, on a more basic level, pitched well for 1/6 of his current contract. When teams evaluate players past peak age, I assume they look at two things: the player's age and his performance level. Lohse is half a year older than he was last winter, but if I'm right about the "St. Louis mojo" factor, he has now effectively increased what people will gauge as his established performance level. Another factor that helps Lohse's trade value is the "sniffing the postseason" thing. Teams that think they're a starting pitcher away from the postseason will feel that need more acutely now than they did in the offseason. In Lohse's case, that factor ups the risk from the last two years of his contract that teams will be willing to absorb. If I'm right that the risk has decreased based on Lohse's first half, several teams have very good reasons to like Lohse more now than they did six months ago. I'm a big advocate of paying attention to age in evaluating players, but age, like everything else, has a context. I like Lohse's chances over the next 2.5 years now better than I did last winter, and I suspect a fair number of teams will as well. We'll see.

Leaving aside the sordid merits of the whole thing (except to say that I think JB is largely right), why would MLB announce big drug suspensions over the All-Star Break? All-Star Weekend is the biggest public showcase for MLB other than the postseason. I think MLB is totally craven and fairly stupid, but to do what ESPN says they're going to do, they would have to be over-the-top, bat-guano insane.

If this wasn't Corey Hart -- if this was somebody else's player who: -- was going to be 32 next year; -- missed all of 2013 with an injury from which he was slow to recover; -- had missed substantial time in two of the prior four years and had only ever played 150 games once, at age 26; -- had to move from RF because he absolutely couldn't hack it out there, and now was permanently limited to 1b -- had no real value when he last played beyond 30-HR power (which of course is worth quite a bit) . . . . . . would you want to sign him to play for the 2014 Brewers? I just can't see it. Why would we pay an aging 1b even $5 million to see whether he could play 145 games and hit 30 HRs, which seems to me like the best-reasonable-case scenario? I don't think Morris is a world-beater, and I would bet that Hart next year has the better season; but I wouldn't bet a lot. Morris has a decent chance to match Hart's production next year, for almost no money, and he has a chance of improving, which Corey doesn't. That's just one option. If you don't like Morris, then go with some combination of Gamel (if he ever stops getting hurt), Green, Francisco, or any number of defensively challenged one-dimensional power hitters who will be scuffling around this winter. Put all the possible options on the table, and there's no longer the barest reason to tender Hart. I know some people resist letting Hart go because it seems to entail a choice of rebuilding over trying to contend. The thing is, no team with serious hope of contending would sign Corey Hart to play 1b and hit in the middle of the lineup. With all the factors I emphasized, he just doesn't profile as a championship-caliber player anymore. I'd love for him to beat the odds, but that's what I think the odds are. It's hard to see past our current 1b disaster, but no team since the Truman administration has screwed up 1b this badly. I hesitate to say this about the Brewers, but it would be almost impossible for us to screw up 1b that badly again, ever, before the sun explodes. We should cut bait on Corey and figure out our best cheap option in the offseason.

That's really good. It's so good that it almost cheers me up, even though the substantive message is that we're at least temporarily in a mess. I think I'm more in favor of a substantial rebuild, simply because our talent base is so thin. But I also see the other side of it -- we have a legit core at the MLB level. The best thing about the article, to me, is how it shows the real difficulty of figuring out what to do next.

FWIW, the Supreme Court last year struck down most of AZ's restrictive immigration law. I think a key state legislative architect of the law got recalled as well. Might make Yo more comfortable going there.

I like everything you're saying, but I'm wondering -- Zach Quintana? That's the first time I've heard him mentioned. What made you think of him in particular as trade bait?

There's no one in baseball who's older than Segura for whom I would trade him, based on both potential and contract status. I would hesitate to trade him straight up for any pitcher, because I worry more about young pitchers' tendencies to flame out. I would trade him for Trout or Harper in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd throw in just about anyone else we have. What those guys are doing at their age is historic. What Segura is doing is merely great.

Picking up on Sessile's comment about Nick Ramirez, another guy whose approach seems to have improved this year is Yadiel Rivera. His K/BB/AB numbers: 2010 ®: 9/72/206 2011 (R+): 14/91/330 2011 (A): 4/34/103 2012 (A): 26/119/465 2013 (A+): 17/39/234 Decent uptick in walks, big downtick(?) in K's. Of course his ISO has also crashed this year, but some of that could be Brevard. He's interesting.

I've been wondering about this as well. I can't ever remember seeing 1b production this bad. Maybe it will stabilize over the remainder of the season; we're only halfway in. But I can't imagine many teams have gotten a sub-.600 OPS from 1b. Just for the heck of it -- this isn't 1b totals, just a quick look at primary regulars on a few horrible teams (105 or more losses, except for the Brewers / Pilots): 1978 Mariners: Dan Meyer, .591 OPS 1991 Indians: Brook Jacoby, .622 OPS 1904 Senators: Jake Stahl, .690 OPS 1962 Mets: Marv Throneberry, .732 OPS 1964 Athletics: Jim Gentile, .837 OPS 1969 Expos: Bob Bailey, .756 OPS 1976 Expos: Mike Jorgensen, .693 OPS 1977 Blue Jays: Doug Ault, .692 OPS 1979 Athletics: Dave Revering, .817 OPS 1988 Orioles: Eddie Murray, .836 OPS 1996 Tigers: Tony Clark, .802 OPS 1998 Marlins: Derrek Lee, .732 OPS 2002 Rays: Steve Cox, .727 OPS 2004 Diamondbacks: Shea Hillenbrand, .812 OPS 2005 Royals: Matt Stairs, .818 OPS 2011 Astros: Brett wallace, .703 OPS 2012 Astros: Carlos Lee, .747 OPS / Brett Wallace, .746 OPS 2002 Brewers: Richie Sexson, .867 OPS (Is it just me, or is it hard to believe this franchise has only lost 100 games once?) 1969 Pilots: Don Mincher, .821 OPS (good for a 132 OPS+ in that offensive climate) I've probably forgotten some team that weakens my point. The point is pretty half-baked anyway, but I think it's fair to say that almost all of history's worst teams have done better than the 2013 Brewers at scrounging up 1b talent.

I've learned from hard experience -- like seeing the same kind of things LouisEly saw, presumably on Baseball Reference -- to put much more stock in Fangraphs. Good to see the Lucroy worries were unwarranted. He's right about where you'd expect him to be. If the pitch-framing analysis is right, he's a very valuable guy.

I don't love the idea of trading Aoki. He's cost-controlled, he's productive, and his skills should age pretty well. He also seems like the kind of player who gives you more value on the field than he'd bring back in a trade, although I can't quantify that. He's well suited to the leadoff role, which is one the Brewers have had a hard time filling. But I think it's reasonable to expect one (or some platoon combination) of Gindl, Schafer, Davis, and Prince to provide a reasonable facsimile of Aoki's aggregate production in the near future. Nori put up a .787 OPS last year, and he's at .761 this year. Call him a .780 OPS hitter. Schafer is 26; he OPSd .770 at AAA at 25, and he has a .699 OPS in 134 MLB PAs. He would have to take a step forward to match Aoki's production, and he's not prospect young, but he's young enough that he might be able to get there. Davis is 25. He, of course, ripped the cover off the ball last year in limited duty at AA (1.124) and AAA (.936). He also, of course, hasn't been able to get traction this year; but even in a horrific slump, experiencing the majors-minors yo-yo for the first time, he's still OPSing .729. If his true AAA level, right now, sits between this year's and last year's small samples -- say, .830 -- he has a very good chance to match Aoki's MLB production. Prince is also 25. He's OPSing .785 this year at AAA. That's off a .249 BA, and his strikeout totals are reasonable, which leads me to think he's having some bad BABIP luck. OTOH, he's never hit like this before, so maybe he's having good luck on HR/FB ratio or something. He has the upside to match Aoki, but he would need to take a big step forward. Gindl is 24. He has OPSd .862, .740, and so far .797 in three years at AAA. If he's a true .800 OPS guy at AAA at 24, he's in a comparable position to Khris Davis, given another year of development time. Davis and Prince bat right, while Gindl and Schafer bat left, so the group gives you good platoon options. I'm underselling Aoki a bit because of the outsized importance of OBP, which is his strength; but the guys we're talking about haven't been heavily weighted toward SLG in the minors, so I don't think that factor adds much to their challenge of matching Aoki. Given the data, I don't think a lack of viable replacements is a reason to avoid trading Aoki.

JS this morning says the org planned to assign Coulter to Helena all along; he was just up in A ball so that he could play before the rookie season started: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/211972241.html Candor or damage control? We report, you decide. Great to see D'Vo (apparently) back in the fold.

I was around for Gantner's career, and yes, a lot of us (at least the nascent Sabermetrics crowd) were saying that Gantner was useless starting in the mid-80s. OPS+ is a good stat for backing up jerichoholicninja's point above. Gantner was a slightly below-average MLB hitter in his late 20s, which is just fine for a middle infielder. He peaked at 30. After that he was consistently well below average, at the same time his defensive range was declining. He wasn't the worst player in the world, but it's hard to see how he helped the team over the last half of his career. The organization was very complacent then, and he was just dead weight that they kept around. As for Scooter, right now a Gantner-like career looks like his extreme upside to me. I greatly respect 3and2's admission that his optimism is based more on instinct than on projection, and of course there's nothing wrong with pressing an instinctive view. But right now Scooter's a guy who has barely hit .300 in the minors, who has carried an OBP at best 45 points above his BA, who has negligible power and speed, and who isn't a defensive standout at his only position. He's going to have to have a developmental leap if he's going to be any kind of MLB player.

Your argument about not rushing Morris is reasonable (though I don't think it's as obviously right as you assert), but I think your Yuni-Morris comparison is very strange. Yuni is now an old player in decline. Morris is still at an age where substantial improvement is possible. Moreover, Yuni has been absolutely horrible for a month and a half. It seems highly unlikely to me that Morris wouldn't bring appreciably more production than Yuni right now.

I'm on record as a nonbeliever. But I also know that players develop, and power is classically the latest tool to develop. He's up, and he's going to play some. Let's see what he can do, one day at a time. Today, at the plate, was one excellent day.

FWIW: I think RoCo's analysis above makes a lot of sense. One thing I disagree about is that trading Lohse in the first year of his deal would be bad precedent for future free agent signings. First, he wasn't in demand; it wasn't like we won a huge bidding war for him. Second, FA's get how the biz works. If you can negotiate a no-trade clause, fine, but if not, you're fair game. Third, players generally like moving from losing teams to winning teams. Fourth (half-joking), we shouldn't rely on signing FAs anyway. Oddly, I don't take quite the same view of Gomez. I feel like we made a different sort of commitment in extending one of our own guys. But I admit that distinction makes little sense; mainly I just don't love the idea of trading him. He's still young and likely to age well. He actually has some chance to be part of our next good team. But hey, if somebody offers us the moon . . . I would trade anybody in the bullpen in a heartbeat if it brings back any kind of useful prospect. I would put some money on the table to help get a good return for Ramirez, to "un-backload" his contract to some extent. But if he continues to play at his established level, he's worth $16m next year to a contender that needs a 3b. I'm praying for Hart's return, because if he can play, he has real value. I don't know what to think about Aoki and Gallardo. I think Gallardo will make adjustments, and RoCo's right that we shouldn't sell low. Also, even a bad team can benefit in meaningful ways by having a rotation anchor. I think a guy like that takes pressure off the rest of the staff, which is important if you're trying to break in young guys. I think Aoki, like Gomez, has a chance to stay relevant. I wouldn't push to trade these guys while they're still reasonably priced. Some of this depends on available replacements. If we think Kentrail Davis is for real, that makes it a lot easier to trade Aoki, because then we have Kentrail, Khris (who will bounce back), Schafer, and Gindl to work with.

I hate opera with a fiery passion, but Figaro must be a candidate for the most obviously perfect theme song in baseball history. Which he deserves, now that he's pitching the best game the team has seen all year (ignoring strength of opposition, anyway).

It's been about a month now since anyone added to the Betancourt discussion, but even in this disaster of a season, the Brewers' use of Yuni is pretty much the team's most glaring failure of planning and/or judgment, more of a firing offense in my view than anything else management has done. Betancourt is sixth on the team in PA at 222. Most of his playing time has come at 1b, with the other substantial chunk at 3b. He's hitting .218/.248/.374. If that isn't indictment enough, here's his story by month: 87 March/April PA: .280/.299/.549. Circa May 1 is what we call the "Thank you for being merciful, [insert deity of your choice]; I won't tempt fate again" moment. The Brewers did not get the memo. 105 May PA: .190/.229/.260. 30 June PA so far: .138/.167/.276. Of course Yuni isn't as bad as his May/June numbers, any more than he's as good as his April numbers (which still featured a horrific .299 OBP). He's probably about what his season line suggests: a .625 OPS guy. He's at .678 for his career, but he put up about a .650 line over the past two seasons, and he's likely in a natural decline stage given his age and narrow (I'm being kind) skill set. The bottom line is that what Yuni has done this season is about the most predictable thing you could imagine in nature. Yet the Brewers haven't been able to come up with a better plan than playing him -- at offensive positions. Okay, Ramirez got hurt and then Green got hurt, you're caught blind with Yuni in hand, so you put him at 3b and pray he'll have a hot power streak, and he does. I can live with April. But then you keep giving him PAs? At 1b? Knowing that he's going to crash (even if the extent of the crash is, in fairness, somewhat surprising)? That's incompetence. Oh, and while we're at it, let's put to bed the April saw that Weeks is worse than Yuni. As of now: Weeks: .211/.308./.337 Betancourt: .218/.248/.374. It isn't close, especially given the substantially greater value of OBP. Yes, Weeks has been hot and Yuni has been cold; but they're both just moving toward their predictable levels. Weeks OPS'd .728 last year, his worst number since his rookie year; for his career he's at .772. He may well be regressing at 30, but his march toward the good side of .700 is as predictable as Yuni's slide toward .600.

Fielding percentage is such a poor metric to use to grade a teams defense. It is nearly useless and doesn't really tell anything about how good or bad the teams defense is. While the Brewers are not all that great defensively their fielding percentage is rather deceptive this would be true if they were at the top of the league also in fielding percentage. If a team is at the bottom in fielding percentage and/or leads the league in errors it's generally always a bad fielding team. If you have an example one that wasn't please share it with us. Rather than demanding proof from others to verify your viewpoint, why don't you first provide information to qualify your viewpoint as more than a prejudice? Please share with us a systematic study that supports your assertion that "f a team is at the bottom in fielding percentage and/or leads the league in errors it's generally always a bad fielding team." For my part, though I can't speak for anyone else, I'd accept your premise if you could show, say, that 80 percent (an approximation for "generally always") of teams in the bottom five in MLB in errors / fielding percentage are comparably bad in something like UZR or defensive win shares. But of course you should feel free to design your study in whatever way you think will most effectively support your argument.

That's excessive hyperbole, not "simply realism," and in the context of this discussion it's nonsense. We know a lot about draft prospects, and we can draw some useful provisional conclusions based on what we know. Can we make meaningful predictions about how a draft will look after the last of these players retires? Of course not. But that's not the only thing worth doing.