gregmag

Thanks to Derek Miller, Luis Pena, and Mike Brantley for the only bright spot of one of the most cringe-inducing, train wreck moments in the history of Brewer fandom. Miller, right now, looks on target to start next year in Nashville . . . he has given up way too many jacks, but everything else looks solid, and his strong left hand will keep getting him chances. Mike Brantley, if I'm counting right, now has exactly 150 PAs at AA, so it's a fair time for an initial evaluation. I think he has justified the promotion; he's done everything well except hit for power: .278/.387/.325, 14/2 SB/CS, 23/18 BB/K, and the portion of his OBP attributable to BA has risen steadily. He needs to add power and/or play some CF to get to the next level, but time is very much on his side, at least where the power is concerned. Greg.

This day has been like . . . you have to look for shelter, and the only shelter is in West Virginia and below. I've never been so depressed, organization-wide; I'm emotionally invested in Helena, for God's sake. Greg.

This is a huge freaking relief, and I'm incredibly happy for Salome, given the alternatives. Plus, if he has to lose time at work, at least he gets to spend it with his new baby. The new part that could be tough for him now, though, is that the whole world knows he has ADHD and takes meds for it. For some people, that feels like a shameful secret, even though it shouldn't be. So -- because we've been discussing it here -- I just want to say that I hope Angel knows that half the world takes some kind of medication for a psychological or neurological condition, and although it sucks to lose a measure of your privacy, nobody whose opinion matters cares. I can't wait to have him back, and I hope he has fun with his baby in the meantime. Greg.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we just hurt our SP depth in the minors by trading Inman, so we have to be very careful about trading from our SP "strength." If you look at the depth chart, based on rough likelihood of opening next year in the rotation: Sheets Capuano Gallardo Bush Suppan Vargas Villanueva Parra Jack Squat. That's nice, 1-8. But maybe Parra can't start, and/or maybe they need Villy to at least start the year in the pen, which is obviously less important than the rotation but he's proven in that role. If both of those things happen, even if you still count one of those guys as the "sixth starter," your tradeable surplus is down to one. I'm pretty sure the next name on the list is Zach Jackson, who doesn't inspire tons of confidence. Greg.

What are you talking about Greg? Look who actually wrote what you quoted before spouting off. TheCrew, I apologize. I was cutting and pasting from different posts, and I put the wrong name to the wrong post. I looked; I just got it wrong, and my frustration probably made me sloppier. My mistake, and again, I'm sorry. I'm done with this thread. It's making me stupid. Greg.

I like the trade a lot more for the Brewers when you hear vet pitchers like Trevor Hoffman and Jake Peavy bash the Padres for trading him, as they were both quoted publicly yesterday. I'm not saying Peavy and Hoffman are wrong, but veteran ballplayers always prefer veteran ballplayers, especially guys they've played with for a while. I don't really see why so many Brewers fans are hating this trade. TheCrew, if you really don't see the opposing point of view after all these posts, then you're either blind or disrespectful. I'm not saying you have to agree with those of us who don't like the trade -- you can disagree with every word we've written, and you may be right. But to act, after all this discussion, like there aren't even two reasonable sides to consider . . . I don't have words. Greg.

Okay, what I want to know is, when is the last time -- anywhere in professional baseball -- that a catcher hit two triples in a game? Anderson de la Rosa did it last night for B.C., doubling his total of the last year and a half. Greg.

if Inman is going to get a mulligan for those bad games due to the mono It's not really about "giving him a mulligan." If we were talking about whether Inman deserves a Southern League pitching award or something, then of course those games count. But the issue here is using minor league performance to predict major league performance. The (apparent) fact that Inman had mono is a pretty important part of that predictive judgment. It's useful to look at his post-mono numbers because, if that's what caused his problems, it's a genuine aberration that skews the predictive value of his stats. As a lot of people have said, predictions are dicey. Of course, that's true for major leaguers too; Linebrink's peripherals have fallen off enough to raise legitimate concerns. But of course Geno's right to say that Linebrink very well could recover his form. The thing is, there are also pretty good reasons to believe Inman could be, in a year, exactly what he has been for the past two years: Gallardo 2.0. Look at Hendrickson and Eveland. Yes, minor league numbers don't always translate. But -- I can't remember, but I think I'm repeating myself -- Hendrickson had no fastball, and Eveland had conditioning problems and, BTW, is still plenty young to have a good or great career. The trick with minor league performance is to understand how it translates into major league success -- not just to say that minor leaguers sometimes fail, so we should just ignore their minor league performances. The big knock on Inman, as Al and others have discussed, is that shorter RHPs don't tend to dominate in the bigs. There's also another good reason not to trust young pitching prospects -- they get hurt, a lot, and Inman does have injury in his past. All of that said, the recent Brewer minor leaguer Inman most closely resembles, by far, is Gallardo. Take a look at what they both did at Brevard -- the numbers could easily be two years in a single pitcher's career. Their ages for levels also tracked. This doesn't prove Inman will be Gallardo, by a longshot (and hell, Gallardo himself could still fall off or flame out). But he gets the same kinds of results -- strikes guys out, doesn't walk guys, limits the home run -- and since the mono, he has adjusted well to AA at a very young age. That's not just random noise that we can ignore, IMHO; it's meaningful evidence that he could be very, very good. He has much better credentials, taking scouting and numbers into account, than Hendrickson, and I'd say appreciably better credentials than Eveland. I can't think of any other Brewer pitching prospect since Sheets and Neugebauer (you don't even have to say it), aside from Gallardo, who has been in the same category -- refined, getting results, and on track to make the majors within a year. Greg.

I second that. In fact, many tabletop items and pocket electronic devices don't play baseball, at least not very well. I'm reliably assured, however, that the iPhone can cover some serious ground in center field. Greg.

But greg it's about making the playoffs now, not worrying about the rotation in 2009/2010. No -- it's about both; it's always about both. It becomes a question of percentages. I would happily overpay right now in expected future success for expected present success. At some point, though, the degree of overpayment becomes absurd. Ryan Howard is a better hitter right now, IMHO, than Prince Fielder. I'm sure the Phils would give us Howard for Fielder. Do you make that trade because it helps us now, even though it almost certainly hurts us in two years? Greg.

A lot of folks have made some very good points about why this trade makes sense. I'm still not convinced, but I appreciate all the smart thoughts. On the point that a lot of people have made, that we wouldn't have had room for Inman anyway: If Inman does turn out to be Yo caliber, or a tick below, we'd have room. Remember, we're on the hook to Suppan for a ton of money; we have to resign Sheets; Cappy is about to get expensive; Bush will get expensive soon; and Parra hasn't shown yet that he can start (although I'm optimistic). Maybe Inman doesn't make it, but if he does, there's no way he's blocked here. Also, I think a lot of folks are dismissing Inman's minor league performance a bit too easily. He isn't Hendrickson; Hendrickson had no fastball. He isn't Eveland; Eveland had conditioning issues. He's a command/makeup monster with decent stuff who had moved quickly through the system and, with the exception of his first couple of AA starts, pitched like a Yo clone. He's a season away from being ready. A guy like that is a lot more valuable than getting to roll the dice on a comp pick. Greg.

We are in a pennat race, we dont need prospects anymore. We are usually the ones selling players now were adding proven veterans. Please get over it. Good God, if one more person tells people who dare to disagree with him to "get over it" -- geez. Please get over yourself, preferably somewhere far away, and learn to spell "pennant" while you're there. For the umpteenth time, nobody (that I've seen) objects to this trade on the ground that we categorically shouldn't trade prospects. I love trading prospects. I'd trade my mom if she was a prospect. I'd even trade her for relief help, really. But if she was my top prospect, I wouldn't trade her and two other less-beloved-but-still-useful members of my immediate family for somebody's castoff grandma. "We dont [sic] need prospects anymore . . ." Right, because we don't want to compete after this year, and we certainly don't want to be able to make good trades when they come up. Hey, you know what? Let's throw away all our money too! We already have stuff, so we don't need money! Greg.

I think the people that don't like this deal are being really shortsighted. Making the playoffs is a financial windfall for teams. I think the people that don't like this deal don't buy your unstated premise -- hey, I wouldn't state it either -- that Scott Linebrink will make the difference in getting the Brewers to the playoffs. If that's "shortsighted," then taking the long view is overrated. Inman was complete trash in AA Actually, no; Inman was complete trash for two starts in AA, when he supposedly had mono and at the very least had adjustment jitters. You could count his bad starts in his pro career on your hands, and those were two of them. If you want to play that game, then we just traded away a guy who has been "complete trash in AA" for a guy who has been complete trash on the road away from his home cavern this year, with the difference being that the guy we traded is on the way up and the guy we got may very well be on the way down. Look, to put this in perspective, I don't like pitching prospects. They get hurt, they flame out, they break your heart. Will Inman isn't a Brewer any more? Yawn. But loads of other people, many of whom run major league organizations, love pitching prospects, so don't tell me we traded Inman for 25 innings of Matt Wise, Gold Edition and a chance to draft another pitching prospect who, if we're really lucky, might turn into Will Inman. Greg.

Suppan is an albatross. Yes, Capuano and Bush have both had rough patches this season, but they've both righted themselves. More importantly, they've righted themselves because they have the talent to do so -- they can both strike some people out. I have no idea where Suppan's next good start is coming from, because I don't see what he does that is supposed to get major league hitters out. What a great meritocracy baseball is. Suppan, who even in the offseason profiled as our third starter at best and just as likely our fourth, got a massive payday because his contract came up at the right time. Now that he's killing us, the team can't remove him from the rotation because he's making such big money. Where, in those intertwined thought processes, are we supposed to fit the idea that your best pitchers get to pitch and that if somebody isn't cutting it, and you have plausible alternatives, you give them a shot? Greg.

Hmmmm sounds like Francisco Cordero before we got him from Texas. Right -- it's good when we acquire guys who have been pitching badly. That guarantees that they're good. Also, if they drown, they aren't witches. Greg.

I can't get over how in love with minor league baseball some of you are. This team desperately needed a stabilizing bullpen arm, one that knocks everyone save for Cordero, down one rung. We haven't been to the playoffs in 25 years and we're gonna sit on our hands? Either that or live this fantasy where we trade nothing but B and C level prospects for talent that will actually help us. Nice job Dougie, now go get some more if you can. Well, then, work harder to get over it -- people can be into whatever they want. Also, I hate when people make reasoned, intelligent criticisms of a trade and somebody has to come back and berate them as if they're criticizing the very concept of making a trade. Did you see anyone make that argument? Did you even bother to read what people wrote? But if you insist that everyone has to see the world exactly as you see it, then try this on: We just traded by far our best minor league chip. This trade is as good as it gets. So "Dougie" may not be able to do whatever it is you want him to do -- go get Jermaine Dye or whomever -- because he just emptied most of our bank. Greg.

Russ, I'm not saying Balfour isn't good. I'm saying that the chance that he isn't good is unacceptably high for the Brewers in present circumstances. I'm also not saying that we should always draw this conclusion based on a pitcher's having thrown three poor innings (any more than I was high on Gwynn after 30 pretty good PAs, and I wish you would stop attributing every point made by anyone who questions your wisdom to everyone who disputes one of your positions). I'm saying that I haven't seen three innings this bad since at least Turnbow's meltdown last year, and that sort of extreme information, when the team is engaged in the baseball equivalent of defusing a bomb, warrants something more than a mere playback of the "small sample, ignore it" mantra. I'm a little frustrated by the fact that you keep coming back with the same refrain, without even considering the possibility that there may be other angles from which to view the situation. I actually do understand your premise very well -- I've studied statistics too -- so you don't have to keep repeating it like I'm an inattentive child. Danzig made the point that Balfour may be failing to control his emotions. If that's accurate -- and it seems plausible to me -- it could be an explanation. It's not a question of statistical noise. It's the same way if a guy is hurt: you don't send him out to pitch 15 times with a torn ACL so that you can have a sufficiently large sample to conclude he can't pitch. Maybe Yost can conclude that Balfour's over his frenzy, or maybe Grant took up yoga yesterday, or got counseling. If so, then we may be back to the situation you reflexively presume we're in: a guy with great stuff who, for no discernible reason, had a couple of bad outings. If so, then my reaction is moot. But I think the burden of persuasion is on Balfour to show Yost that nothing systematic is wrong with him, and until we hear (or see) that he has done so, I'll have more doubts than I want to have in a pennant race, when we have other options. Greg.

This year a lone, there's maybe a half dozen examples of Brewer players being grossly over rated or under rated based on a handful of AB or IP. A couple players have been been both under rated AND over rated already this year. That's immaterial. Some here have judged some players too quickly, so those (not all the same people, BTW, a point you elide) who would give up on Balfour are judging him too quickly? That just doesn't follow. Anyway, I agree with you that we can't write Balfour off for future usefulness in MLB. I just think we should cut bait on him in Milwaukee this year, because -- to put it in at least colloquially statistical terms -- he has established too high a probability that he's no good for the Brewers to tolerate in a pennant race. It's a small sample, but it is a sample, and sometimes extremity trumps sample size. Let's say you're trying to determine the temperature of an object about which you know nothing. You touched it yesterday, and it burned your hand to a crisp. You touch it again today, with your remaining hand, and it burns that one to a crisp. Aren't you justified in reaching, if not a precise temperature estimate, at least the conclusion that you shouldn't try tomorrow with your foot? Greg.

Nix could not be a 5th OF right now. You can't get on base 28 percent of the time and help a major league team. Even a defensive specialist has to log some plate appearances. So he was rushed? Right, and Nelson got hurt, and Dickie Thon got beaned. They are what they are, and unfortunately they don't get do-overs. Right now I don't see Nelson as much better than Nix, because he would get on base maybe 30 percent of the time, which of course is still unacceptable, and play lousy defense (although he would hardly be the only LF who can't play any defense). But Nelson, unlike Nix, is young enough that some improvement is at least possible. Nelson could, maybe, if he eats his Wheaties and everything breaks right, get his OBP up to .325. With his power, that would make him useful in the right situation (which is, concededly, probably in the AL as a platoon DH). Anyway, my last post wasn't about Nelson's virtues, such as they are. I was simply disagreeing with the suggestion that Nix had any value. Greg.

BC, I have to disagree with you about Nix. He's 26, has almost 600 major league PAs, and has a .277 OBP. That's not injury -- that's an utter inability to get on base. I understand that you aren't saying he'll develop in to a regular; you're saying that he's proved he can do a couple of things very well, and you're right. But he has also proved that he's so terrible at the single most important thing position players do that his other skills are worthless. Even a bench player can't hide a .277 OBP -- and that's his level; imagine if he had a bad year. Nelson's problem is his OBP too, but he projects at this moment to be merely awful, not horrifying. Greg.

I'd say there's still some hope for Grant to turn it around. You're right, of course -- we can't make a judgment about his ultimate level of ability based only on these two games. But I don't think we can wait and hope for him to turn it around here, now. We have other options. As Brett, I think, said -- cycle through the guys who look like they can help. The ones that show something get more chances. Greg.

I realize he's been about as bad as you could imagine but judging a guy solely by 3 IP isn't exactly fair. He did great in AAA and I'd guess the scouts like his stuff as well. If Melvin can trade for a better guy, great. Otherwise, I can't see giving up on him already. This is very rational, but in this case I don't think it's right. Sometimes a player's performance is so extreme that it becomes fair to judge him -- and, in strictly the baseball sense of course, execute him -- based on results. Balfour has absolutely blown two opportunities in the middle of a pennant race. I would never say this about a guy who just pitched poorly his first two times out, but Balfour was bad almost beyond redemption. He wasn't good, or even passable, for five seconds of those three innings. Like I said, it's an extreme case, but I've seen enough. Greg.

He's probably a better pitcher than he has shown, but you don't get to blow your first two chances during a pennant race that egregiously and stick around. Greg.

I agree with you guys about the profile, and I don't have any good ideas of my own, but I have to dissent on both Giles and Sanders. Giles is 36 and hasn't hit for any power this season or last. He still walks, but his power outage makes him a well below-average hitter for a LF. Sanders is 39, and while he has played well when healthy, 40 year-old OFs are almost never the answer to any question worth asking. Greg.

i wouldn't say "Turnbow took steroids" is a false statement. If last week you ate an oatmeal-raisin cookie, but we didn't figure out until today that's what it actually was, it does not mean that you did not eat an oatmeal-raisin cookie. But we aren't talking here about "figuring out" the essence of something; we're talking about an altered legal definition. The Turnbow accusation is more like saying "I traveled to the Republic of Armenia in 1985." That's a false statement, because there was no Republic of Armenia in 1985. There was the same land, and the same people (give or take) -- the same essence of the thing -- but the legal designation was critically different (it was part of the U.S.S.R., for the non-Armenians out there). But even if we were talking about the essence of the thing, the statement "Turnbow took a steroid" would be more than just semantically imprecise. As it happens, I took a steroid this morning. It's a nasal spray I was prescribed for allergies. If you described my action, in the context of my hypothetical major league baseball career, by saying "He takes steroids," that wouldn't just be a fudge; it would be a malicious slander. Either way, if people want to "get huffy" about the Turnbow accusation, I think they have good reason, especially on a board where a lot of us get more than huffy about stuff like Gwynn vs. Gross on a daily basis. Greg.