gregmag

I swear to the deity of your choice, when I saw this thread topic, I wondered for a full ten seconds who Barriods was and what team he had signed with. Must be the same team that has WOAH SOLVDD at catcher. Greg.

Nobody seems to have talked about Brad Nelson in quite a while, and my sense is that we all gave up on him as a prospect some time ago. He has dropped to 41st in the Power 50. His nice game today, however, serves as a reminder that he has put together a solid season at AAA. It feels like he has been around forever, but he's only 24. I'm wondering whether anyone thinks Nelson can help the Brewers -- as a player, not as trade bait -- next year or even this year. He's a lefty with fairly strong platoon splits; we're probably going to lose Jenkins; Nelson is arguably the same kind of hitter. On the other hand, I've never heard anything good about Brad's defense in LF, so I assume there's nothing good to say; his K/BB ratio is pretty poor; and he's repeating his level. Maybe, in light of recent events, a useful starting point for comparison is Gabe Gross. What reasons do we have to think that Nelson could, or could not, do Gross' job off the bench better than Gross has done it (not just this year, when Gabe has been snakebit, but last year)? I like seeing our homegrown players succeed, but other than that I don't really have strong feelings about Nelson. It just seems like we should at least discuss whether we might be able to use a 24 year-old LH OF at AAA who's hitting with good power and is still young enough to improve. Greg.

Trading Weeks now would be, IMHO, utterly insane. Love him, hate him, or never heard of him, you don't trade a talented player while he's in the worst rut of his life. Trades are all about getting value, and Weeks is the last guy on the team for whom you could get value at this moment. As for Parra, I was on record with a man-crush before tonight, and I'm sticking to it. He's odds on either to be in the rotation next year or maybe doing Villy's gig if Villy is in the rotation. If the brain trust believes his arm will hold up, he's incredibly valuable. Plus, Griffey wouldn't necessarily be a huge upgrade. He might help, but that's not enough to justify the kind of offer we're talking about -- and you don't make trades to "make a statement." A trade wins you games or it doesn't. Greg.

It's funny -- remember when he first came up a couple of years ago, and all he could do well at the plate was draw walks and not strike out? He seems now to have the ability to do everything well, but he has to learn how to switch modes -- cream the juicy pitches, let them walk you with the lousy ones. At his age, with his talent, I think he can make that adjustment and be a heck of a hitter, but I have no idea how long it takes. Greg.

I've been feeling pretty bummed -- the one-run wins aren't sustainable, and I think we have some legitimate talent holes, plus no hitter is really hitting right now. But Danzig put everything in perspective: this is a fun year. Even beyond that, this team's strong suits are still youth and depth, so the part of my brain that wants an insurance policy against heartbreak can be pretty confident that we're likely to play a lot of important games for the foreseeable future. Greg.

I think Joe is exactly right. We may be getting contender fever -- it's just been so long since we could even talk about dumping prospects for a pitcher at the deadline, and we do have some dumpable prospects -- plus of course Sheets is hurt, and behind him our rotation this year, on balance, has looked like a bunch of #4 starters. But the problem -- a nice problem to have -- is that you really only improve our rotation if you pick up a solid #2, and those guys just aren't out there. Even if you could find a solid #3, whom do you bump? Cappy, Bush, and Suppan are capable of running off #2-type stretches for the rest of the year. Of course you could bump Vargas, so that's the tipping point. But I don't think I'd swap out Vargas for Matt Morris unless it didn't cost anything -- and it would cost a bunch. Villy and Parra, to me, are far more promising than any of the names I've heard tossed around. Even if you resolve to keep Villy in the pen, which I think makes sense, I would give Parra a couple of starts before going after the guys we're talking about. Greg.

I'm sort of in the same category as Ralph; I teach and write for a living, but about law, not literature. Still, I feel like the English background has something to do with my work. Greg.

Brian Wilson? Haven't seen him lately. Greg.

Also he is a rookie and we have seen already that rookies are very up and down on the mound. Does this really make any sense? Some rookies are just bad -- Hendrickson, Eveland. Some are very good -- Villy. Some are up and down -- Zach Jack. On the other hand, some veterans are way up and down -- Capuano, Bush, Suppan. I don't think you can make this sort of categorical statement about rookies. Call up Dillard and give him a shot. He can also catch in a pinch. Alternatively, I bet we could get Wayne Franklin back cheap. Greg.

Molitorfan beat me to the Brantley love while I was crunching his AA numbers (Brantley's, not molitorfan's): 117 PA .247 BA .309 SLG But . . . .373 OBP .316 SEC, which results from 12/1 SB/CS 20/13 BB/K. Again, he just turned 20 in May, and after an awful start with the bat at AA, he has started to improve while walking and stealing bases like a highly efficient madman. I said a while back that we should evaluate him after 150 PA, so let's check back in a week. Greg.

Damn, it feels good to add a game back to the lead. We gotta get Coco a break in here somewhere, but it's good to see we can win four close, low-scoring games in a row. Greg.

How can you possibly determine for certain that this injury was completely unrelated to other injuries. Fair point -- you can't. But nobody has even suggested any credible basis for thinking there is a connection, and I would think the people who want to stick the guy with an "injury prone" label have that burden of proof. Of course . . . The argument over weather or not Sheets is injury prone or not is stupid and really doesnt matter. Fact is hes hurt and he cant pitch. What does a bunch of know it all's on a message board arguing weather or not he's injury prone going to do to help that. . . . so I guess we should both just shut up. Sure, the youth has talent, but as tight as this pennant race is they could use some experience to stabilize them. In 4-6 weeks this 3.5 game lead could easily be a 5.5 game deficit if Capuano and Vargas don't get it together and Yo/Parra start getting tired arms. The time is NOW. Seriously, how much are guys like Moss, Escobar, Irribarren, Dillard, Nelson ever going to contribute behind Hall/Gwynn, Hardy, Weeks, Yo/CV/Parra, Hart/Fielder? Ship a couple of these mid-level guys off for a Band-Aid that can hold everything together for the next 4-6 weeks. I don't quite get this. We already have a veteran rotation, so I don't see the youth of one or even two fill-ins as inherently dangerous. I agree that all the minor leaguers you named are expendable to help with the pennant race (although I'd put Gwynn at the top of that list once Hall is back, and I'd at least feel bad about losing Escobar), but everybody else knows they're expendable too. Given the premium every team places on starting pitching, do you really think any combination of those guys could get us someone who would even have a better-than-even shot of outpitching one of the kids, let alone "hold everything together"? If so, hallelujah, but I don't see it. I think two of those guys get you a Dessens or a Vargas. A more plausible scenario, which others have suggested, would seem to be packaging some of those guys for relief help that would allow Villy (a kid, but not a rookie, which might make you happier) to slide into the rotation. But even relievers don't seem to be coming cheap. Greg.

The Power game is in the second inning, and already every WV hitter except the keystone combo of Brewer and Miller has already reached base. I mention this because the Power rock and also because I had forgotten about Miller, and being able to say "the keystone combo of Brewer and Miller" about a couple of Milwaukee minor leaguers is pretty cool. Greg.

I may be mixing up my Asian cultures here, but didn't the Chinese kind of invent the concept of face saving? If so, can anybody shed any light on how Chinese cultural norms might influence the posturing from Yi's camp and the Chinese basketball people? As in any negotiation, I'm just trying to figure out what statements on the other side actually mean. I agree that this whole thing is annoying, but I don't think that's a good basis for ragging on the kid's talent. Scouts really did seem unanimous in their praise for him, and players who inspire those kinds of uniform raves generally end up being useful. If the Bucks do resolve to trade Yi, aren't their options inherently limited, even before we start talking about who other teams might offer? Yi's going to be making rookie money, so wouldn't the Bucks either have to include another player who's making real money, settle for another '07 draftee or future draft picks, or get back a trade exception (if that's even possible)? Greg.

Given the list of injuries, I guess I can live with the 'injury prone' designation. However, given the nature of the injuries, I'd hesitate to predict future injuries because of them. I think this is exactly right. As Russ said before, deciding who's "injury prone" depends on what you mean by "injury prone." Sheets' series of injuries definitely frustrates me, but if the things that shelve him are essentially random and unrelated, I don't think I'll factor them into thinking about his next contract very much. Brian and the moderators have reigned some rants in and of course banned some people, but their vision of Brewerfan seems more inclusive of varying points of view and posting/content styles than yours. I suggest we let them set the parameters on these things. This statement strikes me as very ironic, because you're using a point about inclusiveness and expressive freedom to tell another poster what he can't or shouldn't say. The moderators have actual power to discipline people for posts they deem destructive to the community norms, and they quite wisely use that power sparingly. The rest of us have no power -- we just have opinions, and sometimes we have opinions about one another's tone, rhetoric, or attitude. Just because somebody's tone, rhetoric, or attitude is within the bounds of community norms doesn't immunize it from discussion and even criticism by other posters. By the same token, if I say you're being too critical or pessimistic -- or even ironic -- you're free to ignore me. Greg.

I've done a couple of these, and I just sort of wrote them in my head while I watched what was going on. I think it worked out okay, but I don't remember much of what I said. One sentiment that seems to amuse and please everyone -- assuming you believe it -- is to say that you always wondered if your friend would find anybody who deserved him, but after you got to know his new bride, you started worrying that he didn't deserve her. Actually, the funniest line I ever had was when my college roommate got married. During college I had urged him to go out with this girl we knew, but he never did. I ended up marrying her, and years later, she and I went through an unpleasant divorce (as opposed to all the fun ones), and shortly after that he married this very cool woman. So in my toast I gave him some crap about it -- like, Thanks for all the help. But that bit doesn't work in all situations. Greg.

why are me and dhonks the only two who didnt go to school in wisconsin? seems like this always happens... I was surprised at the in-state dominance too, but I'm in the exile club with you guys: Yale undergrad, English major; U. of Michigan for law school and a master's in public policy. During college I worked in the dining hall (I can still smell the industrial detergent, and I don't think I'm imagining it). Summers I came back to Milwaukee, worked some odd jobs, and also did some freelance concert and record reviews for the J-S (then just the J). At Michigan I was a T.A. in the policy school, and during the summers I had the requisite law gofer jobs. I haven't lived in the Midwest since law school or in Wisconsin since high school, but next June we're moving to -- of all places -- St. Louis. Greg.

Well, the Bucks' owner happens to be a U.S. Senator. Without making any judgment about whether screwing a country over his private business dealings would be ethical -- okay, obviously it wouldn't be -- I wonder whether a phone call to the ambassador could change the landscape. On a more serious note, does anybody have actual knowledge of the consequences for Yi if he doesn't come to the U.S.? I thought I heard that, if he plays for his team in China, he can't reenter the draft, but if he sits out the year he can. Is any part of that accurate? Greg.

For a LOOGY to have positive value for a team, two things have to happen. First, the team has to use him right -- use him in as nearly as possible every situation he can help you; don't let him hurt you (by facing righties). Second, whatever net value the LOOGY adds must be greater than the net value another type of extra player could add -- another bullpen righty who might just be a better pitcher overall, an extra IF or OF (or C) who could add some skill the team lacks. That second part is the thing that makes me really dubious about LOOGYs. By definition, a LOOGY is a guy who is good at getting out lefties but isn't good enough to get out righties with any regularity. The thin margin a LOOGY provides seems to me very unlikely to be the best use of a roster spot, given all the free talent that's out there. Greg.

I know some folks here get wiggy when anybody mentions the word "luck," but some things just aren't a matter of causal trends or bad character. He hurt his finger, and he had a blister before that. It isn't like his shoulder keeps breaking down, or like he has a crap conditioning routine that's resulting in predictable aches and strains. I'm only slightly less sedentary than Jabba the Hutt, and I hurt my arm typing. Sometimes stuff just happens, and all the lamenting in the world won't turn up a real reason that you can sink your teeth into. Very cool to see Parra and Balfour. I do fear Sheets' absence (and hope Spurling's family situation isn't dire), but there's at least a decent chance that this could work out well. Come on, depth! Greg.

The study, like any academic study, may or may not be worthwhile. Of course, that's a difficult judgment to make before we allow time to see whether the knowledge the study generates does any good. That's why academics study things -- to learn something we didn't know before, which may or may not save money or improve lives down the line. But leave those nuances aside. My problem with Nass' press release is that he provides no concrete basis for criticizing the study. None. Does he think it's intellectually baseless? Why? Is its purpose illegitmate? If the purpose is legitimate, is the study unlikely to advance the purpose? Nass doesn't provide the barest hint of why the study might be wasteful -- except that it sounds strange on first hearing. That's the definition of a cheap shot. A lot of politicians, like a lot more academics (hey, I am one; I'm biased), do a great deal of good for society. Many politicians don't stoop to cheap shots and political grandstanding. Nass, in contrast, appears to believe his constituents hate and fear any intellectual endeavor more abstract than a scratch-and-win lotto game. I bet he's wrong. BTW, did you notice he's the Chair of the Assembly's Standing Committee on Colleges and Universities? Good luck to the UW System. Greg.

I don't agree that Simmons is inferior -- he showed more offensive versatility in his good year than Mason ever has, and he -- like Mason -- has a strong defensive rep. He had a bad year, and then he got hurt, but he's still young enough to add some serious value. But he did get hurt, and Mason is a guy who can help the team. He can defend three positions, and the one thing he does offensively -- slash, dodge, dunk -- will give the Bucks a different kind of weapon given the other guys we have. In theory I really like a front line rotation of Bogut, Gadz, Skinner, Yi, Villanueva, Simmons, and Mason. Everyone, however, comes with big questions: Can they ever figure out how to use Gadz well? Will Skinner be enough of an enforcer? Can they sign Yi, Skinner, and Mason? Will Bogut, Villanueva, and Simmons be healthy? But if all those guys are there, we seem pretty set up front. The backcourt, though, seems a bit thin behind the starters . . . Redd, Williams, Bell if they resign him, Mason can swing to SG but can't shoot, Greer. The twelfth roster spot shakes out to be a guard if the rest of this comes together. Are they counting on Sessions to make the team, or is another FA coming? Greg.

Man I've been posting on here for 5 years now and I see there is still a mindset that average is good enough. John, your insights are often worth a lot, but please spare us this "I'm morally superior to you weaklings" bit. You're talking to a community of over 2000 people. First, that's way too big a group to stereotype as having any single mindset. Second, many people here, believe it or not, are just as smart and insightful as you. Third, everyone here (except for the visitors from elsewhere in the Central -- One Love, guys) wants the Brewers to succeed just as much as you do. When somebody suggests that the team should stick with relievers who aren't stinking up the joint, the reasonable inference to draw is that the poster is making a point about the risk-reward calculus of using somebody with a current MLB track record as opposed to somebody who has thrown some strong innings at AA or AAA. You may disagree with that person's risk-reward assessment, and FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with you in this case. But to beat on such a poster because he doesn't satisfy your macho ethos of condemning mediocrity in all its forms -- and to insult every person on this board in the bargain -- is unfair, mean-spirited, and totally unworthy of your obvious intelligence and baseball acumen. Greg.

Actually, people mostly complain about Bud Selig when Bud Selig does bad things. IMHO, he has done many bad things: running the Brewers into the ground, turning the Commissioner's Office from a somewhat independent entity into an arm of the owners, failing to get any kind of handle on the steroid problem, presiding over the dismantling of the Expos and the Loria ownership shuffle, hiring Sal Bando . . . well, that's unfair; I should really only count "running the Brewers into the ground" once. Bud has also done at least one really great thing -- bringing the Brewers to Milwaukee. He deserves great credit for that, and I think he has gotten loads of it over the years. The problem is that he did that a long time ago; over the past 15 years, he has very little about which to brag and much for which to atone. Still, I'll always raise a glass to him for his good works in 1970. If he ever cures cancer, I will certainly praise him for that too. Heck, it would almost make up for Bando. Greg.

Now if you thought he was going to come in here and be a CY young candidate than that is misguided on your behalf. Since you've decided to pronounce people "misguided," could you please point out exactly who in this discussion said they expected Suppan to be a Cy Young candidate? If you can't come up with any examples -- and I don't recall any -- then what the heck are you talking about? I think the point a lot of people are making is that a six-inning mediocre pitcher just possibly may not be worth $12 million a year. Greg.