gregmag

Why would they consider trading Hughes for Jenkins? That's just pie-in-the-sky silly. Hughes is very unlikely to go anywhere, and if he does move, it'll be in a package that includes a talent of ARod or Pujols magnitude, not Jenkins, a solid veteran player. Do you really consider Hughes that valuable, or are you offering a different assessment of how valuable you believe the Yankees consider him? Either way, while I won't try to match your characteristic flair for gratuitous name-calling, I'd say the exchange of "a talent of ARod or Pujols magnitude" for a pitching prospect, no matter how promising, is every bit as unlikely as the Yanks' undervaluing Hughes to the tune of Jenkins. When, exactly, was the last time any hitter of that quality was traded for anything, let alone a 21 year-old pitching prospect with two MLB starts who's stuck on the DL? I mean, heck, at that exchange rate, Will Inman should at least net us Derrek Lee or somebody. The reason for some of the divergent and fanciful takes on the Hughes rumor -- more plausible, I humbly submit, than "pie-in-the-sky sill[iness]" on the part of us mortals in the peanut gallery -- is that the rumor is unusually hard to understand. I don't get how the Yankees would think they could benefit by trading Phil Hughes. They aren't going to the playoffs this year; they need pitching for the future; and if he is as good as advertised, they won't get value until he has shown more at the big league level, which requires, you know, getting him off the DL . . . it's just weird, IMHO. Greg.

Parra is the one that is possible. I'd say parting with one of the 'top' guys is no big deal, especially since he's riding with high value from the Perfecto and has a significant injury history. Yes, it'd stink to see him win 15 with say Texas in 2009, but if it gets us to the WS this year, I think I can deal with it. I see your point, and when you put it that way it sounds like a no-brainer; but you're talking as if all the risk is in one direction. A lot of pitchers with significant injury histories do get injured again, but a lot of others -- Capuano is one example -- get healthy and contribute a lot. In addition, it would be a rare trade that brought us the last piece to a championship (whatever we assume that piece may be) for Manny Parra. I'll deal Parra or anyone else if somebody overpays like crazy, but I can't really imagine what that trade looks like. Adam Dunn? Maybe; I'm not sure even he would make a big enough difference to justify paying Parra as three months' rent. The case for being very reluctant to trade Parra begins with the fact that he's now no worse than eighth on the Brewers' SP depth chart, assuming you consider Villanueva a prospective starter. The more I think about it, given what can happen to SPs -- even if we do resign Sheets -- and given the fact that good SPs (especially lefties) are probably the hardest thing to find in baseball, I am very reluctant to start calling Parra a "spare part" and treating him as presumptively available in a trade. Greg.

I think maybe folks are being a little harsh about Capellan's attitude problem. He was the team's best reliever last year, he didn't do anything wrong, and he got sent down. Of course the Brewers had their reasons for cutting him (among them, the fact that being the Brewers' best reliever last year wasn't much to talk about), and of course Capellan handled it very badly. He did one thing horribly wrong, then came back and shut up and did his job. I'm not saying he should get a free pass for his actions, but I don't think he was anywhere near Sheffield territory, and I can at least understand why he was upset. Anyway, Capellan was nothing more to the Brewers at this point than another somewhat useful reliever. The trade seems like a sensible move, and as somebody said above, DM isn't one to make a deal without looking around for the best return. Greg.

Of course you're right that such judgments are subjective. But it isn't like Jack Z. said, "Our draft philosophy is to take the best college hitter available, and we believe LaPorta is that guy." In fact, that obviously isn't the Brewers' philosophy; the only other college hitter Jack Z. has taken #1 is Weeks, and by most accounts every team in baseball would have picked him in that spot. What Jack Z. said about LaPorta, more or less, was that they decided to go for an advanced hitter who could move into the lineup alongside the guys who are there now. I'm not knocking the pick at all -- I like it a lot -- but I'm not sure how you can say that isn't "drafting for need." Greg.

Not even four innings into the Nashville game, and Parra has allowed a baserunner already? So much for his renewed prospect status. Greg.

I think if the Cubs' and Brewers' positions were reversed, the national media would be pulling just as hard for the Brewers to make a race of it. Covering pennant races that end in July kind of sucks in August and September. Greg.

Maybe, but I won't buy that without more support. I didn't read any draft commentary that had LaPorta as the best hitter available at the Brewers' slot this year. He plausibly was, however, the best available hitter who would be ready to play LF in the big leagues around the time the Brewers would need a LF. As for 2005, I don't recall hearing anyone argue that Braun was simply a better hitter than Maybin or even McCutchen. Again, his position and developmental stage appear to have played into the Brewers' thinking. Of course, there were also pitchers to consider in both years, adding to the gravity against which the Brewers' choices pulled. Greg.

Al, in light of Brian's post immediately above yours, I'm curious to know exactly what constructive point you mean to add to the discussion. Are you intimating that Hancock's father is so deranged that he would sue somebody for dying? Or are you suggesting that anyone who believes multiple actors might share responsibility for a catastrophic event deserves ridicule? Just to be clear, I don't believe Hancock's lawsuit has merit, and I suspect (I use that word only because I don't know all the facts) that his son deserves the blame for the crash. But this thread has turned into an ideological soapbox for some folks here who have a particular understanding of "personal responsibility" (which in this context is every bit as politically loaded a term as "quota" or "amnesty"). I respectfully suggest that the thread should either be locked or that the moderators should invite everyone to take off the gloves and have a serious socio-political debate about what "responsibility" really does/should mean. Greg.

This topic may belong in the draft forum, but things have quieted down over there, so I thought I would post it here. Everybody says that a team should never draft a player for need. There are very good, familiar reasons for this view: both baseball prospects and teams' needs are unpredictable, so drafting for need can really burn a team. But I don't believe in the "don't draft for need" mantra quite as much as I used to. The Brewers apparently drafted Ryan Braun because they really, really wanted a 3b in that draft; I never heard any report that he was the guy they wanted regardless of position. Obviously he is working out ridiculously well so far, but even if he was only working out decently well, you couldn't really fault the Brewers. In this case, they made sound judgments both about how much they would need a 3b, compared to other priorities, and about how the player would develop at the outset. The Brewers did it again this year. Everybody knows that we're set at six positions for several years. Yes, somebody could get hurt or tail off, but those six positions are as nailed down right now as it ever gets in baseball. So the Brewers grabbed LaPorta in the first round and made very clear that they expect him to fill one of the two slots that isn't all the way set. Again, it's far from obvious that they would have drafted him in that slot if they had any holes in the defensive skill positions (other than catcher, and you know they would have grabbed an advanced C if one had been available in the first round). The Brewers have forced an exception to the rule: Don't draft for need, unless you've really done the math and think the player you're taking will turn out well enough to mute second-guessers down the road. Any thoughts? Greg.

Ye gods . . . I don't know the Milwaukee radio personalities, so for a minute I thought you meant Hoffy who used to post here. I was envisioning questions to Nichols about which Brewer farmhands were "anti-clutch." Greg.

Boyjeenius, you're right -- I only meant to take issue with your general statement; I agree that Gillespie's production is cause for concern. His secondary offensive production has been solid for most of the year, and the organization may know/see things we don't. But I look at him right now and, based on what I know, I have the same concerns you do. It would surprise me if they promoted him any time soon; I was just saying that it wouldn't be wrong for them to promote him if they believed he could handle it. Greg.

A lot of people seem to believe the present era has cheapened the 500 HR club, but I don't buy it. The present era's 500 HR guys have all been legitmately great players, even if you make big assumptions about steroids and take some air out of their numbers. You would think that, in a "cheap power" era, some middling, one-dimensional power hitters would rack up historic career HR totals, but that hasn't happened. Greg Vaughn only got to 355. Dante Bichette retired with 274. Andres Galarraga, who could play a little first base and retired at like age 97, only got to 399. Ken Caminiti, Mr. Steroid, stalled at 239. Joe Carter hit 396. Matt Williams, a hell of a 3B, stopped at 378. In fact, the worst player by far who ever approached 500 HRs retired in 1986 -- just before the first big year of the present power-heavy era. Dave Kingman hit 442 HRs with a career BA of .236 and OBP of .302. He had little defensive value for most of his career and was useless on the basepaths after he turned 24. None of the recent-current sluggers has been anywhere near that much of a lummox. In contrast, who among the recent 500 club members is a one-dimensional hack? Bonds and Thomas both probably rank among the ten greatest hitters who ever lived. Sosa got all the way to 600 -- which, granted, may overstate his ability, but it's hard to say he isn't a legit 500 guy in historic terms. McGwire was an on-base machine and a power monster for the ages. Griffey did everything well in his prime. Then you think about the recent guys who *didn't* quite get to 500 -- Bagwell was a great, great player; McGriff, Canseco, and Juan Gonzales were very good, far better and more well-rounded than Kingman. The active guys likely to get to 500 are Alex Rodriguez, Thome, Manny Ramirez, Sheffield, Piazza, Delgado, Vlad Guerrero, and Atlanta's Jones brothers. Every one of those guys has been great at one or more things other than mashing -- hitting for a high average, playing great defense, running the bases. Andruw Jones is by far the worst of the group, and I don't think he'll be a historic embarassment if he makes the 500 club. Of the others, I would say only Delgado needs to hit 500 to get to the Hall of Fame; you could make a case that Thome does as well, but I don't think so. Bottom line: I don't think you can fairly say that the present era has cheapened the meaning of 500 HRs. Greg.

Nobody wants to take any responsiblity for anything they do anymore. You mean like bartenders who serve people dangerous amounts of alcohol in order to make more money? Greg.

Bill James, I believe, called Biggio the best player of the 1990s, or at least the best player in baseball for a significant chunk of the 1990s. He's an easy first-ballot HoFer. He didn't need 3000 hits, and I wish he had retired on a higher note. Greg.

This isn't T-Ball where everyone gets a trophy. This is playin' with the big boys. Produce or get passed up by someone else. I don't see minor league promotion as a reward; I see it as a player development issue. Production matters to the extent it convinces the organization that you're ready for the developmental challenge of the next level. If the organization looks at everything they know about Gillespie's ability -- his overall skill set, history, age, and the bite the FSL is taking out of him -- maybe they conclude he's ready to take on AA, or maybe not. In any event, it isn't all about batting averages, and it isn't remotely about macho platitudes. Look at it this way: if they promote Gillespie now, and he ends up having a great career with the Brewers, will you hold against him or the team that he was hitting .230 when he got promoted? Greg.

People have been talking about trading Hart, trading Hall . . . I don't get it at all. We're set, possibly for years, at six positions. That's what you try to achieve, as an organization. I wouldn't trade any of those six guys unless I had an immediate strategy for restoring the position I was trading or unless the gain at another position -- the rotation, say -- was big and obvious. Hall plus prospects for a Jake Peavey? Sure, you figure out a way to shore up CF; but obviously nobody on the other side wants to make a deal like that. Hall for Hughes? Not even close. Our young regulars are simply worth more to us for the foreseeable future than they are to anyone else. Now, Jenkins for Hughes . . . that might actually make sense for both teams, at least as the Yankees measure "sense." That deal, though, would run the risk of hurting the offense this year, so I think we would at least have to have a reasonable stopgap LF plan in mind. Greg.

I'm glad people brought up Hall's community service, because he really does seem like a terrific human being. He has also obviously worked very hard in his career to improve his game as much as he has, and this year to learn a new position. I don't think you can reasonably question his work ethic or his overall attitude. That said, I haven't gotten to see the games, but it sounds like the standing around at the plate thing is a real problem. It's just what it is, maybe a quirk, whatever, but he can't do that. Excellent person, hard worker, just please -- with all due respect -- run out those fly balls. Greg.

aracko, isn't it kind of odd to defend Mench as the best RH platoon LF we have on the team right now when he's the only guy who is being given the chance to do that job right now? In fact, he is hitting .298/.302/.440 against lefties this year, which is pretty bad for a platoon guy; he's basically Johnny Estrada against the small population of guys he's supposed to hit. He has hit lefties well historically, but some of that was the Ballpark in Arlington, and he appears to be in decline. So there's absolutely nothing irrational or precipitous about considering other options, and Graffy is an interesting one. Aside from the difficulty of learning a new position, though, we probably want to keep him in his present role because he's valuable in it; the PAs that he has used to redeem himself have come from somewhere. Greg.

I've been among those who isn't so high on TGJ as a prospect, relative to the Brewers' other options, but what a cool guy he seems to be. How many players get sent down to AAA and say they don't want to mess up the AAA club's outfield rotation? Then he volunteers that he has to work on his patience at the plate, and in the next article he's talking up his team's defense and locking in behind the perfect game expert. Gwynn the elder always seemed like one of the classiest people in baseball, and he obviously brought his son up the same way. Greg.

Lithium, I have no love for Boras, but I have to take issue with your post on a few levels. First, I'm sure I'm not the only lawyer on the board who can tell you war stories about complicated negotiations over contractual language. Language is what a contract is, and a contract where this kind of money changes hands has a lot of language in it, all of which means something to one party or the other. Second, why do you assume the fault here lies with Boras? Maybe Boras told the Brewers exactly what LaPorta wanted, and the Brewers needed time to run it through their legal, financial, and baseball filters. As in any sports negotiating relationship, ownership is the party with a complex corporate structure, not the player. Third, before I accept that anything players or their reps ever did is "the worst thing to happen to sports, ever" (and I'd nominate strikes and foot-dragging on drugs ahead of Boras), I'll have to get past the decades of the reserve clause, hijacking cities for stadium boondoggles, and the color line -- all the work of ownership. I don't see that happening any time soon. Greg.

I hadn't looked back at Mickey Brantley's stats until Sickels linked to them. What's odd is how different father and son appear to be as players. Mickey, presumably drafted out of college, didn't start in pro ball until he was 22; Mike is (for the moment) in AA at 20. Mickey's low OBP, despite some adequate batting averages, was his undoing as a player; Mike is an OBP machine. MIckey, as Sickels pointed out, had decent power; Mike, to this point, doesn't. Both guys did hit for good averages in the minors and had some speed, although son appears to be ahead of father in both of those categories. Obviously it's too early to know what kind of MLB player, if any, Mike is going to be, but the contrasts with his dad to this point are interesting. With a little luck, Mike will turn out to be Mickey with a .400 OBP and a steeper development curve. Greg.

This sort of debate has started to come up in other discussions, but I think it deserves its own thread. Other things being equal, which of the Brewers' minor leaguers would you be most and least willing to trade to upgrade the team now? Obviously anything would depend on who the Brewers got in return, but what I'm getting at is which minor leaguers do you think are worth relatively more as potential Brewers, and which ones do you think are worth relatively more as trade bait, assuming they could net someone who seriously upgraded the team this year? Who are your presumptive untouchables, your "don't mortgage the future" guys, now that we have graduated (for the moment, at least) our undisputed big two? Whom would you bet against? Right now, I could imagine trading any pitching prospect other than Jeffress. Inman is special, but as Peavey argued in another thread, pitching prospects are volatile, and he could really bring something. Jeffress hasn't established as much as Inman, but that means in part that he hasn't established trade value. Right now, at this moment, I doubt anyone would offer anything for him that would justify a trade. No position player in the high minors (AA/AAA) is close to untouchable. If someone wants to give us something good for Gwynn, Moss, Palmisano, or Rottino, bring it on. I would rather not part with Brantley, but that's just me; Escobar, although tantalizingly young, is someone I would consider dealing. The low minors is where things get interesting. Salome would be hard to part with, given the Brewers' need at catcher. Brent Brewer is the Jeffress of position players -- too much upside to part with, too little track record to get much back. Cain is likely to get a lot better than his numbers look now, which makes him a bad trade gamble. Bottom line: I don't see anyone in the minors now as so close to helping the Brewers that I wouldn't trade him (although I can see pogokat's argument that Inman is such a player, and you could make a case for Parra). What we have, mostly, is a bunch of promising guys in the low minors who are a bit hard to handicap against one another. I wouldn't want to trade more than a couple of those guys total, but with the exceptions above, I'm fairly agnostic about which couple. Greg.

Al, you make a fair point, but here's how I'm thinking about it: (1) The Brewers' ideal should be to have a championship-caliber rotation, not just a good enough rotation to win the NL Central. (2) Three of our five starters have shown pretty serious warts this year. (3) Putting Villanueva in the rotation would open up a huge hole in the bullpen, plus he conceivably could fail as a starter. (4) Putting Gallardo in the rotation might not be realistic, either because (as you have argued) he'll have a big challenge adjusting to MLB or because of durability considerations. Despite all that, I did conclude in my earlier post that I don't think improving the rotation by trade is realistic. But I don't think you can look at the performance of our rotation to date and be satisfied. No one has really stepped up and pitched like a #2, and we'll need that in the playoffs. Moreover, Suppan's peripherals over the past few years suggest that he has little margin for error, and his recent performance could reflect a real decline. Greg.

I don't understand the calls to improve the outfield situation. Hall's bat plays very well in CF; in LF it's nothing special. Menchkins hasn't been a perfect solution in LF, but it's unrealistic to think we could improve over their performance via trade, and Jenkins has proved he's still capable of going on a tear. Gwynn has not come close to providing any evidence that he's ready to play regularly. I can see trying to upgrade over Mench as the RH platoon guy or Gross as the 4th OF (although I think he'll be fine in that role), but even there I'm not sure what you're going to be able to find. We could use some help in the bullpen. I have no use for Shouse, and as Brian has pointed out, Wise is fragile. But Villanueva seems to be filling the role of a guy who can give you both high-leverage innings and a lot of innings, and as for the LOOGY problem, we have internal options at AAA that I'd rather try before, say, giving up two of our top ten prospects for some guy who has had two good 50-inning seasons in the last four. The part of the team that I'm most worried about, actually, is the starting rotation. Capuano has been inconsistent and is hurt. Bush has been wildly inconsistent and more bad than good. Suppan looks like he's in a death spiral. I think Capuano will get it together, plus he's a lefty, so he would have to get pretty awful before replacing him became a good idea. Of the other two, I actually have more confidence in Bush long-term, and he's been trending better lately. Suppan right now seems like the weakest link, but with his contract you can't take him out of the rotation. So realistically, the only candidate for replacement by trade is Bush, and again, I'm not sure who we could realistically get who's a good bet to pitch better over the rest of the season. (You could also trade Vargas, of course, but he has hardly been a weakness to this point.) Bottom line: I don't think there's a great chance of improving this team via trade, as things stand now. Greg.

Mea culpa. Jack Z says in the J-S story today that LaPorta will play first for the AZ Brewers, albeit very briefly. It's only fair to assume that Tom H. knew about that plan when he wrote the earlier story. Greg.