MJLiverock

I'd have more confidence in Narveson than Capuano as the 5th starter at this point. Cappy would be fine for depth but as others have mentioned he probably wants a shot at more than emergency starter/bullpen long relief. He may or may not have a better offer out there but he may want to test the market more and see if someone will offer up a shot in the rotation. I would have my doubt about counting on him for 150 innings but you never know.

I agree that Betancourt really is not a good player but given the alternatives out there he may just be the SS for the Brewers by default. He is getting paid either way and there really isn't a lot of reason to pay some other stiff a few million to be barely an better if at all. The list of available players is not impressive. Izturis? Wasn't there an article just a couple years ago pointing him out as the worst player in all of baseball? The marginal upside of these guys over Betancourt probably falls within the margin of error of any projection. The whole list looks like a comparison of a bunch of guys at the bottom of the league at their position any of whom could be the dead last worst player in a given year considering the age and/or limited skills to begin with for these guys.

Hardy was just traded again for basically nothing so although people like to romanticize Hardy he just doesn't seem to have a lot of value in trades. Gomez can play excellent Defense in CF and can run like the wind, I'd take him over Dickerson as a 4th OF. Dickerson was not impressive at all in CF defensively or offensively.

Or a guy who relies on location and speed changes can last for years without a big fastball a la Hoffman, Moyer, Maddox types vs a guy who just tries to blow it by batters and relies on th not catching up to his mistakes. That power arm that loses a couple mph suddenly becomes very hittable with bad location or straight as a string fastballs in the low 90's.

I just want to say you know you are on a message board that likes stats and has people so interested in the team that a recently acquired pitcher's college batting line including OPS makes it's way into the conversation. Bravo for digging that up.

Interesting Twins fan take on the trade http://www.twinkietown.co...s-imminent?ref=fangraphs

Splitter, I don't think we are disagreeing on anything. I think Melvin does consult or get permission from Mark A prior to bog contracts. What I don't put a lot of stock in is the idea that Mark A. Makes Melvin go out and sign player X

Given the Brewer's poor track record in harnessing power arms with questionable control I'd give up one of Jeffress or Rogers for 3 years of Garza. The first couple years of Jeffress or Rogers are likely to be limited innings well below the 185 to 200 a guy like Garza in his prime would provide. Not to mention all the ups and downs as command struggles, learning curve, injury risk, etc.

Agh the old it's not Melvin's fault he has made poor decisions it is Mark A. Or it makes perfect sense that the GM of a small market team, or any team for that matter, would need to talk to the owner about going over budget. Even Cashman has mentioned having to talk to the big Stein before some of their monstrous offers.

Same could be said about a team constructed of all the guys with the best UZR as well.

Paul253 you just hit on my biggest fear for the keep Prince for the picks scenario. Some big money team like the Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Mariners, even Orioles, could suck next year and sign Prince and have their first rounder protected.

The Brewers problem for the past few years hasn't been filling back of the rotation guys, they have had a rotation full of them. No thanks to more. Corriea can't keep his ERA under 5 outside of PETCO or ATT Ballpark.

The mystery team is probably just an imaginary team to get the Yankees to pony up a few more million or add some years.

TooLive, that article just made me think of the HBO show East Bound and Down. You think McClung has a jet ski parked in the front lawn somehwere?

Yahoo has a nice list of the free agents ranking them according to some arbitrary method but a nice list and blurb on guys. http://sports.yahoo.com/m...p-freeagenttracker110810

So if you sign you become an indentured servant that must keep toiling away as long as the team needs a body to fill a roster spot somewhere? It was pretty obvious he wasn't going to make it to the majors and clear the Brewers weren't going to get the future player they hoped for. Why force a player you don't need or really want to keep playing just because of a sunk cost like a bonus? Seems petty. There is always risk in paying a bonus upfront and more often than not in baseball it doesn't pan out but high draft picks get them because they don't make squat until they reach the majors and even then only a token amount relative to veterans until they reach arby. That is the trade off the union and owners agreed to. Nothing about paying back bonuses if a guy stinks, fails, washes out, gets hurt, quits, gets old, is blocked, goes crazy, etc. Just like the players don't get another bonus if they turn out to be Pujols or Braun and reach the majors quickly and tear the cover off the ball.

Again no one is saying the team needs to have everyone running the bases on the first move. Use the tools of the guys with the speed, that is all. I'm not sure I follow Greeg point about the A's. an 80% success rate is pretty good and add value. There is such a thing as being too risk averse and "giving away" outs by getting caught stealing isn't bad if you are successful 80% of the time. These steals also avoid outs in double plays and allow a single to score a run which is why that 70% success rate matters.

Just for fun I grabbed a year in Fangraphs and picked 1987 without looking at any other years. In 1987 the average NL team attempted 217 steals and was successful 154 times or 71%. In 2010 the average NL team attempted 127 steals and was succuesful 81 times or 71% Attempted steals have dropped by over 40% on average despite the success rate still being at the acceptable level. I would guess some of that had to to do with the explosion in HR's in the 90's and 00's. As baseball cracks down on PED's the running game may become more in vogue as the HR's drop. In 1987 the average NL team hit 152 HRs and scored 731 runs. In 2010 the average NL team hit 150 HRs and scored 700 runs. Granted this isn't a full blown regression but I would expect the HR rate to regress toward the older levels like 2010 did rather than remain as high as they were when guys were jacking 60+ with regularity. Teams looking for an edge may well be looking at speed as a way to increase the runs scored. Even with 4 more teams diluting the pitching talent in 2010 vs. 1987 the runs scored were 31 less per team on average which is interesting in a single year comp.

Being open to stealing a base or using the speed of the team doesn't mean constantly running into outs. Stealing a base is a calculated risk and hopefully a manager can see that. Having guys like Gomez, Escobar, Weeks, Cain on the team who have used their speed as a tool all through their careers suddenly chained to first base last year was not an optimal use of their talent. It isn't the end of the world if a guy gets thrown out once in a while, odds are he was going to get stranded at first anyway. If the speed guys can steal at a 70%+ success rate that seems to make sense to use that speed. I don't think anyone would advocate having Casey McGehee or LuCroy with constant green lights. Moneyball was about identifying undervalued attributes or talents. Speed and the stolen base seem to be the latest undervalued tool. Everyone gets caught up in giving away outs while ignoring the success rate and halo effect of having a dangerous running game. Catchers haven't had to worry about a wild running game and probably have regressed in their ability to stop the running game. Plenty of pitchers have never had to worry much about their time to the plate. All of these adjustments will have some impact. Looking at the catchers who caught more than 335 innings last year or about 23% of their teams's innings, (picked because it covers about 35 games each or 20% of the games) the average success rate of the steal was 72%. That is the average not just the guys who are actually good at stealing vs. the pool of catchers. That tells me the catching pool isn't really all that great at throwing guys out. Yadier Molina is pretty good, only giving up a 51% success rate, but if the Cubs want to keep putting Soto back there for his bat then make them pay by taking advantage of the 78% success rate of stealing on him. Koyie Hill allowed an 82% success rate. Even the Phillies who are preceived as a HR hitting, top offense, were 4th in the league in stolen bases and were successful 83% of the time. Using the right guys to steal, even if you have some bashers on the team can be a boost to the offense. Looking at the total stolen base numbers is pretty amazing that a team like Philly was 4th with only 108 steals, 129 attempts. This is where I ge the idea that the steal is undevalued, teams barely even try anymore despite the evidence that catchers really aren't all that great at throwing guys out.

I like it. Someone new, comes with a good background managing and coaching at different levels and a former player. I like the idea of getting more aggressive with some players on the basebaths, speed is a weapon if utilized right. I don't get the automatic apprehension or hatred of the steal or hit and run. Sure if you are getting thrown out half the time it hurts but being successful does put pressure on the defense and honestly I think catchers have gotten worse over the years as emphasis on the steal has slipped. Make teams think twice about putting that rag armed catcher back there because of his bat. Guys like Escobar, Gomez, Cain, Weeks, should use their speed. Even Braun and Hart have had some success on the bases. No one is saying bunt all the time or steal all the time but there is a lot of room upwards from the last couple of seasons. I have to agree with the posters saying tying ticket sales to a manger hire is pretty weak. I can't think of a single time anyone has ever mentioned going to a game to see the manager or even really expected a team to be much better because so and so was hired or not. I would even wager most casual ticket buyers don't even know who Bobby Valentine is or if they do they just know him as a guy on ESPN if they can even remember which talking head is which. I know I lose track of who on TV for which channel and I follow baseball more than the average fan.

Dodged two bullets if I remember correctly. Didn't the Yankees try to pawn off Cabrera for Cameron a couple years ago?

Giants Ranger Worl Series, no Yanks or Phillies, Badgers over Iowa, Packers over Vikings, Bears lose, Notre Dame loses, couldn't ask for much more in a fall weekend.

I thought I saw something about it last, thanks for the details

Didn't the Blue Jays hire Farrel?

I didn't get to see the Cano homer last night but was listening on the radio while driving home. Joe Morgan was adamant that the ball was a HR and the fan didn't reach over, Cruz's glove wasn't touched and there was no need to replay it. Jon Miller disagreed and thought the umps should have at least looked at the replay. As they watched the replay in the booth Miller said it sure looked questionable enought to review as he thought the fan hit the glove but Morgan just dug in and refused to consider it was worth anyones time. It was quite commical how Morgan being his typical self couldn't see how anyone could think it was worth looking at. I was getting out of the car as Berkman hit his HR which Miller immediately said was foul. Morgan didn't say much on that one. I was in the house and missed their reaction to the reversal but all in all Morgan just came off as a tool.