Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

igor67

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,710

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by igor67

  1. igor67
    No Pics, but up here in thee Twin Cities the drift on the trunk of my car has completely merged with the drift from the road. Which I need to dig out and move about now for the snow emergency
  2. igor67
    I see Rogers as the natural call-up for the inevitable injury. And I'd rather be calling up a serious prospect when that happens than a guy who was a NRI in spring training, which is a lot of what we have done over the years.
  3. igor67
    Garza is an interesting hybrid of Pavano and Grienke. He'd cost potentially quite a bit less prospect wise than Grienke, and a lot less on the monetary risk than Pavano. His performance seems similar to Carl. Of the options seemingly out there I think it's the one that makes the most sense. They can put something together to get enough of a rotation to have a pretty fair shot at the playoffs in Fielder's walk year, and still have enough other pieces in place for the next chunk of years. I worry that Pavano ties up a lot of money in the rotation, and if Wolf and Pavano trend down... Grienke I think you end up giving so much that it ends up being pretty much all in on this year because anybody who can be more than a role player for the next couple of years ends up getting dealt, which ultimately will imbalance the roster to a few pretty good players, but not enough of the average to slightly above cheap players you need to round it out into a contender.
  4. igor67
    Frankly I'd rather they overpaid for Lee, atleast that way you've got a decent argument that you actually did something to try and build a championship group for a couple of years before the money sunk you.
  5. igor67
    I'm not hugely excited, but I'd rather swap out Gomez and take on Kenshin then say shell out for Pavano. If we can't afford a way to get another really good pitcher we are going to need a couple of back end options, so we can cut a guy who just can't seem to get it going. That means having some competition with Cappy and Narveson. Both of whom could do OK, but I wouldn't be shocked if they really clunked out of the gate.
  6. igor67
    He is the rare great speed player who can still actually hit enough to get some mileage out of the tool.
  7. igor67
    Yeah trying to overbid for mid range veterans to marginally improve the rotation is not a winning strategy.
  8. igor67
    Frankly this seems like a very simple advantage to be gained. Imagine how much benefit a good strength program might have been to a marginal guy like Tony Gwynn jr. He didn't need much power, but add a few HRs, and say 5-10 doubles and he gets over that hump to where he's a leadoff weapon with plus defense. Now maybe he was already doing enough to maximize on his own, but it seems likely there are a number of guys who could be substantially benefiting (Escobar comes to mind). My guess is that most clubs attitude towards lifting is still influenced by the Canseco steroid wave and it is all associated with swing for the fences with raw power, and not enough appreciation for speed gains due to weight loss or just generally trying to build more lean muscle tone.
  9. igor67
    I'm intrigued by the notion I saw awhile ago of devaluing the Wild Card and expanding the playoffs by having a 1 game playoff for two wild card teams. It also serves to breed an incentive for teams to try and win their division over the wildcard. I'd also make the 3 team tie-breaker an automatic round robin tripleheader.
  10. igor67
    Individually it's not much, but frankly this team has a big strength of being pretty athletic and fast. If we aren't running at opportune moments and taking extra bases we are only hurting ourselves. I look at those names and I say that's 6 guys in the starting line-up who should have a chance to score from first on a double instead of gliding into third and getting stranded on a strikeout. So in part because Macha was some extreme in not using that I do think there's a good chance for the right guy to squeeze out another 10-20 runs from the offense just on the base running side.
  11. igor67
    Um Crew the Commissioners office has pretty much refused to OK any over slot deals until the signing deadline, that's why the Covey thing really couldn't have gone any other way. The Brewers weren't trying to do anything other than get him signed and I think they had a pretty good idea all along how that would play out only to get that late surprise on the diabetes.
  12. igor67
    Whatever you do just don't call him Francis
  13. igor67
    I think there is a serious way forward now. I'm not claiming that we'll morph into a great team, but there are some plausible combinations of moves that get this team pushing 90 wins. I like signing Vazquez as a value move. All of our FA besides Cappy go. Gomez can walk, though if the final budget numbers are OK you could bring him back in AAA. Some combo of Fielder and Casey is dealt to either directly get a top notch (1 or 2) starter, or more likely extra pieces in that quest. Take a look for your best combo of offense defense at RF and 3rd base (internal options vs. external), Improve 1st base defense by moving Hart. Finish a deal for that extra starter without giving up Lawrie, Odorizzi, or Rogers (I think the value equation might have shifted enough that Jeffress might have enough trade value that he could be tradeable for a more known quantity as a starter). That's some defensive improvements, offensive hits are modest with a lot of upside between full years of Cain, Escobar, and LuCroy. The bullpen has gobs of options to be very high quality and depth throughout the year, and Rogers becomes your 6th starter in the case on injury or ineffectiveness.
  14. igor67
    I think the problem with that line of reasoning nate82 is that Braun has tons of athleticism and has now been bad defensively at 2 positions, why not a third? Hart could reasonably be an average to above average first basemen.
  15. igor67
    Cecil's pre 50 HR numbers are actually most interesting to think about how his career might have been percieved differently had he started on a different team and not had so many partial seasons and played in Japan. He could have easily added another 50 maybe 100 HRs. He was clearly ready, but blocked.
  16. igor67
    I'd love Jeffress to make it as a starter, but innings or only the first hurdle. Control, and the reduced velocity from starting are also part of the equation. I think at this point splitting them and having just a pen loaded with hard throwers, and options so you can mix and match the most effective and handle injuries is a solid plan. If you want to hedge on him starting again. Develop him as a stopper who can go more than an inning some of the time, along with Axford, and Braddock. And as a bonus LaRussa can tell us how we are disrespecting the game by having all of the these relievers who can pitch more than an inning.
  17. igor67
    Exciting yes, but the critique about none of them being established as starters yet is huge. Obviously Jeffress and Rogers can turn that around in a hurry, but Parra was supposed to help that situation too. To that end those two should be getting regular starts. Let's see if they can force a rotation shot to start the year.
  18. igor67
    In retrospect those mid to late 90's teams weren't half bad. They had a couple of years right around .500 with some really strong offense, and respectable defense. In potentially an almost frightening way the difference between the late 2000's teams and late 90's teams could very well be one well placed trade for Sabathia. Our rotation has been pretty uninspiring, but a slagged Eldred was about the best that group had to offer.
  19. igor67
    The target for criticism on the whining is Tom putting up the ridiculously loaded blog title to make it sound like he's whining. If he had liked him the title would have been something like Gamel working hard at learning 1st. Or Gamel has new respect for 1st.
  20. igor67
    The point is that his service time was scarcely relevant because he barely made it 6 useful years as a player. I think that's probably even more likely to be true of relievers. I am being a bit more general than one specific instance partially to make my more general point and partially because I think it's too hard to reset the conversation and make all decisions starting from the beginning of the season accounting for all the relevant factors and uncertainty in the final outcome.
  21. igor67
    It all depends kramnoj. There are a multitude of permutations in some cases depending on the quality of the player and who he might replace I'd say keep him down. Others bring him up to start the year. Pitcher or position player? My original point was only to argue against wanton use of service time as a sole justification. It has just become to convenient of an argument when real situations are much more complex, and the uncertainty of the future 6 years from now has to be weighed against decisions for the coming year. Case example Kerry Wood first brought up in 1998, due to injury eating up a year of service time he needed 7 years to accumulate the best 6 years of his career. Do you think the Cubs wake up screaming in the middle of the night, thinking it's a good thing we bought out a year of FA so we could have that last productive year as a starter? Or would they in the end just as soon cut bait instead of turning his playing contract into a high priced reliever? Things get even more exciting with Mark Prior. Steve Woodard?
  22. igor67
    I consider a players 2nd and third season their most valuable from an organizational perspective. Rookie years are too unpredictable with adjustments and the like to count on too many of them. So I have a tendency to favor getting those players playing time in less than crunch situations when possible if you are anticipating building a better team in the following year. I actively advocate against pretending we know enough about the future 6 years from now with a pitcher with a history of arm issues to base decisions now on then. Service time is the new defensive statistics, people are out clevering themselves. The current team is very different in terms of situation than back in the day when Prince et al were brought up. That was the time to bite the bullet and game the service time a bit to preserve value in largely position players (less injury risk) and cluster as much talent from the farm system together as possible to make a big difference. In isolated cases here and there one can find value being shrewd with service time, and there are certainly dumb ways to waste time (i.e. never do a Sept. call-up on a player you'll probably end up having to call-up again next Sept as well). on the other hand calling up guys who will probably fill a role on the team next year gets them exposure, and helps get them used to the longer season for next year.
  23. igor67
    It is a few months, which in hindsight could turn into a full year. You've mixed a combination of later knowledge and prior knowledge. Start of the year you take your best shot if it gives you a reasonable postseason chance. As an example Braddock ended up here anyway. One tiny little injury and boom a year long DL stint anyway racking up more service. So it is a real matte of a few months that could or could not end up being a full year of time. On the flipside he could have had a horrible start and back down in the minors in a month netting less service time as a result of the decision. It is one thing to be conscious of the service time value, it's quite another to treat not playing as more valuable than playing.
  24. igor67
    I'd argue a few months of service time are more than worth going from a high 70's win team to a low 80's win total. You go from basically a 1% shot of hitting the right hot streak to contention with one, and maybe a 20% chance that you get a hot streak or a hot enough to make the right deadline deal.
  25. igor67
    Service time is an important issue, but it's not the only issue. Given the vagaries of development it makes some sense to test guys out if your unsure about a year, under the idea that then you can count on them the following year. In a different iteration todays team has played over .500 ball. The year was not "lost" at the start of the season. Based on real performances from these guys you can make an argument that being more aggressive on young bullpen guys and cutting Soup loose early nets a number of early wins, and it this point probably at least fringe contention if you are a couple of games over .500
×
×
  • Create New...