kramnoj

Again why are we trading Gamel who's a lefty to keep a righty in McGehee? Because he would bring back more value. And ahh, Fielder is a FA after 2011, where will the LH power come from then? I don't think Melvin's job right now should be to try and build a handed balanced team for 2012 and beyond, his job is to build the best overall team he can to contend in 2010 while still maintaining a good base to contend in the future. Is there some hard evidence that teams need left handed hitters to contend? Seems to me that the best team would be great RH hitters because they would be good against RHP and should be great against LHP. Having LH hitters generally just makes the team vulnerable to LHP.

I definitely do not have any inside info but the one conversation I had with Melvin at Citi Field told me all I need to know about his feelings on our awful catcher. Melvin said nice things about one of his players to some random guy he met in a stadium. What else would you expect? The front office has already laid the groundwork that Cameron and Kendall may not return because so much of the focus will be on upgrading the rotation. Kendall may come back, but if he does, he will probably be taking a signficant paycut to do so.

Right. But let's quit pretending they aren't going to upgrade the rotation, or at least try to Why do we need to quit. Who is doing this?

It changes because if he had done better earlier, he would have stayed in the rotation, and would have had more innings to prove that he could produce. But, really, even if Bush and Suppan hadn't been hurt, this team wasn't going to make the playoffs. Some of us thought that the Brewers might get to 87 wins this season, but that wouldn't have been enough this year. I don't think a healthy Bush and Suppan get this team 91 wins.

Also, its weak to continually blame our shortcomings last year on the replacements when Narveson had the best ERA among starters, by a wide margin. It's not weak at all. If Narveson gave any indication that he was the pitcher in his 2nd stint in his first stint, he never would have been released.

Their payroll may be less than they get from money through the turnstiles but the YES network brought in 350 million in revenue (over 11 million subscribers) for 2007, with similar numbers in the last 2 years. I'm not sure how you can call that "operating at a loss" Easy. First, revenue does not equal profit. Secondly, the Yankees don't own 100% of YES.

Funny, I remember some know-nothing at the JS posting that Ned Yost was going to be fired in the middle of the '08 season... whoops. Unless I am misreading you, TH didn't report that Yost was going to be fired. He wrote about a blog that was getting attention and he gave reasons to suspect the truth of the claim. He was reacting to something that had already got enough attention that he was woken up to investigate it and respond to it. Here is the link of TH's initial blog: http://blogs.jsonline.com/brewers/archive/2008/05/19/blogger-claims-yost-to-be-fired.aspx

I think any budget they impose upon themselves regarding player costs is more for political / public relation reasons versus having to worry about actually having to enough money to cover the payroll. Why do you think that? If the Yankees had the ability to spend more money but didn't and didn't reach their desired goals, how does that help their PR? If they were worried about negative PR, they wouldn't sell seats for $2500 each. The Yankees payroll went from $107M in 2000 to $208M in 2005. Their revenues didn't double during that time. They have been operating at a loss for years now because they have borrowed money to massively expand payroll and to get YES off the ground. And it has worked, because the franchise value has significantly increased and they have were able to build NYS that will reduce their obligation to the league.

Going into that offseason, the Yankees had money to get the Big Unit or Beltran, but didn't have the budget for both. Williams was clearly declining and Beltran would have been perfect for the Yankees, because the Yankees didn't have good CF prospects that would be ready and Beltran was the best CF FA that would be available for years. The point being that even the Yankees have to make decisions around their budget and can't get every player they want. Back to the main topic, I had thought about Kapler as well, so I think he could be a decent possibility. He seemed like a fun guy and a good guy to root for, and his production for the last 2 years would be acceptable for a $1M salary for a guy who could play any OF position but would primarily be a platoon CF.

This team has invested over $600 Million (yes, that's not a typo) in A-Rod, CC, & Teixeira. If you think they couldn't have easily handled Cameron's $10M, I think you're kidding yourself. Counting salaries over multiple years reveals nothing about an annual budget. The Yankees had a payroll of $208M in 2005. Last year it was $209M, and it's been below lower that in a couple of years. Yes, their payroll is obscene, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited. If Cashman wanted Cameron for $10M, why didn't he get him? He was demanding salary relief, just like when he got Alex, just like when he got Abreu. Cashman has a budget that he has to stick to. If you dont think he does, you should easily be able to explain why Beltran isn't a Yankee and why the Yankees started this year with Melky and Gardner.

I think Counsell at $1M is likely to be more valuable next season than Lopez at whatever he will get in arbitration.

And I guarantee you Cashman is kicking himself for turning down a top MLB CF over essentially peanuts for the Yanks. What about the Yankees year makes you think Cashman has any regrets? $10M isn't peanuts for the Yankees. They have a budget, and sometimes they can't get everything they want (that's why Beltran is a Met, not a Yankee). That being said, I don't think Cameron is going to have trouble finding work for similar money this year. If any team wants a good hitter that can play solid defense at CF, Cameron is the best player available.

It's going to be incredibly tough to replace Cameron with pitching for equal or better value. If you intentionally let Cameron go in order to sign a pitcher who is worse at his job than Cameron is at his, you are making the team worse. Pitching doesn't win games over a season, good teams do. Letting Cameron go weakens the team for 150ish games a season. Getting a better pitcher only makes the team better for 30ish games. Even a replacement level pitcher will win a game 35-40% of the time. Now it may be that Melvin plans on getting his players via trade, and it certainly is possible that Melvin can find value for that money, but he will be acquiring it at the cost of talent. But that may be a sacrifice that Melvin and Attanasio will make to try and build a WS contender for the next two years with Prince here.

Per http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/63675012.html the deal is slightly different than what we previously thought. 2010 salary of $7.5 million. 2011 mutual option for $7 million with a $500,000 buyout. Thus, Hoffman is guaranteed $8 million in this deal with his 2010 salary, plus the buyout. But, the 2011 option salary increases to $7.5 million if Hoffman finishes 35 games in 2010. And the buyout increases to $750,000. If Hoffman finishes 40 games next season, that option salary increases to $7.75 million and the buyout increases to $1 million. If Hoffman finishes 45 games next season, the option salary increases to $8 million. If Hoffman finishes 50 games next season, the option salary increases to $8.5 million.

Why would you use a qualifier for innings to rank Gallardo as a SP? By limiting the number of candidates in the pool, you are artificially shrinking the actual pool that Gallardo competes against. If you want to compare him to SP in the NL, the pool should be 80. If you do that, Gallardo ranks in the top 25% for ERA, OPS against and Ks, per your post.

Cots is truly amazing. Per the site: http://mlbcontracts.blogs...1/milwaukee-brewers.html If I'm reading this right, the 2011 option is $8m. If the Brewers want to decline it, they will buyout the option for $500k, or $1m if Hoffman finishes 40 games in 2010. Edit: How many relievers are locks for the 2010 bullpen right night that were good in 2009? DiFelice, Stetter and Coffey, anybody else? The Brewers have relievers that could be good in 2010, but I don't think the Brewers thought they had enough reliable depth going into next season.

TH is reporting that Olney is reporting that the deal includes a mutual option for 2011. No further details on that yet. Edit: Linkification. - Toby

How do you know that Axford, Braddock, Aguilar, or someone currently on the 25 man won't out perform Hoffman next year? I would love it if all of those 3 were great performers in the pen next year. I don't think it's likely, but it would be great. It certainly shouldn't be counted on. At this point with the current rotation Hoffman's presence will not make or break the 2010 Brewers either way, so why the spend money if it's not necessary? There is no player in baseball that will make the 2010 Brewers, so why spend any money at all? Because Trevor Time is cool? For name recognition? Does he somehow legitimatize the franchise? Yes, yes, yes. Anytime a player as good as Hoffman wants to stay with the Brewers rather than test FA, it's a good thing. If the Brewers spend $2M more this season for a player beyond just on the field performance, they are basically investing in the franchise by doing so. If I thought they could get great value for that extra $2M, I would be more hesistant, but I think it's acceptable. but if Melvin's approach is going to be to try and target better talent for the bullpen then how is this team going to improve in a meaningful way? What good is putting on a band aid on the symptom if the root cause is never addressed? I hope Melvin's approach is to build the best team he can in 2010 and beyond. Losing Hoffman makes the team worse. Letting him become a FA increases the chance of him raising his price and/or being gone. Quickly resigning him gets one problem out of the way and lets Melvin spend more time on focusing on the really difficult tasks of what to do with Lopez, what to do at catcher, at CF, with Hardy, at 3B, etc. And of course job #1 is to improve the starting pitching, which will influence all the previous moves.

The Brewers literally have a ton of options for the pen down the road, the pen isn't the issue, the number of innings the starters left for the bull pen this season was the issue. What does the Brewers options for the pen down the road have to do with Hoffman next year? The Brewers have some money to spend. Since there aren't likely good deals to be found in the FA market for SP, it seems acceptable to retain Hoffman for a reasonable deal (assuming facts not yet in evidence).

Russ, while Fangraphs has its place in the baseball world, it is merely opinion (see what their value of Nyjer Morgan is compared to Cameron and Braun). There are different things being discussed here. Fangraphs is a site that has objective data and has columns that use author's opinions. Fangraphs value stats are based on numbers, not on opinions.

Money can be made available for a starter if the deal is right and the pitcher is willing. I seriously doubt that Hoffman's deal will prevent a starter from coming to Milwaukee.

I like that Hoffman appears to be coming back (since clearly he's still very good), but the problem is the starting rotation, not the guy that throws some of the lowest-leverage innings of any pitcher on the roster. Are you using leverage in a different way than the stat that uses the same name? Because Hoffman had the highest leverage for the Brewers this year and he had the 8th highest WPA/LI among relievers this season.

There is no such thing as pitching prospects. Basically, they fail to become actual productive major leaguers at such a high rate that they can't be relied on. It is obvious hyperbole, but there is some sense to the idea.

I'm sure all the Billy Beane disciples on here will flame this post to oblivion I too find no good reason to move Fielder. How have you convinced yourself that "Billy Bean disciples" want to flame your point? It's fairly simple. If Prince dedicates himself and is the player that he was in 2007 and 2009, he is worth being signed. If he lets himself slip into 2008, he's not. The biggest risk of course is how driven Prince will be once he has a long term deal. Personally, I think his competitve drive will continue to motivate him, but it is certainly a huge risk.

I think it's fantastic that Hoffman is so eager to stay that he doesn't even want to become a FA again to see what his options are. This offseason could see a fair amount of movement, but I'm glad to see Hoffman return.