kramnoj

When I say "back of the rotation" I mean 3, 4, 5... I'm really only interested in acquiring arms that have the potential to be 1s and 2s. I wouldn't call a #3 pitcher back of the rotation. I would call that middle. As far as his results, he's closer to a #2, but I wouldn't really defend that point strongly. If you think he's a sub 4 ERA pitcher then I guess there's nothing to discuss There is nothing to discuss about this, since I never came close to saying anything like that.

I don't think Narveson is up as a starter, he hasn't started a game this year. It would be my guess that he is the 2nd left that Melvin wants and they will make a decision in a few days on who will replace Parra at the next turn.

I'd rather go with one of the young kids than give up something for another back of the rotation arm. Davis obviously doesn't have great stuff, but I don't see how anyone can support the claim that he is back of the rotation.

Davis would be an improvement. And he might only take a B-ish prospect to get, compared to the frontline starters. I guess that could be an interesting little exercise: What would be the expected upgrade with Davis compared to any other rumored pitcher, and what would be the expected package to get him compared to others. After looking at this a little longer, I'm liking the concept of Davis a little more compared to what I expect other pitchers to command in trade.

Back to the rumour mill. Here's hoping today's outing by Parra spurs Melvin to go out and get something. We have Melvin saying that pitching isn't available right now, and a cursory look at where teams are would mostly back that up. At this point we're more likely to see someone come up to replace Parra than a trade to replace him. Garland and Davis are probably available right now, but I think I would rather save the few dollars that might be available for a difference maker at this point.

Tom H gets credit for the CC trade because he covered the process better than anyone else. He may have been scooped when it came to the end, but he certainly worked hard on it.

Sure he is... However, he treats people like crap. Yes, he does. His job has changed, and he hasn't adapted well. Luckily for him, his job hasn't changed as much as those IT guys in the 70's who programmed cards. But he gets piled on more than neccessary. A few people took cheap shots at him for not reporting on this, when it turns out that there wasn't anything to really report.

For a link to the Badger Blogger Yost issue, you can read TH's post here: http://blogs.jsonline.com...ms-yost-to-be-fired.aspx I don't see where TH made a mistake. People wanted Yost fired. TH even called Sveum as being the guy that would take over if Ned were fired. TH is right to be skeptical of internet rumors. Remember when it was reported here that people close to the situation were saying that Hardy injured his hand and would miss the rest of the season toward the end of last year? Hardy didn't even miss the next game.

If he was that good - the sox wouldn't have signed Smoltz and Penny this past offseason. That's not a compelling argument. The Sox had extra money to throw at SP gambles for depth. Buchholz struggled last season, so there was good reason to let him get some more experience in the minors. If the Brewers wanted him, it wouldn't be because of his performance for this year, it would be for the next 6 years. But this is probably all moot. This deal only happens this season, and it doesn't happen with the Brewers in contention, so hopefully it doesn't happen.

As with any quote, it's better to view it in context. He was asked if he would stick around to get 300 Wins, and he answered what he was feeling at the time.

What makes you think they don't have a budget? Where do I say they don't have a budget? And they aren't freeing up much money for next year with expiring contracts They are spending less money this year than they have in years past (they opened the season at $121M, they have spent over $130M and $140 the last two years). They are paying Smoltz $5M to maybe pitch this year, because they have so much money that they can afford to make $5M gambles. There isn't much reason to think they couldn't get Dunn if they thought he was the best option.

As to eating Ortiz's contract, they need a corner OFer. So while they might eat Ortiz's contract it doesn't mean they have $25m to spend next year on a starting corner OFer and a new DH. Why not? The Sox have plenty of money. What specific limitation do you think they have?

I was calling for a possible Dunn signing during the off-season. Then when I saw what the Nats signed him for, I was kind of angry. Why were you angry? There wasn't a spot for Dunn, and the Brewers had needs at SP and a closer.

They have lots of money but another $12m next year for 1B/DH is still a hefty amount when they already are spending over $21m there. They also aren't getting any production from their DH. The Red Sox won't let Ortiz's salary get in the way of paying someone else to take his spot if he has cratered.

Dunn doesn't seem like a good fit for the Sox given his price tag for next year. This needs further explanation. The Red Sox may not view him as a good fit, but I doubt price tag has anything to do with it.

There was a link here, but it didn't get much play, mostly because we don't have the financial information: http://forum.brewerfan.net/viewtopic.php?t=18530

I wonder if this is Burns spot to lose, or if he is only up until Dillard's arm can pitch again.

Saw this link, thought it was interesting: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=archive.table&tableId=SBJ200906010301-01 MLB TEAMS RSN RATINGS (ranked by avg. rating) TEAM RSN AVG. RATING (CHANGE) AVG. NO. OF HHS (CHANGE) Arizona Diamondbacks FS Arizona 3.21 (-26.9%) 60,000 (-24.1%) Atlanta Braves FS South 3.36 (-0.6%) 80,000 (+2.6%) SportSouth 2.54 (-29.1%) 60,000 (-27.7%) Baltimore Orioles MASN/MASN2 3.10 (+13.1%) 34,000 (+13.3%) Boston Red Sox NESN 8.67 (-27.3%) 209,000 (-26.7%) Chicago Cubs CSN-Chicago 4.55 (+1.6%) 159,000 (+2.6%) Chicago White Sox CSN-Chicago 2.12 (+32.5%) 74,000 (+32.1%) Cincinnati Reds FS Ohio 4.67 (-16.5%) 43,000 (-15.7%) Cleveland Indians SportsTime Ohio 3.57 (-25.8%) 54,000 (-27.0%) Colorado Rockies FS Rocky Mountain 2.51 (-32.5%) 38,000 (-30.9%) Detroit Tigers FS Detroit 6.27 (-4.1%) 121,000 (-4.0%) Florida Marlins FS Florida 3.38 (+5.0%) 52,000 (+2.0%) SunSports 3.22 (-3.0%) 50,000 (+2.0%) Houston Astros FS Houston 3.52 (+11.7%) 74,000 (+13.8%) Kansas City Royals FS Kansas City 4.20 (+33.3%) 39,000 (+34.5%) Los Angeles Angels FS West 1.15 (-6.5%) 65,000 (-5.8%) Los Angeles Dodgers FS Prime Ticket 1.94 (+22.8%) 110,000 (+23.6%) Milwaukee Brewers FS Wisconsin 7.89 (+12.6%) 71,000 (+14.5%) Minnesota Twins FS North 6.25 (-9.4%) 108,000 (-8.5%) New York Mets SportsNet New York 3.04 (+13.9%) 226,000 (+14.7%) New York Yankees YES 4.30 (-2.3%) 320,000 (-1.5%) Oakland As CSN California 0.78 (-62.9%) 19,000 (-62.7%) Philadelphia Phillies CSN Philadelphia 5.22 (+14.0%) 154,000 (+14.1%) Pittsburgh Pirates FS Pittsburgh 3.40 (+10.7%) 39,000 (+8.3%) San Diego Padres Cox/SD4 4.29 (-20.1%) 46,000 (-17.9%) San Francisco Giants CSN Bay Area 3.12 (+24.3%) 77,000 (+26.2%) Seattle Mariners FS Northwest 5.83 (+10.6%) 106,000 (+12.8%) St. Louis Cardinals FS Midwest 6.96 (-16.6%) 87,000 (-16.3%) Tampa Bay Rays FS Florida 2.69 (+14.0%) 49,000 (+16.7%) Texas Rangers FS Southwest 2.28 (+111.1%) 57,000 (+119.2%) Washington Nationals MASN/MASN2 0.53 (+55.9%) 12,000 (+50.0%) Notes: Comparable data for the Toronto Blue Jays was unavailable. Ratings listed are for games played through May 20, compared with games played through May 21, 2008. Source: SportsBusiness Journal analysis of Nielsen Media Research data Would be interesting to see the details of the renogiated TV deal, but I have confidence that Attanasio did well for the Brewers.

So the whole he was worth $20 million is off base. In a world where Torii Hunter was given 5/$90M for being mostly a 2-3 Win player, Sheets was certainly worth $20M last year.

Per http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/46498377.html Cap is at least a month away from pitching in games (meaning minor league games). So there's a chance he can contribute towards the end of the season, but it's too soon to have any idea right now.

People who have looked at contracts have noted that teams often don't pay the true stars enough money and often pay too much to players who are merely average or good. Market dynamics lead to inflation for talent towards the middle of the bell curve of talent. The few teams who can afford mega contracts limit the competition for talent at the good end of the bell curve, meaning they get paid closer to what they are worth. Few teams would pay Sheets $20M for what he provided to the Brewers last year. But more teams will pay $10-$15M and be satisfied with half the value that he contributed.

Then why is Hall starting over him at times? Hall has two starts in 6 games at 3B since the Twins series has ended. That is part of the idea of keeping players fresh. This perception that Gamel isn't getting playing time doesn't match his recent activity.

If getting his feet wet means he never knows when he's going to play and there's not always reasoning behind it, he sure is getting his feet wet. We're past the getting the feet wet stage. That was the runup to his DH games. We are now at the point where Macha is utilizing his players on a game by game basis, trying to win each game while using players often enough to get the best out of them. Again, just because you don't agree with the reasoning doesn't mean there isn't reason behind each move.

One sorta comp is Mike Jacobs. He walks less than most would like and had a k/bb ratio of over 3/1 in the minors. He's not a good player, but he's useful to a lower payroll team that wants offense. As Brian noted, he may not be a replacement for Hart, but he could be a decent chit for the right team.

There are plenty of reasons to not like a Peavy deal, and they have all been pointed out. But the option year doesn't scare me that much. I figure the Brewers could just give Peavy away to the Yankees in the last year (there doesn't seem to be any no trade protection for that option year).