bill hAll Star

Don't disagree with you at all but I may take Kouzmanoff off (lulz) that list because he goes to Safeco 10-ish times and plays home games at the Coliseum. After that you've got Anaheim which I believe plays pretty neutral? And Texas, which is a bandbox, no doubt.

There is a risk when you sign any pitching. A guy with the ceiling of an all star that could blow out his arm for 1 year, $5-10 million is a much better option to seeing a guy signed for 3 or 4 years, 30-40 million that your risk/reward is he is either a solid #3 or he's throwing batting practice for 10 mil a year. Which signing was worse? Gagne or Suppan/Wolf? Personally, most of the time I talk about the Gagne move to somebody it's just a chuckle. "Yeah, that was a bad one." It wasn't a great risk but he was putting up all-star numbers before a public meltdown in Boston that nobody would have known about if it wasn't on the big stage. When you bring up Suppan, obviously, the person you're talking to gets red in the face and angry. As for Wolf, he's not on Suppan level yet, but he's getting there. (cleaned up code --1992) So it is your contention that you can sign an all-star caliber pitcher for 1 year at 5-10 MM, but you cannot get one at 3-4 years at 30-40 MM. I know what you are getting at but the logic is wrong. If a player has that great of an upside someone will outbid the Brewers to get them or they will chose to go to a more favorable location. I think it would be a fun survey to see how many MLB locations are less favorable to play in than Milwaukee. I love the city but come on if you are a 20 something year old MLB player your first chose would not be Milwaukee. I can think of 5 off of the top of my head. 1) Kansas City 2) Cleveland 3) Detroit 4) Cincinatti 5) Pittsburgh And these are all debatable. Milwaukee may be a great town for the older players with wives looking to finish their careers, but it is not Chicago, Denver or even St. Louis. No, but nobody is even going to bother offering Sheets and the like 3 or 4 years. They're injury prone or a jaded starter. They aren't a guy coming off a hot season where he was assisted by his ballpark where his value has to drive up. Sure, if St. Louis offered a guy 1 year, 5 million...the Brewers can come in and ask 1 year, 8 million or something. I'm fine with that. As long as we aren't playing the other small market angle where we outbid ourselves with Soup and Wolf. I'm pretty sure most were offering Wolf 2 years, 15-20 million-ish and for us to get him we outbid all with the 3 year, 27 million dollar bid. Those linger for way too long.

I see you are a fan of the Eric Gagne method where a player gets payed $10 MM a year to go golfing, This is also known as the Ben Sheets style to free agency. (pared back quoted material --1992) There is a risk when you sign any pitching. A guy with the ceiling of an all star that could blow out his arm for 1 year, $5-10 million is a much better option to seeing a guy signed for 3 or 4 years, 30-40 million that your risk/reward is he is either a solid #3 or he's throwing batting practice for 10 mil a year. Sheets' injury time for the A's was unfortunate as it seemed they were strictly signing him for prospects depending on their position at the break. Or the compensation picks if he was an ace for them as a successful team. I realize he wasn't having a GREAT year by any means, but this is the way I'd operate most of the time. You can't fill your entire staff with them but this would be the main thing I'd look into. Again, I'd rather take that guy that could throw ace-like stuff but you may see him conk out 2/3 of the way through the year. I prefer that to locking in for 3 years to a guy that doesn't have great stuff. Which signing was worse? Gagne or Suppan/Wolf? Personally, most of the time I talk about the Gagne move to somebody it's just a chuckle. "Yeah, that was a bad one." It wasn't a great risk but he was putting up all-star numbers before a public meltdown in Boston that nobody would have known about if it wasn't on the big stage. When you bring up Suppan, obviously, the person you're talking to gets red in the face and angry. As for Wolf, he's not on Suppan level yet, but he's getting there.

I'm going to have a good laugh when you guys see how bad the packages that are offered are this offseason. You can read my post in the transaction rumors. There really is just not much of a market for Fielder or Hart this offseason either, and especially not for rotation-ready pitching. I've ruled out a lot of teams. The only logical thing I can think of is a Bumgarner package for Fielder. For a one year rental of a slugger, when you want MLB ready players, you're going to get massively diminished returns. You're going to get: 1. A one year rental of a pitcher that is pretty good. Good luck trying to re-sign him. 2. An above average pitcher with something like 3 years, 35-40 million left. 3. Some very low ceiling pitchers with 3-4 cheap years left. That's it. I can guarantee you that you aren't going to get a Greinke-esque, Tommy Hansen-esque guy in return. You're not. Not for a one year rental especially. Look, we're on pace for 72-74 wins if we lose tonight. Adding a non-ace in a Fielder package or some young guys with a ceiling of a 3/4 and taking Fielder and/or Hart out of the lineup isn't going to get us +20 wins, so let's stop being so concerned about 2011. The problem is, Doug Melvin is concerned about this year because his job resides on it. That is why I laughed at Ash's comments. On the other hand, you can get some stud prospects that are 2-3 years down the road from being something. Had we traded Fielder for some of these guys in the past week, we'd get guys that are at that point now, not in December...inching towards helping us. Doug Melvin knocked some draft picks out of the park and made a great trade for CC in going to get us a playoff opportunity, but let's be honest, we weren't even THAT good of a team, we annihilated the Reds/Astros/Pirates a lot and were massively overmatched by the Phillies. Since then, it has been a free fall to being a bottom 4 team in the NL, maybe bottom 5. Why does everybody keep giving Melvin the benefit of the doubt? You guys honestly think there is going to be a solid package out there of pitching for a one year rental of Fielder? And if so, it isn't going to be a costly solution and will be signed for multiple years? (no way in hell we contend in 2011 in my opinion). You guys are a little far off on what you think this team can do with another fringe all-star pitcher. Right now, we're on par with the Royals and Indians. We're only 4 games up in the standings on THOSE teams. We are closer to the Royals and Indians than we are the Reds and Cards. Please, somebody tell me what sort of decent package is going to be offered for Prince in the offseason, I'd be thrilled to hear it. Also, go back through the history books and find when a rental slugger (that is unsignable) brought back a valuable long term pitcher or two that is already established the majors or just about to be called up? I'm sure somebody can find it but I would guess there are at least 10x more examples of "guys 2-3 years away from helping" turning into aces, under team control, for 6 years instead of going for a conglomerate of not good players. EDIT: Here is my final thing on why nobody is going to offer much for Fielder. Either A: You're a team like the Red Sox or Yankees. Mind you, most of these teams are already set at DH/1B, but wouldn't you rather just keep your top pitching prospects that are high AA or AAA guys ready to roll and put in a bid for Prince going into 2012? B: You're a mid-level franchise looking for a bat. I dunno, Atlanta or something? Baltimore? Both huge cities but not in the Yankees/Sox stratosphere. Anyways, is it financially sound to trade away a guy ready for the majors in advanced AA level that you're going to have under team control for 6 years for a 1 year slugger rental? I think this is a concession one of those teams may make if they are in it at the trade deadline(for lesser prospects), but I'm not so sure it is something a team does before the year.

Straight from the horse's mouth here: If I'm Mark A, I worry about this guy running my franchise completely into the ground. I worry about 10-15k crowds regularly in the upcoming years with how bad we're going to make ourselves. If Melvin goes out strictly looking for this type of trade, he's going to lose. He wants to "win now" to keep his job. EDIT: By "win now" I mean mostly in 2011. Even I will give him the benefit of the doubt for 2010, though I think he thought we had a chance up until a few nights ago.

My bad, I hadn't checked up on him in quite a while, last I saw he had a great month of June and early July. You're right, Masterson isn't that good but I'm still banking on the Indians being better than the Brewers next year. The only reason they aren't is that they hold off for one more year and are leaps and bounds better than the Crew in 2012.

Wrong thread, but I do think the Indians will be better than the Brewers next year. I just don't really see where the Brewers are an 80 win team next year unless they drastically revamp their pitching. Given that there isn't much out there for them to do, it is going to be tough. Trade Fielder/Hart for pitching you say? I just don't see a contender giving up what Doug wants in valuable MLB pitching and if he finally caves to the smart idea of AA pitching, then we've wasted another 1/2 year of AA pitching that could be ready to help given that we'll likely be picking from the next crop up for 2011.

They are only 5 games behind us with selling off assets and no Grady Sizemore. Masterson might be a very reliable #2 or outside shot of an ace by next year. EDIT: I guess he's not that good. Still may be alright. They're locked in at SS and leadoff with Asdrubal Cabrera LaPorta has looked good lately. Good enough to be a reliable 4, 5, or 6. Santana is a stud. I'm sure they are loaded with other pitching prospects. And if they want, they have money to spend. Knowing them, they'll spend it on a 2012 run when they start to arrive. 1. SS Cabrera 2. CF Sizemore 3. C Santana 4. RF Choo 5. 1B LaPorta 6. DH Hafner 7. LF Brantley? (Maybe he doesn't fit as a corner OF or #7) 8. 3B Probably some prospect 9. 2B Probably some prospect They are loading up their pitching stock to go with Masterson. Talbot isn't great but he's probably alright as your #4 or #5.

Yeah, I think the best way to do things when the Brewers knew their minor league pitching was a bit bare would be to trade their batting prospects and/or established bats for some young pitching. I just think Doug didn't have the patience. He thought we were almost there and just needed more pitching. Little did he know, he was signing negative value pitchers. Did they underwhelm to what he wanted? Yes, but the risk/reward with the Soup/Loop/Wolf signings isn't good. Here is my pitching plan, and it doesn't need to be 30 pages: 1. Trade whatever you can for some high ceiling pitchers. If it has to be Prince, then it has to be. If it has to be Lawrie, choose carefully, but do it. 2. Use that money you wasted on overpriced MLB starters for bats to fill the holes. Reliable bats are much less of a risk and cost less than filling up your rotation. 3. When you need to sign a pitcher, sign a guy with some stuff that has some baggage. Risk/reward there is much better. If I was GM, I probably would have struck out with Rich Harden this year, outbidding Texas' one year offer. But I think I would have hit the jackpot on a 1 or 2 year deal for Javier Vazquez last season. Sign these low risk/high reward guys to 1-2 year deals, depending on cost. Either you easily cut ties after he has injury or control issues or he throws like an ace. You can use that unsignable ace as trade bait then while you reap the rewards of his excellent pitching. To my #3, what is the risk/reward of a Suppan or Wolf? The reward is they pitch like a #2 or #3 that can take the ball every day. Probably #3 or #4 ceiling if you include their style compared to our ballpark and defense we're giving them. The risk is you've got a small-market anchor contract. Risk/reward of a Harden or Vazquez of last year is you've got an ace. Risk is they have injury issues again (Harden) or just don't find their stuff. Easy solution, though, since they came with baggage and either signed for high $ but 1 year or they signed a fairly low $ 2 year deal because of that baggage.

Like this trade for all parties involved. Padres are having a bit of a "fluke" year (not saying they aren't a good club, but a lot of things have gone their way late in games) especially for a team that was cost-cutting last year. Go for it while you've got the chance. I don't like them giving up prospects TOO much, but fine. The Cardinals are what I wish the Brewers were. Even if they're in it, they're making a move for now and in the future. They still contend without Ludwick and get get some salary cleared and an eye on the future. The Cleveland Indians will be better than the Brewers next year. They may have to struggle through some lean years, but they know how to build a contender in a small, dying market. I'm not saying the Brewers had amazing options out there, but I've disliked every Milwaukee deadline in the past 4-5 years aside from CC and Ray Durham. And no, not retroactively, I really didn't like spare part relievers when the ship was sinking or standing pat when you're clearly out of it.

Funny, I don't see Suppan, Looper, and/or Wolf in Tampa Bay's rotation. Or Minnesota's for that matter. So many other teams have had this uphill battle and they choose not to try to fill it up with massively overrated, overpaid pitching. To the point where they outbid themselves in the Wolf/Suppan sweepstakes. Who cares if these established pitchers have no trade clauses to Milwaukee. Wanna know why they have them? Because they are probably 24 of the top 30 pitchers in baseball that have signed massive contracts and it won't work that well financially to trade for a guy under massive contract anyways. That's the only way these guys are going to get a no trade clause is by being a top-dollar guy. Yes, Tampa and the likes drafted a bit better but many of these teams have made much smarter signings and trades to build their staff. There are ways to do it, and Doug is just picking up on them 7 years into the game. Yeah, if they had hit on a higher percentage or had less injured on their way up, it may be less evident, but come on, most other teams under this situation wouldn't waste their time with the Soups of the world...especially with our defensive and park situation. CC was a special case, but for the 100th time I've posted on here, we need to stop dreaming of trading for a Haren or the likes because that is another road rarely traveled by smaller market teams. How about we just do what all the other good small market teams are and build within and trade our MLB bats or maybe prospects for young pitching? And can Doug also write up a 30 page document about how he isn't going to waste $15 million a year on back end of the bullpen 50 inning guys? That's another thing that is saddling this team.

Sorry, I was legitimately trying to state a reason why teams may not want him. I guess I could have said he probably isn't the best clubhouse guy/fan guy/well-liked by opponents guy. Granted, I'm inferring off what I see on TV and read in the paper, he hasn't pulled any T.O. type antics, but if you're a fringe MLB player, those are things you probably don't need.

To add to my point, that wonderful slightly above .500 record was beefed up against the Pirates, Nats, Mariners, and Astros. Of course we're slightly better than the bottom feeders of the league. You'd hope a 90 million dollar payroll can beat 4 of the worst teams in baseball slightly above 50% of the time. EDIT: 2 impressive home series vs. the Twins and Rangers when they were struggling was nice, if you want to go that far. But going barely over .500 when more than half of your schedule is non-impressive teams isn't very indicative of an entire season projection for the next year.

Guys, you're talking about a guy that had the strategy of signing "innings eaters" 3 and 4 years ago, and then modified it to "quality innings eaters" last year and this year, and now has stepped up this plan about getting plus arms. If he had known what a quality pitcher was as seen in these documents, there is no reason he would have gone the route he did to fill out our awful rotation. I'm not saying he said "I want all pitchers that throw less than 90" but I do think that he really only went off ERA for major league pitching, and didn't have a great grasp of minor league pitching. He got a few gems, but didn't realize that if your farm system is bare in pitching, you should find a different avenue (trading bats) to fill it up. He makes it sound like he just realized how important young pitching under team control is.

I don't know about you guys, but it was common knowledge to me that a guy with a plus fastball and a good breaking pitch were good pitchers. The thing that disturbed me about the whole thing is that they did some major study and finally just realized the err in signing some of the worst fits as pitchers in free agency. You think there was some other reason why Randy Wolf and Jeff Suppan weren't getting anywhere near the same bids elsewhere as the Brewers gave them? I remember reading that Melvin was "disappointed" about not going after 2.50 ERA in Safeco probably 6.50 ERA in Miller Park Jarrod Washburn at the deadline last year. Of course you're going to have solid arms in the minors via the draft off and on. When you draft them in the first 2 rounds, some of them are going to have these qualities, actually most. You don't even need a scout to know that about some of them. Now, I'm not taking all credit away for drafting them and saying it was a shot in the dark, but all of the highest rated pitching prospects usually have these qualities. But he was acting like it was some sort of revelation through this research that the Rays and Giants and other mid-market teams (Giants are probably larger market) built their staff through minor league talent. And it seemed like he just figured out the reason that Suppan, Looper, and Wolf didn't put up the numbers here that they did with better parks and defenses in their favor and he finally realized why they aren't really that good of pitchers.

Because he is acknowledging he just figured out what a good pitcher is 7 years after taking the General Manager job.

Bat flipping on a fly ball 20 feet short of the fence, trotting the bases like a king when he hit a homer to put us down 15-3 vs. the Twins, saying that he would see this as a successful season if "he got hot and got that average up to .260" mind you, he has a sub .300 career OBP.

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif ... sadly, there is some truth to his statement. Gomez still tries to air the place out way too often. He needs to be okay with being Juan Pierre/Nyjer Morgan/Otis Nixon at the plate and let the hits come.If he could take a walk more than once every 2 weeks or so, I would agree. Unfortunately for the Brewers (trade wise, it will be a fortunate day when he is out of their hair) I think he's going to be out of baseball in a few years because he has very little use in the major leagues. Or he'll be a Corey Patterson speed replacement off the bench. Something tells me Patterson isn't as much of a tool as Gomez though.

As important as Moneyball was, I think this is more revolutionary: The thing that bothers me is he acts as if he has just found the cure for cancer and is proclaiming it to the world. I'm pretty sure 3/4 of this board has been asking for these things for quite some time. Exceptional Research Findings Here

You guys are starting to get delusional.

OK, so let's not put the blame on Doug for not being able to develop/draft the young pitching. That means he deserves no credit for Fielder, Hart, Weeks, etc. as well. See what I did there? You're right,we can't sign the CCs and Johans of the world and are stuck with the Wolfs and Suppans. That's why using that avenue to build a staff should be something essentially that is never used. If it is, buy an arm that has a little life on his pitches, not a guy that relies on his defense to put up decent numbers. Do you ever see the Rays wasting money on this type of thing? And they seem to be doing just fine. Yes, Price was a #1 pick but they also got Garza via a trade for a young bat and nabbed Kazmir when he was pitching well for a "developed" arm of Victor Zambrano, I believe. They may have been blessed with a better farm system of pitching but they didn't panic and blow money to fill out their stiff with overpriced contact-heavy soft-tossers. A team like the Padres, while not exactly small market, could sign a Wolf or Garland and be successful because the defense they play and the park they play in caters to this. If you don't have good pitching in your system, trade your aged bats for some young pitching. That's the only other way to do it.

Ahhh no. I would say a 3.36 ERA for the entire year minus the last game is a very good year overall and I would love to have the Brewers with 5 starting pitchers who pitched all season and finished the year sub 3.63. Jackson finished top 10 in AL ERA last year in pitching 33 games. You can say it was only half the season but there are not a lot of pitchers who can consistently do it all year long. Jackson had a good year overall last year. You don't like him. Great. Got it. If you take out a bunch of Randy Wolf's starts I'm sure he looks pretty good. If Jackson was a good pitcher you might be allowed to make those arguments, but because he had a fluke half, I think you can't take a return to normalcy the rest of the season out of his total equation. You can't say "Ahhh, no" if what I said is statistically correct. He had a great, fluke first half and his par for the course 2nd half (4.50 ERA). Take out his best and worst starts if you're going to play like that and he probably once again ends up with a 2.60 or 2.70 pre July and 4.30 post July.

Above-average offense with a few holes(craters) in it + 2/5 great pitching, 3/5 AAA-quality pitching + worst defense in baseball = 75 wins tops. Giving up Lawrie would also kill the future.

Depends on how you want to look at it. End of May 2.30. End of June 2.49. End of July 2.64. End of August 2.96. End of September 3.36. And only pitched one game in October where he was brutal pushed his ERA to 3.62. I really don't know much about him or his contract so I can't tell you if he is worth trading for or not 9depends on the package deal) but he did have good numbers last year for most of the season. He is only 26 years old. He has always had good stuff. Mid 90s fastball. Projected as a front of a rotation pitcher but he has lacked consistency and I think control has always been his problem but again I don't follow the guy. I think what I said about the first half makes total sense then. He has only had one good half of a season in his career. 2.50 ERA after June = good first half. That plus a 4.50 post-June ERA would average out to 3.50. Wouldn't that qualify as one great half?

If I recall correctly he had a mid-2 ERA at the break. So really only a half season in pitcher-friendly Detroit. He's thrown 800 innings and has a 4.75 career ERA and is due almost 9 million next year. No thanks.