CheezWizHed

Another OF for this team? No idea if this person is worth the spot or not, but if he is the BPA, then you take him. Our system isn't good enough to pass on someone more talented to fill a need. If you have a couple people that are equal rankings, then you take the one of bigger need. [/end standard BPA rant]

I've never been to the Detroit stadium, but I work in automotive and am in the Detroit area fairly often. I tend to avoid Detroit proper and stay north of 6-mile road. But there are some areas around Dearborn (close to Ford) that are pretty nice and safe. Doubletree in Dearbornis nice and in a good neighborhood. I guess there is one downtown also, but I can't comment on that one. Ask for the Ford rate. Any other hotel in that area is good also. Otherwise, I tend to stay up near Farmington Hills or Novi. Restaurants I like (obviously not in the stadium): - Big Fish (fancy, cloth napkins seafood) $25-35 per person - Mitchell's Fish Market(less expensive, but still good $15-20) - Gaucho Steakhouse(all you can eat steak buffet, $60+. Epic meal and experience) - BD's Mongolian BBQ - chain store, build your own stir-fry ($10-15) (Can you tell I eat on a corporate travel budget? )

I think it goes beyond him smoking pot (and thus breaking the rules). The Larry Sanders post-big money seems very different from the Larry Sanders pre-big money. Many people are worried that it was a lot of the senator's money gone up in smoke...

Actually, its worse than that. I misread the original post about 50%. I thought it was 50% not-foul, not-to the pitcher. But reading the fangraphs article, its 50% fair balls. That means the pitcher is throwing out a bunch of those (non-quantified) fair balls. Also, there is going to be some of the "not-fair balls" as outs (foul pop outs). Here was a pretty good quote from the fangraphs articleand the conclusion, which is the point most of us are trying to make: So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful. And against even a hypothetical awesome bunter, you can just move the guy playing short to shallow third, and then you’re not going to see many grounders hit to where the shortstop would be. And the bunt would be all but taken away. For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.

Agreed that its forecasting, but if you have good numbers to use in the forecast and those numbers aren't adding up, why bother attempting it? People adept at bunting can get the ball down the 3B (not foul, not to the pitcher) line 50% of the time. Good sluggers like Fielder have an OBP in the .360-.400 range. So to beat that OBP, those hitters would need to get singles 70-90% of the bunts they can get down the 3B line. And that still doesn't account for the hitter's getting extra bases (over just one) by swinging away. Factor in risks of injuries while bunting (both in games and in practice). Factor in the extra time required to achieve a 50% rate down the 3B line (as opposed to practicing hitting the ball to defeat the shift). If I'm a manager, I look at those numbers and that risk and say, "Why bother? Those numbers don't add up for me to risk my slugger bunting." *clarified some wording on bunting numbers.

Well, that IS an improvement on last year...

Not everything is numbers And the numbers don't support it either. At best, its a wash to bunt or swing away for OBP. So why bother? If that big gap on the other side of the field is that tantilizing, then spend your time teaching your hitters to hit, not bunt in that direction.

"To me, this is comparable to saying that Dwight Howard should shoot 3 pointers, because there is a 40% league average success rate, and people don't defend him beyond the arc." I understand you are using the analogy for effect, but these two things are hardly related. Dwight Howard isn't capable of shooting 3s at an average NBA clip, the best hitters in baseball should be able to bunt at said clip. Actually, I thought it was a pretty apt analogy. Why should someone be good at bunting if they were good at hitting? They are two very different things. I was always good at bunting, but hitting.... So if Prince is getting on base at a .360 clip, and is able to get 50% of bunts down the 3rd base line (big if): he would need to succeed on getting to first at a 72% rate to make it worth while. Which is unlikely. Then note that his OBP goes down after he gets one strike for fouling off a bunt. Add to that the extra risk of injurying your best players while bunting, I don't see the benefit. Take all that extra effort and teach the guy to hit the ball the other direction.

So the question now should be: How long will the "Oooooooooo...." last before its replaced by "Ooooooo Nooooo!"?

I'm guessing he'll be paying his taxes on it. Detroit could easily dump $292M into demolishing the burnt-out, abandoned buildings downtown alone...

Well, I didn't mention Halton because WTP already did in his post. Plus, he is 3rd on the list for 1B at AAA. But I'm glad you didn't forget him, JB.

How about an inverse situation from Arnett/Trout? We could have taken Alex Gordon, but the Royals grabbed him and we eventually got Ryan Braun (and to a lesser extent Ryan Zimmerman with Washington). Not nearly the drastic difference as Arnett/Trout, but still one that we "won".

We already have Morris and Rogers at AAA. No need for LaPorta anymore. For the worst number one pick ever, there are plenty of choices. In particular, the Brewers made some truly awful selections during the early-mid 70's and most of the 90's. Factoring everything in however, I'd probably go with Kenny Henderson, the 5th overall pick in '91. First of all, he didn't sign. Even worse than that, Manny Ramirez, Shawn Green, and Cliff Floyd were amongst the next 10 picks. After a few years, in college, Henderson was drafted again by the Padres, was injured and never made it past single A. Those are the worst of the worst picks... I was saying the best of the worst picks. Or a high pick that never really amounted to much, but we made the most of his value by trading him at his peak value.

Some people are still trying to get a goat into Wrigley. A dog in Miller Park is so much nicer. Plus, he looks a lot like my dog.

So what I hear most people saying is that the Brewers are so bad that they need to take a gulf coast league guy and put him on the 25 man roster and whatever he does, we will throw him in the minors next year and develop him? Pretty much, yes. The Brewers can't compete in FA and must rely on developing youngsters. That is why certain waiver wire guys and Rule 5 are followed closely. I don't think he will develop into anything one, two or three years down the line but let me pose a question? If Wang is so good, how come the pirates didn't protect him? Also, remember the Brewers have done a fantastic job of developing pitchers...NOT. The Pirates were in a bind on the 40-man and didn't think someone would do exactly what you are increduous about the Brewers doing. Brewers have done the same in the past but really haven't been burned by it. Perhaps the Pirates won't be burned by this either. But its fun to follow and see if we can get something for nothing. I'm just not in agreement with the whole thing going forward. Yes, that has been abundantly clear. Message received.

So, does he count as the best "worst draft pick" in Brewer history? A first rounder that never got anything more than a cup of coffee at the MLB level, but brought back a big return for the Brewers?

No, we have to offer him back to Pittsburgh for $50000. No other team will get a shot. They would only accept a trade that is better for them than keeping Wang. I'm not sure if he would have to be on Pittsburgh's 40 man roster if they take him back. I'm pretty sure he does not need to be on Pitt's 40 man, since he wasn't in the first place (hence the Rule 5 selection).

the key comes down to is Wang as good or better than Zach Duke (or at least come close). I think you have it backwards. It should be: Is Zach Duke clearly a better MLB pitcher than Wang? If its even remotely close, Wang wins on potential. In comparing the 2nd lefty in a BP, just a little bit better isn't enough for me to give up on Wang's potential. And I doubt Pittsburg accepts a trade that we would accept. Its BP or nothing.

At least Overbay would be considered a strong defender at his position. Yuni was not anywhere.... Alex wasn't at 1B.

Any reason as to why they called the game? I know it's a meaningless spring training game but that just seems weird to do. I'd suspect because it was a meaningless game and people would be a little shook up and concerned about him to concentrate on the game.

I think Braun is a prideful person. Bringing in the guy who told the media that he should be stripped of his MVP is going to cause some tension. Then moving Braun to 1B is another slap to his pride (sorry, but you really can't play OF). Combine the two and I don't think it would go well. Maybe Braun has been humbled by the whole thing.... maybe not.

Just keep the roof closed for his protection then.

[sarcasm]Now watch Colorado pick him up and we will be debating why we cut him in 3 years...[/sarcasm]

I'm not saying I told you so Yes, thanks for not saying it... No one thought he was suddenly going to become our ace starter. We picked up a reliever with control issues and lots of talent. Plenty of guys like this have become good MLB players and plenty have become DFA fodder. This one became the latter. But don't mistake people's enthusiasm for picking up some talent (for free) with unrealistic expectations. Our farm system is poor and we pickup lots of MiLB talent that has little to no chance at making an MLB roster. So yes, its nice to pick up a guy that might have a decent shot once in a while. Too bad he didn't put it together. Moving on and hoping for the next decent waiver wire pickup.

Yes. Johan Santana and the Twins should be the approach for Wang (not saying Wang will be as good as Santana, but just how he was developed into a starter from an RP).