804Sox

There's no way Mauer is worth 10/250. He likely won't be a catcher for 10 years.

1. The Halladay and Fielder situations are completely different and I don't think you could get Buch and Ells for many of the reasons that you mention. First, those two were not offered together in a package for Halladay, as I recall. Second, the Sox would not likely trade for either player unless they had an extension agreed to in principle, and Halladay costs a lot less money to lock up than Prince. Third, it's likely that Prince will got to FA regardless and loof for a huge contract - that's just the feeling that I get. This would work against the team aquiring him. Fourth, while Prince is certainly among the best 1B in MLB, both today and for the near future, there are a number of very good hitting 1B compared to a limited number of Ace pitchers. Fifth, because only a limited number of teams will be in the market for Prince when he hits FA, there's little incentive for the Sox to trade for him when they're one of a few that could afford to pay him. Why give up the prospects? Sixth (and this is not based on any inside info), I just personally don't see Prince as a good fit. He's going to be really expensive, and the Sox already have a very good 1B signed to a reasonable deal and a couple intriguing 1B prospects in Anderson and Rizzo. Everyone talks about moving Youkilis to 3B, which he can play decently now, but I just don't see him being a good defensive 3B in a year or 2 as he ages. PLus, i think Iglesias will be ready by the middle of '11 for SS, and Lowrie, Scutaro, Beltre/other FA will all be candidates for 3B (not great options, but tolerable). Prince would be a decent candidate to DH when Papi retires, though. 2. Amazing how fast people have turned on Lars. He tore up AA in the 2nd half as a 20, and then had a bad season as a 21 yro in AA. There are certainly reasons for concern. He strikes out a lot, has a line-drive stroke that doesn't generate a lot of lift, and he sometimes tends to roll over the ball and hit grounders when he tries to get lift. He's also an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, and introspective person, who may over-analyze his own mistakes. However, he still has elite plate discipline, is a reasonable defender, has a great frame, is very young for his level, and has had a track record of tremendous success prior to this past year. Still a good prospect in my mind, and certainly not a throw in. Plenty of Brewer prospects had down years, but I don;t think anyone would consider Taylor Green, Lorenzo Cain, etc. "throw ins", and none were the caliber prospect that Lars was last season.

most important point.

Maybe in the future. He's so sick against lefties though, that I think they use him as an 7th/8th inning guy depending on when the tough LH hitters run through the lineup. I expect them to go with the more experienced Crain, Guerrier, or even Neshek to start the season, but who knows? Mijares could certainly be the guy by the end of the year. thinking outside the box, Liriano could be a guy that reinvents himself as a closer if he can't maintain the FB velo he used to pre-surgery in a starting role.

I honestly don't know much about Gindl's arm, as I've never seen him play, but the varying reports could be highlighting the distinction between arm strength and "arm" as a tool, which encompasses both strength and accuracy. If Gindl has a strong but inaccurate or inconsistent arm, that would seem to jive with all of the reports and anecdotal evidence. Just a thought . . .

You can't look back with 20-20 vision. laPorta was among the most MLB-ready bats in that draft, and had more present power than most guys could even project for. It's rare to get a player with LaPorta's upside that also had his floor and proximity on draft day. You have to consider it a good pick even though, looking back now, you might take Heyward or Bumgarner or Parker instead. Still no guarantee any of those three make meaningful contributions in the majors. LaPorta's there and seems headed for at least a decent career.

I agree to a certain extent. I think that Fielder would necessarily return one really good prospect - someone on the level of LaPorta when he was traded for CC. I, personally, would not give up Smoak for him as the Rangers, but they type of return is conceivable. That said, he's not going to return a Texeira-type package for the reason you indicate. It's important not to forget that Atlanta thought they had a really good shot at signing him to a home-town discount when they acquired him (GT guy), but obviously a club-friendly extension never materialized. I can't envision a scenario where Fielder doesn't hit free agency unless he resigns with the Brewers.

I think we have many of the same concerns with Perez. My reason for excluding him from the trade scenario was not that he is or should be untouchable. Instead, it was that he's too valuable to be included as the second chip along with Smoak or Feliz, but possibly not valuable enough to be the centerpiece of a trade for Prince. Just a hunch on my part, I guess. As far as the Rangers having 2 potential windows, you may be right. I personally just don't think they have the pitching to win a championship now, and don't think Fielder is the difference that gets them there over some combination of Davis and a young Smoak. It's just my opinion that they'd be better off waiting and keeping the prospects though. Also, their finances are a mess, and they might not be able to take on Fielder's salary (or sign him down the road, which would be the other option) It's strange. Fielder is a great player, but in all of the trades we've discussed over the past 6 months, I have yet to see a really ideal fit. Edit: I think I would be selling Perez short to say that he does not have enough value to be the centerpiece in a deal for Prince. He definitely could be, but I think: 1) The Brewers would ask for Feliz or Smoak, and 2) The Rangers would certainly have to give up a 3rd player in a deal involving Perez+, and possibly a 4th.

I don't know if you could get Smoak and Perez. I think a deal of Prince to Texas would likely involve one of Feliz or Smoak, plus one or two prospects from the Kiker, Ross, Font, Borbon, Scheppers group. On the other hand, if the Rangers are confident that Smoak is going to be a stud (which I am, personally), then why not just stick with him? This team is set up to peak in 2-4 years, at which point they may not have Fielder or be able to afford him.

It just demonstrates that he's a good base-stealer. There are plenty of fast guys in the majors that don't translate that into high SB totals. Coco Crisp comes to mind. On the other side of the equation, there's guys like Dave Roberts, who late in his career didn't have amazing speed, but remained a lethal base-stealer because he knew how to read pitchers, get good leads, jumps, etc. Farris makes his speed count where it's important - good range in the field and smart base-running.

1. Wily Peralta - Live arm, exciting talent. This could be the year that determines whether his future is in the rotation or bullpen, and obviously I'd love to see him succeed as a starter 2. Scarpetta - A personal favorite. Love the arm. 3. Odorizzi - See Scarpetta . . . 4. Eric Farris - Fast guys are fun to watch, and Eric is REALLY fast. Hopefully he can show people he's a good baseball player too. 5. Michael Bowman - Gotta rep central VA - he's making steady progress therough the minors, and will be age appropriate if he hits AA this year. If he continues to have success, he could turn out to be a nice back of the rotation arm.

The problem isn't Bush. He's a solid #4/#5 on a contract paying him the amount of money he deserves. The problem would be that if Davis is cooked or if Parra has another '09, Bush is the third best starter on the team, which does not bode extremely well for the Brewers' playoff aspirations.

Indeed. In particular the psychological impact. Matt Clement was never the same . . .

Huh? At the time, Marcum and Bush topped out at around 90-91. Bush has thrown harder than Marcum every year except for 2005 (89.4 vs 89.1). But that's not even the point. The problem with your (TheCrew07) argument that I tried to bring up earlier (before being called out for being "hung up on" the Hardy/Buchholz debate), is that you're criticizing the front office for not making moves that were never made, with no evidence that those types of moves were possible at the time. I think that in your position, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these deals actually could have been made and agreed on between the two teams before you criticize the front office for not making them. You say that Overbay and Taubenheim would have been a fair deal for Marcum or McGowan (avoiding Red Sox prospects so you can't deflect the argument). Maybe Melvin and or Z thought the same thing and would have jumped on that opportunity, but it just wasn't on the table. To say Hart or Hardy or anyone else should be traded for pitching is fine. I'm solidly in your camp regarding the importance of cost-controlled SP, particularly at the top of the rotation. However, to criticize the FO for not completing specific hypothetical transactions is a completely different matter. It is a perfect example of the logical fallacy petitio principii ("begging the question"), where your conclusion is based on an unsupported and tautological premise. In this case, your conclusion that (for example) the Brewers should trade Overbay and Taubenheim for Marcum is based on the premise that Marcum was available for Overbay and Taubenheim, which you have in no way supported.

Several reasons: 1) If the team can no longer afford their "sure-fire frontline starter," they would benefit by trading him for a package better than the draft picks that they would receive through FA. 2) They would likely not get a cheaper frontline starter in return because that would not make sense for the team taking on the more expensive starter. 3) For this reason, they would attempt to trade for players who they feel could develop into the type of frontline starter that they traded away If you believe that parra is this type of player (I don't, I think he has #3 upside) then you might consider accepting him as the centerpiece of a trade for a frontline starter, BUT 4) Parra alone would not likely be enough, due to the uncertainty about his future that you mention, so he would necessarily be part of a package with other players

For what it's worth, I think the Rays thought that they were getting a much better player in Matt Joyce than he has been so far. Obviously there's still time for him to turn it around, but that looks like a miss at this point. In any case, it was not until recently that the Rays had any pitching to speak of. For the longest time that was their greatest weakness, outside of Kazmir, and I'm not sure that then change has been due ot a concerted change in philosophy, just better luck and better development. Some of the early picks at the start of the decade, White, Townsend, even Neimann, struggled with injuries or failed to live up to expectations. I think it just reinforces the notion that "TINSTAAPP" (which I don't completely believe in). I really don't think you can point to an shift in organizational philosophy that has led Wade Davis, James Shields, and perhaps Hellickson, Barnese, and Price to success, while top prospects like Townsend, Brazelton, White, et al flamed out in earlier years. If anything, the Rays organization has a really poor track record of keeping pitchers healthy.

Apologies to BK. Sloppy work on my part. As for your admiration of the TB Rays model, I think it is certainly justified. Since Friedman and Co. took over, they've done an excellent job drafting (Longo, Price, Beckham?), developing prospects (Longo, Davis, Jennings, etc.), signing key players to long term, club-friendly deals (Longo, Crawford, Pena, Kazmir at the time), and finding undervalued players through trade or bargain FA (Garza, Pena, Howell, Iwamura, Zobrist, Balfour). HOWEVER: It took many years of losing to accumulate all that talent. Neimann, Upton, Longoria, Price, and Beckham were all top 10 picks - the type of player that consistent, winning organizations rarely get to draft. And even these picks are no guarantee. The (Devil) Rays, were mired at the bottom of the AL East for years after missing on a series of 1st rounders (Matt White, Josh Hamilton, Dewon Brazelton). Even Delmon Young has failed to live up to expectations and Tim Beckham has not performed to the level of several of the players selected around him. It comes down to where your preference falls on the Twins <---> Marlins spectrum of small/mid-market teams. Do you put a respectable team on the field every year, drafting and developing high-floor players with lower ceilings (who are less expensive to retain), in the hopes of making the playoffs when everything comes together or the division is weak, occasionally having to sell off or let go of a superstar but never having to "blow up" the team; or, do you strip mine the major league club, keeping budgets low and draft picks high, and hoarding high-ceiling prospects until you can ride a bumper crop of young talent (fortified with a veteran deadline acquisition) to a shot at a championship, where the window of opportunity might only be 2 years? Personally, I don't have an answer. I'm torn. I used to be pretty solidly in the Marlins' camp, but have recently shifted towards greater appreciation of the Twins' model. In any case, there's no right or wrong, per se; and with Fielder, Yo, and Braun, the Brewers have done as well as anyone at developing stars internally, which is the key.

No, but Michael Bowden was.And Bowden's the kind of Command & Control oriented starter with #3 starter upside that you claim the Brewers have plenty of. That's not to say he doesn't have value. Obviously paying Bowden the league minimum for the same production that Suppan gives you at about 10mil allows for tremendous flexibility and the ability to spend to upgrade elsewhere, but he's unlikely to be the top-of-the-rotation, impact starter that you and I agree the Brewers need alongside Yo (and that Buchholz could potentially develop into).

I think rating Odorizzi and Braddock as 2-star is a bit conservative, especially given KG's brief analysis of each.

I think you answered your own question. Pitching, particularly young, cost controlled starting pitching, has become the most valuable commodity in baseball. If this trade were available to the Brewers, they would have made it. I agree with your overall point though. The most successful teams in baseball recently have been built around deep rotations with front-line talent at the top. No matter how potent the Brewers' offense, the team won't be able to compete at the championship level until it can match up with the rotations of other playoff teams. I think the Brewers' off-season has gone a long way towards achieving that end. Adding Wolf and Davis on reasonable deals lengthens the rotation and gives more weight at the top (with Wolf slotting in at #2) without sacrificing any of the quality starting pitching depth in the minors that will be invaluable to future teams. As for the Hardy/Gomez deal, I think it reflects the organizations view of the importance of defense in CF to the pitching staff and confidence in the rest of the offense to perform. While pitching might have been preferred, CF was an immediate need, and the Brewers got a very projectable player who is probably more talented than any pitcher that Hardy could have netted. Buchholz, Morrow, et al were probably not really options.

soooo, you plan on getting Marcum, Cooper (#4 prospect per BA), and Brad Mills (#8) OR Stewart (#1) plus another arm for Hart and Salome? Hart and Salome combined could not return a single player you listed, except possibly "another arm," much less a package involving multiple players. Your preference for giving up Salome over Lucroy and belief that Hart wouldn't be hard to replace with Edmonds, who was signed to a minor league deal, should have indicated that to you.

I agree with you. I think to get a pitcher like Marcum or McGowan (both of whom I like better than Morrow) would be an excellent return for Salome and Hart in terms of pure value. However, the Brewers rotation seems set for this year and is actually pretty solid 1-5, while the outfield remains a weakness and would be further weakened by the trade of hart, who could be in line for a bounce-back year or sorts. Tough call from the Brewers perspective - do you weaken this years team in order to get back better "value" in a trade? - but I think the Jay's would make the call for the Brewers by turning these trades down. They have no need for Salome, who would be the centerpiece of the deal, with some good Catching prospects.

That's what I suspected. So, the remedy would seem to be better plate discipline. If Hart can learn to lay off the junk early in the count and get ahead, he can force the pitcher to throw FB for a strike in a favorable count. This would result in better OBP and, hopefully, a bit more power as he gets more pitches to drive and lift.

The only explanation I can think of (and those of you who watch Hart play far more then I do should weigh in on this assessment) is that Hart used to hit most of his HR on early-count fastballs, and the emphasis placed on taking pitches put him behind in the count early and forced him to swing at more breaking pitches and "out pitches." This would be similar to Jeff Francoeur's progression. He had more power, higher Avg, and higher OPS when he was punishing early count mistakes, but when pitchers realized how aggressive he was early in the count they didn't give him the fastballs over the plate to hit. Francoeur had to adapt. As such, I don't think a return to his initial approach is going to help Hart regain his lost power because the pitchers still aren't going to give away pitches to him early in the count. He would be best served continuing to refine his approach so that it becomes less about taking pitches for the sake of taking them and more about looking for specific pitches to drive.

he's a poor contact hitter due to the length of his swing (in conjunction with his height). Historically, he hasn't taken many walks, but last year he actually posted the best BB rate of his career. His (potential) strides in plate discipline bear watching in spring training and the beginning of this year. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if he truly has developed in this area, higher OBP numbers and perhaps more consistent contact (in theory this would result him in seeing pitches better, knowing which pitches he can handle, etc.) could follow, making Hart a decent option in RF.