HiAndTight

Of course they're going to have an abundance of those types, however ESPN also has some very highly respected and very well connected actual reporters. Guys like Olney and Shoenfield, Kurkjian, Olney. There is a difference between the Eduardo Perez' of the world who just speculate and don't pretend to frame it as anything more than speculation(or Schilling or whomever) and the actual lifetime baseball writers who know what they're talking about. ESPN has to fill about 14 channels 24 hours a day. So there's going to be a lot of fluff. However they get things write the vast majority of the time(even guys like Bowen when they say they have talked to GM's, they're usually reliable, it's just his absurd fantasy trades that he makes up that cause him to lose credibility). But when ESPN reports something as fact....they're right. But ESPN is the giant, so...of course they're the popular punching bag.

F-A sports reporting network that has a wealth of insiders who consistently have very good and very reliable information. But criticism is always easier...especially when there is a bandwagon.

The first guy who struck me was Gordon Beckham. He's the type of guy I'd love the Brewers to take a flier on. He's extremely talented, was rushed to the big leagues. And of course he's struggled a great deal(though he did play rather well for the Angels in a part time role down the stretch last year). But he provides coverage at 3rd as well as platooning with Gennett. Obviously I wouldn't be counting on him to do much, but he strikes me as the type of player who could really thrive if he just made an adjustment or two.

It always bothers me that the Brewer strategy always comes down to "filling holes". The fact is we only know where the holes leftover from 2014 are. New holes almost always appear every year. Some even can be anticipated when you are relying on aging veterans or guys with injury histories to be key members of you lineup. Do you really think that differs from any other team in Major League Baseball? Obviously when teams are trying to "fill holes," they're trying to fill the holes they had. It wouldn't make much sense to pass on filling the known holes and try and predict what holes they should try to fill. I don't see the point in them going out and signing a left handed hitting 2nd basemen because you might be able to anticipate Gennett regressing(just an example). How should they go about this?

There's always the assumption that a long term deal like this is going to be a bad deal towards the end, but Scherzer isn't the same pitcher as Verlander. He wasn't as good as Verlander, but he's also not been used as much as Verlander and his style of pitching is very different. Verlander used his ability to throw in the upper 90's to dominate. Scherzer has a great changeup that he should be able to use to be a front of the rotation starter for a while.

Very true. However, the Giants have been much better at drafting and developing pitching. We passed on Madison Bumgarner. They also traded for Jake Peavy and we didn't (Edwin Escobar & Heath Hembree are good solid pitchers but nothing incredible). They traded for Hunter Pence for the equivalent of Martin Maldonado and Tyler Thornburg and we didn't. They also have a much better manager than we do. They signed Michael Morse to a contract for $6 million which we could have beaten and would have certainly upgraded our 1B with Morse. The Giants didn't have a starting position player older than 32 on the roster in 2014, i.e. they weren't overpaying for an aging veteran (hello Aramis Ramirez) I could go on and on. The Giants are a great example of doing everything the Brewers could have done but didn't But yeah I hear you It also wasn't long ago that Sabean was mocked on here regularly.

I think it's a little premature to suggest that. Lets at least wait and see a couple of these young guys get on the court before we deem this group sub-par. I'll be particularly interested in following how Mudiay does this year overseas. He matched up against former Bucks draft pick Stephon Marbury in his first game.

He had absolutely no problem getting into a "full crouch." His flexibility was not an issue.

What do you think we'd get for Ryan Braun right now? I assume we'd likely have to pay a significant amount of his future salary in order to move him at this point.

It's a pretty easy call who will be the backup. Jiminez is out of options and the more experienced 3rd baseman. I suspect Rogers will be playing the bulk of his time at 3B in AAA. Green will simply be a AAA utility guy. Even if all those thinking bringing back Ramirez was the right move, think about it. They will be paying $14 million (or $10 more than they would have if they turned down the option) for a guy who they will need to rest 1-2 times a week, and they still won't know if Rogers or Jiminez will be capable of taking over the job in 2016. I dunno, I think a $14 million dollar player should be able to be counted on to produce playing a full schedule barring an injury. Personally, I just think Melvin is coasting and didn't want to work all that hard finding an alternative so he took the path of least resistance. Looking for a 1B seemed to exhaust him last season. I think it will blow up in his and the Brewers' face but history tells us Attanasio will still have his back. Or he didn't want to get caught with his pants down like he did at 1st base given the fact that there are VERY few options available to us and just about any that can be counted on to produce like Ramirez would require a far longer, far more expensive commitment.

Madison Bumgarner says hello.... Without Bumgarner, the Royals are likely putting the 2014 World Series trophy next to the 1985 Trophy(when they had their Cy Young pitcher throw two complete games and get two wins in the World Series). With Bumgarner, the Giants have won their 3rd WS in 5 years.

Go back and read what I wrote. I asked if you had seen the ESPN 30 for 30 film about Fernando Valenzuela. If you have seen the film, you will understand what I am talking about. The Hispanic community HATED the Dodgers because of how many Hispanics were evicted, many with force, from Chavez Ravine to make room for Dodgers stadium. Hispanics didn't go to Dodgers games until Fernando arrived - cultural identity is so important that Fernando, because he is Mexican, turned an entire community of Mexicans/Hispanics from Dodgers haters into Dodgers fans because he is Mexican. That is what the film is about. Watch it and you will understand why Gallardo would have added value to a team in the Southwest. Yeah, and that was almost 34 YEARS ago and I don't see any correlation here. I've also seen 30 for 30 films about the civil rights movement and African Americans in sports from the 1960's. Both are important to understand in a historical sense, but to try and pretend you could replicate the cultural phenomenon you had with Fernando-mania with Yovani Gallardo is absurd to me. Gallardo would have to be a mix of Clayton Kershaw in the regular season and Madison Bumgarner in the post-season to gin up anything resembling that level of enthusiasm. Not to mention, you said it in your post. The Dodgers HAD problems with the Hispanic community...30-40 years ago. They don't now. Now they have Adrian Gonzalez, Puig, and whatever player they can get that will help them win. Again, one player was a 20 year old PHENOM who won a Cy Young, Rookie of the Year, Silver Slugger, was top 5 in the MVP voting and...again, let his team to a world series...vs...Yovani Gallardo, a 28 year old #3 pitcher. This is a argument that just isn't nearly as a relevant today among two players who aren't even in the same stratosphere. You honestly think on a team with a 250 million dollar payroll filled with superstars, adding Gallardo is going to be a significant boost in ticket sales for that team? I think that's almost insulting to Mexican/Hispanic Dodger fans. I'm sure they'd be more excited to see Kershaw pitch for them or Greinke than Gallardo if they're fans of the team.

Marcum had two years of team control, not 3 and he had never thrown 200 innings and had missed the a year from arm problems just one year before he was traded. I'm not seeing a real strong argument that Marcum's value at the time being higher than Gallardo's is now.

He might be the same age, but that's not really the point. One player we'd control for another 5 years and would cost 500K next year and the other we control for 1 more year. Trading the two saves us 13 million dollars, and Van Slyke can play in the OF. I would certainly prefer the Brewers shopped Yo around 1st, but that's not a bad return whatsoever for Yo. And he was .279/.353 last year when getting sporadic playing time. He would fit our roster nicely.

Dodgers send Van Skyke, Dee Gordon, & Zach Lee Brewers send: Segura, Gallardo Dee Gordon our new SS, Van Slyke is our 1B against LHP and a big bat off the bench. And we get a pitcher who has the makings of a Gallardo if he can put it together within the next 1-2 years. Dodgers get their #3-4 pitcher, and a capable 2B/SS cheap. I don't see any upside to that trade for the Dodgers whatsoever. I really doubt the Dodgers would trade any of those three players for what the Brewers are giving up(certainly not Gordon who was the Dodgers catalyst last year).

Boston did have Lester last year pitching great in the playoffs, but i'd argue that their bullpen and offense were the biggest keys to winning their title, same for the Cardinals the previous year. That St. Louis rotation was far from stellar in those 2012 playoffs, but their pen was great and their offense scored a lot of runs. If KC were to win it this year, it's going to mainly be their bullpen, defense, speed, and unexpected home runs that will be the main reasons why. And the Cardinals rode dominant performances by Wacha and Wainwright to the World Series while, as you say, the Red Sox had Lester, a dominant reliever, and of course one of the greatest performances by a player in the history of baseball. Ortiz was just absurdly good in last years playoffs. If not for his performance, we're talking about how great the Cardinals young pitchers were. You can obviously beat aces in the playoffs. Inferior pitching can win, but just because it CAN happen hardly means that having elite starting pitching is overrated in regards to winning a world series. It is the most important aspect of a winning playoff team IMO.

Just because this year that wasn't the case(although a certain Giants lefty might disagree) hardly means that it's a ridiculous notion. It's far more often the case that you're going to win in the post-season with dominant starting pitching than ANYTHING else.

1-No. This is an absolute, resounding NO. First of all, the criteria is making it to the World Series? You're going to label the Brewers 2011 season a failure and the Royals a success because one team made it to the world series while the other lost to the WS Champs in the NLCS? No, the goal is to WIN the World Series. The Royals have not done that yet. However their season is without a doubt a resounding success. Just as the Milwaukee Brewers are NOT in a position to label the 2011 season a "failure," because they didn't win the World Series, the Royals making a WS means their season is a success. No. We're the Milwaukee Brewers, a team with limited resources. The point is to put a competitive team on the field, get into the playoffs and hope that you are or you get hot, you get a little luck and win. It may be a failure for the Dodgers who will pay around 300 million dollars to field their roster or the Yankees deep pockets. All I can ask of the Brewers is that they try to put the best team on the field and are aggressive when the situation calls for it. They did just that in 2011. No. Not at all. Fans almost universally dislike their manager. Very seldom does a fan base overwhelmingly support it's manager. I'd guess the Baltimore fans are an exception, but that's a guess. Managers make a very small impact. One new metic I've seen referenced suggests that the difference between the very best manager in the sport and the very worst is 2 wins. Personally, I'd go with Roenicke, then Yost and then Macha. But really, I don't think it makes much of a difference. I think a pitching coach is more important. And why exactly does it have to be either or? You're basically saying, either Moore is better than Melvin, OR Melvin is better but Mark Attanasio prevents him from doing his job as well as he could. I think that's just ridiculous. The Brewers spend just short of 115 million dollars this year in player costs. So Attanasio is not the problem. How about this. Dayton Moore made some very good moves, he had some very good luck with some players, and the Royals got hot and are riding a great wave right now. The Royals success this year doesn't impact the Brewers success in 2011, and I get the comparisions because of the trade, but the suggestion that BECAUSE the Royals beat Baltimore, then all the sudden these certain things have become fact is ridiculous. What if they'd lost that game vs Oakland when they were down 7-3? Is Dayton Moore still better than Melvin and or our "meddlesome," owner? Is Yost still the best manager we've had? Did they still win the trade? The trade worked out beautifully for both sides. If Segura bounces back and we get something out of Pena or Hellweg, even better.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Gatewood, Larra...both are extremely talented obviously, but so is Coulter and he's been productive as well. I can buy Arcia or Taylor being ahead of him...not that I'd agree, but I could see it. But certainly not 6 young players.

What? We've developed one of the best catchers in the game, we've got Maldy backing him up, a fantastic backup, as well as a couple other very talented catchers in the pipeline. I think we've developed catchers just fine. I also believe Coulter would have developed into a average defensive catcher had the Brewers given him time, but with Lucroy, Coulter's back, and other needs, they obviously wanted to get his bat into the lineup as soon as possible. With regard to Lucroy, I'd actually rather see him catch less. Very few catchers can sustain the level of excellence with the bat that Lucroy has. We have a very good catcher backing him up right now in Maldy. He's a great defensive catcher, and when given regular AB's I think he can be an average hitting catcher. We also have Zarraga and Weisenberger in AA and AAA. So what's more important, Lucroy being a elite catcher for a short period of time, or being a very good offensive player for an extended period of time? I guess part of that comes down to the Brewers desire or ability to extend him. As of right now we control him for 3 more years through age 31. If we're to extend him....say 3 years 45 million right now, I'd like to see him try 3rd base. See if he can start to make the transition.

but also put together a decent WAR in his time. That isn't a Bust imo for a draft pick. Busts pretty much are selections that don't even make a ML roster. Ok then, stop calling Jungman and Bradley busts then as they have every chance to be as valuable as Barton. Also, Jimmy Nelson whom you've absolutely blasted for...some reason unknown to me has a WAR of .9 in about half a season worth of pitching. So if Kozma isn't a bust, please explain to me the absolute disdain you've shown for Jimmy Nelson? I just can't keep track at this point. It's just a avalanche of inconsistencies and double standards in order to paint Sied's draft in the most negative light and the Cards in the most positive light....which is particularly confusing since I pointed out the CARDINALS 2009 draft class was one of the best draft classes, not the class as a whole. Two VERY different things. But even if I actually said that, then in reality the Brewers would have been AVERAGE, not a complete "failure," or however you articulated your disgust with our 2009 draft. You see, you keep moving the goal posts here.

I believe it was Brantley if we made the playoffs and Taylor Green if we failed to do so. I don't think Lucroy was one of the options for the Indians. Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but how nice would it have been to give them Angel Salome(whom they really wanted) to complete the trade as opposed to a PTBNL who ended up being Brantley?

First of all, you're pretty generous calling some of STL picks "hits." Pete Kozma? He of the career 1.6 WAR? Barton had ONE good year for another team in which he had a 4.8 WAR with a career WAR of 7.1 playing from 2007-2014. And calling Marco Gonzalez a hit is also incredibly premature. So you start off obviously biased towards STL and you use arbitrary measuring sticks giving the benefit of the doubt to the Cardinals, crediting THEM with the players they picked later in the draft, yet you contradict yourself by dismissing the players the Brewers have picked later in the draft. Then you argue the Brewers 2009 draft was a failure because you compare it to STL's draft, a draft that people have written about as one of the best overall drafts in the past 25 years. So..yes, if you compare Bruce Sieds drafts(Which is the point of the thread) with the most successful drafting team during his tenure, he's not going to compare favorably. If you compare them to every other draft, they've been solid/incomplete, as in we have to wait and see how good the players become. If Coulter becomes a .280/.375 30 HR 3rd basemen, Gatewood, Medeiros and Harrison become good players, Jugnman and Bradley are good #4 pitchers, it moves the needle quite a bit. And yes, obviously if we'd drafted as well as St Louis, we'd be in the playoffs. I don't see how that in and of itself speaks to Bruce Seids legacy. You CAN have a good draft without it being the best in all of baseball for a particular year.

The Brewers don't have the money to spend on a SS, nor is it atop their list of off-season needs IMO, so Segura coming back should be a no-brainer. He's clearly talented. You can see that from watching one game. He's swing was out of whack all year, he started to hit at the end of the year(which while not being worth much, is something) and he hasn't been playing SS very long. He's young. I think it'd be just a terrible idea to use our limited resources to target a SS as opposed to giving Segura a shot to bounce back next year and try to improve 1B and the bench. And...of course if he doesn't work out as a legitimate starter, there is no reason that Arcia can't take over in '16 in which case he could give us a RH'ed platoon mate for Gennett and a good backup SS.

So what? One's an elite defensive CF'er, the other is a subpar defensive RF'er. One has a WAR of 5.2 the past two years, the other has a WAR of 13.4. Hell, Gomez is also a superior base runner to Harper. Now obviously one is a 21 year old left handed power hitter who's yet to hit his prime and the other is under club control for a shorter period of time, but to try and use their performances since Harper has come in the league and suggest THAT is the main reason the trade wouldn't happen is extraordinarily flawed.