HiAndTight

I'm curious -- do you have a reason for dismissing the pitch framing data? There's plenty I don't know, so maybe I'm just a rube here. But I understand how they got the data, and the methodology seems sound to me. It's also shown some consistency over seasons; Lucroy isn't just some one-year pitch-framing wonder. On top of all that, the data seem to correspond with what scouts and observers say about good catching form: stay still, minimize movement of the target, etc. Maybe there's more to your skepticism, but you seem to be saying that you dismiss the pitch-framing stuff just because it's new and counter-intuitive. I think those are good reasons to review a claim skeptically, but as far as I can tell, this one holds up pretty well under review. Hardly. Again, when metrics show that Jose Molina's pitch framing ability has been more valuable than Mike Stanton over the past two years, I find that absurd. Lucroy DOES do well in this area. I'm simply not willing to assign the value to it that others have. This from baseball prospectus; Still, consider the implications. Giancarlo Stanton, one of the most coveted young players in the game, was worth as much4 (in terms of Wins Above Replacement) over the past two seasons as Molina’s framing alone was worth in a part-time role over the past five-plus, yet Molina’s value, unlike Stanton’s, is largely overlooked. So no, it's not because it's new, it's because I don't believe it's an exaggerated metric. Has Jose Molina's pitch framing ALONE really been worth 10 WAR and 111 runs saved just from pitch framing over 350 or so starts? Basically saying he's been a more valuable player than Giancarlo Stanton?

Passive, huh? Offered Jose Abreu 6 years and 60+ million. He chose to sign in Chicago. Weren't willing to give a guy like Morneau a multi year deal for obvious reasons. He played well, and was told he was unavailable. Tried to trade for Ike Davis....Mets wanted Thornburg. Nobody would have been happy with that and Davis has been bad. Texas and Seattle were unwilling to trade with the Brewers. Again, Loney chose returning to Tampa and the only way the Brewers could have signed him was to overpay him. That's not passive, that's an absurd lack of options. Just the 60+ million dollar offer made to Abreu contradicts any suggestions they were "passive." http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/justin-morneau So explain to me how given what we know, the Brewers were passive? I'd argue they were unusually aggressive, and almost all the players people on this board wanted have struggled mightily.

Inexcusable, huh? This is what gets me. You have no idea what was being asked for some of these players. Now I suppose Melvin could be lying, but he literally came out and said that he was told Morneau was NOT available. He said he inquired about several other 1st basemen and was frustrated that he wasn't able to make a deal. He did say there were 4 minor leaguers who were considered untouchable(I would assume he meant young players and included Nelson). My guess is those players were Arcia, C oulter, Taylor and Nelson. But it's inexcusable that he didn't acquire a player he was told was not available. Going back to last off-season Melvin did try to aqcuire Loney. Loney chose to sign with Tampa Bay instead. I suppose when he was told that Morneau wasn't available, he could have offered up the type of pitchers that Col targets, heavy GB pitchers. But Jungman wasn't getting it done and I doubt anyone would have been happy with Peralta or Nelson+ for Morneau. He tried. Melvin, who normally keeps things very close to the vest said his biggest frustration was his inability and teams unwillingness to trade 1st basemen. So calling it "inexcusable," is based on ignorance. We're always ignorant as to how these conversations actually go, but in this case Melvin pretty much laid it out for us. There seems to be this thought process that if we believe a team is out of it, they are automatically going to trade a player. That if we want to sign a player, or want him to waive a no-trade clause, he'll just do it. It takes two sides and it certainly sounds like not only is Melvin not done having talked about waiver deal trades, but that HE made the exchange. If I have two cars and you have one, but the price I'm asking for that car is absurd, or I simply refuse to sell it to you, is it "inexcusable," that you weren't able to buy it?

Probably because I read things like this from a Brewers' writer... With Tyler Thornburg not pitching, not beyond realm of possibility that neither he nor Henderson will pitch again for #Brewers this year, "Not beyond the realm of possibility neither will pitch again this year," from a writer doesn't exactly equate to both are done for the year. Not encouraging obviously and probably while Melvin talked about his expectations that there will be late inning relievers available on the trade market, however also not exactly confirmation that both are "done for the season." I'm more hopeful regarding Thornburg at this point given that it was more of a forearm issue as opposed to a shoulder issue like Henderson of UCL like about 90 other pitchers this year.

http://i.imgur.com/seh6p.gif Looking at STL's schedule, I'm fairly certain they could be 9 games better than Milw in August alone. Especially if they get all three head to head. Brewers are what... 8 games under .500 over their last 50? I really think the smoke n mirrors from spring is over and the inferior pitching matchups will do them in. It's really easy to paint every team in a negative light using a teams worst stretch of games. Calling it "smoke and mirrors," is just ridiculous as is the suggestion that the Cards will gain 9 games in August alone. Neither Lackey or Masterson are guys who scare me in the least. Wacha might not be back(and won't until Sept at the earliest). Call them the Pirates and exchange the players and managers and nobody is THIS scared of the Cards. I never thought I'd say this, but this might be more over the top than the prediction that we'd have a 10 game lead going into Sept.

(3) at Saint Louis (Wainwright, Masterson, Lynn) 3-0 (3) vs SanFrancisco (Lincecum, Vogelsong, Peavy) 2-1 (3) vs Los Angeles (Beckett, Greinke, Kershaw) 1-2 (4) at Chicago North (Arietta, Hendricks, Wata, Jackson) 3-1 (3) at Los Angeles (Kershaw, Haren, Ryu) 2-1 (2) vs Toronto (Happ, Dickey) 2-0 (3) vs Pittsburg (Locke, Volquez, Worley) 2-1 (3) at San Diego (Kennedy, Ross, Hahn) 3-0 (3) at SanFrancisco (Vogelsong, Peavy, Bumgarner) 2-1 I have the benefit of the 1st St Louis game, and I like the way we match up vs St Louis. I'm going to go with 20-7....which is...well...optimistic to say the least, but I think we're going to beat some good pitchers and beat the teams we're supposed to. I think the Bats are going to get going...especially after beating Price and then smoking Waingwright in back to back games.

Maybe Parra will start because they tend to try and get the new guy in the line up right away from a trade or even a callup, but I see no reason to mess with Braun in order to do so, and since Davis has a better line vs right handed pitchers, it wouldn't be to put the better hitter out there. Parra does hit for a higher average and have more speed, so he may have value in being able to help manufacture runs....I suppose.

Bingo. I've long said that your 4th OF and your 5th IF need to be guys with whom you're comfortable as long-stretch everyday starters. That makes for solid depth when everyone's healthy and NOT so much trouble when someone gets hurt. I've liked Schafer for 5 years or more, and he's still an excellent defender w/ good speed, but Parra's a significant upgrade over him on lots of levels including defense. He is NOT a significant upgrade over Schafer defensively. Again; Parra -.3 WAR Schafer -.2 WAR Schafer has played more, and Parra is a better bat. And frankly, if I was to look at this team and what it needed, a legitimate ace is at the very top of that list and then a very good right handed reliever is 2nd. But it's a matter of cost. Like Parra but not at the cost given how he's performed in a hitter friendly park this year.

I'm giving credence to the most reliable information. His 636 combined plate appearances in A+/AA tell us far more than his 236 plate appearances in A ball or his 150ish plate appearances in the notoriously fluky environments of Spring Training and the AFL. No, you're giving credence to what you deem the most reliable information. He's performed above average everywhere. The Arizona Fall League is a VERY competitive league. He perfromed well there. But that was a fluke. Fine. Then he performed EXCEPTIONALLY well in AA except for April which I'm going to call a fluke. His performance in Brevard does count for something, he hit 7% better than league average. For me that is holding his own, but nothing to get excited about. Compare that to Taylor who is currently hitting 18% better than league average while being considerably younger. That I can get excited about. Ok, so take Taylor's best and Haniger's worst and that's the reason to get excited about Taylor but to declare Haniger insignificant and no real loss. For the record, I like Taylor more as well. I was using him to prove a point. Right, none of those guys in AAA have earned a promotion because they suck and there are no vacancies. First of all, Gindl, Schafer, Falu and others HAVE been promoted from AAA. My initial argument was that even starting by saying, "look at the guys who have the most at bats in AAA, they haven't been promoted," is on it's face illogical as those who get promoted aren't going to have the most at bats. But since you seem to want to stick to that original argument, fine. There have been several guys called up this year. And of course if a 23 year old prospect is performing equal to a 30 year old non-prospect, the 23 year old is going to get the nod. Much the same as our outfield has no vacancies for the next couple years, thus starting in AAA and pushing for playing time in the bigs are two distinct entities. By the time their is a vacancy I'd much rather it be filled by Taylor than by Haniger. Actually...no, YOU made them two different "entities." Neither are entities, rather potential scenario's, but I digress. The statement which you vehemently objected to was that he would have pushed for playing time in Milwaukee NEXT YEAR. So starting in AAA and pushing for PT in Milwaukee next year...those two things are NOT mutually exclusive. It's a normal progression of events. He was on pace to push for playing time in Milwaukee as soon as next year. Then, in your next argument is the fallacy that because all of our STARTERS will be back next year, that he won't be up(never mind the fact that there are no vacancies NOW and yet we traded for an OF'er) that by the time there IS a vacancy, you'd rather go with Taylor than Haniger. As if this discussion was EVER "which player would you rather take over for in the OF in 3 years, Taylor or Haniger." The debate is very simple. In my opinion, we gave up too much. In your opinion Haniger was a player of little consequence or however you articulated that point and losing him is insignificant. By trying to project 3 years into the future and say you'd rather have Taylor start over Haniger doesn't further that argument. It has nothing to do with it. I'll make this simple. I do like the addition of Parra, but his value to me with his diminished defense, the fact that he's a corner OF'er with a sub 700 OPS and has demanded a starting job is NOT worth 6 years of a very promising young player like Haniger as well as a talented long shot lefty in Banda. He's a minor upgrade over Schafer based on this year in that he won't hurt us AS MUCH as Schafer has if he plays the way he has the first 100+ games.

Pushed for playing time where next year on the big league club? Certainly not in CF or RF. That leaves only LF and the odds of Haniger pushing Davis for playing time would have been microscopic. Haniger was one of those prospects who is solid in a number of areas, but great or exciting at nothing. Those type of players tend to become backups in the majors, if they even get to the bigs. He has a career .776 OPS in the minors and not as some underaged kid during those stops at each level. He struggled in A+ ball last year as a 22 year old and this year he has a .732 OPS in AA ball as a 23 year old. Sure it's possible that Haniger has a breakout season next year in AA or AAA, but so far there isn't much evidence to support that belief. Where exactly did ANYONE say he was going to take over a starting job from Braun, Gomez or Davis next year? Framing the argument that way and then saying he doesn't have a chance to beat out Gomez or Braun and very little to beat out Davis when the ACTUAL argument was that he could "push for playing time." Generally a team goes with more than 3 OF'ers. Usually it's 5. And Haniger was raking in AA after struggling the first month. And yes, he was young for the league. 1.5 years below the league average. I'm also not sure when a .752 OPS in AA after hitting .193 in the first month is somehow a black mark. He's steadily progressed and made adjustments at every level to the point where he was crushing AA pitching. So at every level he's performed very well. AFL, Spring Training, A ball, BC, and AA. Nobody said he did so without experiencing any struggles, but if that's the barometer, then you can turn around and make the argument Tyrone Taylor hasn't done anything to expect much out of him either as he only put up a .738 OPS at Wisconsin. And again, this is all forgetting about a talented pitcher we threw in the deal.

It sounds like you're not giving credence to anything that doesn't support your argument. I'm not sure when the AFL became insignificant, but fine dismiss that. But if you're going to push the whole, "it's a hitter friendly league," then doesn't his performance in BC count for anything? The way he was raking in AA? And finally, do you see the overwhelming flaw in your logic regarding AAA players? You list those who have the most at bats. Do you think maybe they have the most at bats because they haven't earned promotions? You're starting to blatantly ignore anything that doesn't support the opinion you formed the first time you opened his BBRef page. Seriously, Pete Orr? What in the world does the number of AB's he has for Nashville have to do with the chances that Haniger could have pushed for playing time next year in Milwaukee? It's an illogical argument.

This is exactly where I am at. I am happy we added an upgrade to our outfield. Parra can hit some, and he's stellar defensively. But I do not like giving Haniger up at all. I haven't seen the Price to Detroit deal. I've seen rumors, but nothing more. You have a link?

I maintain that Haniger is no real loss, he hasn't had any success outside of Wisconsin. Schafer has better hitting stats in A+ and in AA. Mitch may well have a higher ceiling but tools are useless if they don't yield any production. You can keep saying he hasn't had any success outside of Wisconsin, but that's not true. He was very good in the AFL, he was outstanding in ST'ing, and he was very good in AA after struggling early on; May-.314/.375/.382 June-.283/.313/.696 And it's not like BC is a hitters haven, especially for right handers. So a .720 OPS is successful season for his second year in pro ball. Sure, Parra and Schafer have similar WAR this year but that is a counting stat and Gerardo has 300 more plate appearances. What would Schafer's WAR be if he had 440 plate appearances instead of 109? Considerably worse. Well that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of him, is it? Parra's only got a lower WAR because he's played more. Alright. He's still got a negative WAR for the year. Parra averaged 3 WAR a year between 2010 & 2012 with a 99 wRC+. If Haniger produces a single full 3 WAR season with league average batting I will be surprised. And if we traded Haniger for a 25 year old Parra, I wouldn't be complaining. But I'm not comparing the trade using Parra's 3 peak years. I'm comparing him using this year where he's put up a -.3 WAR and has not been good defensively.

Nobody said he would have started the year for the Brewers next year(though possible given how he performed this past spring training). I think there are some very short memories on here. Haniger was a guy everyone was talking about coming out of this spring training on this board. Jim Callis - With 96 minutes to go, OF Mitch Haniger leads the Best Prospect traded on deadline day race This is a guy who excelled in the AFL, who hit ~.300/.400 last year in A ball and came into camp this year and played great vs big league pitching. And yes, he very well could have pushed for PT in Milwaukee next year. If you are arguing that he would have likely started the year in AAA, how can you argue that he wouldn't have pushed for PT in Milwaukee next year? He can play all 3 OF spots and has produced when healthy.

Sure, if we don't take into account what we had to trade. For the record, Parra has been worth -.3 WAR this year. Schafer -.2 WAR. Parra's defense has not been very good this year by either fangraphs or BBRef measures. But he is a marginal upgrade off the bench.

Parra wRC+ 81 Schafer wRC+ 49 Haniger career minor league OPS 766 Schafer career minor league OPS 781 Haniger may have been a high pick but doesn't look like much more than a 4th OF at this point. This is an absurd oversimplification in my opinion. Haniger had a higher ceiling. Schafer regressing doesn't really have anything to do with Haniger.

He has a canon: Especially vs Davis's soft tossing arm. Not only will he start vs tons of RHP he will replace Davis when the Brewers have the lead late. 2 gold gloves (2011 and 2013) ... this is a great trade. Good job Doug! I totally disagree. Haniger has had a poor year in AA, but last year in A ball he hit ~.300/.400 and was impressive in ST'ing. For a guy who's a 4th OF'er and an arm such as Banda, I'd have hoped for more than just Parra. I don't see much of an upgrade. But...maybe he'll adjust well to being on a team in contention and he'll be a spark plug for us, but on paper I'm not a big fan. I liked Haniger and I think you're selling low on him (though to be fair, buying low on Parra).

You said no to Bradley for Morneau but would offer this for Craig? Morneau's road OPS this year is over 300 points higher than Craigs, plus Craig is owed significantly more future money. If the Brewers could have gotten Morneau for Jebediah, I assume the Brewers would be giddy. They'd have their 1B for not only this year but next year as well...and hell, maybe a 3rd year, and a left handed one at that for a relatively cheap salary.

I'll throw Jeremy Hermedia into that mix. Though at his age, you're hoping more for a guy who can be a nice bat off the bench(I would have liked to have seen him given a chance by the way as he was playing well in AAA). But some guys like Gomez take longer to develop. Obviously Wheeler doesn't have the upside Gomez had, but the point remains the same.

1. I think he can be better than a 3. 2. Can he be easily replaced by someone else making the league minimum for 3 years? At this point he's a 5. There are hundreds of guys in baseball that are making league minimum for several years. Nelson has the potential to be a #3, but he hasn't reached it yet. For me that's not good enough. If the Brewers have a chance to pick up an elite and proven SP than do it. This is the important part of the year. The team's rivals are on the verge of improving big time. Brew Crew can't get left behind... Why is his ceiling only a #3? He throws in the mid 90's, has a ton of movement and a very heavy fastball and a nasty slider. He has the ability to become at least a #2 and if he is the rare type of pitcher who's command, not just control, really improves, he absolutely could become an ace. And what rival is on the verge of "improving big time?" John Lackey and Justin Masterson don't scream "vast improvements," to me. In fact, I love that the Cards gave up Craig while dealing with his foot injury AND Joe Kelly for John Lackey. I don't believe either of the additions the Cardinals made are improvements over any of our 5 starters. More proven perhaps. But that's about it. Peralta's ceiling is that of an ace, and what does he have over Nelson? Another tick on his FB, but otherwise very similar pitchers. I get wanting the ace, but don't diminish the players we've got in order to do so. If you can put up a 8.5-9.0 K/9 ratio and rack up the GB's, you can be an ace IMO.

Sure. Left handed bat with some potential who can play 1st, 3rd or LF? Absolutely. If he's really cheap. I'd build an entire AAA team with guys like this and hope that you find a couple late developing talents.

I'm holding out hope it's more. I like Haniger a lot. He's struggled a bit this year for various reasons, but I'm just not that big a fan of Parra. No power. Great defense and I can envision a scenario now where he replaces Davis late in games giving us a really good OF defensively, but...I'd have taken Reed or Ziegler instead.

What about Ziegler? He'd be a nice addition and would fit very well with the lefties we've got.

So you would give up someone like Bradley or Lopez for less than 1.5 years of Morneau? That is a small improvement to give up any kind of prospect. At best you are looking at a 1 game win improvement if you add Morneau to the team it is just not worth it. Morneau is just not a difference maker that you trade a top 10 prospect for. Maybe Morneau will be a 5 game improvement over Overbay. Not sure how you can say "at best," he'd be a 1 game win improvement...unless you're strictly using WAR which is ridiculous. Wins don't come from WAR. You compare players using WAR, but with all the situations that come into play, the way a team would have to pitch to you with another left hander in the lineup(Gennett 2nd and Morneau 5th for instance). I really thought I was on the conservative side of trading prospects before this post, especially when it came to Price and Lester. But now we're not willing to trade a guy like Bradley for Morneau? Morneau is the EXACT type of guy this team should trade for. Cheap, team controlled for 2 more years, 1 if we don't want to pick up the option, solves our 1B problem for next year, really good hitter. Not great, but very good. And almost couldn't fit our lineup any better. Yeah, I'll give up Jungman, Bradley or someone like that for him.

You need to stop doing this to yourself. You've already made a lot of guarantees that....at least seem outrageous. Ie, the Brewers will be 10 games in front of STL by the ASB, top players won't become Free Agents anymore, especially pitchers(like Jon Lester, Max Scherzer for example) and now we're absolutely going to get Price by 3 today. There are others, but I'm just saying, it's like loading the executioners guns for them before putting on the blindfold.