HiAndTight

LOL...nicely played sir!

I don't think Rickie would really struggle much with the range in LF. I don't think his range is that big of an issue at 2nd base, I think it's the fact that he doesn't have soft hands. But yes, I think it would have been a good idea. Especially when you're missing Gomez,Ramirez, Braun and others for stretches of time and Khris Davis has struggled so badly. He likely wouldn't have been very good out there, but how many balls are hit to a LF'er on average? 2 a game? I'm sure he would have played out there sporadically, so he wouldn't have been the everyday LF'er, just a guy who can play there when there are injuries, or when they want to get another bat in the lineup. Weeks has always been my favorite Brewer, but his refusal to TRY LF at his managers(and I'm guessing the organizations request) is something I'm just not a big fan of. I do understand it though.

That's really not true, because contracts in MLB are not supposed to be tied to performance whatsoever. They used his poor performance in 2013 as a legitimate but opportunistic justification for sitting him for the first part of the season. I suspect they only asked him about trying new positions after it was clear he would miss the vesting cut-off. I'm sure Rickie was confident all along that he was good enough to be in the lineup, so the fact that they were only letting him pinch-hit must have seemed a clear attempt to avoid the option. Reasonable strategy on the part of the Brewers, but unfair from Rickie's perspective. And oh look, he now had a >.400 OBP and is close to having the best offensive line on the season of anybody on the team. Good thing they sat him just long enough to avoid that option... But we are all talking in circles here so I'll agree to disagree. Well of course contracts in baseball are tired to performance. Obviously the contract itself is tied to performances, but there are bonuses for winning gold gloves, MVP's, playoff MVP awards, among other things. So that's not true unless this is a recent development(as in the last 2-3 years). Adam Dunn get a bonus if he wins a Gold Glove. But beyond that, beyond the guaranteed part of the contract, of course option years are going to be based on performance. Otherwise you'd see grievances filed every year when a team turns down an option year for a player who's healthy. I can't understand why you believe that the Brewers made the decision to sit Weeks(actually platoon him) just long enough to make sure the option doesn't vest(and by the way it still could). They had one player who was 23 years old and took over for him after he got hurt and hit .324/.356/.479 with an OPS of .834. This after Weeks put up lines of; .209/.306/.357 OPS of .663 in 2013 230/.328/.400 OPS of .728 in 2012 He'd CLEARLY been regressing. Oh, and Gennett was playing better defensively at 2nd base. I could under your logic if this was a 50/50 type situation. Where Gennett and Weeks had performed equally and they decided to go with the younger and cheaper player, but Gennett was outstanding over 70 games last year and Weeks was awful. How many chances should Weeks have been afforded before it became obvious that someone else should get an opportunity? And yes, Rickie has an outstanding line right now. But we're talking about the thought process going into the season. Options are routinely declined due to performance, you can include performance based incentives into deals and Weeks had been very-VERY clearly outplayed coming into the year.

I'm hoping it's just him dealing with the adjustment of moving to the pen(hopefully for the short term) and dealing with/fighting through the soreness of pitching on a regular basis as opposed to once ever 5 days.

I'll reiterate. The Brewers farm system was ranked between 10th and 13th that year from the sites that I look at. And who cares if Escobar was in the big leagues? He was 23 years old. Gamel had very little major league experience. He was 24. The Brewers had 10 prospects with B rankings going into the 2010 season and Peralta and Odorizzi were ranked 7th and 8th....in the Brewers. Doesn't seem like the experts were calling our farm system "garbage." So this narrative you've created that nobody thought the Brewers had talent is simply false. You start out the argument by saying you don't care what the "so called experts," say because they said how bad our farm system was when we traded for Marcum and Greinke(and then follow that up by claiming they thought Peralta was garbage). You think they were proven wrong as a result of the Marcum and Greinke trade, yet the Brewers traded several players who had played in the big leagues already for Grienke(Which you seem to dismiss for some reason). And you come back with, "of course Peralta should have been highly rated, he's an ace," despite the fact that you just claimed everyone thought he was garbage. I feel like the goal posts keep moving here. You make a claim, in this instance that the experts always understate the Brewers talent. When that's proven wrong, you add this new qualifier and just dismiss the facts. Similar to what you did with Peralta. Who by the way, is NOT an ace yet. He's pitching great, but Clayton Kershaw, Felix Hernandez, Justin Verlander, Lester, Strausburg, Waingwright, Grienke, Sale, Fernandez, these guys are aces. Peralta is a good young pitcher.

That may be true in terms of reality, but I don't believe for a second that it was Rickie believes. I think that he still believe he's one of the best 2nd basemen in baseball when given the opportunity to play. And I think it's possible Weeks could have a great year this year. Not because he's hot right now, but just because he is and always has been pretty good when healthy. I think part of the reason is that he hasn't really played LF(I keep seeing he played there at Southern, but he was primarily a 2nd basemen, so how many games could he have gotten in LF in college) and it would be a major adjustment and the other part is I don't think he's ready to concede the 2nd base job to Gennett.

And you are sure that it was because major league hitters saw him a second time and not some other reason? The month of September 2012 was because hitters had seem him already, and not because he had pitched 56 more innings than either of his two previous minor league seasons? 2013 was because hitters had seen him before and not because he was distracted by his mother being gravely ill? (BTW, if you take out the Colorado game, his ERA the other five starts in August 2012 was 2.73 and his last two starts in August were quality starts.) Homer Bailey was pretty awful his second year in the league, worse than Fiers in 2013. Yes, age, blah, blah, blah, but including 2013 Fiers has a better career ERA, WHIP, K/9, and BB/9 than Homer Bailey. (Bailey does have the advantage of HR/9 - 1.1 vs. 1.2). And if you want to talk about recent performance, over Fiers last 74 innings in AAA - the PCL, a notorious hitters league - he has posted a 1.82 ERA, a 11.43 K/9, 6.46 H/9 and 94:18 K:BB ratio. No, Fiers isn't a #1, but I will argue that he is as good as 75% of the #4s and 25% of the #3s in the league. And under team control for a few more years at minimum salary he definitely has trade value. Absolutely not. I'm not sure of anything. But the argument has been presented that Fiers is clearly the better option and shouldn't be moved to the BP to help now because he has to be kept on a regular schedule to start. Torts made the argument that Fiers is a better option because he has had major league success before. I'm just pointing out that while Fiers has had succcess, he's also had failures, so that in and of itself is not a very strong reason to give him the ball over Nelson. I like Fiers, I liked the way he pitched when he was up here and I believe he can be a very good pitcher in the big leagues. I'm not sure if he's as good as 25% of the 3's or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him pitch very well. But Nelson is a guy who can legitimately become an ace. Both are ready. They're not quite equally dominant in AAA, but given the fact that Nelson can get the K's and has a heavy FB and Fiers gives up more fly balls, I'm simply saying that I'd lean toward Nelson. I think everyone agrees with you on this Crew, but everyone seems to think it's just a given that Thornburg will become the starter closer. Not just on this thread, but on others. I have yet to see the Brewers operate in this manner. I think the Brewers will give Thornburg a shot at starting again. It's not as if they've already gone the Papelbon route. Melvin and Roenicke have both said that they view Thornburg as a starter who's filling a need right now. I think Smith and Thornburg end up becoming starting pitchers....just probably not this year since we have two great options who are stretched out and those two are doing well in their role. This change will likely be made this off-season.

I'm not in favor of a 6 man rotation, but I AM in favor of the Brewers doing something similar to what the Red Sox did a few years ago. They seemed to give all of their starters a little rest with a 15 day DL stint. I would actually be in favor of this starting maybe in July. Give Nelson(or Fiers, both are good options I just like Nelson a little more) the starts. It serves two purposes. I think all 5 pitchers would benefit and it would make them stronger down the stretch, and it gives Nelson/Fiers starts. It may be counter intuitive and that might not be good for Yo and company. But it seems to me Gallardo does a little better and really picked up last year after the ASB and a little rest. Lohse is 36 now I believe. Can't hurt him to pitch fewer innings. Garza has had arm issues and Estrada has been injured. And then Peralta's just a young pitcher and you obviously want to limit his innings pitched if you can. The biggest thing is I don't think there is a big drop off from the top 5 to the next 2 starters and they may even pitch better.

Alright, that's the one of him running the bases. I thought that was Svuem from the Easter Sunday day, but I think you're right.

I think you could argue there are 3 teams in our DIVISION with more pure talent than the Brewers. Especially when the Pirates bring up Polanco and have one of the most physically talented OF's of the last 30 years. We have exactly ONE star player in Ryan Braun and he's dealing with a thumb injury that has changed his approach at the plate. Wait, Carlos Gomez and Jonathan Lucroy aren't stars? You have a different definition of star than I think most people do. Yes, of course Gomez is a star. Luc....I guess it depends on your definition of star. He's certainly looking like one. Especially as it looks like his defense has improved. He's throwing the ball much better and becoming more of a weapon vs the running game. I don't have the numbers, but you can see a cleaner release and more accurate throws. He's also quick behind the plate. He's put up a WAR of 3.6 the past two seasons. That's on the brink of becoming a star to me, and he looks like he's improved even more this year. So yes, I was perhaps hasty in excluding them(Gomez in particular). But I think my point about proven big league talent stands. I also want to make it clear I don't think you have to be the most talented team to win. The Nationals were one of the most talented teams in the game last year and yet they didn't make the playoffs. You also need luck. A huge part of baseball. I'm extremely excited and enthused about the start of this season. BUT....we're 39 games into the year. Less than a quarter of the way through. I'm just tempering my expectations a bit.

What are you even talking about here? When we traded for Marcum and Greinke we had a pretty well rated farm system. Peralta was a well regarded prospect while he was in the minors. If you ask the analysts we had a bad farm system with 1 good prospect in Lawrie. Yeah, they were totally shocked when we landed BOTH Marcum and Greinke. Many here were also. That's simply untrue. Alcides Escobar was the 12th rated prospect in the Brewers farm system. Orodrizzi was a top 50 prospect going into 2010. Jeffress was a high ceiling guy who was an obvious risk, and Cain had some major league experience and performed well. Mat Gamel was a top 100 prospect at the time of the trade. And the Brewers farm system was rated around 10-13. And going back to your comment that Peralta wasn't highly regarded, he was ALSO a consensus top 100 prospect as well as a top 50 prospect by several rankings. So I think you have a false sense of persecution regarding the media and the Brewers. Braun has literally said that his thumb has forced him to change his approach at the plate and he doesn't know if it's even possible to get it fixed. I'm not going to pretend to look in a crystal ball and predict what he's going to do and you certainly can't tell me that a player who's dealing with injuries on a more consistent basis is GOING to put up MVP numbers. Braun's very good and I'm sure he will continue to be. I'm simply concerned that he might deal with his thumb injury. I think just about every Brewers fan is, especially after there were rumors that he may have to have a season ending surgery on it when it got bad early in the year after he had 6 months of rest and that didn't fix it. No, K-Rod is NOT this good, no pitcher in the history of baseball is "this good," and his change-up has always been a fantastic pitch. Even when he was throwing 96-97 he wasn't "this good." This isn't even debatable. So Peralta is now a legit Ace after 45 innings? No, Peralta has the potential to MAYBE become an ace. Estrada is a #2? The other three are 2/3 type starters. We're good. Not great anywhere. Peralta has to PROVE he's an ace for more than a few starts before I declare him an ace. You say a lot of things. Everyone's ERA is significantly down this year, but we don't even have a 3.00 ERA RIGHT NOW and we've undoubtedly performed better than anyone should reasonably expect at this point. So to expect everything to work out as well as we can possibly hope is the only realistic outcome and to question that MAYBE things won't go quite so well for everyone is being unrealistic? What happens if the pitching struggles, Aram goes on the Disabled list as 37 year old players are known to do, Braun continues to deal with injuries, Gomez has an injury(As he injured his back tonight), Khris Davis and Segura continue to struggle and Rickie Weeks doesn't miraculously hit .330 all year long? I applaud your optimism, and I truly hope that the Brewers can have one of those years. The type of year where you have players who play well above their heads, everything comes together, you get a couple nice surprises(Smith, Thornburg, Peralta) and our starting 5 keeps us in every game even if it lacks a true ace. But you're just counting on literally EVERYTHING to work out nearly perfectly. That's just not realistic.

Why should any player, especially an underperforming, aging player, ever assume that he will be guaranteed playing time if he's healthy? He can make it up in his own mind that he's being 'screwed', but no player in any professional team sport should ever make an assumption of playing time given. Especially a guy who's put up the numbers (and defense) that Rickie has the past few years. A guy pushing into his 30's, sporting negative WAR 2 years running, with significant playing time, doesn't get more playing time, he gets less. I think we are talking past each other. When Weeks signed his contract, he was an oft-injured but elite 2B (arguably the best 2B in baseball from 2010-11 on a WAR/game basis, coming off a 5.8 fWAR season when he signed the contract). Nobody foresaw that in 2014 he would be benched for a (previously) non-prospect like Scooter Gennett. That simply was not the purpose of the PA-requirement. I know people on here may disagree on fairness/policy grounds, but the entire contractual framework in professional baseball is designed under the principle that money is guaranteed regardless of on-field performance. That is what the MLBPA has fought for and that's what distinguishes baseball from some other sports. The Brewers are fully within their rights to point out Weeks's bad performance and to bench him, but he's still getting screwed. If he had been a healthy player throughout his career, the $11 million option would have been guaranteed (or at least would have had a guaranteed buyout). He was oft-injured, so they negotiated a PA-based option. He's 100% healthy, but he's still not getting it. Nothing wrong with what the Brewers are doing, but I don't see how you can't empathize with Week on some level? Actually, I disagree. Given the fact that Rickie Weeks had struggled mightily, not just with injuries, but with performance, so much so that he actually had to be sent back down to the minors at one point because he'd performed so poorly(for a short period of time, but the demotion was performance based). I'm not sure why you're so stuck on this option year. Teams routinely add an option year for a player, especially a player who's been up and down throughout his career, has dealt with injuries and you're signing him to a long term deal that ends with his age 32 season. Rickie may personally FEEL however, but you're making assumptions, ie, that the vesting option was tied exclusively(or almost exclusively) to health and that the fact that Rickie has struggled so badly that he lost his job(deservingly so) wasn't what the "vesting option," was meant for. A vesting option is to protect the team. Period. From injury or from a dramatic decline in performance. And if Rickie and his camp had such an issue with it, they should have insisted upon another year, but they likely wouldn't have gotten it as based on his history, the deal he signed at the time was a fair deal both in terms of years and AAV. Players feel slighted for all types of reasons....it doesn't mean they've actually been slighted. And I do hope that Rickie is pissed off that he's lost his playing time. Great athletes don't become great athletes by being alright with losing playing time. But everything has been about as straight forward as possible here. And...frankly..if Rickie was willing to move to LF and he performed like he did in 2010, he could STILL get enough PA's to make that option vest. So if he's irked, he COULD be doing more about it by forcing his bat into the lineup regardless of position.

I would have to go with; CC-Pitching us into the playoffs. Molitor-Hitting streak? Yount-MVP Braun-MVP/The whole roids saga. Prince- And the one that is unexpected....I'm going to go with team streak again in 87 and a picture of maybe Svuem with the Easter Sunday HR, OR Juan Nieves after the No-no.

Nobody said it was "comparable." You said that Nelson had no Major League experience and that's just factually incorrect. Just simply pointing out that Nelson does in fact have some major league experience contrary to what you said. And while Fiers does have experience, and had a very good run, he had a 4.89 ERA in August in 35 IP, a 7.09 ERA in Sep/OCT in 26.2 IP. He pitched ~62 IP in the final 2 months of 2012 and pitched 65 Innings before that. So he was great for half the innings he pitched that year, really bad in an equal sample size the second half, and then followed that up with a 2014 season in which he posted an ERA of 7.35. So why is it a given that you go with the guy who had was good for about 65 innings and then just flat out awful after he went around the league for the next 84 innings when he's not as highly regarded or as talented as Nelson? To me, I'd call it a toss up. I wouldn't be surprised if either was called up the way the two are pitching now...but that's just me. Maybe I'm just not understanding it.

Mike Fiers (MIL) for Scott Van Slyke (LAD). Boom. Or Joc Pedersen...though that'd likely cost more than just Fiers. What the Dodgers really need is help at SS and or C or in the BP. Otherwise they've got 6-7 experienced starters including 2 aces, 4 all star OF'ers, 1st basemen, 3rd basemen, a very good young 2nd basemen. So maybe Fiers works for them in the BP, but I'd think they'd prefer a flame thrower than Fiers. They just have so much money available and some really nice prospects(Seager, Pedersen, Urias who dominated low A at 16 years old). It might be a good match, but the Dodgers don't strike me as the type of team that's going to "settle," for an unproven or relatively unproven pitcher to fill any need. Even if that's as their long reliever.

It sounds like the Brewers were trying to do both as they offered Abreu a pretty healthy and competitive deal and at least the way the deal is structured with the White Sox, the Brewers would have easily been able to afford both of them. I'm confident that Graza will go on a nice roll here at some point, but we definitely would be better off without the 50 million dollar contract and Nelson/Fiers or Thornburg in the rotation.

It seems to me he understands just fine, he just doesn't agree with you despite the extremely condescending tone. Nelson not only has pitched in the big leagues before(including a start in which he went 5 innings and allowed just 1 hit) but he has a much-much better arm than Fiers, but a higher upside. And it's not like Nelson is young for his league. He's 24 years old. They're both pretty attractive options, so I'm not sure why you think it's so outrageous that someone would have the opinion that you bring up Fiers to help the pen but still cover yourself with Nelson ready to jump into the starting rotation.

Mike Moustakas. I mentioned this is the Moustakas thread, but if this were the offseason, I could see a Estrada-Moustakas swap as Estrada's value. For what it's worth, I would make this move. I think this would be a great move for both sides. Estrada would be their #5 and maybe we hit it big with Moustakas, but at least we get someone who can give Aram some rest.

I don't think you expect anyone to have a Carlos Gomez career arc, but when you're dealing with talented players who have yet to pan out, obviously that'd be why you'd trade for them. And I don't see what having Yuni has to do with Moustakas. I also don't believe the Royals would seriously ask for Jimmy Nelson in return. Ideally you'd exchange another talented player who hasn't lived up to expectations(Gordon Beckham would be the type of player I'm thinking of). The Royals however have Danny Valencia(another pretty highly regarded prospect) and are platooning him with Moustakas right now. Why would they demand a huge return for him? This strikes me more as a Rickie Weeks(with us taking on most of his contract) for MM type deal as they're also struggling at 2nd base. Or Marco Estrada. They're trying to win now, and we're trying to get by while just hoping that we get a guy who can realize his potential.

I think you could argue there are 3 teams in our DIVISION with more pure talent than the Brewers. Especially when the Pirates bring up Polanco and have one of the most physically talented OF's of the last 30 years. We have exactly ONE star player in Ryan Braun and he's dealing with a thumb injury that has changed his approach at the plate. K-Rod was a bad pitcher for the O's last year and now he's Mariano Rivera(but slightly better). I know what their pitching can do over 6 weeks. I have no illusions that I "know," what our pitching is over a 162 game season with so many young pitchers and 5 starters who are at best low 2, high 3 types. I don't even know how else to respond to this other than to say that I don't believe anyone can make a honest, sincere argument we're more talented than the Dodgers, Tigers, Cards, , Rangers or Nationals just off the top of my head. And those are just the teams that are just MUCH-MUCH more talented. Now talent isn't everything. Baseball is a game that depends on luck and sometimes the best teams don't win. Which is why I'm excited about the hot start and having fun and am optimistic right now. But if you put the Brewers lineup and the Tigers lineup together for example, where exactly are we better? They have 3 aces in their rotation, the best pure hitter in baseball(or 2nd, either way), and a loaded lineup around him. The Dodgers have 3 aces, 4 all star OF'ers along with another top OF prospect in the minors, a really good young 2nd basemen, an elite 1st basemen and about a billion dollars to add to their talent. The Cards...they bring in guys who throw 98 like we bring in new baseballs. But hey, I wish I was as..."enthusiastic," as you are, but it's going to take more than a very good start before I start to believe this team is one of the 3 more "talented," in baseball. In terms of just major league talent on their roster or their most major league ready talent, I think they're closer to a top 15-ish team than top 3. So again, I'm just going to hope they continue to play well and things go there way. But we're certainly starting to see cracks.

Arenado is a total beast! nice gap hitter with 20 HR power and an amazing glove at the hot corner. definitely a guy to keep an eye on, he'll be a star. Not a bad left side of the IF in Colorado. [sarcasm]Of course Tulo is going to be traded to the Cards anytime now for Matt Adams and spare parts.[/sarcasm] At least I've spent a lot of time reading Cards fan forums where they've insisted this was a foregone conclusion.

Dunn might be having a resurgent year, but I wouldn't count on him keeping it up, and if he did, certainly not through next year. Though he could very easily hit .220/.320 and give us 35 HR's. The problem is he's so bad defensively that I'd rather just roll the dice with Hunter Morris. If the Brewers make a trade I believe it's going to be more along the lines of a Martin Prado from AZ, a guy who can play 3rd to backup Aram, 2nd, 1st, LF and RF. Not sure what it'd take to get him, but it won't take a Jimmy Nelson. A guy like Prado isn't going to put up a .900 OPS, but he can hit .280/.350 and do it at a number of positions. I don't think these teams are going to by prospect rankings. I think that teams are looking at players like Coulter, Tyrone Taylor, and a number of other players as pretty valuable prospects. They obviously scout players to see how they're progressing, and many of our young guys are really having great starts and have a lot of tools. Mike Fiers is a pitcher right off the top who could have a lot of value for a team looking for immediate help in someone's rotation and in their rotation down the road. I think you're really underrating the farm system. We have plenty of talent to put together a deal to fill a couple holes. We probably have the talent to make a major move if we were so inclined, but I don't think that makes sense to anyone. A major move for who? I agree about their farm, but the only 1B man I would want is Stanton. I have no idea as I haven't even given it a thought beyond the fact that I think it'd be foolish for the Brewers to try and do so. They have more talent than I believe adambr is suggesting and I think teams form their own opinions(which are fluid obviously) and we put too much emphasis on prospect rankings. However in order to land someone like Stanton, you're giving up Taylor, Nelson, Coulter...a package like that and probably more. Stanton is a nice player, but I have no interest in giving up 18-24 years of service time of young, talented, quality players for 2 more years of a very good player, but one who has not developed into the superstar that many have been waiting for(though...he's pretty damn good). This is a flawed roster. We don't have an ace. That presents problems in series vs teams like the Dodgers. We have 5 good starters, not one great one. Meaning we'd be in trouble going up against a Kershaw/Greinke/Ryu trio(and who knows who they add) or vs Wainwright, Wacha and whatever young pitcher is throwing 98 and dominating this post-season. Beyond that, one big bat is not going to give us an elite offense. It'd give us a very good one, but we'll have a very good one if we can get guys playing to their potential and make a tweak. The Hairston-Komatsu type trade is exactly what I was thinking(though Taylor and Hanniger are two players I wouldn't even give up). This year(I know I'm repeating myself) guys like Prado, Chavez, guys who can play multiple positions but aren't superstars are what we should and hopefully will be looking for. If you take out the best players in our system and guys with high ceilings AGAIN after several poor drafts just when our young guys are starting to play well and are making our system look better, you might end up with a marginally better team this year and a 60-some win team in a couple years.

We've guessed quite a bit at Clint Coulter's defense based on his stats but as far as I can tell the only thing that's really changed is he no longer just misses balls which is significant improvement from last year, but doesn't mean much for his long-term future at the position. He still doesn't get down to block balls in the dirt, he tries to pick them with his glove and while Rattler pitchers had 3 WPs in the game, all them could have been prevented by getting down and blocking the ball properly. In fact the 3rd WP I thought should have been a Passed Ball, it was about 4 inches off the deck and Clint just reached down for it but went too far and the ball caromed of his glove through the left handed batter's box. There was also a ball in the dirt on a ball 4 that got through him to screen which didn't advance a runner. The bottom line is that I've yet to see him get down and block a ball in his Brewer career. If he's not able to get down and block, he's just not a big league catcher. While I'm not going to disagree that this is not yet a strong point in his game, I have to imagine you either haven't seen him play that much, or this is just complete hyperbole at this point. I'm just not sure why there is such an interest in moving Coulter out from behind the plate. Catching is one of the most difficult positions to find and develop. The kid just turned 20 years old. He's got a VERY strong arm and has very good quickness. He's far from a refined catcher, but how many prep picks are at the age of 20? It's a position that takes time and patience to develop. Unless he continues to hit at the pace he has and is performing this well offensively in Huntsville next year, I see no reason to move him from behind the plate at this point to get his bat in the lineup. Bottom line you have a big kid with well above average athleticism, very good quickness, a very strong arm and what appears to be a pretty good bat. You're all about the big picture. You JUST talked in another thread about how you'd rather have a "4 WAR player," 3-4 years down the road than someone who offers instant gratification. While it's not exactly apples to apples here, isn't this the opposite of such a theory? You keep him at catcher for the next year(at the very least IMO) and at least give him the chance to develop as opposed to moving him to 1st base or a corner OF spot where his bat is significantly less valuable than if he develops into at least an average big league catcher. The only position I wouldn't be against moving him to would be 3rd, but for a kid who's never played 3rd, I don't really see why he'd be more likely to develop into a good defender there as opposed to behind the plate.

If Bradley is throwing closer to 92-95 this year as opposed to 89-91 as he said(and he said a big goal of his after dealing with injuries last year was to get his velocity back up to where it was in college) then I would say he's still a legitimate prospect. Not what you'd hoped for out of what many believed was a top 10 prospect at the time of the draft, but I look at a guy who should at least develop into a good reliever as a legitimate prospect. But that's a matter of semantics I suppose. But whatever his ceiling is, we need to find out sooner or later, and sooner would seem to make more sense for a guy in HiA 3 years removed from pitching in college.

He was a 1st round pick and is going to be 24. And his k/9 is close to twice what it was in 2012 at HiA. At some point we need to actually push the guy to see what we have. He's almost certainly going to struggle when he does get a bump up as he adjusts. I'd like to get him up here before he's 26-27 years old if he's a legit prospect.