HiAndTight

There are two schools of thought here. Most would say if you're going to spend that type of money, spend it on Prince. However if there's ever been two players that sorta skew that "position players are a better bet to stay healthy and pitchers to get hurt" ideal, it's these two.... So I'd be a lot more comfortable giving Halladay a 4 year 90 million dollar deal than giving Prince a similar deal over 7 years. I'd also be comfortable giving up Gamel(still not Lawrie), Parra, a minor league arm, and a guy like Gindl as a big of a starting point. Not that we'd have to give up TOO much more IMO, but they'd likely want something to sweeten it. Honestly though, the team I think goes after Halladay....the Phillies. With or without Hamels, they've still got the pieces in place to trade for him, and they've actually got more than enough, they have the money to lock him up, and with a front line of Halladay, Lee and Hamels, they could get right back in the world series. That's a scary good rotation. And their young GM seems awfully aggressive. Just makes sense on so many levels. The only one it doesn't is it seems a little crazy that they'd end up with both Lee and Halladay, but that may be what it takes for the Phillies to beat the Yankees next year, and that's gotta be their top priority.

While I understand that "Untouchable" doesn't literally mean untouchable(if the Rays came to us with Price and Upton, I'm thinking Braun or Prince would be gone). That said, it means as close to as possible. I have to say I really hope that isn't the case with Prince. It should take a kings ransom and a deal similar to what people were suggesting for Halladay last year IMO, but we should also be listening. If I had to tag 3 untouchable players I'd remove Prince and throw in Lawrie. Not that he's more "valuable" per say, but I don't see us getting what I percieve to be an equal return on our investment.

LOL....based on that, Ueck may be one of the worst of all time. He'll get ya at least once a game. "Get up!!.....Get outta here!!........CAUGHT in shallow CF by the Shortstop". Seriously though, if people don't like him, that's fine. Like I said, I'm simple. I liked him. People seldom seem to like the broadcasters. Heck, the best in the business has been called out on this thread in Joe Buck. That was pretty funny though, imagine listening to the game on the radio. Twins fans would have to be livid! At least Ueck's hilarious between he's gaffe's.

I would be thrilled with such a deal, however as Yoshi stated, it will likely cost more money than that. I think we're talking about either 3 years and 30 million, or 4 years and ~36 million. We could possibly get around that by offering a vesting option for the 4th year, or a team option with a 1.5 buyout. But as someone else stated, what I would love the most about this is that it would allow us to go after a couple other low risk/high reward type pitchers such as Sheets, Duke, Smoltz, Penny. And then we could STILL sign Mulder to a 1 year minor league type deal. And frankly that's what it's going to take IMO for us to be legit playoff contenders. A rotation of; 1-Yovani Gallardo 2-Randy Wolf 3-Ben Sheets/Other FA who signs short, incentive laden contract 4-Manny Parra 5-Dave Bush Other SP'ers Jeff Suppan Mark Mulder-Would start year in minor leagues and have option in contract to be waived if not called up by June perhaps. Chris Capuano-A long shot and likely better served as a Loogy at this point, however someone else with starting experiance. Now I believe that Parra will have a big bounce back year. Sheets will likely miss chunks of time, but we're protected against that. Mulder is a big question mark, but he's a very small risk. I will say that I'm a big fan of his, even when he came back to the Cards last the ball looks very tough to pick up for lefties and gets on you quickly. Gallardo is Gallardo and only getting better IMO. Bush is a far better pitcher than he was after the Marlins game last year. Frankly I believe this rotation would have the potential to be a top 3-4 rotation in the NL if things went well(not perfect). Could be very exciting.

I think Josh Butler's is the most encouraging. With that good movement on his fastball resulting in a very nice GB ratio, throwing 91-92 can really make him tough. As for the others, Rogers just pitching still makes me happy, regardless of his numbers, same goes for Braddock. Omar Aguilar is Luis Pena Jr. IMO which only means to me that we'll have to wait a very long time to get anything from him. I expected Aguilar to throw a bit harder as well. As for Wooten, next year is going to be very, very telling IMO. Is he going to be a Davis Riske type who can thrive despite realitively mundane, average stuff? And yes, David Riske DID thrive before coming to Milwaukee.

Perhaps it's just because I'm exceedingly high on this young group of pitchers, and Mr. Rivas is toward the top of the list based on his arm. Again, best Change in the FSL and mid 90's fastball to go with a good off-speed pitch. I believe at this time next year he'll distinguish himself and rank among the top 100 prospects in baseball. In fact, I believe we could legitimately have 5-6 who could rank in the bottom half of the top 100 if they have good years next year. But you are correct, we agree on the fundemental aspect of the conversation. I guess at the end of the day I really don't want Josh Johnson that badly. He's had a TJ surgery, he's going to cost 40 million over 4(at least). So while he's a fantastic young pitcher and would give us a dynamic 1-2 with he and Gallardo(in either order), I don't like what the price would be. Of course I was also rooting against picking up Roy Halladay last year for Lawrie and Gamel(plus). So until I feel we're at a place where one pitcher can make us a legit world series contender, I'm simply not in favor of giving up a number of good prospects to win 86 games. I would like to figure out a way to get Jason Knapp from the Indians however. That's a kid I absolutely love for a completely random and meaningless aside.

Yes, you are correct, it could be Mark A's call, but he's generally been a little less frugal with the purse strings than Doug Melvin has, and given that the team clearly has some money to spend, it sounds to me as though this is Melvin being a little bit too careful when perhaps a little risk is in order. As for when you can trade him, I don't believe it's the same as a Free Agent. I believe you can trade him almost immediately. Someone else will clarify I would assume.

Well I expect him to play a full season, but you're absolutely right. How can the team "expect" that of him after the last few seasons and coming off a wrist injury. But it's not so much that I think we ought to offer it to Lopez so we can keep him. I think keeping him at ~5 million would be a fantastic deal and would allow us a great deal of flexability, but moreso that I think he'll obviously turn it down and you'll pick up a coveted draft pick for nothing. Yovani Gallardo, Kentrail Davis, Kyle Heckathorn, Cameron Garfield, Max Walla, JJ Hardy, Jacob Odorizzi...these are just a few of the guys we've selected in the 2nd round in recent years. This is the type of talent you're giving up for absolutely nothing by letting him go. It's just not a good baseball decision.

Either way, I think we all agree that the proposal for Johnson isn't really that close to what the Marlins would want. And again to reiterate my point, I'd really be against moving a Rivas, Peralta, Scarpetta type as their value at this point is minimal regarding what I believe to be their upside and potential. Keep 'em all. Keep as many power arms who have high upsides as possible. And again, no Brett Lawrie.

So if I believe that our group of young pitchers is better than most and all in all a very strong group, I'm "kidding myself"? That's a bit condescending. Disagree if you will, but I don't believe I'm "kidding" myself. I believe with an average amount of injury concerns that this group will be a very impressive group of young arms, and I know many in the Brewers organization believe the same. I suppose we could all be "kidding ourselves", but I guess time will tell. Either way, I believe Sox is a very insightful poster and understands the game quite well, but to readily admit you know little about a prospect and then dismiss his value is a little contradictory IMO. Hey, by next year, Rivas could be on another TJ, Braddock could have struggled and had issues in AAA, Rogers could have had a large set back, Odorizzi may have run up a 5+ ERA in Appleton, Peralta could struggle, and on and on and on. There's far too much that can happen, so I won't pretend to have a definitive answer as to how they'll develop. I will say however that I believe you're vastly undestimating them.

Well anything could happen, but the Brewers cannot forgo valuable supplemental picks simply based on the long shot that someone could get hurt before the season. Not offering Lopez arbitration would be just an incredibly foolish move. Cameron is obviously a different story because regardless of the affection for him on this board, he's clearly not valued as highly around baseball. I do find it interesting. With one group of friends I'm arguing just how clueless they are to call Mike Cameron a terrible player and how he wasn't worth 10 million(he MAY not be worth it to us, but he's not quote-unquote "over paid"). How he strikes out and"only" hits .250. And on this board the exact opposite is true, he's valued a bit higher than I feel his actually is as I think WAR and other such are just jumping off points, not to be taken as an exact metric. In any event, the fact that they're even considering not offering arby to Lopez is just incredible IMO. Just ridiuclous.

I agree, I don't see that saying, (fill in the blank) was throwing 92-94 last night. I suppose if the guy looked pretty bad and you're talking about how erratic he was and what not, that may be a little bit inappropriate, but just simple radar readings....can't see how anyone could have a problem with that. But hey, to each their own. If you don't feel comfortable with something, it's probably best not to do it, regardless of how mundane it may seem. On that note though, how's Pena looking right now Agent? His velocity still sitting in the 95-97 range and topping out in the triple digits still?

Pena to me seems like the type that'll have a Grant Balfour type career. He's been awful at times, but with an arm such as his, provided he sticks around, I believe he'll figure it out. Perhaps not to the level that Balfour has, but all the same, he'll be effective and a very late bloomer.

I guess I'm easy to please because I thought Chip Caray was alright. As for Tim McCarver, I think he's great. He's old school, but not Joe Morgan old school. McCarver knows the game as well as just about anyone who does national broadcasts IMO, and he and Buck provide the best combo I've ever seen. I do like BA and hope he stays put. Seems like he's formed a legitimate bond with the city and the team.

I have a hard time faulting Bud for not taking on the worlds most powerful union yet again just a mere decade after a devastating strike, however needed that action may have been. Frankly, as much as I love the game of baseball and how much I would miss it, I would welcome a 18 month strike, or even a 2 year strike if it meant that there would be something resembling a level playing field. I see no reason why MLB cannot institute a system somewhat similar to the NFL, the most powerful sports league in the country. Set the salary cap at maybe 150 and the floor at 75, and make it so that it goes into effect 6-7 years down the road, and that for every dollar over you pay a dollar in a tax like the NBA. Actually I guess I would combine the NFL and NBA. More revenue sharing, a floor and a ceiling, and you do allow those big market teams to go over, but they would have to pay a tax. Hell, you could even have the tax be something like 50 cents on the dollar. Spend 200 with a 150 cap and you spend 25 million to be divided up between the rest of the teams. Take 20 pct of the total gate reciepts and divide those up amongst the rest of the MLB teams. Take 20-25 pct of everyone's TV deal and divide those up. I believe the NFL is significantly higher in all respects. Of course this will never happen, but just imagine if the Brewers had an additional 20 million dollars to spend? You add John Lackey, possibly Derek Lowe and bring back Mike Cameron this season, and lock up Prince Fielder. All of those would be very, very possible if the Brewers had 105-110 to spend this year. Not talking about signing the best TWO pitchers and the top position player in one off-season as the Yankee's did, just spending enough to stay competitive.

Hey, all I'm saying is that it appears that Bud's been the one trying to bring the owners along in virtually every move for the last 10 years. I don't mean he's "progressive'', just realitively speaking he's progressive. MLB Owners are an stuffy old group that does not like change. With regard to the instant replay, I haven't followed the comments he's made very closely, so I don't know what he's said, or how he's said it, but I'll take your word that he's been very much against it. Which is disappointing. I consider myself a "traditionalist", but there's simply no reason to not have instant replay on fair/foul balls. Beyond that it gets a little iffy for me. Do you want to have instant replay on every out call at 1st base? We're talking about a slow game getting even slower....which is fine for me, I love 5 hour games, but most people hate them. If anything you do it like CFB and have a guy upstairs who is in communication with the Home Plate ump and he reviews questionable plays and makes the call so they don't all have to go behind the dugout and make the call. For the record, I think that GW would be a good commish. I'm not going to get into politics other than to say I was not a fan of his administration, but I think he'd be a great commish.

Absolutely. I wanted Jackson a great deal last year(along with a rather large list of those who didn't enjoy his success), however this year he just seems like you're buying way, way too high on a guy likely to regress.

And yet Craig Counsell has routinely carried an OBP significantly higher than his BA. I think this is partially true in that hitters who don't hit for power will have to work harder to draw a walk, but they can definitely draw some walks.

So you're making an argument that neither of us agree with? Interesting . . . Sounds like what each of us would call a bad argument. What???? I honestly don't know where this is coming from. It is possible to agree with one point, that this package wouldn't be one that would get Josh Johnson, but to disagree with your individual evaluations of the players as being nothing special. Seems pretty simple to me. I think that the Rays and Red Sox are probably the only organizations out of the 5 to have a better stable of young pitchers (aside from the top prospects) than the Brewers, but every system has a solid collection of projectable arms. As for your lists of pitchers, it's too long of a list to get into, and I'm not familar with some of them, but simply listing names does not in any way prove that those are similar to Rivas, especially when you've stated repeatedly you're not very familar with Rivas. I think anyone could go get their BA Handbook and start listing every pitcher that's not in the top 3-5, but I'm not certain how it impacts our discussion. What it does not to is tell me in any way whatsoever that Rivas is a dime a dozen type prospect as you're suggesting. But now I'm lost. If you agree in one sentence that the Brewers collection of young arms is as good as anyone not in the top 5, what are you arguing about with the AL East teams?

Move McGehee to right, stick DeRosa at third, trade Hart? As for Beimel vs. Shouse, Beimel's my preference - he is nine years younger, and averaged nine more games and 20 more innings per year. Shouse has too much of a risk that he'll suddenly decline - Beimel looks like a surer bet. If you're going to do this, why not just keep DeRosa in RF and McGehee at 3rd? In one scenario a player has to learn a position he's never played, in another two players can play positions they've played for some time. I would also prefer Beimel, the problem however is that Shouse knows Milwaukee and may be more inclined to return whereas Beimel wouldn't prefer Milwaukee over any other place.

I hope you're wrong, but my fear is that Bud was the progressive one of the group and all the owners were the ones who didn't want to change. Maybe if W comes in he'll be able to ram things through just as if he was still in office....

Those people never were fans to begin with. They didn't love baseball. Anyway, just because there is a bad outcome doesn't mean it's anyone's fault. You can't throw pitchers extra innings in an All-Star game. Not to sure how happy a team would be having a closer ruin his arm in a playoff race. Actually, I am. Ask Charlie Manuel. Real or not, the Phillies weren't happy, nor were the Rays, and that was just simply because those pitchers had to pitch last year.

w.r.t. Rivas - I've never seen him pitch, but his MiLB performance and scouting reports suggest he's a solid prospect - like Odorizzi and Scarpetta and Rogers and Anundsen and Periard . . . etc. The fact that the Brewers have this many similarly tiered players suggests that other teams do too. This doesn't mean that Rivas isn't good or valuable, or won't end up being better than any of these guys, but it certainly reinforces the notion that he is not an elite prospect. I really don't agree with this at all. The position that because the Brewers have a lot of these "types" of pitchers doesn't suggest in any way that other teams do. That in and of itself doesn't really say anything about other organizations. I think that the Brewers in fact would rank among the top couple organizations in the game if you're comparing the upsides of the pitchers we have in the lower minor leagues. I disagree that Rivas compares favorably to any other pitcher in the system. I think Arnett, Braddock and Peralta are on a level above the rest of the pitching prospects (I'm particularly high on Peralta), even though Heckathorn got a lot of love in the offseason rankings. Well I said that I think an argument could be made for him compared to any other pitcher in our system, and I still believe that. I'm high on Peralta, Arnett and the rest of the guys. I don't think that you can put Braddock as a reliever on the same level as Rivas until Braddock shows he can put together even a months worth of starts. His ability is so impressive, but if he can't be a starter, he losses a lot of value. In any event, I believe were you to put a Mat Gamel in that package over McGehee, you're getting closer to the true value, so at the end of the day we agree on the larger point.

Or maybe they just signed him because he had a fantastic 2009 season, they needed a closer for 2010 and Hoffman wanted to come back. It amazes me how much people read into simple things and how critical they can be of those simple things. I also think Melvin has more difficulty with a financially strapped team in a small market than he does doing several things at once. Being a GM is awfully easy when speculation and poor moves have no consequences. Heck, I've advocated a lot of moves that would have worked out great. Edwin Jackson last year. But I also tend for forget about the ones that would have crippled the franchise. Heck, I preffered we outbid the Dodgers for the services of Jason Schmidt rather than pay for Jeff Suppan. As bad as that deal's been, at least he's taken the ball for us.

Curiously though, despite the emergence of Casey McGehee at 3B, Gamels continued defensive issues and the Brewers declaring Casey their 3B going into 2010, the Brewer brass continues to insist they have no plans to move Gamel.off of 3B. I realize I'm late to the party on this one, but when have the Brewers declared that Casey McGehee was the 3rd going into 2010? I don't recall any such declaration, though it's concievable I missed it. More likely though, I don't believe they've made any decision, and they, like almost everyone else have lingering questions regarding McGehee. Now we are getting stories in the national media that the Brewers are likely to hang on to Gamel. Translation: nobody's come forth with a young stud pitcher Melvin thought he could get straight up for Gamel. Again, this is your translation. Perhaps the reason they're not trading him is because they think he's pretty good. They didn't want to trade him last year when they were discussing potential trades, though reportedly were willing to do so if the right offer came along. They reportedly preffered to hang onto him in the CC trade as opposed to LaPorta due to him being a LH'er. So perhaps the answer is because the Brewers just like him still and they don't want to trade him. I just don't see any indication that the Brewers thought anything specifically regarding Gamel's trade value and I think it's taking a large leap to say because they're not moving him to RF that it must be because nobody wants him for a good young pitcher. Question is, how soon if ever will the Brewers announce that Gamel will "get an opportunity" to "play some OF" in spring training? I'd say around January 15th I don't know.....I really doubt it, but even if they do I don't see that as evidence that Gamel doesn't have much trade value or that the Brewers are actively looking to unload him.