Gopher74

I think the Giants would, too. I kinda doubt it. Cain's a legit ace. As much as I like Hart, I don't think he's worth a pitcher like Cain. Not that this is the end all or anything, but BA just had a list of top 25 players 25 years old or younger, a list that only one Brewers, Prince Fielder made. Not Ryan Braun, not Corey Hart, not Gallardo. Matt Cain however did. I can't imagine that the Giants would be so eager to trade away their only position of strength.

It'd be a great idea if he could play in the OF, OR if he were still a catcher from time to time, but as our roster currently stands, it's not a real good trade. I do agree with you however that our bench is the only place that this team could really use an upgrade...a realistic one that is as we're not likely to add a upgrade in the rotation or in the lineup. I just would like a little more versatility. I think that you've got a pretty good idea though with a guy like Mike Jacobs for Dave Bush, just not a good fit.

"Crabbe sees his opportunity with the Brewers coming at him, and like a fastball hanging over the meat of the plate, he's ready to put a good swing on his chance of breaking into the big leagues." A sign of things to come perhaps?

By the way, I was just thinking about what could be our AAA rotation. Manny Parra/Carlos Villanueva Chris Naverson John Patterson Chris Capuano(if he goes on the DL and spends some time down here rehabbing) Zach Jackson Tim Dillard Steve Hammond Maybe not a lot of frontline starters, especially if Parra breaks camp with the big league team, but a lot of pitchers who could fill a nice little role for the big league team in the future. Pitchers who can perhaps be long men, or in the case of Naverson a lefty out of the pen if they don't develop into big league starters which most likely won't. But this is a pretty good AAA rotation all the same. There were years where this would be better than our big league rotation. God I'm glad that Sal Bando is gone.....

I can absolutely see where he is coming from. Great, he's 41 years old, and he's not a great defensive OF'er any longer, but he still is coming off a season in which he hit .296 with a .367 OBP and 23 stolen bases. He could absolutely could be a very nice role player for a contender. He hit .313 last year with a .386 OBP vs Right Handers, so maybe he was poor vs left handers, but he's still very good vs 75 pct of the pitchers out there. Seems to me that he'd be a great guy to have coming off the bench, and it sounds like he'd be willing to sign for 2-3 million dollars to play on a contender. He's not a complete player obviously, but if he were, he wouldn't be on the market still, but it's far from ridiculous for a guy who's just consistently been a very solid player, even into his 40's. His three year splits; 05-07 .313 BA .371 OBP .783 OPS with 77 SB's and 13 CS's in that time to go with 232 R's scored in just 327 games started. That's not a bad job at all. He really would fit into our roster perfectly at this point providing a very good starter for the first 25 games and then giving you both a great PH'ing/PR'ing option the rest of the way, and a good clubhouse guy.

The Washington Nats released John Patterson a couple days ago in a pretty surprising move. Patterson was the Nats opening day starter last year and posted a 3.13 ERA with nearly a K per 9 and a 1.19 whip in 2005 before suffering nagging injuries the last couple years. He's got a big fastball that can reach the mid 90's, and a big overhand curve that can be an out pitch. He is 30 years old, but Doug Davis was 29 years old when we pulled him off the scrap heap a few years ago, and he didn't have as good of a year as Patterson has had in the big leagues. So my question is, should this be our latest reclamation project? I'd have to assume that there is another team out there that may be interested that likely offers him a better chance to work his way back to the big leagues, but this guy has a good arm, and can get the K. If nothing else, I'd just like to stash away a couple talented guys in AAA like he and Naverson in the hopes that we can find a diamond in the rough for next year when Sheets likely departs. And beyond that, even if he doesn't ever start a game for the Brewers, he seems like a perfect candidate to move into the bullpen for the Brewers, and Lord Knows we're going to need to once again replenish our pen in 09. Naverson and Peterson would be a nice R/L combo IF they could somehow regain their form and realize their potential.

I don't think the 6 games in AAA had anywhere near as big of an impact as his wrist getting healthy almost a year to the day that the Doctors gave the team for his wrist to be fully healed. Rickie Weeks at his worst over a full season was about the same as Brian Roberts was last year, his second best season in the big leagues. The fact that Rickie's 25 years old and Robert's is going to be 31 makes this a bad trade even if Weeks didn't have a incredibly amount of potential. Weeks is the question mark for this team this year. It's make it or break for him. If he excells we are right to hold onto him. If he bombs, which he has the potential too, we will be trading him for a prospect or two later this year I can pretty much promise you that the Milwaukee Brewers are NOT going to trade Rickie Weeks for a prospect this year, even if he has as bad a start as he had last year. Just the fact that he was so good in the second half would be enough reason to not trade him, and especially not for "a prospect or two". That's just absolutely not going to happen. I think this is an important year for Weeks, but even at 25 to suggest that if he has another down year that the Brewers are just going to dump him isn't realistic. They've got too much invested in him, and they have him too cheap for the next 4 years for it to make any kind of sense to deal him. The Nationals were willing to give up a 25 year old all-star closer with 140 saves already and a 2.79 Career ERA for Weeks after a down year. I can't imagine his value would go from that a couple months ago...(and by the way, the Brewers turned that deal down) to just dumping him in another couple months.

The payroll is about 83 million dollars and while the young kids are going to need to get paid, I just don't understand why anytime a topic comes up and someone mentions one of our good young players, people just assume they're going to be gone. If anything, the 83 million dollar payroll and the fact that the team is making a lot of money...a lot more than it's ever made before, combined with Mark A's comments tells you that we ARE going to sign some of our players. Hell, we've got 10 million coming off with Gange, Sheets, 3.25 with Counsell, Suppan could be gone, Cameron's 7 million, Kendalls 4.25, Torres, Mota making about 6 million combined will be off the books...that's almost half our payroll right there for just this year without Suppan and I haven't touched on everyone. With Suppan that's over 50 million dollars. Now of course some of those players will have to be replaced, but that's where you hope that our farm system continues to develop players. We have a couple years yet before we really have to pay everyone. Are we going to sign every player? No, of course not, but we're going to be getting a lot of comp picks, and we've got a fantastic scouting dept. My point is only that you can't say we've got an 83 million dollar payroll and then we're going to have to pay these guys as if we'd still have that 83 million, but then have to add from there. To just assume that we're going to lose everyone...I just don't get it. This isn't Wendy Selig-Prieb's Brewers any longer. And at 83 million dollars, the Brewers are still likely going to make a lot of money.

He has a significantly better chance of being called up at some point this year than R.A Dickey did last year. I'm not sure if you're saying that he has as good of a chance to get called up as Dickey did, or if he has as good of a chance to make the opening day roster as Dickey did to get called up. I assume it's the prior. Naverson ranked once upon a time as the Cardinals number 3 prospect and a future number 2 or 3 starter. The fact is, he's suffered setbacks, but he's still just 26 years old, is a left hander, and still has a great deal of ability. So, again, assuming that you're arguing that his chances of making the team are the same as Dickey's I'd argue that Dickey who is 34 years old, a right hander and a knuckleballer wasn't nearly as viable a candidate to get called up. I also think that if Naverson can stay healthy, and that's a giant if, he could be Melvin's latest and greatest find. 4 pitches, a solid fastball, average curve and change, and a slider that could be an out pitch to go along with good command. I'm not suggesting he should be on the 25 man or anything like that, simply that he's an interesting guy to stash away in AAA and let develop and maybe we uncover a gem in the future? We're going to need someone to step up with Sheets likely departure and the possible trade of Suppan next year.

Only if you ate it with a sadistic "Dr. Evil" like laugh with your pinky finger in the middle of your bottom lip.

Yea, but while it seems that some fans really grew to despise Jenks over the last few years, I really hope that he experiances a bit of a resurgence in Philly and that they(the Phils) have a good season. While I think that it's a little silly that people say that he did us this favor by sticking around when we were bad(giving a guy 7-8 million a year is a nice incentive), I still appreciate that he was here through the bad times. The one thing regarding his play that I don't understand is how he had such a bad year last year, namely OB wise while in a platoon. His OBP was just .326 vs right handers, leading to a career low .319 OBP overall.

No, it's probably more frustrating for you because Ben Sheets has absolutely nothing in common with Kerry Wood or Mark Prior. In fact, I don't understand why Sheets ever gets lumped in with those two. Sheets has never had shoulder issues. He's never had elbow surgery, and Sheets worst years as far as IP would be a great year for Prior this year as a starter, and would be a great three year run for Wood. I think it's just because he's an ace, and he has been bit with the injury bug as of late that people equate the two, but there's not much to it. By the way, I'm sure you didn't mean that to be a real serious statement or to spark a debate, it's just that a lot of people say Sheets is like Wood and Prior and I just don't see it. And throwing across your body means just that. You throw across your body. As you release the ball, your arm comes on an angle across your body.

A projection like Marcel is where we should start when we are trying to make the best educated guess. All it does is look at the performance from the most recent seasons, regresses it to the mean some and adjusts for age. From there, you can add any other information you might know (injury history, possible park effects, whether he was being platooned, etc...) to tweak it. Marcel is just the best "dumb" guess at future performance based on prior performance. Yes, of course, I understand what projections are. I took exception with the suggestion that Melvin shouldn't have brought Kapler in because of his projection which appeared to be how you phrased it to me. Projections to me are something that's fun for fans to use, but I don't want the GM's and Scouts of the team I root for to use projections for more than a little afterthought. Yes, be cognizant of a players past production, but look at their actual skills before that, and in the case of a player like Kapler, where you have a need, I like the fact that they brought him in, and are evaluating him in camp despite the fact that his projections and his 3-year splits would discourage such a move. I think with Kapler even more, he's suffered from injuries the last couple years. Now I don't think that he's going to be anything more than just a passable player for the first month and maybe a nice defensive replacement, PH'er. By the way, I didn't mean to come off the least bit insulting. I generally respect you and your take, and usually agree. I was directing it towards Melvin and anyone else in Brewer management who thought it was a good idea to bring Kapler back from the dead. I tend to give Melvin the benefit of the doubt when it comes to picking players off the scrap heap. Who else would you like to have seen the Brewers bring in? I guess to me, there just aren't many players out there who would have come to the Brewers for a tiny salary, and who would have accepted such a deal knowing that they could very easily and likely be cut once Cameron's 25 games are complete.

I'm not sure what this is saying. I'm just arguing with the logic that you don't invite a guy to spring training because of what someone projects him to do. There is no crystal ball here, if there were, this game would be a lot easier for guys like Doug Melvin. The Brewers needed someone to play CF the first 25 games of the year so they brought in Gabe Kapler on a non-guaranteed deal. The suggestion that they shouldn't have done that because of his Marcel projection is...wrong for lack of a better and non-insulting word. And once he's here, then the coaches actual scouting of the player should absolutely take precedence over his projected stat line. It's like some people think there's no need for actual scouting, that you just look at what someone's projected to do and you sign players based on that. The problem is, if you do that, you're not going to have much success on reclamation projects such as Doug Davis, Derrick Turnbow, Matt Wise, Capuano, Overbay, ect..ect..ect.. Again, this isn't about Gabe Kapler per say, this is about the rationale behind how we look at players and bring them in.

I really don't think that's safe to say at all. And he hasn't marginally improved or regressed. He's improved every single year. Let's face it, he was clearly over drafted. When he got drafted, his name was a big factor. However, he's since improved to the point where he's worthy of that spot. I just don't understand how you can say that a guy who continues to improve and has a great mind for the game is what he is at 24 years old and that he's not going to improve by now. That's not even a little bit fair. It's entirely possible that he become a more selective hitter and raises his OBP significantly. IF he does that, then he goes from being a 4th OF'er to a very good leadoff hitter. Of course, I'm not saying that's going to happen, and I'm not saying I want him to start. I've never even been a real fan of Gwynn as I think the casual fan overrates him because of his father, but I do respect how he continually improves his game and has worked himself into become a serviceable 4th OF'er.

Well of course that's how it's going to be. When you've got several pitchers who are all close, why wouldn't you use Spring Training to evaluate a pitcher? Now of course past performance is going to come into play. I mean, it's not one or the other. Ben Sheets isn't going to lose his spot in the rotation because of a poor spring, nor should he, but with pitchers who are close, then I don't see anything at all wrong with using ST'ing to seperate guys. And as for Vargas, he's looked really good in the Spring, and that change that he seems to have developed is huge. So again, it's a combination of the two, and not to sound rude, but how else would you like him to do it? I just think some people need to relax and allow a decision to be made. I honestly don't know where you get the rotation that Yost will go with, but yesterday Haudricourt suggested that it would be Parra making the rotation. The point, nobody knows, so getting all worked up at Ned Yost right now is patently absurd. And with regard to Chris Capuano, I don't know why you think he's going to be in the rotation, but I have yet to read or see anything that suggests he will be. In fact, everything seems to point to just the opposite. I think a best case scenario is that we put Capuano on the DL, then stash him in AAA for the 30 or 45 days(I don't recall how long someone can be on a rehab assignment for). If he's very good in AAA, then you can deal him, or feel better about giving him a couple stats with the big league club.

So you mean every single year of his career save for one season? Well, I guess I think he'll bounce back a little bit. But whatever you want to call Barry Zito, and my post had very little to do with his contract, he's their number 4 pitcher, and there are likely to be very few number 4's in the NL who will be better than him. And if you want to call him their number 3, then there are very few who are going to be equal to Lowry. Nobody ever said he was a top of the line starter. I listed him as their number 4. Not to mention, he's 29 years old, so I don't know why he wouldn't bounce back from last year and match his 3.83 or 3.86 ERA's of the past two seasons.

So we're using wins now to judge pitchers talent? Because after all, we are talking about trading pitchers, so we're talking about their potential and value, and you bring up Sanchez's W/L record? Come on....well, actually you never mentioned Sanchez, I just assumed you were talking about him. Sanchez has filthy stuff. But if you want to use a pitchers win/loss records, then I guess they don't have any pitching. Then again, when you say that they have "no offense to speak of", you'd think it'd be obvious that their pitchers suffered from that. Anyway, I doubt they lose 100 games with that pitching. They're not going to be good, but I don't think they lose more than 90.

I don't think anyone expects him to spend "most" of the year in AAA. I think at most some expect him to start the year out in AAA, but to eventually move up to the big leagues.

I'm a little amazed at how projections are used above all else on here. That's what someone is guessing he'll do, and it's pretty lacking because he didn't play last year. I guess I look at the Bill James projections, the Marcel Projection as a pretty loose guess, and not something that should be used to make roster decisions.

Which part of his statement about Gwynn isn't correct? Clearly he's young. That's beyond debate. And Gwynn's improving. I'd think that's also beyond debate. Gwynn has improved just about every year. No, he's not a starting caliber player right now, but I don't get how his statement was in any way incorrect.

Let's just wait and see what Vargas does this year. If that new change turns out to be a pitch he can count on all year long rather than a pitch that was working for him in the one ST'ing game that I saw, then he could have a much better year this year than last. That change really looked like it could be a pitch that helps him pitch more efficiently meaning deeper into games. It's rarely a good idea to make such definitive statements about a trade after just one year. Oh, and I don't think Dana Eveland had much value at all last year.

Why would Suppan being a "near 5 era pitcher" when in by far his worst year in his last 5 his ERA was 4.62. Now with an improved defense, his ERA is going to jump? I'd say that his ERA could be anywhere from 4.20-4.50, but I don't get where the 5 ERA comes from. And I don't get why you'd say he's not tradeable. He's definitely tradeable. There are plenty teams that would gladly take a pitcher who you know is going to give you 200+ Innings a year and keep you in games. A team like the Mets who have both Perez and Pedro as FA's this year could be a possible destination, and his ERA could go back below 4.00 in Shea. The Phillies as he's a GB pitcher. Hell, there are several teams that would take 2 years and 25 million for a pitcher as reliable as Suppan. And he's clearly a better pitcher still than Capuano who looks just totally lost. It's one thing for a guy who knows he has a spot locked up to try and work on things and get hit. It's altogether different for a guy fighting for a spot to get lit up in ST'ing as Cappy is.

My indication on Weeks having a break-out 2008 is based on his career as a whole and most recently his camp performance. Using last Aug/Sept 2007 as your indication is completely acceptable and we can leave it at that. Yes, and I understand what you're saying. I really do, and I respect it. But you corrected me by saying the "indication" I was using was too small a sample size. I was just saying that by definition, it's always going to be. But anyway, yes, I only meant it to mean that Rickie's shown that he is capable of playing that way. That's all. I don't think it means that he's definitely going to have a Ted Williams like season, but I think it's a very encouraging sign that he at least proved last year that it was in large part the wrist that was the problem. So Weeks was healthy all of sudden just 10 days after he was injured (called up 8/10)? Was he injured all of 2005? I don't ignore his wrist injury, but I will not use it as an excuse for his performance to date. "To date" is a bit too broad. He had a rookie season in which he clearly hit the wall and looked as though he just hit a wall, his second year he was very good until he got hurt. Then when he had his surgery the Doctor's said that it would take up to a full year until he was completely healed, and almost one year to the day that he had the surgery he started to perform exceptionally well. But you also have to keep in mind that while he was suffering from that wrist injury, he had to alter the way he played the game, even if it was only a small amount, he had to alter it. For starters, on sliders. He had to get his bat started a bit early from lost bat speed with a bad wrist. Well, that's going to lead to not being able to see the ball well enough, and then having a bad wrist, it's incredibly painful to check your swing. So now you're jumping at pitches, getting started early and not being able to check it. When you struggle because of injury, you do things to compensate. My guess would be that Rickie's wrist was feeling better probably a little bit before the date that we're talking about, ie, his recall from AAA, but that he then had to fight some poor mechanical issues from the injury. I'm not trying to hate on Rickie Weeks here, but I am kind of a realist. He has the ability to produce, but I just haven't seen the stars align for him up to this point. With all respect, this is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've yet to find anyone who thinks that they're not a realist when arguing. I don't think that anyone on this post is saying something they find to be UN-realistic. So of course you think you're being realistic, that's the point of you arguing. But as for the second part, I don't think anyone can argue. No, he absolutely has not had everything come together for him up 'till this point that has allowed Rickie to put it all together. That is something I can certainly agree with. I don't want to sound rude either, but i'm pretty sure that's not the very definition. An indication does not have to encompass a small sample size. It is more broad than that. I wouldn't want to say i have an indication I will win the lottery soon because I matched two numbers yesterday but never matched a number up to that point. Matching two numbers could be seen as a sign[/i] of matching all 5 in the future, but remains as unlikely given the history to date. However, I replied to a post in which someone said that Weeks had shown no indication that he could have a .400 OBP. You came in and said that it didn't count because it was such a small sample size. My point is that an indication absolutely IS by definition a small sample size. If it was a large sample size, what would it be indicating? Nothing. An indication definitely is a small sample, a "sign". Your lottery ticket analogy doesn't really relate in any way. The lottery isn't a progressive measure. Improvement on the baseball field or improving skills certainly are. Let me see...how about a wounded animal. A wounded animal that broke it's leg that can get up and limp on it. That's an "indication" that it's healing. A small measure that points to progress. I do have to admit, I'm actually shocked that I'm sitting here arguing the definition of "indication".

The Giants have a ton of pitching, I just don't think they want to give up what they've got for Crede. I'd go so far as to say that I think the Giants are going to have a top 3-5 rotation in the NL this year, and it could be even better. Cain, Lincecum, Lowry, a Zito are as good of a 1-4 as anyone in the NL has, and Johnathan Sanchez has the stuff to be a very good big league pitcher. That's probably the most likely guy to be dealt for Crede, but I don't know why the Giants would want to move a young arm with the potential that Sanchez has.