Gopher74

His OBP last year was .330. Not great, but also not nearly as bad as you're suggesting. He's also started at least 139 games 4 of the last 5 years with the only year he didn't, he was out with an injury. So while he may not be a starter for the Red Sox, calling a guy a 4th OF'er is saying that he's not good enough to be a starter. You're also making a leap in assuming that he wouldn't start in front of Pie who looked just bad last year in Chicago.

I hope not. At some point we are going to have to start leaving guys down in the minors who may be ready to play in MLB. I'm sorry, I don't follow this logic. Why would it be in any way a bad thing if LaPorta performs to a level this year that makes it a reasonable and viable questions as to whether we'd be better served calling him up right now? I just don't see how his success could be looked upon as anything but positive?

It's funny, anytime an argument pop's up over why a pitcher was dominant last year, and some people disagree, it inevitably goes back to how "lucky" he was. The fact that Marmol is simply nasty, that he has a devastating slider, or a mid to upper 90 MPH fastball doesn't seem to ever get brought up by some. I should hope the Brewers experience such "luck" this year. But then go a step further and take the stats that don't support and argument and eliminate them....again, based on luck. I guess I don't care how "lucky" a guy is when he's got a .161 BAA, a .295 OBP, a .217 SGL and an OPS of .512 all while he was so called "lucky". These stats by the way come from the second half when the argument was made he got WORSE. So you want to take your chances with a guy that BBs 3 per inning? Glad you're not running my team. Let me try this again since you chose to ignore it last time to make your sarcastic comment. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74. First of all, I was to a certain extent being facetious. I guess I should have used the ever useful blue text to make that point, but I assumed that my obviously exaggerated point would still get through. HOWEVER, my point was that if the guy doesn't allow runs which I guess I think is more important than going down the list and finding the first stat that doesn't support the argument that he was a fantastic pitcher last year, THAT'S most important. You chose to make a "funny" about how then you wouldn't want me running your team. Frankly, I'd rather not have people running MY team who value secondary stats over actual ability and production. There is a place for those stats as a predictive tool, however just chalking everything that doesn't fall in line with your opinion up to luck and saying he's really not good doesn't serve much of a purpose. and his track record suggests that his BBs were one of the few things in line with career norms in 2007. His "career norms"? He was a catcher who moved to the mound and last season was his SECOND in the big leagues. He had 77 innings coming into last year. For someone who is the first to cite a small sample size, I find it incredibly you'd talk about his career norms. But even with all of his walks, his whip was still 1.09....which...I guess was lucky?

LOL...nope, just been busy. That, and my laptop wasn't working(overheating), so I haven't had it when I've been out and about.

I don't recall the suggestion ever being made that people would be "beating down the door" for Claudio Vargas. I think what was said, and correctly so, was that starting pitching has more value during the season as opposed to in the off-season when teams lose a starter due to an injury. The fact that you've essentially got a "told you so" tone to your thread just two weeks into ST'ing is frankly a bit of a head scratcher to me. Second, roster decisions on almost every single team in baseball are made with finances in mind. However I think our roster decisions will be and have to be more than simply which pitcher is the best this very second, and get rid of any excess. And finally, I don't know that anyone in here is privy to all the talks that Doug Melvin has, or even why he'd be having any at this point with his number currently on the shelf.

I'm certainly no Tony Gwynn Jr. Fan Club member, but he can help this team out right now, even if it's only a very small amount. Vargas can also help this team out in the future(I happen to think he could be a good reliever, but that's not really the point right now). However, unless you don't think those two players can do anything for you, I'd disagree with moving them for a minor leaguer unless you were getting a real impact prospect, and that's not likely to happen. So even if Gwynn's only a defensive replacement/pinch runner when Cameron comes back, and even if Vargas only throws out of the BP, I'd still rather have them and their depth than trading for a minor leaguer who's not likely to do much for you in the future, and nothing for you right now. . Those players give you options and can do some little things for you that may hep you win games this year. Oh, and by the way, I think you need a bigger dream.

It seems to me having depth that most teams can only dream of in the form of a number 8 who is better than 90 pct of the teams number 5 starter would help you sleep moreso than simply giving Vargas away because he's not an ace caliber pitcher. The argument isn't that Vargas should take a major role with this team, rather he should be kept around in the event that we NEED someone to take a larger role as a result of an injury. You're essentially saying that having Vargas on the roster causes you to lose sleep at night, and that you'd rather have someone like a Zach Jackson be our option after injuries rather than Vargas. That makes very little sense to me.

Which has been everyone's point(everyone who isn't upset or thinks it's a "problem" that we haven't made a move yet to get rid of one of our starters), why not let it play out and see what happens as camp goes along, or as we get into the season. See how our staff looks at that point, if someone else is desperate for a starting option, whatever. And there's no place to stash Vargas? Yost has said the Brewers may go with a 13 man rotation to start the season as I've suggested all along, so right there that gives you a place to "stash" him. Plus, Gallardo IS out. So if you decided to move him when it's been suggested, or all off-season when Mr. Briggs was saying that the Brewers had screwed up and not accomplished their biggest task by getting rid of a starting pitcher, it would have been moving him "just to move him" as it would be right now.

So you're saying you want us to sign Daunte Culpepper?

First of all, and Drwood can probably help clear this up a little bit, there is some disagreement over whether Andro is a steroid, and it certainly wasn't when he was suspended for it. It was an over the counter supplement that he got at GNC, and was not illegal or banned in the Big Leagues. And finally, he was never "convicted" of anything. But again, I'd like to hear DrWood's take on it as I've heard some differing opinions on what Andro is. In any event, saying he was "convicted" of taking Steroids suggests that he took some illegal black market supplement and injected it. He did nothing of the sort. He took a supplement from GNC and took the pills. Turnbow's been lumped in unfairly with the whole Roid era in baseball, and I'd think Brewers fans should at least see the difference between his situation and others.

No, the fact was he was dominant. The simple fact is, his ERA last year in the second half was 1.74. His BAA was .161. OBP .295, SLG .217 and OPS, .512. Those aren't perception, those are real actual stats. Again, I'm not overly concerned with a guy who walks people on occasion if people can't hit him, and if he K's a ton of people. More over, I don't care if a guy walks 3 guys an inning if his BAA is .161, and his ERA is 1.74. Of course people will try to argue that ERA is a bad stat or whatever. So fine. Then look at every other stat that goes to actual production. Not the ones that say despite the fact that he simply didn't allow people to get hits or score on him, that he shouldn't be good because he walks a few more people than the average.

Perhaps you can clue me in as to when Turnbow's got a "steroid conviction"? Even if his suspension from Team USA was in any way a "conviction", it was most certainly NOT for Roids. I expect this on ESPN.com, not on Brewerfan.net. Now turning away from that comment which honestly really irks me because I don't believe Turnbow did anything wrong in that situation, yes, Carlos Marmol's value is so much higher than Turnbow's, it'd be like saying Gallardo and Lilly are about the same pitcher. They're not. Again, getting too tied into peripheral's and ignoring actual bottom line production can really leave you missing the point. I watched Cubs games last year just knowing that if they had a 1-2 run lead in the 6th, and hadn't used Marmol yet, they'd need two good rally's in order to get beat because one time Marmol was going to come in and shut the door on the other team. I hope Turnbow can be that guy again, but I'm afraid he can't. He's shown in the recent past at least that putting him into a tight situation is akin to throwing gas on a fire. He just makes it worse. Luckily for us, SU men generally don't come in with men on, and they do start an inning, and we've got David Riske who's one of the best in the game at stranding runners(some will call it luck, after several years, I think it's a skill).

Again, the original argument was if he was healthy the first half of the season and looked to have rebounded from those arm injuries. I think some are so eager to prove they're not "homers", they drastically overstate how much value, or lack thereof some of our prospects have, or even COULD have in our made up rhetorical scenario's. Again, if Mark Rogers proves he's healthy and has a good 1st half, he'd be a valuable trading chip. Nobody's suggesting he'd get CC on his own, but to call him worthless? In an attempt to not get another strike, I'll just politely say "I disagree".

Frankly, if you're going to get the same OBP from each, I'd rather see Gwynn out there because of his defense, and the added element that his speed can bring. But I don't think that Gwynn's OBP will be equal to Gabe Gross.

I don't think that a team that hasn't really contended in a long time can be hated...hell, a team that's never really been a contender save for a couple years in the early 80's. The Brewers frankly aren't hated by most fans. I'm sorry to say that I don't think most fans really care other than to possibly root for the team as they're an underdog type team.

Yea, this is your sarcasm, but , there are plenty of people who actually hate Turnbow for almost no reason. The guy's great the vast majority of the time, but because Yost is the only human being on the face of the Earth(and for the most part, I'm a Yost defender) who doesn't realize when he's losing it. Most pitchers have bad games. It's just when he has one, it's absolutely terrible, but again, he's also very good more often than the most pitchers.

Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure other starters have options as well. At some point, production wins out of the peripherals. I mean, what, Bush is a better pitcher than Villanueva despite the fact that when Villanueva pitchers less people score, and we win more often because he allows too many fly balls? Those can be helpful, but it's just so overboard on here at times. Those stats are used above all others. I totally agree with you though. He wasn't even in the top 30 in the Brewers list of prospects a couple years ago. So what? Do things like that really mean more than actual quantifiable production? It sure shouldn't.

I don't know if he'd get a pct of that. He wasn't his agent when he was drafted and negotiated his first contract, so I don't know then if he'd be eligible for a pct of his salary right now and through his service time? I'm sure he'd be at least eligible for his arby years. Kinda like how Rosenhaus didn't get any of Walker's money until he renegotiated with the Bronco's because the previous deal was signed with a prior agent.

It's ridiculously early to start making definitive statements about Princes longterm contracts choices. He could fire Boras. The Brewers could win the WS and Prince could decide he wants to stay here. The Brewers could offer him 130 million over 7 year. About 20 things could happen in the next FOUR YEARS that could change what you seem to think is a predetermined course of events. Is it likely that Prince signs a monster deal with the Brewers? Of course not. The odds appear to be overwhelmingly against it right now, but to say that there is no chance Boras will even "let" him "consider" it is an insult to Prince, and just again, incredibly pre-mature. I think Prince is his own man, and Mark A's shown he'll spend more than we have in the past by a substantial margin. He'll offer a competitive price to Prince, and maybe circumstances chance so much so that he takes it.

Yea, as Scooter said, I would guess it's largely a result of not going to the curve as often as he will in the future. He's always kinda worked the curve into his repertoire slowly, choosing to first get his fastball down, mechanics, and his velocity/location. I don't know if I agree however that he didn't throw or have a good curve last year. I thought his curve last year was a little less consistent, but I still thought it ranked as one of the better ones in the league for the time he did pitch. What I think is as important, if not more important frankly than his curveball is his changeup. He seemed as though he's trying to develop one the last 2 years a little bit more, and when he had that going last year like he did vs the Dodgers to start the season, he can get outs with fewer pitches, and REALLY keep hitters off balance. It doesn't need to be a Johan Santana type pitch, simply one that keeps the hitters off balance.

Why would that be the most you can "hope" for? We've had a guy with over 30 saves how many times in the last 5 years on teams that are far less likely to win 90 games? I'd say if he only saves 30 games, it'd be a huge disapointment. I know that we say we don't "want" to have that many games that are close, but that's just not feasible. Even the best teams save that many games.

It was reported that Gange gave him the option of signing him for 2 years at 16 or 1 year at 10. They chose 1 year at 10.

But again, the second year would have been at 6 million dollars. If you're banking on him having a good enough season to justify the 10 million, then wouldn't another at just 6 be a better risk?

Just think if Sheets, Gange and Turnbow are type A FA's, then you're getting 8 picks in the top 60 or so. We really need to keep Jack Z around for another year if that's the case. Hopefully some teams will be stupid enough to pass on him for just one more season.

Exactly what stats suggest otherwise?