Gopher74

Well, I never suggested that we trade both Corey Hart AND Mat Gamel for Matt Lincecum. In fact, my entire logic was predicated on the fact that if we traded Hart, we'd only have to trade Hart. Dealing Mat Gamel as well kinda defeats half of the upside to us, which was that Mat Gamel and Matt LaPorta could likely be counted on at least in the near future to produce consistently on the big league level to make up for the loss of Hart. And Gamel being a left hander in a right handed dominated system is even more reason to not want to deal him. Plus, that's simply too much to give up for a pitcher, even one as good as Lincecum is, with his injury concerns. -Now, for those who are saying that Corey Hart's great, and he's a big part of our future, of course. But that's why you trade him. I'd be much happier dealing a guy like Mike Rivera, but nobody wants him. Taking personal feelings for a player and throwing them away, at least with Hart you have someone who could replace him right now. Maybe not play as well as he does, but someone who can do a good job, and you're getting another frontline starter. So it's about giving to get. You have to give up an awful lot. I see no reason any of those players is anything more than a half month injury call up next year. I guess I just don't see what Matt LaPorta spefically and to a lesser degree(because of defensive position) that Mat Gamel has to prove in the minors? Especially with the stick to the point where they need another almost two full years down there. I truly think that's overkill. It'd be nice to leave them down for that long because then they'd matchup better with the departures, but still, I think at the absolute latest, LaPorta's ready this Sept, and Gamel with the stick by the start of next year. Escobar with the glove was ready about 5 years ago, but I'm still hoping that he gets a bit thicker and develops into a Yunel Escobar type player. Someone who can hit about 45 doubles a year to go with 13-16 HR's with about a .300/.335 type line. I think he's got a really bright future, but is still a bit raw. If we are talking Fielder, I would want both Cain and Lincecum (we'd probably have to add another player, but nothing too valuable). Then move LaPorta to 1B (which I'll admit might be a bit rocky at first). Well, that's even a bit much. Even if you could get those two for Prince and a prospect not named Matt(or Mat) or Alcides, that'd likely be too good to pass up, but ultimately not really realistic. Fielder is not coming back...he just isn't. Scott Boras will not let him, not when he could be a DH in Anaheim, Boston, or New York making $18 million a year. First of all, if it's for "just" 18 million that he wants, my guess is that he will be back. Even if it's in that 20-22 million dollar range, I think the Brewers re-sign him. Mark A has already said that the Brewers "will" re-sign him, essentially making a guarantee. I don't think it's a good idea given the replacements that we've got waiting, but I simply do not understand how people can make such absolute statements about his eventual departure. I mean, "he just isn't" when he's 4 years away from being a FA because of his agent? There is just no way you can say that. And again, the price tag you've given him, the Brewers would almost certainly match...even if they shouldn't.

And I totally agree with that, however, the fact is I don't see the team being willing to move Prince for a myriad of reasons right now, not the least of which is just a simple public relations standpoint. IN two years you can say we're dealing him because he's not likely to stay and because he's going to cost a lot of money and you can get a lot for him. Right now trading your most recognizable player because of a guy who frankly most fans haven't heard of is able to replace him would be a public relations nightmare. So while I agree that it's the better way to go, it's also unlikely in my opinion. Then again, so is dealing Hart.

I think the number of teams that have a pitcher the caliber of Dave Bush that they can go to in a situation like this can probably be counted on one hand. I understand that Bush hasn't reached the levels some predicted he would reach after the numbers he posted in 06, the whip that was 4th in the league, the BB/K ration that I believe was tops in the NL. However, he's still a very solid pitcher, and a very good number 5, and I think as such, he gets undervalued significantly be some on here. He's not a front line guy like we thought he may become, but he's also good enough to get us through. That's not to say that I don't agree that we should at least explore making a deal for another 1/2 or 3 type guy, just that we're not in as much trouble with Bush IMO as you suggest. You did kinda peak my interest with regards to Seth McClung being moved back into the starters role. I know, I know, nothing in his history suggests that he would succeed as a starter, but he's got the type of stuff, that if he has developed some confidence in it, then perhaps we could catch lightning in a bottle with him. That's a far fetched idea, and I'm sure few will put much faith in that idea, however I'm at least midly intrigued by it.

While I wouldn't agree with not taking Inman back for Gwynn, just because he's had success in AA the second time around(though he's still very young) doesn't mean that much to me as he still is rather limited in what type of ceiling he has. Again, I'd certainly take him back for Gwynn, but I just don't have as high an opinion of him as it appears others on this forum do, and was very much in favor of dealing him last year. Though, to be fair, that was partially due to a fear that he may be exposed once he reached AA, and he seems to have found a remedy to that situation.

I've seen the idea of trading either Mat Gamel or Matt LaPorta for a frontline starter tossed around on here, and rightfully so as we're in a very difficult situation right now. My question is, given how Gamel has established himself in the last year plus, and how close LaPorta appears to be MLB ready, do we perhaps consider dealing Corey Hart for that young frontline arm rather than dealing one of the two minor leaguers? Corey Hart's going to bring you more in return most likely, is still young and cheap making him desirable and proven. One idea that I keep going back to would be to potentially bring up both Gamel AND LaPorta and put them in a platoon type situation. This could help give you that left handed bat vs right handers(Gamel) and another great PH'ing option off the bench. The one major hitch in that plan is obviously that Gamel's never played in the OF(to my knowledge) and it's obviously a very poor idea to bring him up and thrust him into that situation for the first time in his life as a big leaguer. A solution to that, though a unlikely one would be to maybe put Dillon in RF for the next 5-6 weeks, or just Matt LaPorta in RF and allow Gamel to learn to play the OF for a little while down in the minors? I haven't really put a whole lot of thought into who we may look to go after as the options are going to be rather limited, but the one that I would really, really like to look into would be a guy like Zach Greinke from the Royals. I'd be willing to give up Hart and possible Alcides Escobar as they don't appear to have a Shortstop for the future for him. Another option would be Scott Kazmir from the Rays. I've heard someone say that he was shopped this off-season(though I hadn't heard that) and with the Rays losing Young, Dukes and then Baldelli, not to mention having a lot of true high end pitching prospects, this may be a deal that would interest them. You not only get that true ace to go with Sheets, but you get him for the future as well, and as such, you're in a much better place next year with Sheets leaving. I know this is a idea kinda out of Right Field(pun intended), and it's a rather extreme one, and one that on the surface may be dismissed out of hand, but I can see this move getting us back on track, and giving us a big boost going forward, as much as losing Hart really would sting. So whaddya think? And go easy on me!

How much your out by isn't the best way to decide if a player should have gone or not. Again, with Craig Counsell being on deck in a 1-1 game, you have to put the pressure on the defense there. That one I absolutely agree with. Obviously with hindsight being 20/20 you'd go back and not send him, but that situation, you almost had to. Agreed with the second play however.

This is not a fair statement. Both Weeks and Fielder were out by large margins, perfect throws were not required. I certainly understand the idea that being more aggressive with Fielder might have merit with Counsell at the plate. However, given the fact we had Fielder/Hart on deck, and Kerry Wood on the ropes, I would have held Weeks up at 3rd 9 times out of 10. 2nd and 3rd with one out with Prince/Hart at the plate with a struggling Kerry Wood, is a game begging to be blown wide open. Yea, it ended up being a pretty good margin that Prince was out by because of how good of a throw it was. IF that throw is up the line a little bit, Prince has a chance to score. It really wasn't that close, but my whole point is with a 1-1 game and a guy hitting with a fly swatter on deck, you have to put the pressure on the defense there to make the play and get you out. As for the Weeks play, I didn't comment on that one because I agree. No reason to send him there with Prince on deck. That could have hurt us very easily, and just because we ended up winning, I don't think that it should be glossed over. So we're in agreement on that one. during the play, and then after the play was over and Uke was recapping it, he said "Sveum sent Rickie" They didn't show the play on TV, so I don't know, but Uke may have just been saying that because Rickie went and he just made the logical assumption that he was sent. Again, I don't know, but that may be a case of making the assumption rather than actually seeing it. Truth is, I don't really care, but I haven't been upset with Svuem too much...certainly not as much as I thought I'd be when he came over here from Boston when all the Sawx fans were telling us how bad he was.

Sheets seems healthy this year, so far. The injuries in the past have been more freakish and not arm-related. Agreed. Still doesn't answer the question as to why this move means that you have to re-sign Sheets when before the move that doesn't appear to be your stance. Just what will pitching an inning and two-thirds on that knee have done? Nothing. AT least not according to the Brewers, and definitely not if his ACL was completely torn. But even if it made it worse, he'll still be back, at the latest by next year, the start of next year. It's not really like this is an unknown. It's a knee injury. If this was an elbow injury and you said "how much damage will pitching after you torn a ligament effect him", that'd make sense, but with a knee, it's either completely torn, or not, and if it is, as in this case, then he's out for about 9 months likely. Could be as little as 4-6 depending on how he heals(enough to play baseball that is), but it's definitely not like this puts his career in question. Only this season. Are those guys in the minors going to be as good as Sheets/Gallardo on the mound? Not likely. But that just means that no matter what you have to re-sign Sheets, not that all the sudden NOW as a result of Gallardo going down we have to. At this juncture, NOT signing Sheets seems to be more risky. Still not explaining why? This logic still doesn't make sense. And it's never going to be more risky to NOT-sign Ben Sheets. It's always going to be more of a risk to extend him long term. That doesn't mean you don't do it, at some point you have to take a risk in order to have it pay off, and Sheets is that type of situation. I'm not saying we should, but I am saying that I still don't understand the stance that NOW we have to re-sign Sheets to an extension, though I would like to.

Frankly, I don't see what one has to do with the other right now? Sheets isn't going to give us anymore this year with an extension and Gallardo's future doesn't seem to be in any doubt. It's an ACL. Cornerback's come back from this in a year now, so I have absolutely no doubt that Yo will come back. What we need to address is a pitcher for this season. The one idea that I hate, but can't get out of my head is dealing Corey Hart seeing as how ready Matt LaPorta and Mat Gamel appear to be. Hell, you could bring them up and platoon them right now, and I have to believe that you're not going to see much of a drop off offensively from those two based on how they're killing it in AA. Obviously we're talking about Hart for a long term solution, and that's a tough move to make, but perhaps a team like the D-rays who lost some of their great OF depth would be willing to work out a deal surrounding Scott Kazmir since they've got about 20 true aces on their way up? This is a knee jerk reaction and one that's highly, highly unlikely to happen, but I just don't see how extending Sheets would help us right now.

Nice? Yea, probably not a nice question, but it's one that most people are thinking. Yes, it counts because he's still on the big league roster. DL time counts towards that as long as you went on the DL while you were in the big leagues. If Dave Bush went on the DL yesterday for instance, I don't believe that would count towards his service time. That makes it hurt that much more.

Exactly. The guy's a nice arm, but he's at beast a 4 in the future, and most likely a number 5. He's not the guy that we cry ourselves to sleep each night because we lost. That maybe Matt LaPorta when he's hitting 4th for the Houston Astros in a couple years because we traded him for Roy Oswalt?

They had just talked about a Rios for Lincecum deal. The Giants got turned down. I think you overestimate the value that Lincecum has, as considerable as it is, really has in the Giants eyes. I certainly do not think they'd require both LaPorta and Gamel back given their current value. Matt Cain though would be the pitcher I'd focus on anyway. Cheaper, and less of a risk.

There have been several Will Inman posts. I'm curious, what do you guys think that Will Inman would have done for this team at this point?

If you have a trainer to make all of these decisions, and a pitching coach to make all the pitching decisions, and a batting coach to make all the hitting decisions, and base coaches to make all the baserunning decisions, and players to decide whether they can play or not, what's the point of having a manager? It never ceases to amaze me how people can take what's actually said, and then just run with it. Please show me where anyone said that a pitching coach makes all the pitching decisions, a hitting coach all the hitting(which CLEARLY isn't true)...and so on? It's actually quite simple, the trainers the medical expert. Ned Yost isn't. If the Trainers say he's fine, why would Yost argue with them?

And another little subtle kick in on Ben Sheets....in a thread about another pitcher.

That's a totally irrational knee-jerk(no pun intended) reaction to this move. And one that people would probably be mocking in a couple years. If, if, if, if Yo's going to be out all year, or we need to make a deal, then perhaps you can deal one of them plus something for a pitcher, likely LaPorta as he's got more value to others, and Gamel may have more value to us. Either way, trading two prospects, that I think will be top 25 prospects next year for a pitcher because we found out today that our young arm got hurt is giant overkill.

They can heal themselves....depending on how badly they're torn. A slight tear and you likely won't have surgery on it, you'll just let it heal. A complete tear and you'll need surgery on it. I just have to imagine this isn't a completely blown out knee if he was able to throw in it.

Since when was Corey Hart a prospect without holes in his game? Since he was moved to the OF? When did magically become a can't miss prospect? I don't think anything "magically" happens, but hell, it makes your post funny. He rotted in AAA much longer than he should have, there were quite a few people that didn't know what to make of him. He "rotted" in AAA because we had other OF'ers up. And I don't know who those people were you're talking about, but the Brewers made him an OF'er to stay by the time he reached AAA. If you don't think Tulo is going to end up being in the top 5-10% of MLB baseball players at his position when all is said and done, I question your player evaluation skills Well, I never said that I was a big league scout, nor acted like it. However, if you're calling any player who doesn't have a major hole in his game either offensively, or defensively a player on the level of Bonds or Griffey, I'd have to question YOUR "player evaluation skills". You seem to have this idea that every player is a liability in one phase of the game because that's the trend the Brewers have set. Believe it or not, plenty of players come up without huge holes. The Brewers must suck at drafting if polished 4-5 tool prospects are everywhere... Would you like to write my posts for me? I mean, I'm pretty sure I never said that there were 4-5 tool prospets everyone, but again, if it makes your post funnier, the hell with reality, right? Being a 5 tool prospect is significantly different from being a liability with the stick or defensively. It wouldn't be difficult to go through all of the position players on the power 50 and knock one thing or another for all of them. Of course not. Hell, you could do that for pretty much everyone in the HOF. It doesn't mean they have these huges holes you're suggesting that make Mat Gamel the norm rather than the exception. I don't have the time for this right now but I'm going to do this quickly... I don't see how making arguments that aren't being contended serves to make your point at all. I'd also argue that Hardy didn't have a big question offensively as he was a nice offensive Shortstop in the minors, but that's not really the point. The point is, because the Brewers tend to draft players and develop players who are all stick and no glove by the time they get near or to the big leagues, certainly doesn't mean any player who isn't a liability with one or the other is a "Griffey or Bonds" type player. I notice I used several other examples that got glossed over. How about Pedroia? Cano, Reynolds, Pence...I mean, that list could go on and on. Now if you're talking about players who step into the big league clubhouse on day one and are GG'er and .300 hitters, then say that, but to suggest that every player has this huge question mark next to either their offense or defense save for the HOF type prospects simply isn't true. And if we're going to get down to players who have small question marks with their arm, or that they strike out too much, that's going to hold true for literally every single player in the game. The point that was made pretty clearly was a player either struggles with the bat or the glove and if they don't, they're a superstar. That's just simply not true.

I happen to think it was pretty accurate. But to disagree someone has to go look through thousands of posts?

He's got one OF assist on the year. I don't think we'd reached that time yet. Again, what's more likely, that they don't make two perfect throws, or that Craig Counsell gets a hit there?

I thought it was a good move. They needed to make a perfect throw and a perfect relay, and we're facing Zambrano with Craig Counsell on deck. That seemed to me to be an obvious situation. As for the earlier question about Corey Hart being thrown out at 3rd, no, that was all Hart. The ball was in front of him and Corey didn't even look at Svuem passing 2nd.

Yea, I called my old man...told him that I was pretty sure Gallardo just blew out his knee and was done for a while. He thought I was screwin' with him.

He was in the top 5 in all those categories because he is a completely different hitter than most leadoff hitters. Most leadoff hitters dont concentrate on HRs or RBI's or slugging %. If you put Fielder in the leadoff spot he'll lead in all those areas too, but that doesnt mean you could claim he is a great leadoff hitter because he leads them in HR's, RBI's, Slugging and OBP. So what would you like then out of your leadoff hitter? I don't know if it's possible for me to disagree any more than saying it doesn't mean a guy is a good leadoff hitter because he leads in among the other stats, OBP. No, if he gets on base, he's a great leadoff hitter. Especially if he has speed. That's all it comes down to. Nothing more. The fact is, if Weeks hit anywhere but[/i] leadoff his numbers would be well below average, so claiming he is a top five "leadoff" hitter is, in my opinion, a cop out because overall[/i] he is not a good hitter and has shown nothing to suggest he ever will be. So the answer is to take him out of the spot in the lineup he's well above average in? The one spot in the lineup that he's among the league leaders in? I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I realize its not even a month into the season, but a .325 OBP for a leadoff hitter is nothing to brag about. And yet you keep bringing up last year and ignoring his .385 OBP as our leadoff hitter. Also, I dont really know where the comparison to Johnny Estrada came from, From you putting an emphasis simply on "putting the ball in play" over actually getting on base. Putting the ball in play doesn't mean anything if you don't get on base, a hoping for good things to happen isn't as good as the liklihood that they will happen as is the case with Weeks when he's the leadoff hitter. Corey Hart seems to be able to do. And yet Hart's OBP is lower than Weeks as the leadoff hitter last year(.341-.385) and overall for their careers. So clearly that's not as productive an option for the leadoff spot. What's more, Hart strikes out quite a bit as well. No, I haven't seen Irabarren hit much, but I have seen Weeks hit alot Weeks doesn't know how to do anything but swing as hard as he can and try to pull it. Yea, and walk..and get on base. And Scores runs(as he leads the entire MLB in runs since last Aug 10th). But I tend to put more of an emphasis on players actual numbers rather than how hard they swing. Well if thats what you want to say to make it better, thats fine. You're confusing me taking what was actual said for me having any desire to put forth anything. I don't "want" to say anything. I'm just telling you what the team said. His wrist was hurt, his swing was off...whatever it was...he was terrible. And even so, he had an very productive year. Makes ya think maybe we shouldn't bring up a guy who's put up worse numbers in the minors than Weeks has in the big leagues because of a couple AB's he had with the big league club earlier this year. Has his swing always been off? Does that explain why his highest batting average in a season was a cool .279? Could YOU explain why you think batting average is more important than OBP for a leadoff hitter? To that point, tell me what difference it makes what he's hitting if his OBP as our leadoff hitter was .385 last year and we won far more games with him there? He had a good month...one good month...and you seem to think thats good enough to claim that there is nothing to be worried about as far as his hitting ability goes. I'm sorry, perhaps I forgot, but could you please tell me where I made such a claim? What's more, he had two very good months. He also had a very good year for a leadoff hitter overall last year. Again though, if you can convince me that BA is more important than OBP, I'll stop. But exactly what has Hernan done to suggest in the least that he's going to be anywhere near the leadoff man that Rickie Weeks is? And if your argument is that you should put Corey Hart in the leadoff spot, please be prepared to say who's going to take his spot, and why HE should be moved there despite also posting lower OBP numbers in that spot than Rickie Weeks? Yes, I know, it's really easy to get frustrated with Weeks, but lets not throw out statements that simply aren't true in rushing to bash the kid.

5 of his last 7 years have been average or worse but I don't want to go over the argument of whether he's good or not again. But they haven't been. And I didn't think we'd gone of this in the first place, but if the entire argument is based on the premise that he's been bad in his career when he's played that many games, it's probably a good idea to establish if that's true or not. I've given his BA and OBP for those years. I don't see how you can objectively label any of them bad other than last year. So that's one year in which he was below average, not 5. I don't see what good can come from Kendall playing 145 games. He's better than Rivera. The good that can come from it comes from winning more games by having Kendall on the field over Rivera who I don't think will ever be a good big league catcher. If JJ, a 25 year old shortstop, needs a day off per week, why wouldn't a 34 year old catcher? Who ever said that JJ "needed" a day off per week?

No, we're really not. This is a great board, but negativity definitely seems to be rather prevalent.