Thurston Fluff

Having the ability to out spend people does help but I don't think it means you have to spend to put up consistently competitive teams. I think there is a danger of having to much money to spend as well. To get enough star players via FA teams who have the money seem unable to resist the temptation to hand out contracts that are bigger than the player's worth. They usually have to give up draft picks as well so they have less of a chance of developing enough players of their own. At about the time those high priced players start to falter would be the time those prospects would be nice to have. Since they don't have them those teams have to get more FA's to compensate for the lack of prospects. That is the negative feedback loop the Yankees are in now. They have a choice to make; stick with their old crappy players at huge salaries, save their draft picks and not be competitive or eat those contracts and get more FA's for similar type of contracts and stay in that loop longer. What seems to be a common thread with high payroll teams is, after a certain point, a lot of money goes to players who suck. Philly is in the same situation with some of their guys. It appears they are choosing to suffer through it and end the cycle. The Dodgers are going to have that pop up sooner or later as well. The only time a high payroll seems to be a huge advantage is the first generation of players they overpay for. The Giants might be close to, maybe even at, the end of that period.

I've seen this line of thinking in a few places. While the perception might be the Brewers are more than one or two players away from contending what they did last season says they really are just a player or two away. It looks a lot worse than it is due to how badly it ended but overall we were six games short of what the World Series winners had. Adding one legitimate starter where we didn't have one would go a long way towards winning six extra games throughout the season. It also looks a lot better than it should due to a very unrealistic start to the season. Take away that unrealistically bad ending as well and you get pretty close to where we ended. Find a player or two that are better than the one you had and the overall product should be better. If the product was slightly above average and you improve on that then the team should go from slightly above average to solidly above average. Solidly above average is about where playoff hopes are realistic. I get what you are saying in that they didn't play that well for a much longer stretch of the season so that may have been an aberration. But take away Pittsburgh or St Louis best month or so and I bet their teams wouldn't have looked so good either. Very few teams play to their average all year long. Most teams surge then slump. Take away that surge and not the slump and no team would look good.

You have a beautiful beard is never a compliment women take well.

That was the same station whose afternoon show hosts once said Tony Gwynn JR. was the best player on the team in handling the bat. Setting aside what handling the bat is supposed to mean, saying Gwynn JR was the best at anything offensively is a joke. They haven't got a clue and are still there. For the most part I stopped listening to sports talk radio. I liked Justin Hull on 95,3 but he is no longer doing a show. For the most part it got so repetitive I would know what was going to be said the day before the shows aired. Not to mention pretty much every show carry the same story lines as each other. I now bang my head against a wall instead of hearing the same hosts and callers say the same thing over and over. It has been an drastic improvement to my mental well being.

I think I started it by comparing the way they won three titles to teams that go all in. It wasn't about payroll. It was about building a team that wins on a regular basis, yet never being great, as a better way to win as many championships as possible. I tend to think that way is better than going all in building a great team that lasts one or two seasons. They actually didn't spend all that wisely so they had to spend more to keep the team together. But that doesn't negate the point that they managed to keep a competitive team on the field without ever going for it all in a particular season by trying to build the best team ever. I think the Brewers are better served going that route (albeit with our payroll, we will have to make better decisions than SF did) than trying to put all our playoff hopes in a super team for the year or two.

I'm actually okay if the Brewers simply concentrate on shoring up the bench and bullpen this offseason. Ditto. Truth be told I would have been ok with them doing a complete overhaul or going this route. I wouldn't have wanted the overhaul to be a five year rebuild but would have been fine with tying to retool the roster with different types of players. Depth was one of the reasons the A's have been getting by against teams with bigger payrolls, simply because they don't just give away games when their players need days off. Heck, it may help your best players stay healthy and productive if you're not afraid to give them a day off when they need it. You hit on something with that. It is also a reason to keep Lucroy behind the plate and not spend his off days at first. Ramirez would probably benefit from more days off next year. I think the outfield would benefit going that direction. Braun really isn't a 150 game a year type of player now and Davis has had some durability questions in the past. Parra on the bench is a huge advantage. Four players capable of starting playing three positions is nice to have if it isn't expensive. IF we can find two decent bench players of rthe infield it would be nice. Six capable players covering four spots would be huge.

I get what you mean. It'd be nice to win just one. Doing something potentially franchise crippling to put all the eggs in one basket probably is not the best way to get one. It almost certainly limits us to just one. Just stay above average year in and year out and you get more chances for the stars to align. What better example than the Giants?

I would rather do what is right for the franchise when to comes to signing players than what will sell more merchandise for a year or two. I doubt the 2011 season generated an extra $30 million in revenue over last season for example. Build a winning team year in and year out and I think you make more money than the binge and purge model.

I've seen this line of thinking in a few places. While the perception might be the Brewers are more than one or two players away from contending what they did last season says they really are just a player or two away. It looks a lot worse than it is due to how badly it ended but overall we were six games short of what the World Series winners had. Adding one legitimate starter where we didn't have one would go a long way towards winning six extra games throughout the season.

Naw, just sick of the rediculous stats used towards him. It's a great example of stats not telling the whole story as they usually do not. If by ridiculous stats you mean throwing out base runners as the end all be all stat, or by him you mean Molina, then I totally agree. Molina is assumed to be good in all aspects of catching just because he is good at the only thing the average person looks at. That is why we are looking at more than just that. Looking deeper you find Molina is not the top guy in every category. In a more important area Lucroy is the best in the league.

No matter what stat you want to show, he's not even the best defensive catcher on his own team, let alone the league. If gold gloves went strictly on defense, he would never win, ever. He's just not that good. If he didn't hit the way he has, he wouldn't even be starting on this Brewers team because Maldonado or someone would have been signed to be the starter. Don't kid yourselves... Translated "To hell with anything objective if it shows I am wrong. I am smarter than everybody here." Not a good way to convince anybody. Molina isn't a once in a lifetime talent defensively. Pudge Rodriguez was at least as good, & likely better (imo he was much quicker & more athletic). He comes to mind right away. I think Johnny Bench could make a pretty good argument for all time best and he was in this lifetime. 10 gold gloves and look at the stats. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/benchjo01-field.shtml

LOL oh my. So two of the most important parts of being a catcher you say Molina is better but yet you want Lucroy to win the award because dWar says he's better? I find it a crock of bleep that Molina and Lucroy are even put in the same sentence if we are talking about how good they are defensively and I love Lucroy. Molina is a once in a lifetime player defensively and I enjoy the heck out of watching him catch. If he wasn't a Cardinal, this board wouldn't have a feather up their butts about him winning the award he should absolutely win. Lucroy isnt even the best defensive catcher on his own team. No offense but hyperbole like "once in a lifetime," and "pitiful" do very little to boost your argument. Nor does saying anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about catchers. It's bad form all around. However if you do feel the need to belittle others with differing views it would be a good idea to at least get your facts straight. Lucroy is better at pitch framing not Molina. You might also have noticed I qualified my DWAR comment. If you believe, as I do, that WAR is useless then buy all means ignore it. I would love to have someone here who thinks it is as useless as I do. However if you think it has value then you cannot dismiss it when it doesn't fit your view. I would also argue throwing out base runners is not nearly as important as framing pitches. There is an article or two posted here to back up that belief. Pitch framing appears to save more runs than throwing out base stealers. Assuming they are the two most important aspects, which I disagree with calling a game and handling pitches in the dirt are more important IMHO, Lucroy is better at the single most important one. Furthermore throwing out base runners is not solely on the catcher. The pitcher holding the runner, the time it takes from the stretch to the catchers mitt and the ability of the fielders to handle throws are all factors well out of the catchers ability to control. That said I think Molina is better than Lucroy at it. How much I do not know. Neither do you. Considering how little it matters vs pitch framing I don't think it should be a determining factor. It gets so much attention from fans because it is the easiest thing to see.

When there is any other catcher that throws our 48% of his runners. The only one close was Russel Martin at 38%. Lucroy allowed 83... 83 runners to steal off of him. That is pitiful and is not Gold Glove worthy. In fact, it is so bad (dead last in terms of NL catchers), he shouldn't of even been put in the running for it. Lucroy is a nice catcher, he frames well and can hit at a decent clip but he's no where near in the discussion for Gold Glover and probably never should be unless he grows an arm all of a sudden. 83! Wowzers. That's pathetic. I always thought being a good defensive catcher was more than just throwing out base runners. Silly me. While I am far from a fan of WAR the general baseball world seems enthralled with it. According to DWAR Lucroy was 2 and Molina 1.5. In fact looking at the defensive metrics, other than throwing out base runners and pitch framing it was basically a tossup.

He's 31 and has played 304 games at first. How many people improve their defense at that stage of their career? Mark Reynolds was considered a poor defensive third baseman. Yet he seemed to do quite well this season when he played there. Either he improved at age 31 or the reports of his suckitude were greatly exaggerated. After last offseason, where the team justified keeping Overbay over Francisco because they said the big problem was the poor 1B defense, this season they're going back to a poor defensive 1B picked up for his bat. I don't think anyone says we need a gold glove first baseman. Just someone who just shy of outright horrendous would be ok. Francisco managed outright horrendous on a good day. Even Fielder looked good compared to him.

Yes Option which means not guaranteed. I'd have bet Billy Butler's option for 2015 would have been picked up 110% going in to the 2014 season. So to me Lind is a 1year player until his option is picked up in 2015 offseason. Since it is a team option it is for all practical purposes a two year deal. In fact better than a guaranteed two year deal. It only has to be used if he plays well. If he doesn't we are not stuck with the contract and pay a (IIRC) $500,000 buyout. That is hardly significant. Given who has the choice in how long he stays I don't understand why you think it's really a one year contract. For all practical purposes it is a two year contract without 7.5 million of the second year guaranteed. Which is the best of both worlds for the team.

Interesting take on the trade from Toronto's perspective. http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2014/11/4/7149733/what-will-the-blue-jays-do-with-marco-estrada

if this is a deal that is made moments in to the offseason, Why didn't this happen before July 31st? Lind was one the DL at the time. Even if he wasn't Toronto was trying to get to the playoffs and probably didn't want to trade him. Just because something can get done in the off season does not mean it could have been done in the middle of a season when teams are in the middle of one. Teams build their roster at this time of year. During the season the ones who are not 20 games out by July try to get to the playoffs.

I've read several comments about how two platoons on the infield is going to hamper the bench. I don't think it has to. Bench players need to play enough to stay sharp and it makes sense to have a bench player who hits the opposite hand of the starter. I don't see the downside. I realize last season's platoons at first and second weren't ideal due to the lack of versatility of both bench players but that was due to fairly unique circumstances with Weeks than anything. We can find two guys can play of all the infield positions between them to avoid that problem this time around. I'm also not sold on the idea of Gennett being a platoon either. I think they will let him get some games against lefties in an effort to get him to hit a little better against them.

Look at what we had at first base this season and Maldonado still only got 111 ab's. I am pretty sure the Brewers are going to upgrade from what we had this season. So why should we think Maldy is going to get more ab's next year? As far as what I think we can get for him, he is a legit starting caliber catcher. In the year he got regular ab's he hit pretty well and has always been regarded as a plus defensive catcher. The league isn't exactly overloaded with catchers who can hit and catch. Especially one under team control for a few more years. I think we can get at least the same return as Aoki got us. Probably more. If you could get another Will Smith type player for the equivalent of a 111 ab's wouldn't you take it?

I'm guessing you meant Martin Maldonado not Marco Estrada. And he will only make about $1M this coming season which is worth it when compared to Centeno offensively. You guessed right. Don't know why I said Estrada. He very well may be kept but I think his trade value is higher than the value of 111 ab's to the team. I just think player who gets that little work should be someone making league minimum. That assumes of course some team thinks he is starting caliber and are willing to pay for it. Personally I think he is and is kind of wasting away what could be a good career on the bench behind one of the best catchers in the game. Centeno has no power but does take walks and doesn't strike out much plus seems like a good defensive catcher.

Picking up a young catcher sounds smart to me. At the very least it gives us some protection for injury but I think it also gives us some flexibility this off season. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the Brewers traded Estrada now that he is hitting arbitration. With Lucroy bound to play most games why pay millions for someone who will hardly play? Not to mention he deserves a shot at being an everyday catcher. Centeno seems like a good backup plan. (no pun intended)

Bumgarner by himself is a frickin dynasty; I don't know about the rest of the team. Giants rode a hot pitcher to a World Series title; its happened before and it will happen again. I don't know if that makes them a dynasty or not but I would rather be them then the Brewers I don't think they rode a hot pitcher to all three championships. More of a dynasty than the Cards are. Just my opinion. Agreed. But I can see the argument for the Cards as well. Making the playoffs so consistently counts for something too. I just think winning it all counts more than just making the dance more often.

In a way that isn't a bad thing. At least winning it in the past isn't the usual rubber stamp it used to be. It might be because I watched fewer games than I listened to this season but I don't think he had his usual, Gomez level, year on defense. I would take him in a heartbeat over anyone else going forward but I can see how one of the others might have had a better year this year. McCutchen I always felt was over rated on defense. He's very good but not in the same class as Gomez.

I hope Lucroy wins just to see Card fans heads explode. Molina is a great one not doubt but Lucroy is as good in most areas, worse in one and better in another so I think it's fair to put them both in the same conversation.

You just said it doesn't hurt. You never mentioned it can hurt. I gave you a scenario where it does hurt. Overall I think pursuing something based on a false belief tends to hurt. If not directly then by misplaced time and resources on things that don't really matter.