Thurston Fluff

My bad I had the ages screwed up. Experience wise Gindl has had more go arounds at AAA and has not improved as far as I can tell. Which was the experience part I was referring to. I just am not that impressed with someone who cannot consistently improve at a level he's played for three years in a row.

I think you are forgetting the age and experience difference between the two when you project them.

What has Gindl done that makes you think he is going to be better than Gennett?

There were 6 teams who picked a player before the Brewers so there are six teams who didn't pass because they didn't like him. They just liked someone else more. It is conceivable a team like Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia or the Mets who picked someone else would be interested in trading for him as well. Especially given the situations they find themselves in today. Given none of them are really in a playoff race they may even be willing to give up major league talent to get him. Then there are teams who felt they would be in better shape now than they are thus would be willing to look to the future more now than they were last December.

This is inaccurate. I suggest everyone read up on the rules surrounding Rule 5 here: http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3517. Some items of note in the link: "7. If a team decides not to keep a player selected in the Major League Phase of the Rule 5 draft on its MLB 25-man Active List (and/or MLB DL), the player must be placed on Outright Assignment Waivers, where any of the other 29 MLB clubs can claim the player for the $25,000 Rule 5 waiver price and assume the Rule 5 obligations." "8. If the Rule 5 player is not claimed off Outright Waivers, the player then must be offered back to the club from which he was drafted, and the player's former club can reclaim the player for $25,000, with the player being automatically outrighted to the Reserve List of the minor league club from which he was drafted. The club from which the player was drafted usually has 72 hours to decide whether to reclaim the player." So, if the Brewers put him on waivers, they can't revoke it. If a team claims Wang, he's gone. There is no ability to play teams against each other to try and up trade value. You can trade him without putting him on waivers. All that happens is the new team takes over the obligation to keep him on the 25 man roster or offer him back to Pittsburgh for $25k.

I don't really have a problem with Bianchi or Herrera since they are on the team for defense/flexibility. I could see adding a better hitting option who may not be a good defender but how many of those guys are around? I know we had one in Francisco but he is no longer available and I'm not interested in rehashing what we should have done. Looking forward I don't see a lot of good hitting bench players available and we kind of have that with Weeks anyway. Who, it seems, adapted pretty well at pinch hitting and spotty playing time. Who could have known? I think highly of Overbay personally but he is the one guy I think needs to go sooner than later. I am a person who thinks moves should be slow and carefully considered. I generally not a knee jerk reaction type of guy when it comes ot roster movers. I tend to think moves shouldn't be made until June or so but this is an unusual situation. We need help now and he has little to offer later. At this point I would rather see them make a move now even if they plan on getting Morales in June and have to reverse that move in a couple weeks. Just don't see the percentage of keeping Overbay over bringing up someone like Green or Halton. I can see the argument for keeping Morris down longer though. If they feel he is on track but a move to the majors would screw up something he is working on then by all means keep him down until that stage passes.

Not only is he not getting the work he needs in the minors his confidence must be in the toilet now after getting shellacked every time he is put out there. We aren't doing him any favors with this situation. He hasn't been shellacked every time out. For every time he gets hammered he does well another outing. I also think you have to take into account Wang knows the situation. He's not someone living in a vacuum who was completely convinced he was ready for this level. He knows he has room to improve thus he knows the results today do not necessarily translate to the same results three years down the road. He may even be smart enough to figure out how to make this situation beneficial to his long term success. It is as reasonable to think he is using the lessons learned now and apply in later as it is to think his confidence is being completely destroyed forever.

Only 6 guys started games for us that year. Greinke, Marcum, Wolf, Gallardo, Narveson and then Estrada. So he was the option to start the year for us, so I can only assume he would have been the guy had they not traded for Marcum. It's purely conjecture at this point. Each move has a ripple affect, but I think it's fair to say it would have been Estrada. Estrada wasn't even on the 40 man roster and was the last guy in spring they tried after Greinke got hurt. The reason it was Estrada was because there was no other pitcher who stepped up to be even considered over a non 40 man, soft tossing, unknown right hander. That lack of pitching prospects was why Melvin traded for two to begin with. Kudos for Estrada stepping up but given how far down the totem pole they had to go to get him it seems like him as one of the original five starters would have created a serious hole in that staff. A hole that would have had to be filled with one of the other pitchers who failed in spring.

Given the opinion of Estrada on this board, I think it's safe to assume most believe that he would have been good enough as our 5th starter to make the playoffs. Who would we have had to trot out there when Greinke got hurt then? IIRC Estrada was far from the first choice at the time. In fact I don't think he was even on the 40 man roster at the time. He only got the chance because everyone else flopped. Then add in we would have had to find someone to take the slack up in the pen with him in the rotation. Finally while he has shown he is good when healthy he has had a hard time staying healthy. If you're going to take a player like Brett Lawrie, I think you should have tried much harder to get a better return. The Pineda for Lawrie trade is one. Was that a real option?

If you read my entire post, and not just the part you wanted to disagree with, I said "(rightfully so) got outbid for him". The meaning there is that I'm certainly glad we're not overpaying for an aging, oft-hurt, bad-kneed guy. And if you read my entire post you would have noticed I said what I think the plan is. The same as it was since all the alternatives we had didn't pan out. That was more than just do a patchwork but they all got scuttled for the same reason the Hart plan got scuttled. They all cost more than they were worth. Which was why I mentioned you can't just create a viable alternative out of thin air.

His first plan was to pay Hart but would you really prefer him to stick with that plan and pay that much for a .644 OPS? I think now the plan is to wait until someone worth the money/prospects is available then get him. What I know he can't do is dial 1-800-1stbase and have one that fits that criteria magically appear.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but I'm posting here because I think it shows which league is interested in cleaning up their PED problem and which isn't. https://sports.yahoo.com/news/colts-star-lb-robert-mathis-212200537--nfl.html The key line that caught my eye was the Colts response to Mathis getting suspended. Umm, he just got caught cheating and the best they can do is hope he still feels loved? The NFL already under punishes the PED cheaters compared to MLB and does not even attempt to investigate accusations outside of the testing policy like MLB does. It even trickles down to fans and media. If a baseball player the level of Mathis got caught it would be a huge story for weeks on end. That player would get major condemnation from everywhere, fans and media alike. Anyone care to bet how long this is front page material? Seems to league that has the real PED problem, top to bottom, is the NFL not MLB. In both how cheaters are viewed and how they are handled.

I can see a trade scenario as well but keep in mind that costs more than just money. We don't have a lot of depth as is and a trade would depreciate that even more. Especially if we want someone for more than just a two month rental. Morales gives us someone without hurting our farm.

If the disaster of having Overbay and Reynolds playing 1B can manage to keep this team in 1st for the next 3 weeks, the Brewers could sign Kendrys Morales without giving up a draft pick, suddenly that black hole isn't nearly as glaring, and message boarders like us will need to find another position/roster spot to gripe about. That is what I believe their thinking is. I think they feel if they can afford to wait until then it gives Morris a shot to show he can be the answer. If he isn't they can go the Morales route and not lose a draft pick in the process.

I don't think keeping Wang is a problem if everyone is healthy and doing well. In fact I would argue that is the time it is the least problematic.

Well, when he negotiated the contract the intent was clearly based on health concerns (i.e. if he was healthy in 2014, he would get the $11 million option). He's healthy, and he's still not getting it. I think there is a legitimate case that Scooter has played Rickie out of a job, but I can still 100% understand why Rickie would be pretty irked. I don't know how clear it was based only on health concerns. He was a very streaky player since he's been here. I'm sure health was a concern but I also think production was at least a partial concern. I certainly don't understand why a person who has been in decline for 4 straight years is irked that he won't get paid like he was still at the top of his game. I think he could have at least shagged a few flyballs in BP to see how it went but he doesn't seem interested in doing so. All that said I do respect the fact he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't seem to be a malcontent.

I'm not happy about him not wanting to play left either but cutting him at this point seems counter productive. He is a pretty decent option as a pinch hitter. He's willing to take a walk and has some power. Add in the fact we don't exactly have another option for that role available and hitting from the opposite side as Gennett and there is value there. Granted not $11 million value but the cost is sunk anyway so why not get some use out of him? He'd be the first on the chopping block if something comes about via trade or a need for roster flexibility but what value is there to cutting him now?

I think we have the perfect example of how amplified each move gets in people's mind on this page alone. We have one person who still remembers Ron replacing Henderson helping the team win a few games and another person blaming him for costing the team wins. Kind of goes a long way towards explaining why I think it's such a small part of being a successful manager.

Ahh gotcha, for some reason I was thinking about a successful sacrifice after he was on third to score. Makes way more sense now.

The article said Yost is doing what every other manager does. Why is it Yosting if everyone does it and has been doing it long before Yost even became a manager? That whole article had less to do with Yost and more to do with the situation where it seems every fan thinks every manager is wrong. That might be the case but what does that have to do with one manager being so much worse for making the same bad decision?

Seems to me whatever he is doing with them is working for the most part.

I addressed this in the original post. I also disagree with the strategy of lowering your expected runs in that situation to increase your odds of scoring one run by a mere 3.7%. My bad I meant to cut out the first part because it was taken care of in the second part but must have done it the other way around. Here is what I should have posted in the first place. With a runner on 2nd and 0 out, the chance of scoring is 63.7%. With a runner on 3rd and 1 out, it's 67.4%. So you have increased your chances, albeit by only 3.7%, but this STILL doesn't take into account the chance of failure on the sac (which obviously is what happened). That stat shows the likelihood of scoring a single run given the base they are on and the number of outs. Why would you assume the success rate of sacrifices are not included? I'm also not sure how you can argue on one hand that a 3.7% greater chance of scoring a run isn't all that significant while simultaneously arguing that the extra .181 runs you get not sacrificing is somehow significant. Especially when you add in the odds of winning between one run and two late are not all that far apart anyway. Essentially you are playing for runs that are not as important to winning as the first one is. I don't see how the slight advantage of scoring an extra run that is less significant is more helpful to win a game than increasing the odds of scoring that very important first run.

With a runner on 2nd and 0 out, a team averages 1.17 runs. With a runner on 3rd and 1 out, it is .989 runs. The second that Roenicke sent Bianchi up to sac bunt in the 10th inning today, he willingly lowered his team's expected runs that inning. I think you are looking at the situation wrong. You are looking at the team's number of expected runs in a scenario where the team was more worried about producing a single run. If you want to know if the strategy was right you would have to find something that showed which scenario produced a single run more often vs which one produced the most runs. The game is different than when Roenicke was a player. Getting a run in from 3rd via a flyball against the dominant high strike out relievers of today is much harder than it was in the 80's when usually only the closer had that kind of stuff. If it is much harder to get a sac fly isn't it going to be all that much harder to get a base hit or hit where the batter wants to hit vs the pitcher? Wouldn't it be much easier to a strike out on the first guy up and never get the guy off second with less than 2 outs?

I understand the whole story about Wang becoming a Rule 5 guy with his contract language, but I'm guessing that Pittsburgh would have made sure he was on the 40 man roster had they thought he would have the same level of talent that Jimmy Nelson currently has. What makes you say he doesn't have that level of talent? He may be more raw than Nelson but a lefty who throws mid 90's and throws strikes with all his pitches isn't exactly chopped liver.

Please tell me you're not comparing a rookie pitcher whose only professional experience is pitching one season of minor league Rookie ball to someone who had a lengthy track record of being an excellent relief pitcher in the majors. It was asked to find a player who met a certain set of criteria. I did that though it was not exactly the same. Since there is no such thing as exact same situations in baseball I came as close to the criteria I could. The fact is players often start out poor and still keep their jobs. They do so because there is some reason to keep them. In both situations there was a compelling reason to keep said player. Which of these two pitchers is more likely to become a useful pitcher during the season in question? If you are asking which on would make a better mop up man in the pen I would say Wang. Axeford probably couldn't go three innings nor would I think he is the ideal guy to pitch so sporadically. If you are asking who is a pitcher more likely to help in higher leverage situations I would say Axeford. Since the pen this season has better options for high leverage situations than Axeford I would say Wang can reasonably be viewed as being more useful over the entire season. It is important to have the right mix of relievers. Some specialize in getting ground balls, some getting lefties out, some shutting the door in tight games and some mopping up innings in blowouts. In this bullpen this season I think Wang fits better than Axeford would. Especially considering the long term benefits if he can do the job well enough short term.