Thurston Fluff

According to this it says major league service time. It does not differentiate between THE major leagues or A major league. Seems to me the Japanese league is A major league and he had at least 6 years there. I realize that is semantics but when it come to legalese semantics count. Since "Major League" is capitalized, I would be shocked if that wasn't previously defined in the rules/language as referring specifically to MLB. MLB has no real jurisdiction over other pro leagues, and a player isn't a member of the MLBPA prior to playing in MLB -- meaning primarily that he's not represented by the MLBPA in collective bargaining negotiations that would determine, among other things, FA statuses/definitions. That is probably very true. But sbrylski only posted that as evidence. That alone doesn't help prove anything. I think the fact that it is not only allowed but seems fairly common should be telling enough that is isn't in violation of the CBA. I also don't think it's unfair. These aren't young players trying to get a big payday earlier than they should. They are established players who are often in their prime. That six year rule was so teams could recoup the time they spent developing them and the risk associated with it at a reasonable cost. Teams didn't have to invest a lot of resources into developing the Japanese league players like they have to with young players. They essentially come ready to go.

According to this it says major league service time. It does not differentiate between THE major leagues or A major league. Seems to me the Japanese league is A major league and he had at least 6 years there. I realize that is semantics but when it come to legalese semantics count.

I think they are simply there to organize practice and improve efficiency. Similar to the jobs of a bat or ball boy, we can probably function without them, but it can slow down day to day business without them. Anybody can do the job. Firings are only symbolic moves. They all are recycled and get new jobs on other teams in the industry anyway. I disagree. When Lohse went to St Louis he was told by the pitching coach he was going to start throwing 2 seam fastballs. Until that point he was a 4 seam fastball guy. Rick Peterson was into fixing mechanics that lead to injuries. He promoted a whole line of things that helps pitchers long term. That seems more than a bat boy to me.

But you aren't going to see a lot of people calling for the pitching/hitting coaches to be let go with RR and DM staying. Count me as one who would keep Melvin and RRR but fire Kranitz. Not because of this season but his overall body of work just doesn't impress me. On the hitting side I think the injuries to Braun, Hart and Ramirez really hurt. The Brewers are a power hitting team with their three best power hitters gone or struggling through injuries.

It sucks for us but I am happy for him. Given how he's played and carried himself since he's been here I think a shot at free agency while he still has value is well deserved.

I agree with that. But what is considered a decent return. I'd be fine with one lower level guy who projects to be at least an average big league player for any of our relievers. I don't see the point in guys who project to bench players though. You can get that for under a million any given off season. I'm sure he's getting plenty of offers of AAAA players that he could take any time. But that doesn't get us anywhere so why do it? Wait until something is offered that might actually help in the future. If, by waiting, Doug loses out on getting even a AAAA player I am not going to crucify him for it.

It is obvious that you sell every piece for what you can get. I don't think it is obvious nor wise to sell every piece you have for whatever you can get. All that does is leave your team with less talent and little future. Even if the player isn't in the long term plans just giving him away only makes sense if it is for salary relief. I don't think it helps the club to get a guy they view as minor league fodder. Even K-Rod, who I think will get traded, shouldn't just be given away. It isn't like he is blocking someone who is ready for the majors. We've had a hard enough time finding enough major league ready players as it is. He has a use for us even if it is merely allowing younger pitchers more time to develop before being called up. His best use is as a trade chip but that use is only as valuable as the player he can get us. If we can't get a viable prospect then perhaps his best value to us is as a stop gap to hold the fort down until we find better options.

Pitchers don't need to relieve in the minors to be one in the majors. All that does is limit their length and lengthen their learning curve. Legit prospects should get as many innings in as they can so they can be ready for the majors as fast as they can. I think it doesn't really matter what role they have in the majors to start with. There are plenty of examples of guys who start out as relievers before moving to the starting role, and vice versa, to worry about how his role now will effect his future.

One month of an OPS above .739 and two of three months of sub .300 OBP is hardly evidence of being a legit prospect.

I hope he is ready and this isn't just a desperation move. I get sending Gennett down for the AB's. I hope Halton gets enough AB's to make it worthwhile. I guess since we are without Braun and Francisco's ability to play 3rd he can be used enough to make sense.

Done. Why do we need 4 1B stacked up between MLB and AAA? That's not depth, that's horrible roster management. Only one is limited only to first base. Accumulating a lot of versatile players who all might, or might not, pan out isn't a bad way to find players when the the team is short on sure things.

If we offer him Arby and he accepts at least we would be able to trade him for something. That would mean another 1/2 season of decent production and an extra year of service time for Morris. The cost would be around $7.5 million. I guess the question would be: Is that worth the added depth we would get from a trade?

If we offer arbitration over the winter, what would be the number since he was hurt 1 1/2 years out of the last two years? He played in a 149 games last season.

It's not like Yuni's salary justifies keeping him around in lieu of much better performing options at 1B. Hasn't Francisco had been getting the bulk of the playing time at first?

And Francisco already washed out of one organization. And it's hard to be successful when you swing at garbage all the time. I'm sure Jeff Francouer had better AAA numbers than Halton and Morris too, but when the book goes out that pitchers don't have to throw strikes to get you out, nothing less than a change in approach is going to fix that. I've seen no signs of that from Francisco. I'm not holding out a lot of hope but I think it's worth giving him the chance to figure it out. I think he figured out how to hit AAA pitching without changing his approach so I think if he is going to figure it out it is going to have to come at this level. Given the season is lost and the other two can learn a lot at AAA yet why not let him play and see if he can figure it out? If he figures it out even a little we get something for almost nothing. If he doesn't so what? He isn't blocking someone who is ready and the team is going nowhere fast with or without him. If at some point the Brewers feel one of the other two are ready and he isn't improving then make the move.

The thing is that it quickly becomes more than 'a few AB's'. Through June 20, Yuni had 44 ABs in June. That's 66 in a month. We're talking 200 ABs over a three month period. I'd rather give that to Bianchi and see how he holds up in a semi-regular basis. Absolutely agree. My contention all along is that Yuni is not blocking Halton or Morris from coming up. Right now Francisco is. I would much rather see Bianchi get Yuni's ab's. To me the question is: Is Halton (or Morris) ready? If so, he probably should be up getting some regular ABs until Hart comes back. There's really no need to protect him from Super Two status at this point. It's not like Juan Francisco is playing so well that he's earned a ton of ABs. I can see the argument that getting irregular ABs isn't likely to help, but honestly it's hard for me to figure out how the Brewers could get less out of first base as it is. Call him up, give him some regular ABs, and it's likely the best thing for the Brewers for the present and future. I think it takes a little more time to tell with Francisco. It doesn't look good right now but keep in mind he outperformed Halton and Morris in AAA before he got his shot. That should probably tell us something about how ready Halton or Morris are now. Why push someone beyond their present capabilities when it isn't going to change the fortunes of the season anyway? I really don't think rushing someone beyond their capabilities is the best thing for the Brewers either in the present of the future. I realize there are those who believe pushing players makes them better in the long run. Whether it's getting their feet wet or letting them know what they have to do or whatever. If you do I understand the desire to get them up. I just don't buy into that theory. One thing I don't think makes any sense at all is to rush someone up to see what we have in them. How can you tell that if they are not ready for that level yet?

It's easy to make a comment like that after the fact. What does that have to do with my comments? We were discussing why PrinceFielderx1 didn't have much hope. I assumed since he made the comments after Hand just got done pitching so well he was talking about the future not that game. I pointed to the results to show there was no reason not to be at least hopeful Hand could handle the majors. One would think commenting on hope would be more useful after the results were in. I don't think anyone, including the coaching staff expected 4 2/3 innings from him today. That is probably why it is better to base your hopes off results not predictions. I think what he meant was that we were starting a RP that hasn't pitched more than one inning since the start of June. How could that provide anyone with hope. I could see that argument if it was because the starters were so bad they resorted to long men in an effort to find someone who could help. That was not why Hand started today. He started because they have a couple starters about to come off the DL and they didn't want to bring up a minor leaguer for one start. The only thing that changed after the start was the reliever far exceeded what we could have hoped for. Shouldn't that boost the hope he has a future? Hindsight is always 20/20. Which is why results are far more accurate. It seems odd to ignore what really happened in favor of what you predicted should happen. Would you have made that same comment had he gone 1 1/3 and given up 6 runs? No I wouldn't have because Hand wouldn't have given me the same reason to hope. It doesn't mean I am ready to anoint him the savior or anything but each good outing leads to a little more hope not less. What gives you hope in a player? I assume you don't just decide if he is good or not then ignore the results. Don't you base it on how the player actually performs?

I'm still not expecting much and not very hopeful, and 1 start isn't enough to change that. What's the problem? The short term hope was he could keep the team in the game. He did that and more. Long term the hope is he can help the pen. What have you seen in his body of work so far that doesn't give you hope?

Can't agree more. Doug has said in the past he thinks veterans work better on the bench so I understand why it is easy to think he is set on doing so. But this season does show he is smart enough to adjust to his resources.

Thornburg was only up for 4 days just 2 weeks ago Was it that short a time? I initially thought of him because he just came up as a possible starter. But I thought it was longer for some odd reason. Maybe because he got in two games it just seemed longer or something.

I was always surprised at how many bases he could steal. Dude just waited and watched until he found people not paying attention. Then he struck like a cobra. Well maybe not a cobra. Maybe a python who just ate a bison. But still he got to second before the ball.

I know you are right about it that way. I don't know if there is any more to it than that. I only ask because I know some pitchers do come up for spot starts at times but I can't think of a time when they only stayed one or two days then went back down.

Isn't there some sort of rule about how long a guy has to be on the roster when they are called up? I know you can't call a guy up for one day and send him back down. Otherwise everyone would do that with their pitchers to gain a roster spots. Given how close some of the injured pitchers are to coming off the DL I think they don't want to being a guy up if they don't have to.

Not to say I told you so but I do want to mention the idea of waiting to judge here because I think that same bit of advice might be applicable with the rest of our young pitching. Patience is a virtue. Even more so in bad times than good.

Honestly, I don't think you realize how dynamic talent evaluation is. Its not like all managers are sitting there with WAR in front of them to make sure they get more than they give. There are a lot of other factors such as cost, positional needs, future vs present value, and team specific needs that can effect what someone is willing to take or give up. If there is one thing I can tell you is I am far from one who would just sit and look at WAR. I have fought a war against WAR for years. Not to nitpick managers don't make trades. I get what you mean though. AS far as you don't have to get the same amount of talent to make a trade viable that is not what I was being told a page ago. To quote xisxisxis I tend to agree if you give up more overall talent than you receive it is very unlikely to help. Granted there are times when you trade from a position where you have a lot of comparable level of players and a huge hole in another it can help improve the overall team. I just disagree that we have a match for that top tier young pitcher we need. How do you get better unless you are willing to trade guys? It seems dumb to me just to stand pat because you can't get equal value. You need to get the best deal that will help your club even if you don't get equal value. Nobody is saying don't make any trades. I have already agreed trading Aoki might be useful. That said teams have way more options to improve than just trading away core players. Drafting, free agency, minor league signings, foreign players, reclamation projects all help improve the club. The Brewers for example found some decent players like Estrada, Narveson, and Axford for nothing. They found Aoki. That improved the club. They are always doing that sort of thing. As far as being dumb to stand pat I think it is worse to be impatient. Players improve. We have players who have the potential to be very good. We need to let them continue to improve before panicking and trading away players to fill a hole that might have been filled internally if we had just been more patient. Now we can trade for high,high impact pitching for Gomez, saying a team doesn't want to trade those guys away isn't looking at that teams big picture. A high impact pitcher that is 2-4 years away when that team has needs for this season to 3years from now. Gomez is a guarantee talent. The high impact pitching prospects aren't. I just don't believe you are going to get a high impact pitching prospect for Gomez. Gomez has one year of above average offensive production under his belt. That is hardly a proven talent. I seriously doubt a team would overpay for him for a short term run. It seems to me teams look for rentals with shorter contracts and longer track records that they can get for lesser long term costs. Pitchers seem to be the ones who garner big returns in July. I could be wrong and if we can get more than Gomez is worth as in a legit can't miss front line pitching prospect then fine. I just haven't seen anything to make me believe that is realistic. Gomez is a very good player with a low cost and future value. He doesn't fit a team specific need for us as much as pitching, so you try to find a team that needs more offense and defense in center field right now, yet doesn't have an overwhelming need for future value at pitching. Accept pitching is in much more demand all around baseball. There really aren't a lot of teams looking to give up top level pitching. Getting a mid level pitching prospects who projects to a 3-5 in the bigs we have. Hell we have more average pitching prospects than we have centerfield prospects. We are lacking in top tier pitching. Gomez will not net us what we need IMHO. We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching. If we are only worried about this season that might make sense. If we don't get equal value back I seriously doubt this team will be as good next year or even a couple season's down the road. Do you really think a young Narveson type would be more valuable to the team going forward that Gomez and one of Fiers, Bugois, Pena, Hellweg or Thornburg? We have enough possible bottom of the rotation prospects for next several seasons. WE are lacking top tier ones.