Thurston Fluff

Not sure why you think they are world beaters. They both project to have an ERA of around 4 with Gonzalez doing better if they don't allow him to face RHers. They likely won't have that luxury for Gorzelanny. You said they were below replacement level. I said they are not. What world beaters has to do with any of that I don't know. I think most people would agree with me those two pitchers give you a better shot at a good result than any old run of the mill AAAA scrub. Which goes to my contention that people often misuse the concept of replacement level. Thus on goes my war on WAR.

The fact that all of the guys we added are below replacement level would be my issue. There is no reason to think we have a league average bullpen and to be honest we probably have one of the worst in the game. If Gorzelanny and González are below replacement level I think it says more about the mythical replacement level than it does the pitcher.

I'm not much of an NCAA football fan so maybe this is a stupid question. Why don't they have preseason games? I always thought they scheduled cupcakes so they could get their teams ready for conference play and they didn't want to lose a chance at a national championship while getting their players up to speed so to speak.

What makes you compare a bullpen that's going to consist of exactly two returning players to last season's version? Not saying I think the bullpen will be great, just that your method of comparison is bad. If we don't want to have another bad pen then it stands to reason we should rebuild it with quality players who seem to be ready. Keeping an under-performing 27 year old prospect who didn't have a stellar AAA season last year is hardly the way to go about making the pen better. I get that we can stash him there and only use him in low leverage situations. But there are two problems with that. First how likely is it that type of work is going to turn him around? Second not all of our other relievers are likely to pan out. Why have a guy who didn't show anything taking up a spot when it could go to someone more worthy? I also get that we don't want to lose a guy who might be good someday and get nothing in return. Jorge De la Rosa comes to mind. He did pretty well after leaving here. But it took about 3 years more before it clicked. That is why I suggested trading him for a decent bench player. JDLR got us Tony Graffanino. I think we can get someone like that for Rogers. At this point considering Rogers age, performance last season in AAA and the number of prospects we have that are passing him up I would rather get a Graffanino type than have him taking up a roster spot that might be used on someone who could help us win a game or two. With all hands on deck we are a marginal post season contender at best. To be a legitimate one I think we need to have the best 25 players. Not 24 and one who might be ok someday. It's really a question of whether or not holding on to him in this fashion is more important than keeping another position player on the bench. Not necessarily. I think it might not be a bad idea to have a lot of pitchers early who may be called upon to actually help the team win a game or two. At this point we are not sure which relievers we can count on in what role. I can see the argument for keeping enough that we can throw them in and see who sticks where. I don't think you can do that as effectively with a guy you know isn't going to help taking one of those spots.

What is it about our bullpen that makes anyone think it can handle someone who can't be relied on to help? It was terrible last season. Adding a player who isn't good enough to help isn't going to make it better. That spot could be used to look at someone who is actually playing well.

I just read this little snippet at the end of an article on the Dominican win of the WBS that I thought worth sharing. Looking at how many people in other countries paid attention to it really shows baseball is a world sport. Those are impressive numbers for any event let alone one that is really still in it's infancy.

Didn't they implement drug testing for the minor leagues in the 90's? I'd hardly call that looking the other way. The reason they didn't do so in the major leagues wasn't due to looking the other way so they could get more money either. They could not do anything without union consent in the majors. They have been far more proactive within the confines of what they could actually do than you give them credit for. The NFL I think looks the other way more so than MLB does these days.

No we can't afford to have his starting if he isn't effective. I'm just saying if he isn't a starter I don't think he profiles as well to being a reliever simply because he can just focus on throwing his fastball. Fact is I'm not sure he has much value to us at all if he can't start. Getting mop us duty isn't a bad idea to see if he can get straightened out but I'm not holding out much hope that will be enough to get him on track. He had control issues as a starter with regular work. I don't see that going away by irregular work a few innings at a time. It seems more like a way to stash him in a last ditch effort to get something from him. I think looking into a trade for a bench player might be the better way to do that. Assuming of course that trade is out there to be had.

I don't know about that for that. For a heater to be effective it needs to be in the strike zone on occasion. I'm not sure the pen is the best place to help his control issues.

I'm going to have a hard time believing that MLB will ask players to "rat out" other players until I see better evidence of this or an actual statement coming directly from MLB or the player's union. A minor league player got suspended 100 games for his first offense. Not a failed test but for being on a list. So 50 games for being on the list and 50 games for something else. That isn't hearsay from a source close to the players. We can verify he was suspended for 100 games. We can also verify he wasn't suspended before. So that extra 50 games came for something other than a second drug offense. It isn't out of line to think it was for being deemed uncooperative. That is far more evidence to go on than MLB did when it suspended him.

I'm all for investigating. If Braun cheated he should be hammered. I am not for the way MLB is going about it. They have suspended a minor leaguer because they didn't believe what he told them. At some point is it belief or not hearing what you want? AT this point it is hard to determine if MLB's motives are sincere investigation or a witch hunt. That means now other minor league players on the list have a dilemma. They have to choose between telling MLB what it wants to hear or be honest and face a possible career threatening suspension. I fail to see how that helps at all. If all they are interested in is getting Braun and A-Rod then I think they have crossed the line from legitimate investigating to harassment.

There are obviously a lot of question marks with this rotation, which is the reason that no one outside of Milwaukee thinks the Brewers will be better than 3rd or 4th in the Central. This season will be very telling as to the future of the Brewers. If our MLB SP outperform the critics we could sneak into the playoffs this season, and if the MiLB SP outperform the critics, the future will look a lot brighter. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. I understand there a re a lot of ifs but I also know there are a lot of players with potential to offset them. We don't need every player to pan out to make things interesting. I really am excited to see what our home grown pitchers can do for the team this season. WE haven't had that here for quite some time.

Congratulations to Nazar Kulchytskyy of UW Oshkosh who just won his second consecutive national championship in wrestling. Two national titles under his belt and another year to go. 101-3 career record and counting. Dude is incredible.

Melvin always talks about cost certainty. Gomez is now cost certain for a few years so he has more ability to formulate a plan further into the future. As far as the concept of when to trade someone I always felt continually trying to trade high means you are continually trading production for potential. As soon as a player gets pretty good he's gone and the next high ceiling project is on the way. Doing that continually means you never really get a guy at his peak production for long. I just don't see that as a good way to actually put good teams on the field. Just a continual repeat of teams that have the chance to be good sometime soon. There are times to do so. Rebuilding from rock bottom ala the Cubs or Astros comes to mind. Why waste someone's peak years on bad teams when you can trade them to build into a contender quicker? But not for teams with good management and stable ownership looking to continue a run of being competitive. That i think is where the Brewers are at now. So keep the guys who got us here and supplement it when we can.

If you've ever been to Ireland cold and dreary is the norm so maybe poetic justice is served this year. Last season I was very put out about the short, warm winter because my dogs ruined our backyard. The lack of frozen ground made for a very muddy household all winter. Not to mention very poor disk throwing conditions. Now we have K-9 grass so spring is much nicer at the Fluff household. Now we get a cold, frozen March. Go figure.

It's nearly impossible to tell anything from spring training. I'd rather go on past performances to start with. That will be more indicative of what they will do in season than a few ST games with minimal appearances to go on. Especially if some guys are more interested in working on something new or a weakness in their game than they are in results. The one thing I am sure of is the opening day bullpen will not be the same as the last day of the season. Time enough to find replacements for those who can't produce during the season.

The infamous brawl looked a little half hearted to me. Sort of staged to get some fan interest going and start a conversation about the WBC in the media. There were a lot of guys holding onto each other's jerseys at arms length and pushing back and forth. They were trying to pull it over their heads so they could beat them down like in hockey. Memo to team Mexico- If you're going to pick a fight choose a team not full of guys who played hockey.

So rather than keeping Gindl or Davis, who have both been playing out of their minds, we'll play a so-so player out of position so that we can carry a mediocre bullpen arm who will likely never pitch. I wouldn't read too much in how they are playing in spring training. Gindl played out of his mind last spring as well. Then he went to AAA and played like crap for a long stretch of the season. Davis has very little AAA time and both would probably better better off long term getting regular playing time than sitting at the end of the bench getting 5 ab's a week. To start the season I'm not overly worried about having 5 actual outfielders. Much like a 3rd catcher the fifth guy would probably only get emergency duty anyway. I think a infielder with decent athletic ability can handle emergency duty for half a game or so. If it needs to be longer than that call someone up then. The other argument for more infielders is the unsettled first base issue. I'd think more options there gives us the best chance of maximizing production there. I also think the last guy in the pen tends to get used more than the last guy on the bench. Especially when we have a lot of young starters. Several of which have command issues and have started slow in the past.

They misrepresented a few things in the article. For instance Yes it is the same guy who did that. However moving a team who routinely drew 5000 fans hardly seems like betrayal. Griffith sold the team in 1984. How can you blame the current baseball hierarchy for that? Marge Schott had her team taken away from her by Selig for her racism. Seems disingenuous at best to suggest Bud, or any of the current administration, is racist based on such evidence. Seems to they he cleaned it up not allowed it to continue. Bit misleading here. McGwire didn't have illegal steroids in his locker. He had an over the counter supplement that was not banned at the time. Even if it was banned later why blame Bud when the union was protecting McGwire? Selig couldn't have prevented him from playing even if he wanted to.

Steroids played a part in the offensive explosion but it was a really minor part. Barry Bonds goes from hitting a career high of 46 homeruns at age 28 where one would figure a hitter to be at his peak Then from age 35-39 never hit less than 45 with a peak of 73. When players are producing significantly above their peak physical years in what should be their declining years I'd call that more than a really minor part.

What does accessibility have to do with forcing someone to choose between their career and long term health?

Cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and alchohol have been proven to cause long term health problems - people that justify banning PEDs from sports for the health of the kids are a bit shortsighted when our society as a whole has no problem with nonstop advertising and marketing for these legal substances. Which one of those vices forces someone to make the choice of using them or losing millions of dollars because someone else is using them?

If steroids did no long term damage, then they should be as legal. I mean if guys are taking them to bounce back from injury isn't that a good thing? Don't we WANT guys like Braun and Cano playing as many games as they can? That is a big if. On some future day if they are found to be perfectly safe we can address changes then. Until that point there is no reason to lift the ban and testing. That way nobody has to take a chance their long term health will be harmed just to be on an even playing field (no pun intended.) As far was wanting to see those guys I want to see baseball played by baseball players not some sort chemistry lab experiment. It would mean teams who do a good job of building depth would be rewarded for it. It would change baseball in some ways but I don't think necessarily for the worse. Then again I have always been more of a team follower than a player follower. I realize there are others who are more star oriented. I suppose it would detract from their experience more than mine.

That is true but lets be honest here, there has been no proof that these new steroids help performance at all, they have studied them and the results are completely inconclusive. This is not the anabolic steroid era at all. There is no proof at all that these new steroids do more than get players ready to recover from injuries faster. Have they studied the long term health effects? Obviously not since these are new drugs. Even using these things to recover faster makes it harder for other players to compete without having to resort to meds that have, at the very least, questionable long term health effects. Perhaps instead of saying we should let anything go until it is proven to hurt we say don't allow it until it is proven not to. I agree. And when you think about the difference between a guy living in poverty in the Dominican Republic and even just hanging on for a year or two as a fringe major leaguer, the temptation is understandable. That is what the latest batch of suspend players fell under. Which is why I think guys like Braun and Cano are either victims of a witch hunt or amazingly stupid/greedy. Thankfully the players and their union seem to want PEDs out of the game as much as fans and management do. I wish the NFL was the same way.

If he pitches so poorly in ST that they don't even want him in as the garbage bullpen guy, they will "find" some injury to put him on the IR. After a nice long rehab stint in the minors, if he still doesn't have it..... If we did that every time someone suggested it the Brewers would set records every season for mediocre players getting mystery injuries. In reality you can't "find" an injury. It has to be documented by people whose professional integrity is on the line. Not to mention Rogers isn't going to go along with a fake injury. Given his history it would be much worse for his career than a bad spring training would be. Even if the alternative was to be cut or go to the minors.