Thurston Fluff

I think we got the best possible result pitching wise though I think Greinke is slightly overrated. Escobar is struggling in the winter league and wasn't as great defensively as advertised. Cain is gonna hurt partially because of who we have to replace him and partially because he is a guy who can both it and field which is something we lack. Living in Appleton I got to see Odorizzi this summer and he was as good as advertised. I know he's a few years from the majors but I hope he pans out for them. It would be nice if KC got back on the right track with this deal. Then it'd be a win win for two small market teams. So can anyone remember when the Brewers out did the Yankees in off season acquisitions like this? I suppose when a team always gives up their first couple picks in the draft they don't have enough left to make big trades. Thus when the FA market fails them they are screwed.

As poorly as he hit he still put up a positive WAR last year and that was with having a down year defensively as well. I am not against advanced metrics but IMHO WAR has shown some very odd people in the positive win side. I simply can't find a reason to take WAR seriously when it routinely shows things that are so visibly not true.

Say what you want about Harden, but he's still young and despite a loss of velocity, he still throws harder than anyone currently on the staff not named Gallardo. He's also a bullpen killer. His career average innings per game is less than 6 innings. Last season he averaged about 5. For comparisons sake Bradon Looper's last season averaged more innings per start, started 34 games (a number never reached by Harden in his career), and had a lower ERA than Harden had his last year. In other words he has a better season in 08 than Harden had in 09. All that got him was a place in the unemployment line in 09. If Harden is so terrible, I guess that you would rather give Carl Pavano about 15 times the guaranteed money. When did it become either or?

The more things I read the more it appears the Jays simply wanted Lawrey. If that is the case maybe they were willing to pay more for him than his value was in the overall market.

Guess that show why Melvin only got what he did for him. The biggest problem I had with him is he was a 26 year old going on 45 health wise when we traded him. You can expect average offense, great defense and two injuries that require DL time from him each and every year.

Every season there is a team or two who don't find that average reliever who can come close to matching that and it hurts them. Or they find him after trying three guys, all of whom fail, and you end up losing 4 or 5 games you wouldn't have before finding the right one. If you have one who has shown himself to be more than a one year wonder it isn't unreasonable to pay him. Going through three options before you find the right one in a pennant race might get you the guy in the end but all those games lost in the process may be to much to overcome in a tight race. we can debate the relative value of the closer but I don't think using the "Twins won without one," argument works because that same argument can be applied to all star first basemen. Let's trade Prince for prospects. After all the Twins proved all star first basemen aren't all that important.

I guess if you can't hit, can't throw people out, are 32 or older, and are still in the league logic dictates you MUST be able to "call a good game", right? Those types of guys get a job every season on many different clubs at various times some on very good ones. One would have to think either a lot of clubs have very stupid management or those players have something of value that isn't seen in the stats. The only thing that can be is game calling.

Marcum is still a good pitcher, but he's already past his prime physically, 29 is past prime? One thing I don't get is why all the fuss about the injury? This is not a shoulder or back thing. It's a common injury whose prognosis after is very good and his recovery very near, if not totally, complete. I haven't seen anything ever to show that it is any more of a risk to reoccur than a for someone who hasn't had it yet. In fact I seem to recall several things to the contrary.

You are right. Closers are very, very important. That's why the Twins fell completely apart when Joe Nathan got hurt last year. They had no chance to make the playoffs let alone win their division. By that reasoning I guess first basemen aren't important either. Morneau missed half the season and they didn't fall apart after that either. Many teams can overcome virtually any single injury and good teams more than one. That doesn't mean the players who are lost aren't important or worth their money just that the team is deep enough to overcome the loss.

they just don't seem to have the same leadership they had with Jocketty. but what have the Reds done since he was hired there?

A little surprising that someone wouldn't know he was available. Especially considering it has been known the Brewers were willing to look at all options. I suppose if a team didn't have have what we want why would anyone from the Brewers tell them anything.

I like Lawrie a lot, but we need pitching, so if we've slightly "lost" this trade on paper, at the moment, I'll take it. I don't think we have lost, and time will tell if Lawrie ends up like Braun or not. We've shown we can draft and develop Lawries. Marcums, not so much... It takes me half a page to say what you did on a couple sentences. Couldn't agree more. We traded from something we have, relatively speaking, a lot of for something we had little of.

If you don't mind, I'll bookmark this for future discussions on Melvin. If we're going to blindly have faith in Melvin on this issue because he's been around for a while, then I suppose the same arguments could be made for Suppan, Hawkins, the Lee trade, the Sexon trade, the lack of a Prince trade and other moves that he generally gets lambasted for. All I said is Melvin has shown he does make good trades when available. What does that have to do with his record of FA signings? As far as the Sexon trade I don't know how that could have been viewed as bad. WE got 6 players for someone who did squat after he left here. While some don't work out they all made some amount of sense at the time and there was no better one offered that I ever heard of. Saying he should have done something else without knowing there was something else to be done is to assume DM just doesn't know what he's doing. He has enough of a track record for us to know that isn't the case. most of the complaints I have seen is they should have been able to get more for Lawrey than they did. Yet I don't see how that claim is valid if all we got was Marcum? You would have to assume DM targeted Marcum and was willing to give up anything Toronto asked for to get him or DM is a complete idiot who didn't even bother to find out what else he could have got if you think we could have got more in return. So my point remains are we better off with Marum or a prospect whose best asset would be to be a duplicate of what we already have plenty of? I think we are better off today than we were yesterday.

While some may think we should have got more in return we didn't. Seems to me Melvin has been around long enough and has shown himself to be able to make decent trades when available to think this was indeed the best he could get. So to me the real question isn't what we could have got for him. We already know that Marcum is indeed the best we can get. The real question is are we better off with Marcum or having kept Lawrie? We have a lot of defensively challenged players who can hit. We have virtually no legit major league ready 2/3 pitchers. We took some of our excess and used it to get a much needed commodity in return. I don't know how to rate the value of a player who has yet to play above AA, has yet to prove he can play effectively in the field and has reportedly been less than stellar in the clubhouse but can flat out hit. But I do know we have several of those players on the team already, minus the attitude, and we stunk. Maybe it's time to look less at the value of each player in a vacuum and more at what each would have contributed to actually improving on the number of wins the team has. Count me in as happy they found someone good and didn't lose irreplaceable players in the process.

Villy sort of reminds me of Nelson Figueroa in that he's not flashy or even all that good but 10 years from now he'll still be in the big leagues. If he is rounding out your staff you have a pretty good staff but if he's a key component you probably need some help. Anyway good luck to him and I will always remember him fondly as the guy who ticked off the "sleeping giants".

There are only so many big market teams willing to pay mega year, mega dollar, contracts. Even less looking for a 1st baseman. Why sign him to two years if our best chance of resigning him is in a soft market year next year? Why not just let him hit FA and see if we can resign him to what the soft market dictates. Boras thinks he can get him a huge contract and maybe so. But if the choice is to give him huge money for two years, keep him for one year or to trade him for less than he's worth I say keep him and see if he hasn't overestimated his value? The absolute last hing I would do is give him another year. We would have two years of big money ties up and it would eliminate the one chance we have of keeping him long term.

4.) His agent is Scott Boras which means that an extension before FA is not likely. Making him a 1 year rental. While that is the popular and perhaps correct take on it I think it all depends on who trades for him. If it's a big market team they may allow him to go to FA but they can match any offer and have the added advantage of not having to give up a draft pick to get him. Would Boston, for instance, think he would be a one year guy if they traded for him or would they view a trade as a way to get a year's wroth of production while simultaneously getting an advantage towards a long term deal. His production, size and available alternatives have more to do with his value than his status as a rental IMHO.

I don't know what to think about this other than I don't beleive it has any basis in reality. The very things that make Braun attractive to us would be things that give us a greater return. As a general rule I don't like trading players who have made a commitment to the team like he and YoGa did. There are a lot of guys Lie prince who are good players and decent people besides but want to siphon every last dime they can get out of the team. Braun seems like a guy who may be inclined to give us a bit of a home town discount in exchange for comfort and stability next time around as well. Hate to lose that type of player on a team that hardly ever gets them. Doesn't the statistics universe have an ECI (Eye Candy Index)? It's understandable that retiree's such as yourself didn't know it but they have the HTI (heart throb index). I've heard rumor that is the biggest downside to Fielder's trade value. P.S. I can say mean things to those younger than I as long as I follow the OCPI (old curmudgeons privilege index). According to the chart someone only slightly younger can be called a retiree only if said person was asked if they were retired in the past 6 months by a dental hygienist.

It would seem weird to organizationally jump whole-hog into the "Peterson Way" as part of the effort to improve long term pitching results, then ditch it the next year...stranger things have happened though. If he is gone, I will not miss watching him jog to and from the mound, nor will I miss the hand on the shoulder bit. I don't think the organizational philosophy will be changed in the least if he isn't retained. They planned on implementing it before they hired Peterson which was why Peterson was so interested in being here not the the way around.

If we could get a Cappy deal done quickly that would give us more options with a Prince trade. I would like to see someone with a little more velocity and overall upside than Narveson. Especially since our team has a lot of that same sort of pitcher. IF Prince and Narveson package could get us one legit top of the order pitcher and some minor league depth I would be fine with trading them both.

Some people really get into music, some tv and movies others sports. No matter what it is it's always cool to meet the people in the field. I am a huge fan of comedy. Studied the history of comedy from the court jesters and Egyptian muses (usually little people who were revered in Egypt) to vaudeville to modern day sketch and standup. Today I got to meet Wyatt Cenac, Jason Jones and John Oliver and a couple of Daily show writers. Really tried not to geek all over them. Don't think I succeeded. Oh well I'm a nerd what can I say.

I think the story behind it is that MLB organizations just don't view Dale as having the ability to be an MLB manager. He got an interview with the Pirates which is more than Randolph can say this time around. I think there will be more chances in the future. He isn't a high profile guy which may have as much to do with organization he works for than his ability. All in all he's done a good job in the roles he's had IMHO so his time will come.

With the exception of Peterson, I would prefer to let the next coach choose his staff. I don't know that Macha was allowed to. If he was, it seems as though some staff positions were "very strongly suggested" considering 3 of the staff members interviewed for his job. While I hope Peterson stays I think the manager should be able to pick all of his staff. I think one of the factors in deciding on a manger might be how he views the pitching side of it. If he believes in the new approach the Brewers organization has it may be a better fit. I agree MAcha may have not been given a fair shake with who to hire and that could have caused some problems for him.

However, the often misunderstand or play fast and loose with the basic research. They've run with what appears to be premature theory and may not be taking species-typical reflexes into account. Two sentences and you summed up what I was trying to say in about four posts and failed. Guess that shows who is a more articulate, clearer thinker.

Exactly how previously neutral stimuli come to serve as conditioned reinforcers is an unsettled question. There is some evidence that it is often a Pavlovian process, but also a bit which indicates that this simple temporal pairing is not sufficient. Dang those two sentences require a couple readings to understand.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I need to read that book again. I think I must be missing or forgetting parts of it. The only thing that sucks about reading a lot is keeping straight who said what. Am I correct in thinking we agree there is merit but maybe riding the line between the scientific process of conditioning and speculative hypothesis of how to apply said science?