Thurston Fluff

It's hard to read JJ's comments and not see him as a sniveling little cry baby. Even if it was done to gain another year of control it isn't wrong to do. He may feel it was unfair because it was an off the field issue but it was not an off the team issue. If he had performed on the field then none of this happens. The team has a duty to it's fans, ones who have the 6th highest attendance in baseball, to do everything it can to make sure the team is competitive every year. That means they have to get something of value for JJ after this year. That something of value went down due to his poor play. That forced the Brewers to do something radical to maximize his value despite his poor play. They did what I expect the team who takes my hard earned dollars to do. Everything possible to be the best possible. Hey JJ we suffered through your injuries and poor play. Now we want something in return. That something is expected to be more than Bill Hall type production. So far your career is more like Hall's than we care to see.

In general, we can say that the market price of a win is the mean of the dollars per win handed out to free agents in any given year. But that is the problem. Free agency is the most expensive way to calculate wages. Does it use salaries accepted by teams whose player like Braun who signs a long term contract? Does it add the salaries of players who accept arby. If you want to use only the most expensive way of calculating fro comparisons sake fine but then use the same system in calculating otehr players like Hardy to see if Hardy is paid more or less than that not base it off the most expensively priced players. What I took it to mean was that $4.65M was not a rip-off. I think that is likely true. It is if you can get the same production or better for less. It is very odd to just take the highest possible way of setting salaries and apply it to all circumstances and say look we got a bargain because if we had to pay free agent prices for this guy we would be paying more. That ignores all the teams, in this case the majority of them, who actually paid less for their shortstop than what they would in FA.

Counting on any of them to become contributors in the rotation was likely to end in disaster. Which is why i think Jack Z was wrong in his evaluation of top prospects. He continually underestimated how many arms should be aquired to avoid lack of pitching talent available in the high minors. The injury rate of pitchers vs position players combined with the demand of pitchers vs position players is so much greater he should have weighted his draft accordingly. His philosophy of best player available was right but his system of evaluating them was weighted wrong IMHO. He could and should have drafter far more pitchers than he did and many should have come earlier in the draft. I think having enough middle of the pack pitching prospects is more important than enough middle of the pack position players.

When did people start believing defensive metrics really defined the true value of defense? From what I've seen it is an incomplete science at best.

The way I read it, Ennder merely pointed out that even with this struggling season, it's not cut & dried that Hardy's salary was a total ripoff. If he showed that player X was paid more yet his value using the same system showed he was worth less then I'd agree. He did not. He used it in a vacuum using a system that is clearly not based on what players are really being payed without also comparing what that system says about other player's value vs salary. If Mark A could have got better value according to fangraphs then it stands to reason Mark got ripped off.

while the statement that 'No one's going to pay Hardy $22M for one year' is basically true, I think that misses the point of WAR. Imho it's best utilized to provide a concept of the value of production relative to a player's peers, just like almost any 'advanced' stat. But that wasn't how it was used here was it? It wasn't said JJ would be worth X amount this year vs the Y amount of the other shortstops are worth this year. If you want to compare then compare players not use the $ figure in a vacuum. If Hardy was worth $6 million then I think most other shortstops would be worth well above that using the same system. I fully understand the metric, outside of the proprietary information that goes into calculating it. This is sort of my problem with some of them. If a formula uses information in it that we cannot necessarily vet out independently how can we know for sure there were no mistakes made in the formula itself? I want to know if the numbers put in are as accurate as they should be before I accept what they tell me as gospel. That does not mean they have no value or they are actually inaccurate just that we should not take them as absolute truth. Since they provide a consistent baseline for all stats and formulas are great for comparing one player to another. What I do not know for sure is how accurate they are in a vacuum or vs a player who has no comparable set within the formula being used. Comparison yes definitive answer to true value not so sure. Most of us seem to agree JJ Hardy would not get what the End said he as worth. If that is the case then we must question the validity of the formula used to arrive at that figure.

Frankly, if he had gotten it together and they still kept him down past the 20 days, I'd have been disappointed in the Crew (and you better believe players around the league and elsewhere would've taken note)...it just strikes me as bad faith, regardless of the system and the rules. I don't see doing what you can to maximize a player's value should make any player or fan disappointed in a team. Players hire agents like Scott Boras who make a career out of undermining the draft system and working the shady areas of negotiations on behalf of his clients. If the players can say it's just business then so can the teams. That aside it's pretty clear the Brewers did it because Hardy just isn't very good thus was sent down.

Allocating significant dollars for a 42 year old closer on a team that can't get the game to him makes zero sense. I t does if you can get a first round draft pick just by offering him arby. If he accepts then you can trade him at the deadline for as much, if not more, than you could get for him now. If we don't need him that is.

My dog's favorite hobby is chasing and eating butterflies and bees. So to answer your question BRR in my dogs stomach.

Now my Cerwin Vega speakers died. Kind of my fault though. I was cranking them while playing cool dog in the backyard and the rubber around the edges disintegrated.

Would you rather take the trade that we got? I never said that Igawa was on the table, but it would've made sense. I would much rather take a chance on Igawa than what we got. Igawa is owed $9 million over the next 2+ seasons, which essentially cancels out Hall's contract next season and gives us another free season. Igawa has been terrible in the majors, but his minor league numbers have been solid. To me, it would have been a much better return. But he is owed it over two years. With this we are left with absorbing it now not putting it off over two more years. It's like taking a band aid off. It's much more tolerable to just rip off than slowly peel it off suffering all the way. All that assumes the Yankees wanted to make that trade without asking for some money in return.

Igawa has no value to the Yankees and is owed $9 million over the next two years. I was just saying that I think a trade like that made sense for both teams. Hall is only on the books for one mroe year and Igawa is terrible. Why trade one year of crap for two years of crap when you can get rid of all the crap and save some money to boot? I think Jack Z did Melvin a favor, paying as much as he did. The only way Jack could make sure to get Hall at that price was to trade for him. If Hall got to free agency he could have went anywhere he wanted to for as much as anyone was willing to pay. Jack was doing what he felt was in the best interest of his club not doing anyone a favor. Teams could have just waited a few more days and signed him for nothing. Except all the team who are interested in him could do the same. The Brewers, via Gord Ash, are saying that the deadline pressure was a factor in what they were able to get. Several posters have said the same thing. The Brewers created this pressure themselves for no good reason. Some of those same posters wanted to DFA him along time ago. They created this pressure because, unlike fans, they are obligated to do everything they can to stay in the pennant race. At the time they simply did what they felt was necessary to keep their slim hopes alive. I would not be a fan of the team if they did not take this approach. It's ok for me to thin they are out of it but not the team itself. That is quitting. The only time I ever stopped watching this team was in 02 because they quit. I do not think I am alone in thinking that way. I think most fans can stomach a bad year but will not tolerate quitting. See the Pirates for example of what happens when management quits on the season to early. Or could it possibly be that he was window dressing, so the fans could be told that we got a pitching prospect. The league frowns on something for nothing deals. It may have had to do with getting league approval for the deal.

It survived my teen years, the endless moves of my 20's and the garage the last 15 years. Gotta love that old school durability.

It is with deep sorrow that I must report my 1978 Pioneer stereo hi fi receiver passed away. It was preceded in death by 4 other receivers. It left behind a seldom used turntable and one usable speaker. RIP oh glorious one. You will be missed by all the lives you have touched. Friends may call the Sorenson funeral home for service times. Please send donations to the charity of your choice in loo of flowers.

Hardy didn't exactly have a boatload of time at AAA before he had an opportunity to have the job in the majors? He missed 3/4 of the season at AAA. you're going to use a guy who hit .247, and an OPS of .711 as an example of why it would have been alright to bring Escobar up without any AAA time? Quite frankly I think it makes my point of why it wasn't a good idea. I just love his ability to create havoc on the basepaths. We needed a player like him to get this team going a little bit offensively. In the - what it takes to have a consistent offense thread - I said speed was one thing that can help. I think the perfect example of that was when they loaded the bases to set up a double play which would have worked out perfectly if not for his speed. It is fun to watch guys who fly.

And two, agents and players don't take it too well when moves are made to narrowly allow for putting off a players FA by a whole year. You don't want that reputation as an organization. And Doug Melvin doesn't strike me as the type who would stick it to a player in that fashion. Couple things. First of all I couldn't care less if the players and agents liked it. We don't get mad aty players when they leave for more money. I understand it's a business. Same goes the other way. It's a business and Melvin is responsible to the organization to do what is in it's best interests. IF keeping Hardy down to get another year of service time means he has more trade value then do it. If he gets p.o.ed to bad. Had he played better there wouldn't have been a need to do that to improve trade value. Second if the agents and players get mad so what? They are drafted and have no choice but to sign or delay their careers at least a year. They are free agents after 6 years and most likely plan to leave anyway. SO what is the downside? Agents play hard ball all the time. They are expected to do everything they can to get the player the best deal possible. They routinely do everything they can within the rules, ethical or not, to do that (see Scott Boras). It has to be expected teams would do the same. I also don't believe it is being done to stick it to anyone. That implies it was done in anger or to get back at him. It may suck for JJ and is jamming him but the purpose isn't to stick it to him. It's to maximize his value to the team. It may be the same outcome but different intent. If I beleived Melvin was doing it out of petty revenge or something then I would agree it may hurt the team in the long run.

Anyhow, the SS was clearly the position Melvin could've addressed by trading Hardy for pitching last season after CC fell through and Sheets not coming back. do you really think Escobar would have been ready to be an everyday shortstop with no experience above AA? Were you so certain that Escobar would really be as good at AAA as he has been to think he could have bypassed AAA altogether before the season started? Was it also certain that Hardy would have flopped so badly this year that his trade value would have diminsihed as it has? I think this is a case of hindsight being 20/20. Of course Melvin would have traded Hardy and put Counsell at short until Escobar would have been ready if he knew ahead of time Hardy would flop, Counsell would play like he is and Escobar was the real deal. Of course if Melvin had a crystal ball there is no reason to believe other GM's didn't have one as well. In that case none of them would have traded anything of value for Hardy since they would have also known he would flop. Branyan would have been great to have as a backup for RF, 1B, and 3B. He's far out-produced Hall, Cat, and Hart. So is McGehee. He has an OPS of 864 to Branyan's 888 and is younger and cheaper. The brewers also control him for another 5 years. I don't see what value Branyan would have brought us when he would have taken away playing time from a younger player with a future on the team. If anything all the non signing of Branyan does is show Melvin was smarter than Jack. Jack signed a stop gap player for a rebuilding team when he could have had his starting third base prospect simply by claiming Casey on waivers. Guess Jack just missed on that one.

I still don't see the point of making the offense WORSE when it is and has been the pitching all along that needed retooling. Are you making the offense worse by sending down a batter who got on base at a 300 clip or hit for a 667 OPS? Escorbar will hit for less power but I think he will get on base a lot more than that. You also help the pitching by improving the defense at a very important defensive position. Unfortunatly, the guy who could judge talent was Jack Z, and he got away. Thank God Jack Z. got us so much pitching during his time here. Otherwise we might be below .500 now. Melvin gets way too much credit for lucky waiver claims of mediocre players. Every team gets those. Melvin doesn't trade our players at their peak because he has no idea what their peak is. Or he didn't trade them at their peak because that is precisely the time you want to have them actually playing for you. What's the point of deveolping players if all you do is trade them when they are playing their best? Trades should be made to either improve the team, or because the player is no longer a part of the plans either because there is a replacement or they are going to be too expensive for to keep. According to the trade at peak value ideal Hardy should have been traded last year because he would have been high value. But would we have got to the playoffs by trading him? Somewhere along the line you have to use you good players as players not poker chips.

If BOS was able to extend JJ, then he could in theory be worth Bucholtz, but if they would not deal Clay for Halladay, why Hardy? If it was just him even up they wold have moved him in a heartbeat. Melvin has stated several times in the past he believes you get better deals for offensive players in the winter vs during the seaosn. So I think his motivation, or lack thereof, has more to do with what he thinks he can get then over what is being offered now.

As a fan it's ok to let emotions get in the way and just assume 6 games out is time to start looking at next year. As a GM I would be seriously PO'ed if the GM acted that way. This is a good short term move to give this team the best shot at a post season birth this year. I am not sold on him being worth much next year. He may be good but 40 year old players are always a risk for both injuries and decline in ability. Just look at the difference a year made with Shouse.

There's no way that HR pace will keep up. Also, batters are not going to continue to hit over .340 against him. Why do you think he won't continue to give up homers and hit at the current pace? At his age it would be more surprising if he didn't get worse. As I'm sure any of the 40 somethings here would attest to things get worse far faster than they do even in the late 30's. What he did last year is not going to be what he is capable of this year. Which is why you don't see that many 45 year old people in pro sports.

When people are batting .343 against you I don't think the K/BB matters all that much. He's very hittable. Even if he can still make a few over zealous batters miss his stuff he can't do it enough to make up for how many hits he gives up. Especially when you see him give up a homer every 5 innings. He isn't only getting hit but he is getting hit hard.

I wonder how much speed plays into it. I haven't really seen much about it but just thinking about it logically speed means more badly hit balls will end up hits. A few more infield singles and the ability to bunt for a base hit when the player is in a slump can keep him slightly more productive in those slumps. Scoring from first on a base hit would produce more runs even if the team is in a slump.

I think there is a difference between having talent in general and having a talent in a specific area. If he was going to say the Brewers didn't have what people wanted he should have said that. If he meant they have no talent at all then he was wrong. He is the guy on TV who, presumably, planned what he was going to say ahead of time. As a professional in his field he should know how to clearly state what he means in his commnets. Not clarifying his comment to portray what he meant to say is amateurish at best.

I'm absolutely certain that Manny and Papi did roids. I'm saying I'm not going to crucify them for it when they were told the results would be sealed. Anyone who knows they are getting tested and still take them deserve no sympathy. It takes nads the size of Mt Rushmore to basically flip off the sport and do it simply because they can't legally do anything to you for it. They had no problem screwing with the sport, other players, fans and organizations so I have no problem with them getting equally screwed by the leaks.