Thurston Fluff

I'm not excited about giving a pitcher an extension, especially one with no more ceiling for improvement. I'd concentrate on an extension for Weeks. I think we can find more Dave Bush's down the rode. Is your aversion to giving pitchers an extension due to injury? If so it seems like Weeks has more issues than Bush. Especially since the wrist thing rearing it's ugly head again.

I read that one as well. It was had a humorous, almost incredulous tone, while still complimenting the guy. I really love stories of perseverance like his.

There is tremendous value in 3-4-5 starters who never get injured and give you 30-34 starts at quality start ERA's. This is spot on. Soup is getting paid his money because of his ability to take the ball every fifth day all year long. That was what Melvin said when he signed him and that is what he delivered. In that respect Soup has earned his contract. Suppan's FIP this year is 5.78, for his career its 4.81. This Soup is past its expiration date. Does one stat in one quarter of a season really tell us so much more than 2293.2 innings over an entire career does? Does luck play no part in this? His BABIP right now is .270, that won't last Please correct me if I'm reading your comments wrong but in your FIP statement you seemed to judge him as past his prime by partially ignoring any luck factors but here you seem to be insinuating luck is a huge factor in his production. Am I missing something?

I think it really depends on what type of offense you have as to what type of pitcher you want. If you have a good offense like the Brewers it makes sense to have pitchers who keep you in every game. If you have a bad offense I would rather have the inconsistent one who can pitch lights out on occasion. That way the offense will be enough half the time. In other words if the team scores 5 runs every game give me a pitcher who only ever lets in 4. If it scores 1 run every game then I'd rather have a guy who may give up 10 earned half the time but pitches shutouts the other half. In that sense our staff is perfect for the Brewers.

I wonder fi these same fans would feel as strongly about how disrespectful the team is if they untucked after winning one of three. If the fans didn't complain after winning the series then I'd have to assume they are just poor losers. I guess someday we might lose a series against the Cards then we can find out. Really I think all the Cards disrespect thing is way more about being poor losers than us being poor winners. It's all fine and good to be great fans when your team is winning but if they can't be gracious losers then they aren't all that great of baseball fans.

I also have a problem with any stat that suggests 9 IP with 4 ER is worse than 6 IP and 3 ER or that 6 IP and 3 ER is better than 5.2 IP and 0 ER. While true the quality start measures both how many runs and how deep in the game a pitcher goes. I think how deep into a game a pitcher goes is of some importance. I understand it is only 1/3 of an inning but this particular stat has to have a cutoff point and 6 is that point. To me QS is not very useful in telling/predicting anything about a pitcher but can be informative about a rotation as a whole. The Brewers are a perfect example. They lead the league in quality starts and that is very telling IMHO of why they are currently leading the division. They don't have great pitching but they have consistent pitching. I don't think any other stat shows how consistent or how deep a rotation as a whole is. A couple great pitchers can skew the combined numbers of the staff and cover the fact that the team trots out two crappy pitchers on a regular basis. QS as a team stat measures something other stats don't. Naturally having pitchers who have more QS leads to a staff with more of them, so in that small way, I think they can be useful if looking to build a staff. If a GM had a good offense but needed pitching he find QS is useful in finding a couple consistent bargain rate pitchers who will help more than finding a great one at the same price.

1) He acted greedy in the situation with both the Marlins´player and with Jenkins Many people believe baseball players are all greedy so they are fair game to any who believe such. FWIW I don't have a problem with players wanting all they can get either. Just not gonna complain when the show is on the other foot. 5) He lies and attempts to deceive players from other teams by wearing their apparel. Prince Fielder chose an agent who is known to play one GM off another. He will do anything an everything to get the extra dollar for his player. Does that make Prince a bad guy? 7) His hogging of balls that could go to other fans who don´t get the chance to catch a ball Are these other fans not at the same game? What advantage does he have that makes it so others don't have a chance at the same ball he does? The other points you made I agree are certainly are toolish behaviors. I don't know about others but I am not defending him as much as I am the act of negotiating for all he could get in this particular instance. Would you have a problem if a kid who got his first ball acted the same way? Maybe we need to separate the act from the person.

I think if a person is driving at that level it isn't all that high. When he blew the .093 it was well after the time he was actually driving. I've never been through the process so if I'm off base please correct me but I think he had to go through some amount of processing before he actually got a BA test.

C. To me it is pretty apparent that there are people on here that when put it a certain position they are inclined to do the decent, conscientious, and humane thing and on the flip-side there are others that are inclined to try to squeeze as much as humanly possible out of any opportunistic situation they may encounter, regardless of ethics. I think we all know which category HY falls into Humane? This is a baseball we are talking about right? Not someones sick puppy who needs medical attention and HY is demanding money or he won't treat it. I think you're getting carried away. This is a guy who wanted compensation for his property that another person wanted. So what if someone would have given it to him for less? If I gave my house away to a millionaire and someone wanted you to do the same is it unethical of you to refuse? After all I did it and feel good about giving my house away to someone I am a fan of. Never mind I gave it to someone who makes roughly 10 times my salary. I got to shake his hand and he likes me now. You could have that same feeling if you would just give your house away as well. If you go trick-or-treating and you get 25 Snickers and your friend didn't get any and wants one, wouldn't it be a little easier to give them 1 or 2 than if you had only gotten 1 or 2? Nobody gave Charlie Brown any of their snickers bars. Poor kid.

Since I personally believe the new 0.08 limit is excessively low, and Tony blew 0.093, which is below what had been the limit until quite recently, I think he probably was mostly just tired, as he said (of course he should not have been driving, given that he fell asleep in an intersection) You have to be pretty tired to fall asleep at an intersection without any chemical enhancement. I think it more likely he was more than .093 when he fell asleep than it is he was plain old tired. If he really was that tired then I don't know how responsible it was to drive anyway. But I do agree the current level is pretty low.

But Jamie, just because someone else is greedy doesn't mean you should be as well. Just because this is how capitalism work doesn't mean you should always take advantage. If you are paying for capitalists to make their money then those same capitalists want something from you what should be done? Play by some sort of ethics that has you losing money to them and asking nothing in return or playing by the same ethics they do? Maybe you don't have to play on a level field but I see nothing unethical in those who want to. I don't care how much Hanley Ramirez makes, or Coghlan makes, (or HY, for that matter). I simply don't understand why it's "ok" to ask a guy to ask someone else to surrender their personal property. I agree. Since it's Hy's property, obtained in a legal manner, it is unfair for Coghlan to ask for it back. It was never Coghlan's property. It ceased to be major league baseball property once it hit the stands. All I know is that HY's conduct in all of this tells me everything I need to know about him as a person. And I'm sorry to say, the tacit approval for his actions by some on this site, in some ways, does the same... I think there is a difference between approval and acceptance of different ideals. It isn't like all pro athletes are so morally superior in how they deal with fans and money. Do you know for sure Coghlan won't turn out to be one of those guys who refuses to give anything to fans without a price? Will he turn out to be one of those guys who only goes to autograph signings for a fee? If he does wouldn't it be justified to charge him something? Don't know who either of them are but to assume one is better than the other is a bit rich. Maybe I'm a bit jaded with assuming all athletes are great to fans. Most of the time the dealings we've had have been fine but we've had a couple instances where Packers orders stuff from us and when we asked if they wanted to pay with cash or charge canceled the order because it wasn't free. One got pretty belligerent about us refusing to do something for free. Most aren't like that but judging some of us we can see more than one side says as much about you as it does about them. I'm not judging either of them personally. I would have asked for another ball and congratulated them on the milestone. Doesn't mean I think someone who feels differently about it is less of a person than I am.

As Brewers fans, I'm sure we've all noticed how Doug Melvin has been able to cultivate good working relationships with GM's around the league and many are eager to trade with him. That's because DM understands how to construct a deal that is fair for both sides and makes both teams better. He's not always out to "win" the trade. There's a lesson there. AS baseball fans we all see Scott Boras play one Gm off another in order to get the most for his clients. Doug does not cultivate his relationships with other GM's out of some sort of love of all things baseball of because of his need to make sure others get their fair share. He does it to keep options open for the future. Completely different situations. Well, and as mentioned before, he's not killing people or selling drugs either, so I guess that makes it OK. Usually this kind of logic is used to justify something others find blatantly distasteful, though. No more distasteful than taking steroids and claiming it was an accidental dose of something a doctor prescribed for you or leaving via FA as soon as you can because you can make 7.5 million instead of 7 million. It's just business. They can't have it both ways. If it's ok to leave the fans then don't expect all fans to treat you like they owe you something. Yeah. Unfortunately, this stands to make it easier for the Cardinals' and STL media to muckrake about the Brewers. Since they already formed their opinion of us it didn't really matter did it? They hate us because we beat their sorry team like a drum not because of one fan's antics. If you are really worried about what their media and fans think go back to being their whipping boy and they will all be cordial and nice. All last year proved was they are poor losers.

Maybe this was just rumor, but I thought I heard that Yost was going to play him as much as possible so he could pick up and extra bonus for games started. That bonus, whihc was if he made so many appearances he would have this season's contract guaranteed, was reached and his workload remained the same afterward. I think there was speculation about Yost's motives but I think it had more to do with Ned wanting the best available player than attaining enough games to guarantee his contract for this year.

I didn't read the whole thread but so if this has been stated sorry. He may be greedy but he is no more so than any entrepreneur. He found a way to profit that isn't illegal. What's the problem? It isn't like he's scamming old ladies out of their social security checks or corcing poor people out of thier homes after selling them a loan they couldn't afford. He's getting relatively cheap items from players who make hundreds of thousands into the millions playing a game. He's doing it by selling something to someone most probably making far more money than he is that they want. Something he obtained legally through paying for the ticket to the game that helps pay for the salary of the person he's asking compensation from. I don't see why it's such a bad thing to ask the guy to ask his more popular teammate for an autographed item. Does it take that much effort for Ramirez to sign something for his teammate to get a keepsake? Is it so offensive to players to sign something for someone even if they know that person is doing it for the money? If so they should take along look at the practices of athletes who routinely charge for autographs at shows and many time just to make an appearance. Some people may just want a picture with the player, some would be satisfied with the honer of meeting the player. Personally I'd be fine with a replacement ball signed by the player and a chance to say congrats. If someone else decides they want more so be it. If the players don't want to go along with it they don't have to. If the players get offended maybe they should be reminded this is no different than when they exercise their legal rights to unionize and demand more from their employer.

If that was the case SoCal I would expect nothing less from Big Red than handcuffs and state trooper escort. Maybe the national guard. Then next time LaRussa shows his courage safely from the bench his players will tell him to stand in the batters box instead of them.

I just got my new coffee roaster. I've roasted my own beans for about 15 years and thought i had it down to a science. Now I get this new one and the instructions say roasting beans is slightly easier than grilling and slightly harder than boiling water. Not true. It is as easy as boiling water. Great. Thanks to new age technology I have 15 years of experimenting and bean roasting knowledge flushed right down the drain. A chimp could do it. Maybe even a cub fan.

If TLR does I hope it is the first game. Teams don't get a shot at retaliation in the same game since the umps warn both benches. I wouldn't but it past LaRussa to wait until game three to bean someone. If he does wait I hope they have McClung ready to go anyway. He seems to be the designated beaner the last couple years. Makes sense since his fastball has to hurt the most and his reputation as wild gives him some cover as unintentional.

The great ones did it, and that's what made them great. You never hear about the ones who didn't. Like, say, Cal Eldred, who was overworked and overused his first three years in the league and was never close to the same pitcher afterwards. Cal Eldred had a very predictable injury because he was over worked at such a young age. Yet CC doesn't seem to have suffered much effect from his workload late last season. Age matters in these types of things. I think Hart and Parra wore down and didn't even realize it both said something to that effect afterward. Young players going through a tougher workload than they ever had is certainly something that has to be monitored. Quite honestly I think Yost overworked both of them a little more than he should have but in a pennant race it's hard to know for sure what wins that one last game. Kendall was a completely different story. He was old enough to know the rigors of the workload and understood how much he could handle. I have no doubt at all that Yost asked Kendall for an honest answer and Kendall gave him one. Kendall wasn't here to prove he belonged like young guys often do. He understood his value to the team and was not going to short change the team or himself by trying to be he-man.

If I'm him I'd start looking at teams with little hope of winning this year but in need of cheap major league ready players to fill holes. I think there are teams that might view him as serviceable now with some long term potential. Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Houston, Arizona, San Diego, San Francisco all might have a use for him at this point in time. Even if he isn't going to be the long term solution he would get playing time now and at least get a chance at regular enough play to prove his worth one way or the other. I wish him well and hope he at least gets a legit shot however it turns out. That's all any player can ask for. Heck look how long it took Nelson Cruz and 3TO to get their chance. It certainly isn't the end of the line for him.

The difference is that people now have an understanding of the long-term physical effects of overusing players like pitchers & catchers. Just because 'Rub some dirt on it!' sounds tough... doesn't make it solid medical advice. I get that but it doesn't explain how those players could play at a high level then but better conditioned athletes of today can't. I think a lot of the debate we are having is whether JK really was burned out by the end of the year. You yourself provided some pretty strong evidence that his offense didn't just go south at the end of the year but was in fact fairly streaky throughout the season. In any event a player who is here for his defense and isn't adversely effected by the playing time then I'm not sure what the problem is. I kendall would have had 10 more base hits and two more doubles would keeping him out of 20 games have been worth the lost defense or the 5 or so extra steals against?

And I'll think back top one of the greatest collapses ever in 2007 and the near great collapse in 2008. Of all the criticisms this one is at least understandable. I think it was more injury related in 07 combined with youth and crap for a bullpen but at least it is a fair critique. Last year is hard to call a collapse since he didn't get a shot at finishing it nor, since they did make the post season, did they actually collapse. But, to give credit were credit is due, this is a very reasonable argument against Yost. Just because he was healthy doesn't mean he was durable. Look at Kendall's stats from the 2nd half last year and tell me he was the best option every game. He could have easily been injured in that doubleheader...the fact that he wasn't proves nothing. Regardless of that, it's very wearing, especially for a catcher that needs to be able to hit in October. I think this looks to be the case on the surface but if you look at it closer he was simply not a good hitter for a couple years now. He was poor prior to getting here and a hot start covered some of his bad months prior to September. He certainly can't be all that wore out now and he has worse numbers now than last year. He was never here to provide offense so why is it such a big deal? He was here to provide good defense and handle the pitching staff. He was not so tired out that it affected that part of his game. For all the complaints about how Ned handled Kendall he was one of the guys I can empirically point to as improving essentially because of Ned. Before the season started he said he thought Kendall's poor caught stealing % was due to a mechanical flaw. They fixed it and he went form worst to first in that area. Coincidentally it is back to bad once again. So if Ned did cost us games with his strategic blinders how many games did he win by saving runs throughout the year with getting more out of Kendall than others did? It's the managers job to have discretion and not just say "he says he can play so I'll let him play!" What if Gallardo said he could make starts the rest of the season on two days rest? Should the Brewers just let him? No, because history, precedent, and common sense indicate it would be stupid. If it was up to the players, they'd all pencil themselves in the lineup everyday. That's why you don't let them run the team... Couple things. Didn't all of baseball have three man rotations for quite sometime? How many more injuries did those pitchers suffer? Second it is far from such a certainty that all players in every position would say they want to play everyday. One of the things most managers want out fo their players is honesty with regard to availability. The relievers have to be honest about their ability as do the starters when it comes to how much they have left in a game. Same goes for catchers. If the son of a catcher who has himself caught for a decade tells the manager who was a catcher he's ready to go and the bench coach who was a catcher doesn't see something to indicate otherwise I think it's a bit of a stretch to think we know what type of workload he can handle. That sealed the deal for me. This isn't 1953. You don't have the same catcher for the entire double header. Was there something in the water in 1953 that made them so much more durable? What's the difference what year it is? Just because the DH Gwynn instance may not have "cost us the game" doesn't make Yost's managerial philosophies any less flawed. No but it shows how overblown such decisions are. Foo every poor move like that we see things like an improved Kendall in throwing out base runners save us games. If he lost us a couple games one way he saved us in less visible ways in others. I may have missed something, but why are we assuming that Macha's strategy is to ride him into the ground in the second half? In spring training he stated he wanted Kendall to get more rest early so he could play more later. At least that was the original plan. If he can't hit for a lick all year or throw out a few more base runners than he has that may change.

IF Gwynn had been drafted by the Cubs he would be in Baltimore by now.

but didn't seem to show that he had what it took to get them "over the hump" to the playoffs. There's no doubt in my mind that if he hadn't been fired when he was, the team would have missed the playoffs yet again. This is one we can debate with no definitive outcome. I do think the plans implemented after he was fired had to have been discussed prior to the firing. I also question whether a team that didn't have any higher winning % after the firing than before it really did better without him. I do not think Cameron as the lead off hitter and Durham replacing Weeks did all that much to win more games than not. With CC replacing whom ever else I think that was going to happen at that time either way. It wouldn't have happened any sooner since it was all he could do to go that many starts on that short of rest anyway. When to start CC on short rest is one of those things that had been discussed before Ned got the axe IMHO. Like I said I judge him by what he said he would do compared to what he actually did. By that standard I have no complaints. Hard to argue the simple fact that he did take this team from pure crap to respectability and finally into competitive meaningful games to the very end of the season. Had he not been fired why would we doubt someone who accomplished what he set out to do that far wouldn't accomplish the rest of his goals? Seems his history would say he would. If someone chooses to judge him by a different standard who am I to argue personal standards? Nor can I argue what might have been other than the fact he did what he said he would thus he probably could have done the rest in the way he said he would. By my standards I will always be grateful to him and think back fondly of his time spent rebuilding one of the worst into one of the best. If someone wants to argue it could have been done better so be it. That should not detract from what he actually did. Not in theory, not in hindsight, not sitting on a couch watching thinking of how much better someone else could have been, but what he actually did. It's fine to hate him or think we are better off without him just don't discount what he said he would do and the fact that he actually accomplished those things pretty much in the time frame he said it would take.

The only pro-Phillips argument that I can think of is that his slow style bores his defense, which results in errors and unearned runs. If the argument was wins and losses this would be debatable. but the argument is pitching slow makes your team score less. not sure how pitching slow makes the team less able to hit than the team actually facing the slow pitcher. I tend to agree with rluz & the opinion that knuckleheads that spout this kinda stuff off should have to be able to back it up, not just claim, 'Hey, I was a pretty crummy GM for a few seasons.. just take my word on it...' Not saying this is not true but how does one backup an intangible argument? Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Defense is hard to judge empirically but that doesn't mean defense has no value from one player to another. One thing Philips has against him is his theories never seemed to work as a GM so I'm not sure why he thinks it has any merit in making his point. If he could point to a particular situation and how that related maybe but to say - I've been an evaluator of talent and this is how it is - is a stretch when so many did the same job better. Somebody should inform Philips that being crummy at a job does not give him any credibility to speak as an authority on said job. It might be wise for someone to also inform ESPN that credibility does not come from merely holding onto a position while doing nothing of consequence at said position.

Then again Sheets was a pretty quick worker and he didnt get run support. Given some of the teams he was on it is hardly surprising he had little run support. Part of it has to do with how the pitchers lineup. If a pitcher opposes some of the top pitchers on the other teams regularly he will have less support. Sometimes it might have to do with how the team plays for runs. If the team has a pitcher who needs little support they may play for one run instead of the big inning. Not so much playing to score only once but giving up a chance at a big inning to be sure of getting at least one. Maybe if someone knows where to find how many sacrifices against a particular pitcher compared to others we could add some stats to this. Not sure it exists but if it does I'm sure someone will know were to find it.