Thurston Fluff

I don't know how smart or dumb Gennett is but I don't think it's fair to say he is the reason the Reds or Brewers had losing records when he was on the team. Villar isn't exactly a rocket scientist running the bases or fielding and he's on a winning team. I also think Gennett can be part of a winning team. He was let go because he wasn't good enough for a contract beyond his arbitration years and the team wasn't expected to be competitive enough to keep him around before then. So they went with players that might be.

I'm not sure pitchers are more prone to injuries running bases or swinging the bat than any other player. Geoff Jenkins dislocated his ankle sliding into a base, John Jaha once blew his hammy running bases, Mat Gamel blew out his knee making a fairly routine catch, Ryan Braun hurt his intercostal muscle on several occasions swinging a bat or throwing the ball from the outfield. It happens all the time to a lot of players regardless of position. It just seems like more because the value of pitchers is in run prevention not run production. To me that is the heart of the issue. They are not in the majors to produce runs. They are there to prevent them. At some point we dilute the game by exposing them to unnecessary, relatively minor actions. The added strategy of having the pitcher hit just doesn't make up for having to watch more poor pitchers who don't belong in the majors play. Even if they don't have a greater risk of injury running bases or hitting than any other player it is more of a risk than necessary considering their job is to prevent runs, not produce them.

I used to be anti-DH, but not anymore. Pitchers are pitchers, not hitters and baserunners. I'm leaning more that way as well. I like strategy aspect of the NL but at some point strategic moves seem pointless if seasons are determined by which pitcher is left standing.

I thought of that later. I was thinking Aaron Rodgers. just goes to show there is no clear cut way to determine who should be kept.

It's a surname thing.

Dog is man's best friend yet they find rabbit poop more interesting than humans. What does that say about humanity?

I think they would have if Scooter could play anything other than second base. That is what this all comes down to. I would love to have kept Scooter over a guy like Perez. Man would I have loved that. But when you can only put Scooter in a second base, you are just too limited. He has played some outfield for the Reds hasn't he? I imagine he could play 1st as well. Which would put him one up on Aguilar. But then the choice is about the same as Villar in that they went with the guy with more control. Perez is simply more valuable as a utility player to take Gennett over him. That leaves Nieuwenhuis. Can't really see where his value was higher than Gennett even in spring. To me the mistake was not in keeping Villar over Gennett but keeping Nieuwenhuis over him. Lesson learned. Never keep a player with more vowels than consonants in his name.

If the goal is to acquire as much controllable talent as possible and the choice is between two relatively equal value players take the one with the higher ceiling that can be controlled for a longer period of time. That said it didn't need to be between Villar and Gennett as they could have gone with both and cut Perez, Nieuwenhuis, or Aguilar instead.

Gennett's career numbers: .283/.324/.447. He wasn't a bum as a Brewer. They fell in love with Villar based on one year. Neil Walker's career numbers: .273/.340/.437 They are essentially the same player only Scooter is 4 years younger. Walker has trouble vs. LHP too by the way (.694 career OPS vs LH). Walker's making $17 million this year. As to the argument he had zero trade value, that's on the Brewers who annointed Villar the everyday 2B. Nevertheless, the first team with a shot at claiming him off waivers did just that. The Reds were that team. No doubt at least 5 or more other teams would have put in a claim too. To say it was all because they fell in love with him from one year is disingenuous at best. It ignores that he plays more positions, can steal more bases, is younger and has more years of control than Gennett. It wasn't simply because he had a good year. He has more tools than Gennett could ever have and might be part of the future. Gennett was never going to be more than a two year platoon player who's only real value is his ability to hit for average and decent amount of power for a guy his size. As far as the Reds getting him because they had such high priority in the waiver claims that completely ignores that any team could have actually traded for him of they felt he was good enough to give anything up for. That he made it to waivers in the first place means everybody was willing to take a shot at getting him for free but were not willing to give up even a single low level lottery ticket for him.

Skinny jeans don't do the trick?

It will be interesting to see how well he does in relief from both the attitude and performance angle.

I'm all for every player hitting a wall. Even more in favor of them hitting it over a wall.

This is possibly the best vegetable dish I have ever had. http://allrecipes.com/recipe/13988/marrakesh-vegetable-curry/

I'm glad he got traded. It is a good story that I hope continues. Just not here. He might be able to carve out a little niche as a frange major leaguer moving around to rebuilding teams as a stop gap but I hope we are beyond that stage for a while.

That is what the last few spots on the 40 man are at this stage. That might not be the case soon but for now the last few spots on the 40 man are not really major league caliber now and not very likely to be so in the future. Might as well turn it over a lot to see if someone steps up. I liked the Espino story. I was quite happy he got his cup of coffee. But he isn't someone who is ever going to be useful to a competitive club. Chances are neither will Brooks but it doesn't hurt to look.

I wonder how his ability to pickoff baserunners effect how many attempts at stealing. Seems logical that the worry of being picked off would keep runners closer to the base thus fewer attempts. It has to effect the ability to take extra bases to some extent as well. I think it is probably pretty small but even a few less stolen bases or runners getting that extra base a few times has to add up to something tangible.

The first option assumes there is a limitless supply of people capable of determining if a ball is an inch off the plate more often than current umps do. I think the problem isn't that MLB just doesn't try to find good umps who can call balls and strikes better than the ones now. I don't believe the problem is MLB doesn't train them properly. I don't believe firing the weakest ones will help. There is always a weakest one so we would always be firing one. All the umps got there because they were better than others to begin with so changing them out seems like a futile effort. MLB already has standards that umps have to meet or they are removed. I think making the standards more rigid would only lead to not enough umps meeting the standard. Believe it or not these are the best available. I think the problem is it's not humanly possible to judge a 99 MPH fastball on the black followed by a curve ball at the knees- without knowing in advance which was coming when- any more accurately than they are currently being called. Add in every pitcher's stuff moves differently and every catcher is trained to trick umps on close pitches out of the zone and I think umps are doing about as well as humanly possible. Thus the only option to get more accurate is to go with some sort of non human assist. The second option doesn't at all address bad calls as much as say you're not perfect either so shut up. That doesn't make anything better. The third takes away from the fan experience. I like seeing if the pitch was in or out of the zone. Not to judge the ump but to judge the players. None of the options seems to me to be way better than giving the umps technological assistance that is readily available and doesn't slow the game down.

Amen. I can't wait for the first shocked look on a batter's face the first time a slow curve that lands near the dirt is called a strike because it crossed at the bottom of the zone even though it's just been called wrong for years. People say it's going to take a lot of nuance out of the game, but it's also going to add other nuances. Count me in on this one too. It would allow pitchers who have a lot of movement on their breaking balls to utilize them more effectively. That could open up a lot of room for different type of pitchers to be successful. As it is now it's almost impossible to be effective if your best pitch is anything but a changeup or fastball.

I think the first sentence is true because of the second sentence is true. It's also why I do not buy into the argument we can't beat the upper echelon teams in a playoff series.

Day drinking is ok if it's an afternoon game.

This should tell you as much about the accuracy of defensive metrics as it does defenses. I applaud the effort to quantify defense but this is far from a useful product. If this was medical a advancement discussion we'd still be talking about the harm miasma causes.

I saw a buch of teenagers playing Ultimate frisbee across the street from my house yesterday. I went over to say how fun it was to watch and that I played some the 80's and have spent the last 14 years throwing a couple hours a day every day with my dog. They asked if I wanted to play so I figured why not? Got to say it was the most fun I've had in a long time. Problem is, I don't think I will be able to move for a week.

Veterans by definition and rule are overpaid. Anyone that is a good MLB player past their arbitration days is close to or actually overpaid. Cody Bellinger and Corey Seager make $500k. Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford (out of baseball), Andre Ethier all make in the range of $20 million/year. How is that working out? The Astros paid Carlos Beltran $16 million to fill in as DH this year. Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, John Lackey all make 15-20 times more money than Kris Bryant annually. Arcia, Santana, Nelson, etc. will all get their payday. That's how this works. We have room under Mark's yearly budget to fill some holes. Would you rather Neil Walker play 2B and Swarzak + 2 good pen arms come to the Brewers or would you rather stick with what we have and let the ownership group buy a few more yachts? Now, if the Brewers sign several guys to big 5 or 6 year contracts we have issues because then it will affect our ability to bring Nelson, Anderson, Arcia, Santana, etc. back. Just because overpaying veterans is common doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Veterans by definition and rule are overpaid. Anyone that is a good MLB player past their arbitration days is close to or actually overpaid. Cody Bellinger and Corey Seager make $500k. Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford (out of baseball), Andre Ethier all make in the range of $20 million/year. How is that working out? The Astros paid Carlos Beltran $16 million to fill in as DH this year. Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, John Lackey all make 15-20 times more money than Kris Bryant annually. Arcia, Santana, Nelson, etc. will all get their payday. That's how this works. We have room under Mark's yearly budget to fill some holes. Would you rather Neil Walker play 2B and Swarzak + 2 good pen arms come to the Brewers or would you rather stick with what we have and let the ownership group buy a few more yachts? Now, if the Brewers sign several guys to big 5 or 6 year contracts we have issues because then it will affect our ability to bring Nelson, Anderson, Arcia, Santana, etc. back. Just because overpaying veterans is common doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Nothing really screams starting 2b. He's a solid hitter with speed and plays good defense. His career minor league slash line is 299/349/404/753. He's probably more of a Perez type guy in that super utility role when he fully develops. His career SB% is around 75%, which is very good if that percentage translates to MLB. Dubon isn't nearly as dynamic as Villar or have nearly the upside of Diaz/Hiura, he could be a decent stopgap option if Villar fails in 2018 rather than spending a bunch on 2b. I've kinda gotten into this debate on other threads/twitter/boards, etc. but if one thinks that 2B is a need, why not overspend on 2B? This assumes that Mark is willing to pay his usual $100+ million on the roster, but it's time to overpay a few guys hopefully on short deals to fill short-term roster holes. We can dump a ton of money into relief pitching, maybe a starting pitcher if we feel it's an upgrade, or 2B. Nowhere else justifies $ spent right now. If Walker is willing to stay for 2 (3 max) years then it's a perfect situation. If he's truly washed up then you go back to Villar or Dubon but you're no worse off than you were before because adding Walker to the payroll for 2-3 years is not prohibitive of keeping any player we value over that timeframe and probably doesn't stop us from adding anything at positions of need. I don't think overpaying is ever a good idea. All it does is frustrate fans and make others on the team who actually earn their paycheck want more when their time comes. If we overpay for someone how can we expect anyone else to accept fair market value? Especially if it is signing one of our own to an extension. They would look at what some outsider got an be offended they aren't being offered the same.