SoupTown

Mark can do all the fiddling he wants. According to valuations, if I recall correctly, the team has increased 300 or 400 mill. So he can fiddle here and there and everywhere = losing 20 mill a year by running his team like a fantasy baseball competition. Honestly, he should just fire Doug and fire Craig and release a player and make himself the GM/Player/Manager. Heck, he can do like in the amateur games, and he can coach at 3rd base as well, when his at bat is not happening. And he can do the draft, too. Go all in. And mic him up with Bob during the game for the inside scoop on what he is thinking - real time.

reilly, you are correct.... every AA and AAA guys with some 'stuff' should be given a chance to get his feet wet. We should soon be jettisoning any player who is not the future. Not an evil jettison, just a simple 'what is the best a trade partner will give'... if what we can get is NOTHING, accept it, and move on. If you had to choose to watch Cotts or Goforth, which will you choose. If you have a choice to watch Broxton or, say, Mike Strong (he is on the 40 man with a 1.71 era, 0.81 whip, 24ks v 7bb in 21 relief innings; and that is just a follow on from his 2014 campaign). It must be the time, very, very soon for management to make a decision... are you in for 2016, or maybe 2017, or maybe later, even. I am sure they are thinking!

I am not a Braun supporter AT ALL. But I do not understand the idea of trading him. I think that was just the journos one liner - in the Q&A. If Braun really has come back to his pre-thumb form (let us assume the naughty only helped him a little)... and will be an .850+, fearsome, hitter, then pay him the money. Surely, we need an anchor in the middle of the order in 2017 and 18 and 19 and 20. They dont grow on trees. And who do we project from our minors that can do that. I am disturbed by a paraphrase from Mark post Counsell hiring. He said 'we are currently still in WIN mode'. That irks me. I dont understand why trading Lohse, for example, means 'oh, we dont want to win'. It takes a Peralta injury to give Thornburg a deserved chance. Why oh why does our management equate WIN mode with OLD and EXPENSIVE veterans. Can there not be a 'young and improving and hopeful and still trying to win' mode.

Surely we can make a simple trade of one of Segura / Sardinas for some teams AAA or AA third baseman with a similar value to Segura or Sardinas. One of those win/win trades. That would still leave the door open for management to not fold for 2016. Of if the fold for 2016, then can decide if 2017 or 2018 is a realistic year to be good. Let us say we have a new third baseman who really is a third baseman with potential in 2016. I could see the Brewers deciding to go to the free agent route for a big dollar front line starter. Then you suddenly look a possibility if you wear your rose coloured glasses in 2016. In any case, my point is we do not need THREE shortstops. So, surely you can flip one for a third baseman. Because I sure do not see any third baseman in our minors that can be here next year. And I sure dont want a mid hitting short stop playing third base.

good observation by Brew4U re Herrera and Maldy; they need to take a hold of this opportunity and bat better; on the other hand, are we seeing Hector Gomez is a proper 24th or 25th man for the next 6 years; and I am loving Rogers; just trade Lind and put Rogers there and leave it at that

At what stage do we refer to this squad as a juggernaut; when Gomez and ARam are back - well, it will resemble the Harlem Globetrotters vs whatever poor squad it drawn against them on the night

Hooray for Garza love. I think he is a bargain. And I thought he had some upside. But I not realise how old he is now (31?). He is solid. And he is cheap for solid. And his contract has a sneaky $5 mill team option for 2018 if he misses significant time the year before. He is still a possible keep for us, if we want to be contenders in 2018. But, balanced thinking tells me he gets enough now to help us in 2018-2021. I am all for just picking up lots of prospects and see who sticks. Also, the solid, solid starting pitchers we are seeing at AA and A+, is making me think in a couple of years we will indeed have some decent MLB starters at 500k year. So perhaps we dont need a $13 mill 'solid' starter in 2015/6/7, just to have him in 2018. Ok, I have convinced myself, Garza is on the block.

Gomez says he is just sore from so many games in a row after the DL. Bad luck we did not rest him a game in the middle. He says he could have played. Which makes me sad we do not pinch hit him for Parra. But line ball decision. Parra could have come through. Just not to be, I guess. To me it is great to play such a decent, fighting game... and lose. If we can play very good, but just lose, it helps management eject the players they should eject, but at the same time have some fun, AND we get the high draft pick. Hooray for tough 7-6 losses.

What is interesting to me is a throw away from Toronto is BY FAR the best professional batter on our team. It tells you a LOT about the players we have, we develop, and we value. They just aint much good, hey.

Can we just change his name to Carlos TwoForFour Leal. What a darn interesting prospect.

Was it this thread or another where Doug said revenue was attendance driven - so they cannot afford a big rebuild. But maybe he is wrong. If 3 mill fans allows a $110 payroll, does it follow that 1.5 mill fans allows a profitable team at $55 mill. I think it may be easy to be at say $60 mill after this year, if they go the full rebuild. I am keeping Garza because of the 2018 option. Lucroy has the 2017 option. Gomez must go for sure, only here through 2016. Lucroy is the line ball guy. The management really need to decided if 2017 is a possibility or if it is 2018. We need to also note that Maldonado is such a good defensive catcher, that in rebuild mode that is just fine.

So after 20 years Doug has found a short coming in himself. It will take him another 20 years to find a solution. And another 20 years for him to implement it.

I am very interested to see what happens next time a Cardinal or Brave pitcher plunks Gomez or Segura or any of the guys. It will take 1/2 an inning and we will know, I am sure, that Counsell has his players backs. And so will MLB. And perhaps we can end this 'Brewers being one of the must plunked teams whilst doing amongst the least plunkings'. This idea that we are too nice to play hard is stupid.

I did not pay attention to the Cubs flipping one year top guys. Oakland used to do that and/or clean up on draft picks. re the FUTURE... man I would have more interest again if we trade ARAM - let Hector Gomez play 3rd Lind - let a combo of Clark and Rogers play there Lohse - Let Thornburg come back up Parra - we dont use the fourth outfielder at all, we have Herrera and Shafer KRod - you let Knebel be the closer (or maybe Smith or maybe Jeffress) Broxton - if you can; I dont know who replaces Cotts - if you can; I dont know who replaces You just get the best prospect you can. Dont worry re position or level. Just get a half dozen decent prospect from the above. They dont need to be in Milwaukee this year or next. You dangle Segura for a good package. Remember Jean will leave after his six years. Sardinas replaces him. You dangle Lucroy for a monster package. You let Maldy play full time. You dangle Gomez for a monster package. I am not sure what you do for CF. Maybe one of the prospects coming back can slot in. Aside from the last three lines, the above list does not even hurt our team too much. Re the 'who knows' relievers to come up, there are a bundle of guys (mostly starters) who are doing well, and have a history of doing well, and are not spring chickens... Tyler Wagner, Tyler Cravy, even Brent Leach, Michael Strong, Brooks Hall. We got plenty of 25ish year old guys that we can see who sticks to the wall. Heck, you can even rotate them in and out. You will find one or two you can count on for the next six years. You only find out about giving them a go.

...and back to Mr Leal 2 for 4 today with a double... line now at... .386 ave, .444 obp, .579 slug, for a nifty OPS of 1.023

Funny the mud Doug threw at Ron after firing him. Doug said something like 'since early September, we have only won two games in a row three times; one would think BY ACCIDENT you could win 2 game in a row' So, Doug has gently explained that Ron was such a negative that he was preventing the team from doing what they could do by accident or by not even trying. So with NO manager the Brewers would have had a better Sep and April record than with Ron. I am sure there are no mirrors in Doug's office. Actually Doug likely does have one... 'mirror, mirror on the wall, who will be the last one to fall'. Mirror: 'not you, Doug, not you; you are the fairest GM of them all'

ummm gameday, mlb.com, and espn all stuck in the bottom of the 8th did we win

You do realize this is exactly what Ken Macha did, and the clubhouse hated him a result and he was fired as a result of that, right? hmmm, fire the manager because the players dont like being held accountable; I know more now re the problems of this organisaion; and I know more now why the players dont have the ticker to play through tough situations and streaks; and I know now the highest priority of the Brewer organisation is the keep the players happy, unstressed, unmotivated, unaccountable; at least I know now

My hope is we can have a manager that treats the players like men. If we have a bunch of weak stomached babies for players - who cant perform because of this slight or that niggle or this offense - then the manager need not call them out - he just lets them go. Davis and Gennett are good examples right now. They either start performing, or you put them back to AAA This team, for too long, gives players months... even years... to turn it around. There is never, for years, any accountability. That is why I often call Milwaukee a good retirement village. You get your cash and dont get stressed. I dont want a screaming manager, but I want one who will recycle talent as soon as he sees there is a deficiency. I want new players over and over until somebody proves they can play baseball. And if ALL the players we have cant play baseball... well, that is on Doug and Mark. The manager should not try to candy coat or cover or protect. If he gets crap players from the owner and GM, he can simply say 'give me new crap... eventually you will, like a monkey throwing darts at a board, find some talent'. I am tired of our players being immune. And I am tired of seeing no future guys out on the field. In fact, I am nearly OVER this organisation. 45 years is a long time to follow. And the vast majority of these years the system is run by incompetents. It gets very, very taxing on a fan. New manager. I sure hope he will treat the players like they are men. Imagine have a bunch of babies accidentally get on a hot streak - or lead the division for 150 days. They will not have the nerve to finish the job. The manager's ONE best move can be to make the players accountable ONE by ONE. Not in a masochistic way, but in a 'sorry, you have not performed, you are out - based on performance, way'

I worry about them putting Rogers at third, when the guy was a first baseman coming up. I would love to see Rogers/Clark man first and be backup corner outfielder. Gomez I liked as he was such a highly rated prospect who never was injury free. If he is injury free, could you see him as an every day third baseman?

That cannot be a true quote... 'we gave the manager an extension in HOPE the players would play up to Mark's spreadsheet' Surely, surely that cannot be true. Doug and Mark worked out the problem was Ron was in the final year of a contract. Let me then ask about the end of last year. Ron was NOT in the final year of a contract. So in 2014 that was not the problem. But in 2015 it is a problem. Oh this will be interesting to 'determine' the next problem.

I was confused why Lind did not pinch hit in that 0-1 game.

Darn, I wish they had been able to give Jimenez a half a year to see what his bat is like. But it is obvious he is filler at best. So I guess he goes. But he probably had more upside than H Gomez and Herrera. I sure hope we do not see an average batting, stellar D playing over in Boston. Did we really give him a chance. I am not complaining. But it seems he should have been a little longer on the 'chance' list.

It is like the management team eating their young. Doug, Mark, and RR were like peas in a pod. Then, of course, they simply took turns throwing the players under the bus. To me, all three are the problem. The entire pod has never done anything of note, in winning baseball championships. Of course this move will not turn around the team. If the players were under peforming because of RR, then there is something wrong with the players. What seems to be true, is that the players assembled are just not good enough. The players have trumped Mark's spreadsheet. I did not really like the RR style, but he grew on me. He sure was a stable, steady guy. That is to his credit. Mark and Doug have assembled this team. Not RR. So, oddly, Mark and Doug have firstly thrown the players under the bus. The bus bruising has not conjured the players into performing to their 'career norms'. So the they have been helped from under the bus, dusted off, and Doug and Mark have decided to throw Ron off the cliff. I kind of wish Ron would have held tight the arms of Doug and Mark as the cliff fall began. So, now there are two. Doug and Mark. Who will turn on whom. I suspect we will see Mark gobble up Doug. Then we will be left with Mark, Boras and the spreadsheet. Happy times, here we come. At least it will be interesting to see the corpse of Babe Ruth in the batters box and any other old HOFers Mark can manage to dig up. This could get interesting.

I think a six year cycle makes sense. 1) you are very, very poor win-wise for a couple of years while you have almost all young guys playing - hoping to find a dozen or so that are real major leaguers; your payroll is cheap, awaiting the spend of part 3) 2) for years 3 and 4, your dozen MLB youngsters are performing; you slot in a couple of new rookies and you grab a couple free agents and you grab a couple 23 to 25 man grizzled vets; your payroll is at your midpoint 3) for years 5 and 6 your dozen rookies of 1) are now nearing free agency; so your arby costs are up; your free agents of 2) you signed for 3 to 4 years, so their tenure is coming to an end; if you need another special guy you sign him in free agency; you may trade for him, but that is last resort, because you will damage your next cylce; note your new rookies of 2) are not yet arby, but have a couple years experience... you now have an EXPENSIVE team, but your best team; the money you saved in 1), you now spend I would happily watch and follow a 60 win team in 1) if they had heaps of young upside guys. I think, unless you are so, so, so wise, like the Cardinals, you cannot be good year in and year out. Note how Cardinals keep letting guys go when they seem very, very good. Yet, always, the Cardinals have traded high, saved money, and get prospects. The mob running that show are so much better than our management. In conclusion... 2 years crap, 2 years average (with a 'maybe' hope), and 2 years very good.... I will like that model.