SoupTown

re the quicker path to MLB, that would even out the numbers. If a guy gets to arby years a couple years early, that is worth more money to him overall.... if he really IS a superstar. If the Brewers did an offer like that, I congratulate them. If the young man just took the biggest number he can get NOW, it implies he is a little concerned on his ability. (I would do what Moncada did... just like I would have done what Braun did... bank the money early)

Let us compare him to that 1st baseman we missed out on. Seems we bid $60 mill and he signed for, what, $65 mill. That irks me that we keep running 2nd. It seems we are always used as a benchmark. They get our number, then go to the team they REALLY want and tell them 'the Brewers will pay X, so you need to 10% better it'. Oddly the only 'superstar' in recent memory we signed long term was Braun. And I think HE knew that he better sign long term, because... I just dont know how you turn around the 'feel' of the Brewers so big time guys will like to be here long term. And, unfortunately, 2014 was just a re-iteration of the Crew being a good retirement home for fading guys - because you get your salary, and it does not really matter what you do. I sure wish this place would change.

Because the eventual performance and MLB contributions of prospects is so unpredictable, the goal must be to have as many legit prospects as possible. I think the Brewers too often sign up or hang onto guys even into their 30s that have NO chance to contribute at the MLB level. Surely, in this day and age you can fill up your minor teams with guys that may come through. I understand the odd vet leader. But when the Brewers are having (like in AA last year) the oldest team in the league by far, I think that is not very forward thinking.

I am more interested in the 25-29 year old Cubans available. They dont count toward the INTL signing pool. Surely a million dollars on say three such prospects each, may net you one or two league min guys who are above average even. Heck, sign the lot of the 25 to 29 year old guys and have an AA or AAA squad called "The Cubans".

The question to answer is, of course, how can you identify guys that begin to SUDDENLY hit at ages 30. Is there some commonality (aside from NOT hitting at age 25 to 27)?

There is certainly more to the story than we are being told. The Brewers, who pay his salary, could not contact him? He did not return phone calls? Does he have an agent? Yet the White Sox just look him up in the white pages (so 1980s), give him a buzz, have a chat, no problem, and sign him up. And... the White Sox do not care at all about the past. Interesting organisation that does not care at all about your past. Player does not show for spring training. Player suspended for use of something. Player had other time away for some reason. Player goes awol from his employer. SOMETHING is going on. I bet that something was communicated to the White Sox. I am not sure what to think. I guess I will not think much. But for the Brewers to actually care for a guy and 'get him' and work with his strange behaviour... THEN the player decides he does not care for the Brewers, but, well... he will care for his new team... all odd. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth over it.

Today I was coaching a team of 13 year olds in Australia. I tell a player to move from 3rd base to shortstop. He says 'I dont like shortstop'. (He closed out a couple of wins for us earlier in the season, but he has since told me he does not like pitching. After the 'I dont like pitching, I asked him if he will try catching - he is a talented guy; of course he does not like to try catching) Anyway, today, then, I move him to the bench and loudly say 'if a player wont play the position he is asked, he can play the bench'. So, now I am mumbling aloud so the parents can here. I say, to myself, 'how can you have players in a team who refuse to play the position that is the most benefit to the team; how can I have players telling me they will only play here or there?' A parent calls out 'you mean like that Rickie Weeks guy'. (this is on a club baseball ground in Australia - ha ha!)

I had a brain explosion today. Instead of paying $10 mill here and there for OLD, declining skilled closers... why dont we try to pay $1 mill here and there for YOUNG, increasing skilled relievers who may have the mental toughness to pitch to three guys in a close game. I wonder how our starters get through the first inning each start. I mean... tie game. Surely the pressure is too much for any normal human to cope.

If ANY manager does the same thing, what is the point of having a manager. The overuse of the pen in the early stages cost us 4 to 6 wins in the 2nd half. Simply POOR POOR management. Even if every manager would have done it.

So the next question would be: 'how do you identify players who are projectable' Hart was a good example (Gennett, too, I guess) of guys who were projectable because each level they moved up they did not falter, they embraced and learned. How would you know that about a guy BEFORE he does it. Could you possibly identify such guys BEFORE other teams do. Maybe some 'unheralded' guy happened to do well in rookie, then even improved a bit in low A, then seems to be improving in high A. Can you 'get him' (trade for him) before he is suddenly a prospect because he improves at the critical AA level. Do you find high school pitchers who are 5 ft 9 in, who are throwing 88 mph, but mum and dad are both 6 ft 5 in???? (better do the genetic 'who's the dad test, hey') I posted years ago about all late rounds should be what can be guessed as projectable. The 5 ft 9 in high school 88 mph guy. The guy just 'new' to baseball (I liked Lorenzo Cain a lot because he was so new to baseball and survived and improved). Guys from Canada because they only play 2 months a year. I think those sorts of efforts and out of the box thinking are better than paying some 19 year old Cuban 30 mill plus 30 mill penalty. Also, I would love our minors to be LESS heavy on the old 'non prospect' guys. You need a few of them on every team. But in AA last year we were the oldest team by far. That is NO GOOD. You don't know if guys perform unless they are given the chance. Too many times we have guys that have done wonderful at a level, then they are stuck there... no one know why. And they regress. They should have been promoted. If they succeeded they should be promoted. I dont are WHAT prospect ranking they are.

Ennder, why the big negative outlook. On paper we have the most AVERAGE team possible. If the season was 163 games we would go 81 1/2 and 81 1/2. So, it seems on paper, we are a big yawn. Likely it is more fun to speculate on the upside. Rotation: we can speculate the young guys will improve a bit, and Lohse will hang on one last year Bullpen: for sure we can speculate as good or better than last year Lucroy / Maldanado: they are entering prime... they will keep there good pace, maybe improve Lind / Lucry: surely better than last year (and Lucroy will be more fresh for end of year) Gennett: a year under the belt, must improve ARAM: for sure he has a better year in him than last year Segura: ditto as ARAM Davis: like Gennett... a year experience = improvement Gomez: GoGo can go go again, I assume Braun: surely the injection cant hurt, he MUST be better Bench: Parra and Gomez are very solid - better than our usual 4th out fielder and first I/F backup I see 100 wins.... (actually, we can easily be mid 80s... cant we.... dont worry... just watch)

I would rather have the Crew look of these Cubans that are 23+ who do not count to the INTL pool. Two brothers (one a third baseman) are playing in Japan this year. I think one is 23 ish and one 30 ish. Both outside the pool. I dont want to pay $40 mill EXTRA penalty for one guy. Dare I ask... can you not sign the guy, say for $1 mill, then give him a six year $60 mill contract. How does signing bonus vs guaranteed contract work?

Interesting thoughts, SRB. Maybe it is more simple. In NYC 'the buzz, the general prospect chat' is 20 times (volume) that of the Brewers. So one can assume just on volume of buzz, the 'ratings' of two equivalent prospects (NYC vs Milwaukee) will be vastly different. That leads one to hope to find some other metric to measure prospects. Currently we have 'volume of buzz'. And we do not have other. It is sad the quality of our media is simply 'that which is buzzed most about, is the most truth'. I am not even interested in the ranking vs success. I would like to have something more simple. That is, in the Southern League, if two center fielders with elite defense, aged 22, produce an OPS of .850, then they are ranked the same. We currently have the two prospects ranked as follows... Southern League, 22 years old, center fielder, elite D, .850 OPS, YANKEE = top 100, probable solid/elite, long term MLB player Southern League, 22 years old, center fielder, elite D, .850 OPS, BREWER = grade C, possible 4th outfielder in MLB Note the only difference! YANKEE vs BREWER. So, the goal would be to have some unbiased metric. So the human ESPN, EAST/WEST coast nonsense is filtered out.

given the truth of the rant, can one argue the Brewers financial plan (max out each year ($100 mill)) is just wrong. Should there be a plan to have like a 4 year plan and go 70 mill, 90 mill, 110 mill, 130 mill.... then reset. Next year, in my opinion, could be the year 1 of such a reset stretch. In that year 1 you really need to go a lot home grown. Then as they get some arby rises and you plug in the odd free agent, you build to a massive crescendo. Alternatively, I guess you toggle... say 90 mill one year and 110 mill the next, back to 90, then to 110, etc In that case, 2015 is the $110, and next year is the $90 mill, 2017 the $110. As I type and think, that could actually be hard. It seems simpler to say each year... we have $100 mill and do the best you can. But you may be forever a 3rd place team. in 2016 my lineup (as a down year - see which newbies are real MLB players) is minus Aram 14 mill minus Lohse 11 mill minus Parra 6 mill Aram replaced with Jimenez / Rogers Lohse replace internally (Smith, Thornburg, Jungmann) Parra replaced with (Peterson/Taylor) You need to get a feel/give a go to Sardinas and Knebel (and off topic, as I type, who is our catcher in 2018+, when Lucroy is gone)

I had a quick fangraphs of Perez. He does not look 'bad' to me. Like many relievers it is a bit up and down. But my projection would have him as incredibly average - not bad not great. There is surely a place for that. And if Kintzler is the trade to Cinnci for Pappelbon - Perez does slot into Kintzler's spot pretty easily.

I like you SRB. If you want to see Keith Law fall into a quivering heap, just send him your sentences: "If the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers ran things like the Athletics or Rays but with an additional $150M to spend every season, they would never not be in the World Series. The only thing keeping parity somewhat in check is teams' stupidity." In my private conversations with him he always simply said 'if the Yankees or Red Sox 'do A or B or C' it is wise, because the Yankees or Red Sox did it'. Some sort of strange circular, fulfillment logic. Yet, he always, always rubbished every Brewer move, because the Brewers 'did it'. So, if A was the exact same event, then A is wise if the Red Sox did it, because the Red Sox doing it makes is wise the same A is foolish if the Brewers did it, because the Brewers doing it makes it foolish And (sorry to bore, if I wrote this before), but one day I challenged him with some actual signings of model A that were comparable between the Yankees and Brewers - he said the Yankees move was wise and the Brewers move was foolish. And when I pointed out to him that the A was essentially the same in both cases, he then fell back to The A the Yankees did was wise, and the A the Brewers did was foolish, and the logic behind this conclusion is that I (Keith) have an Ivy degree and you dont. I never conversed with him after that.

Lucky Devin. 'Everyone' knows there are 'issues'. But they cannot elaborate.

JohnBriggs, thanks for the insight. Are you cherry picking? It seems to me any starter (forget his name) who came up, started 7 times, and had the results you note, would be pencilled in as a starter forever... until he UNearned it.

A quality prospect back for a guy who is way overpaid. I dont think so.

If I was KRod and had to sign for $5mill when we paid $3 mill for a guy who was going to hang up his cleats two years ago, then had ONE good year, and one bad year... I would be grumpy (I mean KRod).

I do not think RR has ever implemented a vs LHP and vs RHP lineup. He loves the consistency and the relaxed atmosphere a stable lineup brings. Since Lucroy hit so many doubles, I will ask who is the best base runner (fastest). So, I think we will end up... Gomez, Lucroy, Braun, ARAM, Lind, Davis, Gennett, Segura The wrinkle will be when a leftie pitches, Lind is out, and all move up a spot and Maldonado hits eight; but still the guys are comfy, as the batters before and after them are the same Gomez, Lucroy, Braun, ARAM, Davis, Gennett, Segura, Maldonado

Sorry to be rude to Americans (I am one, but transplanted away many decades), but HOW can anyone allow a one game playoff after a 162 game season. It is the dumbest of dumb ideas. The season should be 155 games or so, and let the two wildcards be best of five, then the other series best of 7. 162 games to get to a one game playoff. We should have the superbowl only every 10 years. 10 years of 16 games, then the superbowl. Does that make sense?

Let us say there was no link between salary and win/loss success in MLB teams. Then why would a team pay a $200 mill payroll, when they can get the same results for $50 mill. It really does worry me the mental capability and thinking abilities of the gents that write for ESPN. Actually, we can take this further. One could then assume that anyone, regardless of salary, can research and write rubbish as well as Jayson and the ESPN boys. Therefore, one can ask, why not just go out and get year 8 kids to write for ESPN. Why pay Jayson the big money. In fact, if you research the various blogs around, you will find any old amateur can outdo ESPN. This is because the link between good journalism and rubbish can actually be determined... it is mental capability and thinking abilities. Just like the main link between MLB wins and losses can be deciphered... it is money.

hmmmm, our new lefty is actually a roogie From MLBTRADERUMORS comment on the signing... "Cotts is also something of a reverse-splits pitcher (left-handed batters have a career .753 OPS against him, while righty batters have only a .703 OPS) so he doesn’t fit the usual mold of a lefty specialist." When I looked up the 2014 splits there it is... .680 OPS vs righties and .775 vs lefties his really good 2013 was .436 vs righties and .565 vs lefties I wonder if RR and Doug know that?

I decided to check out Bradley's splits. He is hugely better v left hand batters. 2014 was ops of .504 v lh and .832 v rh 2013 and 2012 was similarly left sided. just to show it is not too small sample, it was 143 plate appearances against with not ONE home run by a lefties, and 50 strikeouts to 10 walks.