paul253

It has nothing to do with the fact that he's young. I don't think there's ever been a topic where so many assumptions have been made about other posters' motivations. "You think he made a mistake because he's young". "You wanted to give up the farm for Gray". Why can't people just read what is written? I can only speak for myself but I wanted Gray for two reasons. 1) The Brewers could use another quality starting pitcher. Nelsons injury pretty much comfirms that. And 2) The Brewers are a lot closer to competing and trading from minor league depth to acquire an established, controlled major league talent wound help the rebuild along even faster, which is ultimately the goal. You're absolutely right. Hindsight is a great gift to have. But obviously the people who wanted Gray used a little foresight too. We saw the need for another pitcher.....because there is almost always a need for another pitcher. Woodruff has been lights out and it would have sucked to have to give him up but that's how trades work. But then again who knows if Woodruff would have even been included. As far as whether Stearns made a mistake.....who knows. It depends on so much that I don't think we will ever be able to know for sure. He did seem a little hesitant to make the big move. If it's because of age, experience, inside information, it's anyone's guess. At this point I guess it doesn't really matter.

Right now? I'd say no but it's close. I'd rather have Gray in the rotation right now than Woodruff but Woodruff is certainly pitching well enough to say otherwise. Now if it were Ortiz instead of Woodruff then yes. Next year? Who knows. But at the time I'd still have done Woodruff Ray and Diaz for Gray. No doubt in my mind that at that time it would have been the right move.

Probably hiding in the same place that the people who were claiming Gray is a 4 at best are hiding. And to be clear, nobody EVER suggesting giving up "the farm" for anyone. Not Quintana. Not Gray. Nobody. We had enough quality prospects that could be traded while still maintaining a decent system. People are acting like we were offering up Brinson Hader Burnes and Ray to get a pitcher and that's simply not true.

Well at the time he hadn't done that so it's hard to look at what he's done now when considering whether or not to trade him a month and a half ago. I highly doubt he's a sub 2 ERA pitcher and once he gets more starts his numbers will go up a bit. And don't get me wrong. I didn't WANT to trade Woodruff. But you have to give something up to get something. Sonny Gray has been damn good since the Yankees got him and he's got a much better track record than Woodruff does. Ideally you could have kept all your top pitching prospects and still gotten Gray but we all know that wasn't going to happen. I guess I would have preferred we traded Hader rather than Ortiz Woodruff or Burnes simply because I don't see Hader as a starting pitcher. But at that time if Oakland would have taken Diaz Ray and Woodruff for Gray I would have said yes.

Yeah it's all about who it would have taken to get Gray but it doesn't appear as though it would have taken Brinson. I happily would have given up Woodruff Diaz and Ray. But having Gray in the rotation right now would sure look nice.

The Cubs have plenty of time and plenty of resources to recover from trading away a couple of A ballers. I'm fine with the Brewers not making any major moves, assuming the prices were too high, but I wish people would stop rationalizing the Cubs making major improvements by saying "well they'll be bad in three seasons". First off you have no idea how good or bad the Cubs will be in 2023. They still have a lot of good young players. And second hanging on to all these prospects is just as risky as trading them. A prospect can lose value awfully fast (Jorge Lopez anyone?) I agree that we need to build from within but generally at some point you need to cash in some of your chips to acquire established talent.

My ideal would be to trade Broxton and go with Braun Santana and whoever wins the job between Brinson and Phillips. Broxton is just too streaky and when he's down he's so down that he gets himself sent down to AAA. Neither Brinson nor Phillips have anything left to prove in AAA so sending them back there would do them no good. If you need to platoon them for now then do that. Or just use one as the 4th outfielder and give them 2-3 starts a week.

But he hasn't proven he can get AAA hitters out over 5-7 innings. I guess that's my issue with just handing him a spot in the 2018 rotation. I realize it's Colorado Springs but I think people are just too fast to dismiss his horrible statistics as a starting pitcher in AAA because it's Colorado Springs. If they want to let him start games in Spring Training to see if he can earn a spot in the rotation then by all means. Believe it or not I am rooting for him. I'm just a little less optimistic at this point than most becuase of how bad his command is at this point and his lack of a third pitch. I wouldn't hand him a spot in the rotation and I wouldn't make off-season moves based on the assumption that he'll be in the rotation (I.e. I wouldn't trade Garza to free a spot for Hader) but I would give him a chance in Spring Training. In 26 AAA starts he's got a 5.28 ERA with a WHIP of 1.47 and a BB/9 of 5. I think one can certainly expect better from a top prospect. There is. But I guess I'm not as optimistic as you that he'll go from a guy who has a 5.54 ERA in AAA to the best pitcher in the organization in less than two years. I appreciate how excited you are about his ceiling but I think your expectations are a little unreasonable. Jimmy Nelson put up darn good minor league statistics and even he hasn't been a dominant major league starting pitcher. Josh Hader still has pretty serious flaws in his game. I certainly hope he works them out but I don't think it's unreasonable to make him show something as a major league starter (in spring training or maybe even a few September starts if we're out of it) before handing him a rotation spot ahead of other guys who have outperformed him. I was all for giving Tyler Thornburg a spot in the rotation a few years ago because he had previously shown success as a starter in AAA and then also came up to Milwaukee and made several good starts. If Hader does both of those, or even one of those, then perhaps I'll sing a different tune. But until then I'm sticking to my argument that he needs to earn a spot.

So if he's not in the rotation next year then trade him? Seems a bit extreme. Unless you mean he can start games in AAA to see how he does, in which case I agree, though he might be more valuable as a big league reliever than a minor league starter.

Yeah and how did he do this year? Don't need to answer that because I'll answer it for you. Obviously this year doesn't matter because he was good part of last year right? I already did in the Hader thread so I'll copy and paste. His current BB/9 may not be what it was when I typed this: His BB/9 was 3.0 in 2015. It went up to 3.9 in 2016 and was 5.4 this season before being promoted, where it is currently 6.9 You just have an excuse for everything don't you? Other pitchers have managed ok in CS. It IS possible to pitch alright down there. And other pitchers have transitioned to the bullpen without seeing a spike in their walk ratio as well. It makes zero sense to say that since we have a shot to win we should put the pitchers who are actually performing best into the rotation instead of the guys who have the best prospect ranking? Ok. And by your logic they already HAVE earned a shot in the rotation because they are highly rated prospects and are doing well in AA. And it matters not what they do in AAA because it's Colorado Springs and surely nobody can actually do well there so whatever happens is irrelevant. My god do results not matter anymore? Are we so focused on ceiling and prospect rankings that how a player actually performs doesn't matter anymore? Hader has not been good as a starting pitcher for over a year. Yes it's CS but Taylor Jungmann seems to be doing ok down there and Woodruff wasn't so bad himself. If Hader shows that he has what it takes then by all means. But my lord, people are equating me saying he needs more work to suggesting he is a terrible pitcher and should be traded.

Can you please tell me where you are seeing me say they shouldn't have a shot? I cannot make my stance any clearer. Forgive me for not accepting the argument that since they have a high prospect rating and are doing well in CS that they'll automatically be good next year, especially when never was impressive in the least when given a shot this year. I never thought the idea of signing a veteran backup who can fill in would garner such a strong negative reaction. Lewis Brinson should be the every day CF next year. That's not the first time I've said so. At the very least he should split time with Phillips. But for petes sake what's wrong with having a backup plan to avoid the same black hole we have there this season? Yes and perhaps if he got as far as he could I'd be ok with inserting him to the rotation. But as I said I think he still has plenty to work on if he's going to be a solid starting pitcher. He doesn't have to be starting at the major league level to improve his changeup or command. Again can you tell me where exactly you are seeing me say we should trade every prospect as soon as they get value? This is getting a bit frustrating. Is this still about me being willing to trade some prospects to acquire Sonny Gray? Seriously dude move on. While I appreciate the lecture on the Red Sox and Cubs I'm not sure I see the relevance here. I absolutely agree on the need to recycle talent. That's why I was so big on trading guys like Gomez and Lucroy and Smith. I'm just not sure why you're bringing all this up right now.

Come on man. I said address our current weaknesses this year. Brewers centerfielders are hitting a cool .216 with a .299 OBP, which are both far and away the worst numbers of our position groups. And that includes your prized propsects Brinson and Phillips having shots. I'd say that's pretty weak spot, wouldn't you? Now does that mean I wouldn't give Brinson or Phillips a shot? Of course not. There's a reason I considered Brinson untouchable at the trade deadline. But "addressing our current weaknesses" doesn't necessarily mean benching our top prospects like you believe. It couldn't simply mean signing an adequate veteran backup who can step in when Brinson or Phillips needs a day off or when/if they are in an extended slump. Forgive me for having little faith in Keon Broxton. Accepting the reality of the situation is hardly me having "literally zero willingness to give any prospects a chance at the MLB level" . No I don't. If he's down there working in becoming a better pitcher then absolutely it can help his development. For instance, he can work on throwing his changeup more often, refining his command and pitching to contact the extend his innings. The last thing you want is someone trying to figure out how to throw a third pitch while he's in the starting rotation in Milwaukee. If he needs to do it in Biloxi then maybe that's the route to go. As I posted earlier his walks per 9 have been getting worse for three years now. People just assume his command will get better. Why? Because Sale and Randy Johnson's did? What about the hundreds of pitchers who didn't figure it out? Are those not valid comparisons? Look, I agree. Hader absolutely should be given a chance to be a major league starter. But we're not at the point either depth wise or team success wise where he should be just given the chance. He needs to earn it. We have 5-6 guys currently ahead of him and while their ceiling may nkt be as high at least they've earned the shot.

Perhaps that's why he's having so much success out of the pen. I think if we still opt to try him out as a starter, and even though i dont think he'll ultimately end up a starter I do think we should at least try him until he proves he can't be a starter, then it needs to be in AAA. The rebuild is much further along than expected and this offseason can be used to address our current weaknesses (bullpen, second base, CF). I doubt we can expect Anderson and Nelson to put up as good a year next year as they are having this year but if they do this team can definitely compete again. And if you're going to compete you don't want to use up a rotation spot on a guy still trying to figure things out. Consistent 4-6 inning starts will be bullpen killers. Barring injury I see the rotation as Nelson, Anderson, Davies, Garza and Woodruff with Suter, Jungmann and maybe eventually Burnes next in line.

Look I said my piece and I think I backed it up pretty well. While others who have been brought up like Nelson and Burnes are consistently going 6 and 7 innings Hader is not. Hader in the last two seasons has gone under 5 innings more than he's gone over 5 innings. If you want to tell yourselves it's only because the Brewers are limiting his pitch count then so be it. I'm a little disappointed that you looked at my last two posts and only see me taking his last three starts being being promoted (it was actually five) but whatever. The point was not so much how many innings he pitched but the fact that each of the innings were close to or over an average of 20 pitches so even if he wasn't being groomed for the bullpen he would have likely fallen short of 7 innings as usual. In two and a half seasons here he's hit 7 innings twice. That's significantly less often than Nelson Burnes and Woodruff. Again, if you're convinced that that is strictly becuase they are limiting his pitches and has nothing to do with how he's pitching then you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree that is it obvious that he'd hit 7 innings most of the time if only he'd be allowed to hit 100 pitches. I think if he were allowed to hit 100 pitches he'd finish 6 innings fairly often (though still much less often then the others who have been brought up). But again I'm skeptical that they are still limiting him to 80-85 pitches. I think him being pulled early is more in how he's pitching vs how many pitches he's throwing. His command is not good. Every scout who looks at him sees it and you can see it yourself by simply watching him pitch. And as others have pointed out he lacks a quality third pitch. So bad command. Lack of third pitch. Inability to pitch deep into games (6 innings seems to be his absolute limit in 90% of his starts). THat screams bullpen to me.

So I went back to the 2014 Nashville Sounds to look at Jimmy Nelson's game logs. What I see is him going 6 or more innings in every single one of his outings except one (that would be 16 of 17 starts). His average pitches per game was 96 pitches. In 2016 Josh Hader's average pitch count was 88 pitches. So in 2014 Nelson lasted 6+ innings in 16 of 17 starts (94%) and in 2016 Hader lasted 6+ innings in 10 of 25 starts (40%). You imply that if only Hader had been allowed to throw as many pitches his innings would be similar to Nelson's and yet it is my beliefs that are "nonsense" and not based on factual evidence? Your entire argument is one big assumption. In 2013 between Huntsville and Nashville, Nelson's number were more similar to Hader's 2016 numbers. He lasted 6+ in 11 of 27 starts (about 40%) and averaged 91 pitches per game. He did go at least 7 innings three times, which is more than Hader has done his entire time in Milwaukee's organization. In Huntsville in 2012 he only went 6+ innings in 1 of 10 starts and averaged 80 pitches per start (His pitch counts in BC weren't available where I'm looking). What do I see when I look at Nelson? I see improvement. I see him getting better at each year both in the number of pitches thrown and how many innings he's able to make those pitches last through. Now I realize Colorado Springs is a wild card here so don't think i'm not recognizing it. But Hader was in his second season there when he started this year and his numbers got worse, whereas like I said, Nelson's got better, at least in the terms we are talking about here. If Hader was showing improvement in his command perhaps I'd feel better but I don't see it. His BB/9 was 3.0 in 2015. It went up to 3.9 in 2016 and was 5.4 this season before being promoted, where it is currently 6.9. Nelson, for comparison sake, went from 4.4 in 2012 to 3.8 in 2013 to 2.6 in 2014 in Nashville and then 2.5 in 14 games after he got promoted here. That's what I see when I compare the two. What do you see, other than simply the number of pitches each has thrown, which in the scheme of things is pretty meaningless?

I apologize I forgot the few starts he had when had first came here. So in his two plus years here he's gone at least 7 innings in two of his 44 starts. Ill add that in 2015 those were the only two starts in which he went 7 innings all year (he had 10 more starts prior to coming here) so in the past 3 seasons he's had starts of at least 7 innings in 2 of 54 starts. My beliefs are based entirely on the numbers. If anything is not based on factual evidence its yours, using pitches per inning averages to tell me exactly how many pitches he would have had if he had been allowed to pitch another inning. Because that's how it works right? If you average 17 pitches for the first 6 innings then obviously you'll have 17 pitches in the 7th inning? And that pattern repeats itself for every single start? You bring up the fact that last year he had 10 starts out of 25 in which he lasted 6 innings (as if that somehow helps your case). What about the 8 that he last fewer than 5 innings? 4 innings pitched and pitch counts of 84, 83, 87, 96 (that's 168 pitches for 7 innings using your logic by the way), and 73. 3 innings with pitch counts of 71 and 72. 3 2/3 innings with 85 pitches. Or what about his 5 inning starts? Pitch counts of 87, 86, 102 and 88. Maybe this year is doing better? His last three starts prior to coming up: 2 innings, 2 innings, and 3 innings. 43 pitches, 39 pitches and 74 pitches. The start before that 4.1 innings 92 pitches. Before that 5 innings 84 pitches. Could he have gone another inning in any or all of these starts? Maybe. Maybe not. Why is he being taken out after only 73 pitches? Is it always to keep his pitch count low or could it be because he just isn't pitching that well, in which case his pitch count is irrelevant. But really what difference does it make? He's simply throwing too many pitches and not lasting long enough consistently to be a good major league starter. Maybe he isn't "consistently" only going 5 innings. But he's going 5 and less a hell of a lot more often than he's going 6 and more. You'll have to define "typically" but I think I've shown that this is just plain wrong. He would not "typically" last 6 or 7 innings if he were allowed to go 100+ pitches. Maybe in a few of them. But again, why is he not going more pitches in some of these starts? Your implication that its all about pitch count is not accurate Even so, 100-110 pitches is still a lot of pitches to be throwing in that in 6 innings And what of the fact that major leaguers are less likely to swing at stuff out of the zone than minor leaguers? So it's entirely possible that his pitch count would actually go up once he starts here is it not? He's doing great out of the bullpen but would he have the same success when guys see him for a second or third time? Again, I have yet to see any scouting reports saying that he is for sure a starting pitcher. Almost every report I've seen (and admittedly I havent gone out of my way to look for them) has serious questions about his ability to stay a starter because of his command and quality third pitch. You are certainly welcome to your opinion. But I am welcome to mine as well. And mine is that until he developes an at least average third pitch and his command improves and/or he learns to pitch to contact better and can CONSISTENTLY go 6 or 7 innings then he is not a major league starter.

My opinion is based on his minor league starts ever since he had been in Milwaukees system. You're right he does have a ton of upside. But he also throws a ton of pitches to get his outs. It's a combination of him being a strikeout pitcher and him having awful control. You cannot have a starter who is consistently going 5 innings. In his time in Milwaukees system he has yet to have one start in which he lasted over six innings. Maybe he is on a pitch count but still. Not one time in almost 40 starts? That's a red flag to me. Add that to the fact that he has yet to develop an even average third pitch and to me that screams bullpen. I don't want him in the bulllen, although I think he'd have more success there. But I think that what his skill set is best suited for.

He should throw it to get hitters out. But he can't because he can't throw it well enough to do so so he throws the one pitch he can get hitters out with. I get the impression that you think anytime he wants to he can just throw a quality changeup up there but he never does because he doesn't have to. In reality he's not throwing his changeup because it's just not a good pitch. Do they say it's an average mlb offering or do they say it CAN BE an average MLB offering? Pretty big difference between the two. From baseball America: He has the stuff to be a dominant left-on-left situational reliever right away, and many evaluators believe that's what his long-term role in the majors will eventually be. It almost seems like you take it personally when people suggest Hader ends up in the bullpen. I haven't seen very many scouting reports that say he is for sure a starter. Most I've seen at the very least say there are questions as to where he ends up and many say that his best role may be the pen. Regardless of minor league success he just does not have the control or the third pitch that most successful major league pitchers have. Beside, he last thing the Brewers need is a starter who pitches 4 or 5 innings every other start. Could he fix these issues? Of course. But until he does it's too hard for me to consider him a starter. With the success he's had in the bullpen I'd be fine keeping him there anyway. We need a dominant back end of the bullpen to shorten games.

1) Lewis Brinson 2) Keston Hiura 3) Luis Ortiz 4) Corbin Burnes 5) Josh Hader 6) Monte Harrison 7) Brandon Woodruff 8) Brett Phillips 9) Tristen Lutz 10) Corey Ray 11) Isan Diaz 12) Trent Clark 13) Lucas Erceg 14) Mauricio Dubon 15) Jake Gatewood 16) KJ Harrison 17) Phil Bickford 18) Freddy Peralta 19) Marcos Diplan 20) Jacob Nottingham 21) Bubba Derby 22) Larry Ernesto 23) Cody Ponce 24) Mario Felciano 25) Trey Supak

My evidence of what? I'm simply looking at his and his innings pitched. No that's not a perfect stat but I have neither the time nor quite honestly the interest to look at five years of his game logs and figure out how many pitches he throws. Silly me assumes if he's pitching well and not throwing too many pitches he can at least through six innings. If you want to throw out 18 different stats to back your claim that he can be a starter fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But from the times I have seen him pitch, the stats that I look at showing he usually doesn't get through six innings (only three times in his last ten starts in CS did he reach six innings for instance) and his walks per 9 at levels that would be seriously damaging to a starting pitcher it is my personal belief that he is not destined to be a starter. On a side note, between this thread and the Sonny Gray thread some people are getting WAY too upset about others not holding the same ridiculously high opinion of our pitching prospects as they do. It's nothing personal against Hader. I just don't see him as a starter. His command, in my opinion, just is not good enough and he is going to struggle with his pitch counts, just like what has happened in CS the last season and a half. I could very well be wrong. I hope I am wrong. But for the love of Pete take a breath. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

No, because......as I said....... since he's come to Milwaukee he's only averaged about five innings per start in the minors. If guys are seeing him three times in five innings then yes he is getting rocked. But that's not what I was getting at. As I said he tends to throw a lot of pitches and doesn't last long into games as a starter.....hence my questioning as to guys actually seeing him three times. I'm sorry that I disagree with you on his ability to be a starter but I just don't see it at this point. You claim I made a "absolutely ridiculous comment" and then you say this? Rich. It's amazing how many times I can say something and yet you still see something else. If you honestly think I was willing to "trade half our farm" for Sonny Gray then I suggest you reread that thread and figure out exactly what it is I was willing to give up for him because I made it pretty darn clear. I'll give you a hint......I can pretty much guarantee it wasn't "half the farm". Nice try though.

Assuming he can even make it to the third time through the order.

I think he's a bullpen arm. I jut don't think he has the control to be a starter. Ever since he has come to Milwaukee he's averaged less than five innings per start in the minors. He throws way too many pitches becuase he throws way too many balls. You can't have a starter going five innings every time out because it's a bullpen killer. I think he'll get a shot to start but I think he ends up in the pen.

Why is this thread still open?