coolhandluke121

Could the Gamel acquisition foreshadow a return to 3B for Ryan Braun blue font?

Fine. Then Choi is the LHB 1B and Thames PH's and plays some RF against RHP's. The point remains that literally every single one of them would have been better options than Braun when you factor in salary, trade value, availability, and/or flexibility. All things considered, he would literally be the last one I would choose for a roster spot for, behind Santana, Broxton, Choi, Davis (for trade value), Aguilar (nearly cut in ST so Braun could move to 1B), and probably Thames. Basically all those guys have been pushed to the back burner in way or another for him in recent years. It's asinine. And no, you don't have to hate him like I do to understand the economics of it or the productivity/injury issues. On the contrary, I think you have to be biased in favor of him to deny it.

I read one analytics article that said OBP was 1.8 times more important than SLG, and that's why OPS is a pretty bad stat. I believe that, though I'm not confident Gamel will be over .350 ever again. It's not a terrible trade, but they could have found some other way to get Gamel. It's just frustrating that they keep having to plan around Braun. I think it sucks. Selling low on Santana isn't the worst part of it, but it still opens up some old wounds going all the way back to selling low on Khris Davis.

Clearly I was referring to Yelich's arm in RF, not Braun's arm. They'd be better off with Yelich in LF and a true RF or just a masher whose defense can be hidden by Cain/Broxton. Besides, it just proves my point that you choose to focus on nit-picking that, which is by far the least important aspect of the argument, and not address all the other myriad issues. News flash, almost all corner outfielders can put up some decent offensive numbers. Guys like Santana, Choi, Thames, and Khris Davis - all guys who have taken a backseat to Braun in one way or another when it comes to building the roster - have all been cheaper, younger, and approximately as productive over recent seasons. Who knows, maybe cutting Aguilar in ST in hopes of Braun being the RHB 1B would have finally made it clear to Braun apologists what the issue is, but luckily that didn't happen. You're right about one thing though - it is beyond pathetic that this conversation still has to occur.

Braun hasn't hit over 20 HR since 2016, and only cracked 30 once in the last 6 seasons, so to call him a 30 HR guy is a stretch. He's not wrong to say that a 2016 deal for Puig+McCarthy+prospects would be advantageous for us now while also affording us more payroll flexibility. Right, but that's not the only reason not to like him on the team. Even without the payroll flexibility, just look at all the questionable personnel moves and difficult decisions made because of him. All this "he could still blah blah blah" stuff is getting really old. Just look at the list of guys they've sold low on or nearly cut for nothing because of Braun: Khris Davis Santana Choi Broxton? Nearly Aguilar (damn lucky he had a good ST because I am convinced that they wanted Braun to be the RHB 1B and would have cut Aguilar otherwise) Other than Broxton, nearly all those guys have been comparable to Braun overall in recent years, and even Broxton has extreme defensive value. All this reaching to say Braun is still good is beyond tiresome. He's been mediocre for a corner OF, period. Based on roster spots alone, they might be better off if they had just Tulowitzki'd him years ago, let alone traded him for something of value and cleared his salary in the process. I'm not sure we'll ever see a season like 2017 from Santana again, but there's a pretty good chance he'll outproduce Braun the next few years. Playing Yelich out of position too.

Because Braun has been more injury prone... HR per 162 G: 2015 - 29 2016 - 36 2017 - 27 2018 - 26 Hence my original post. So if he plays every single game, he still only hits 30 once? Are you going for irony here?

If you don't like this trade, the elephant in the room is Braun. It was incredibly foolish to get stuck with him all these years when they had a chance to trade him. He's gummed up the works for years and given very little value in return. His only good years since 2012 have been when the Brewers would have been better off losing more and rebuilding anyway. - He moves Yelich out of his natural gold glove position. His range is less valuable in RF and his arm is more of an issue. - They were forced to sell low on Santana to accommodate him, and could still lose Keon for next to nothing. - I wouldn't doubt that they strongly considered trading Aguilar and making Braun the back-up 1B. Ponder that for a second. - Could have kept Choi instead of him. Not an ideal RF, but OPS+ was 30 points better and OBP was 44 points better. - Sold very low on Khris Davis. He was not a part of the future, but they had to trade him at the worst possible time to accommodate Braun moving back to LF. - None of that even considers all the ways they could have spent his salary the last few years. All those guys are/were paid peanuts compared to Braun at the time, and all have been about as productive if not better over the last few years. I'm resigned to it. I say this facetiously because I don't believe in karma, but it's retribution for how the Brewers succeeded in the 2011 playoffs thanks to Braun cheating. But what I don't get is how some people actually consider it a blessing that he's still on the team, as opposed to a hard lesson for everyone involved.

Couple of major Stearns worshippers chiming in here.

I don't know if this is meant to mock concerns about his apathy, but it's a pretty well-known fact that he all but quit on his team/his career/himself after completely over-playing his hand in free agency. There's still a very good basketball player in there somewhere, and I'm especially encouraged by the fact that he still moves well, but guys will still have nights like this even when they're going through the motions. Here's hoping he's still playing for his next contract instead of counting down to retirement.

I can't believe they would even consider having Braun be the primary back-up 1B. He didn't like playing there and the Brewers didn't seem to like it either. I don't see Shaw as an option at 1B because they need him at 3B almost every day. Don't get me wrong, there are theoretically lots of better uses of that roster spot than Thames, but a lot has to come together for those options to materialize. You'd want to trade Thames without having to attach an asset, find an LHB 1B who can also play some RF better than Thames, and avoid over-spending. It just gets a little too cute. And that's before you even consider the fact that there's still a pretty decent chance they can get a .900+ from a Thames/Aguilar combo at 1B next year, which is all you can ask for anyway - a reasonable chance of rock-solid production at a cheap price. I agree with the people suggesting a sell-high on Aguilar, but I honestly believe that ship has sailed. Through the ASB last year, it was really hard to understand how Aguilar OPS'ed .800 through nearly 10 full seasons as a not especially young (for his placement) MiLB prospect. After the ASB, it wasn't hard to see at all. I'm still trying to understand what we see last year, because it defies the normal slump explanation. He literally looked scared of the ball.

DJ played last night? I thought that was Anthony Davis's older brother.

Nope. My buddy is a Pacer fan and still despises him till this very day for being a bum and acting like this. Regardless, he takes Delly's place who wasn't playing anyway. He can't be worse than Delly and if he is it doesn't matter, just don't play him then like you were with Delly. Trade was still good to clear the bad money. You traded two guys that couldn't play this year (Delly, Henson) for two guys who can, while also eliminating two contracts for next year. And all it cost was heavily protected 1st that might not convery for 5 years. Plus, both expiring deals are able to be traded again at the deadline if something else arises. Don't get me wrong; I'm still very happy about the trade. But I had hopes of him snapping out of it a little when coming to a much better team, which would be a huge boost. He's not too old and he has averaged less than 30 mpg for his career. He doesn't have a history of career-altering body injuries (e.g., lower body or back). One could easily imagine him bouncing back a little if his attitude is right, but he seems to be going through the motions. And even that is a big improvement over Delly, but not over what some of the Bucks' rivals for the East crown have on the bench.

When you see guys like Choi and Aguilar on the waiver wire in recent memory, and then you see much more proven guys like Duda, Morrison, and Reynolds signing for less than what Thames makes, you probably shouldn't hold out hope that they can clear his salary, let alone get anything of value for him. The market has changed dramatically since guys like Adam Lind could be traded for something of value. I think they just keep him. They may as well have an LHB 1B and emergency RF in small outfields. They can shade Cain to cover him. It was far from a disaster when they did it last year. His inconsistency at the plate is the real issue. Really sucks that they basically gave away Choi because they had him.

Regarding Hill, I was thrilled with the trade until I saw an interview with him. The Bucks' facial recognition folks must have blown a gasket. His apathy reminded me of the NYC transfer school students I teach. Yikes. Talk about a guy going through the motions. There may still be time to rejuvenate him, but apparently he's still weighed down by about 10 pounds of egg on his face from when he rejected Utah's 4/$88m extension and ended up with the Kings for much less.

Great post. Agree on all counts except Khris. I've given up on Khris ever fully living up to his potential, but he's still useful. More importantly, it's just the way free agency works in the NBA. The Bucks can't just spend the money on someone else. They either spend it on Khris or just lose the talent, because you're allowed to go over the cap to keep your own players (under most circumstances). After the Hill trade, there was a lot of buzz about what the Bucks would do with the cap space. For better or for worse, the real question is whether they're willing to pay the luxury tax to keep the team together and one add mid-level free agent with their exception money. They would lose more talent (possibly MUCH more) than they'd gain if they renounced all their free agent rights to sign a big, splashy outside free agent. Unfortunately, that means over-paying to keep everyone, but that's how you play the game in the NBA. When you're a contender, you don't look at contracts in a vacuum. You just do whatever you can to add/retain as much talent as is legally possible under their collective bargaining agreement, which is very different from, say, MLB's. DJ is promising. They clearly saw something in him, and I think it's going to pay off. Love how they're coaching him to set screens as much as possible and then drift behind the arc. If he hits his 3's - and he must be hitting them in practice, or they wouldn't have picked up his option - he's going to be a big help. Ersan is not getting any younger and Thon is not getting any better. Brown is a terrific small-ball sf/pf off the bench. Such a pain in the butt for match-ups. Picks up the team and gives them some toughness they desperately need. Can't eat his way back to the bench though. Snell absolutely sucks, but Giannis gets some usefulness out of him. It's a good niche for him to receive hand-offs from Giannis and hit open 3's, and they have good timing together. It reminds me of Kukoc and Gadzuric in the sense that the good player somehow makes the terrible player useful for brief stretches because of the unique synergy.

I also firmly believe in having multiple LHRP's for match-ups. Even if you don't use them that match, that's not the whole point. Their availability alone affects how easily opponents can game plan with their lineups and switches. So a guy like Cedeno, even without a lot of IP's, is important to have so teams like the Dodgers don't bring in all their great LHB's as soon as Hader is used or unavailable.

They're valuing assets and prospects without being dogmatic or rigid about it and without hoarding them. They have a chance to get to the world series. It would be silly to refuse to do trades like this right now. Most teams would routinely trade away guys like Hiura or Burnes, but the Brewers clearly aren't going to do that. It's not like the Greinke or Sabathia trade, and none of their other win-now moves are either. This is definitely not a scrap heap guy. I would have rather gone with Cedeno and the pick, but they didn't want to save a roster spot for Cedeno all year and that's fine. I don't know how anybody can argue with the amount of value they have gotten out of relievers by using them intelligently, and you have to have good ones to make it work, and you could argue that Cedeno wasn't good enough. I don't see how this is a slam dunk either way, and more importantly, I think they know the market and the other options a lot better than we do.

I wouldn't have done it, but I'm glad they're improving the team (on paper, at least). This is a need, and he'll spend some time in AAA when they don't need a LOOGY - which I assume is the only reason they didn't just keep Cedeno (who has no options) and the pick. They just won more games than any other team in the NL, and it's not like they traded a top prospect for him, so this makes sense.

I think the Dodgers made a mistake and bought high. He has some decent stuff but he's just not very good IMO.

Murphy is older, slower, less productive, and on a more precipitous decline than Neil Walker was when the Brewers wisely decided not to re-sign him. I'd pass. I don't like any of the options and would have rather kept Villar and Perez as the 2b's one more year until the right upgrade opportunity comes along. And I hated Villar.

If ever a team needed Coach Cooper... Jabari really, truly deserves that team. Delusional about how much respect they deserve, all the way from the top down.

I'm actually kind of shocked at that. I don't remember him being that good, and he worked mostly in a depressed era for offense. Even so, 5 top 10 seasons doesn't even seem like that much. There must be lots of starters not in the HOF who have more than that. I think Hader will be up there every year for nearly 10 years if he stays healthy, for example. But that's valid in the sense that it's better than I thought. I still wouldn't have him in though. ETA: Career WPA is still behind guys like Joe Nathan, K-Rod, Kimbrel, Billy Wagner, Papelbon, Hoffman, and probably a bunch more relievers whose names I don't recognize as relievers. And relievers do have a certain advantage in WPA because they can just unleash fastballs and cutters all the time and don't have a big workload. It's kind of like your average speed being better if you don't have to run very far. Still not a fan of anything but the Rivera's and maybe half a tier below him being in. That would be Eckersley, Gossage, Wilhelm, maybe Hoffman, maybe Kimbrel eventually... Fingers by the way only had about half the WPA of Eckersley, Gossage, or Hoffman.

I've heard opposing players are clowning on them, asking "Do you want fries with that? They do look like a bad take on McDonalds uniforms. As for Wilson, the least he could od is build up his body over the last couple years. He can shoot, and obviously has some athleticism. But that's about it. Horrible on defense and on the boards, and just sort of drifts around on offense. I was talking to my son about the Bucks last night, and he posed an interesting question. Middleton, Brogdon, Lopez, Bledsoe. Which one would hurt the most if lost for the season? Honestly, Middleton comes in last for me...maybe a toss-up between him and Brogdon. But sort of telling as far as the priority for signing these guys after the season. I don't think Middleton is last. When he was playing well, he was a huge reason they were dominating the NBA. Best scoring differential against the toughest schedule over most of the first month. The way he's playing so poorly now is the main reason they've been much more mediocre lately. He and Brogdon are both slow and underwhelming in a lot of ways, but Khris can produce more difficult offense whereas Brogdon is more of a shoot-when-I'm-open or take weak defenders to the rim type of niche scorer. He benefits a lot from the gravity Khris and Giannis have, and not the other way around. I agree about Khris arguably not being a huge priority anymore, but that's more about his effort than his impact. He's been doing it since he get his $70m deal. I had hoped the injury was the explanation, but the fact that he's still dogging it so much is a huge concern. Not sure I want him on his next deal. Wilson does look funny/stupid on the court, but there's no penalty for that. I wouldn't say he just drifts around. They're clearly coaching him up to set screens constantly and look for open 3's, and he's responding well. I can see why they picked up his option, because being coachable and having just a few helpful skills is sometimes all you need to be a rotation player. He sets more smart screens and attempts to box out more in 5 minutes than Jabari used to do in an entire game. ETA: Homer is also right. The fact that the back-ups are such trash is the real reason Bledsoe and Lopez are so indispensable. Hill looks pretty good. He's still a little quicker than Brogdon even at 32. He did stuff in his prime that Brogdon can only dream of.

There aren't hundreds of forgettable starters who could have done what Smith did. We know that because there was nobody who did what he did. Saves might be an unimportant stat by today's lens, but it has been counted and celebrated by MLB since Jerome Holtzman, and when Smith retired, he was number 1 on the list. He did what he was assigned, and was the most prolific guy in history at it. The HOF has more than 200 players enshrined. I think there's room for the top guy, even though 2018's sensibilities tell us that saves aren't the be all and end all. For a point in history, they were considered pretty important. Couldn't disagree more. There are tons of guys who never got the dumb luck of being just bad enough to not be starter quality, but good enough to excel in a fabricated role with one of the most inflated perceived values in arguably all of sports. At least Gossage, Sutter, and Fingers pitched a ton of innings. I'm guessing in their best years, they added to your probability of winning in a near-starter fashion, much like Hader this season. Not true of guys like Smith and Hoffman at all. Smith was the first closer to have more than 75% of his appearances start in the 9th inning or later. It's a completely fabricated specialization that gives guys every advantage (one inning, a lead that's not hard to protect, often not having to face the best hitters) and then rewards them for it. It is partly the fault of foolish management for under-utilizing the best relievers, but I don't believe Smith would have been so dominant without those advantages. Hoffman might have been, but again I can't reward a guy for being so lucky to have such a privileged role on the basis of the fact that he maybe could have been that great if asked to actually help a team win significantly more games than they would win otherwise. He might have struggled a lot if asked to pitch 100+ innings, and he would need to do that to add even close to the value that should be expected of a HOF pitcher. Mariano is the only modern reliever who deserves to be in. Hader would deserve it if he keeps doing what he's doing. But no other relievers have added to your probability of winning a game in recent memory nearly that much. I kind of doubt guys like Gossage, Sutter, Fingers, and Eckersley did either, but at least they pitched a lot more innings.

With some of the other closers that are in, he should be in... but many of the other closers shouldn't be in. It's a joke. There are probably hundreds of forgettable starters who could have been great closers. In fact, most closers are just that... failed starters. But you can close games and throw 95 m.p.h. heat or cut fastballs all the time without your arm falling off and voila, you're suddenly great. It's so stupid. Being an unhittable closer doesn't actually result in a lot more wins than just being an effective one. And Smith was far from unhittable. It's just laziness to look at what happened in the 9th inning and say that's what determined the game. It may have a disproportionate share of the suspense and tension you experience while watching, but it does not have any disproportionate influence on the outcome compared to other innings.