coolhandluke121

Houston is an important example. They mostly stayed the course and built around their young core, but they did make a pretty impulsive decision to trade for Gomez and look how that turned out. Lesson learned. Fortunately they didn't make a lot of mistakes like that, but just imagine if they hadn't made any. The Brewers don't have quite the same young talent they did, so they can't afford any impulsive decisions like that, and that's exactly what they're being careful to avoid. I do expect this to be a bit of a stumbling year, but they are doing everything they can reasonably be expected to do to stay in the wild card picture without compromising their chances of being one of 2 or 3 dominant NL teams in just a few years.

Good luck with that. I agree with pretty much the whole post. I would add that the important thing was not to compromise their long-term interests. With that in mind, Chacin was a good acquisition. Don't understand how people can seriously expect them to put together a good rotation with what they inherited just a few years ago, especially with Nelson being hurt. It's like some people want them to be the 2000's Yankees in the offseason. And even the Yankees can no longer afford to make such poor free agent decisions without completely ****** themselves over. The rotation is not better because there were no good options at a reasonable price in salary, years, trade cost, and/or draft pick forfeitures. All you can ask of them is to not do anything stupid under the circumstances, and they didn't. All the upgrades that were deemed significant had huge red flags. Stay away. Good boy. ETA: Forgot to quote this. Most important part of the post. People are letting last year get their expectations completely out of whack. All we can do is hope and pray Mark A will respect the process, unlike some of these fans. They literally are using last year's success as grounds to say Stearns is doing a bad job. It makes no sense; you can't make this stuff up. Fans like that don't deserve a good team, EVER. They should go be fans of the Bucks, who will cater to their desire for impulsive moves and their delusional ideas about how soon they should be ready to contend, destroying their long-term chances while doing almost nothing to improve their short-term chances the whole while.

This is a great questions. I loved Yount as a player, but his era is far enough in the past that his performance isn't looked on with the highest degree of critical thought. Yount wasn't much above a replacement player his last 4 years, and watching him got painful in the last year or two when he maybe pulled a dozen balls foul to left each year. It was that bad. But the scrutiny over deep stats was 15 years away when he retired, so he's still thought of as a hero. Yount was also paid awfully highly for his era for his production. Had he ended his career in this era, I can't imagine how his Brewer-legendary career would be dissected & criticized. Braun's 2017 easily bests Yount's 1993 contributions significantly including nearly 120 OPS points in 20 fewer games played. That Yount was rated as a 2 bWAR guy compared to Braun at 1.2 bWAR last year also points to how grossly overweighted OF defense is in bWAR calculations b/c Yount was pretty lousy at the plate in 1993. fWAR has them about equal. Yount's defense was still good. I watched enough of Braun last year to know he wasn't as good in the field as he's been in the past, but he also wasn't lousy as people seem to make him out to be, and it's obvious he's also had to alter his approach to playing in the OF depending on the nature of the injuries he's been fighting -- a viable explanation whereas I don't recall Robin fighting so many injuries in 1993. In 1993 Yount's last good year was 4 years behind him. Braun's last good year was last year. Now this year's only 10 games old with most of the team mostly playing mediocre-to-poor, but Braun himself has provided 2 dramatic GW hits in spite of his rough start. Braun was 33 last year. When Yount was 33, he was a 6 WAR MVP at a premium defensive position. I'll be shocked and thrilled if Braun has the value Yount had in his age 34-36 seasons. Braun has a buyout at 36 and I'm guessing the Brewers will exercise it, so we can probably leave out Yount's age 37 season. Yount had basically a 100 OPS+ in '90-'92. That's league average with above average defense at a premium position. Braun's OPS+ was only 111 last year, which isn't enough to make up for his inferior defense at a position that's much easier to play. I think you're underestimating the importance of instincts in the outfield, not to mention Braun's inability to consistently hit a cut-off man and give him a chance to make a play. More importantly, OPS is pretty meaningless compared to OPS+ considering the parks and divisions they played in. I'm not suggesting Miller is Coors East, but you have to account for the huge advantage. I also don't like the "fighting injuries" excuse, because Braun is almost always fighting nagging injuries - it's part of his value. Yount was a far more valuable player throughout his career. The OPS+ he produced in the 80's was comparable to Braun's at the same age, yet he played two premium defensive positions at a gold glove level. That's like if Cain could hit like Braun.

I don't think it's completely out of the question eventually, but he'd have to have a really bad year and they'd have to want that roster spot pretty badly for someone else. That said, I'm at the point where I have just as much confidence as Aguilar as the RHB 1B, and I'm not an Aguilar fan at all despite his good start. As for LF, I don't think Yelich will be out long and I'd like to see Phillips by midseason, if not sooner. I can tell you this: I would certainly be thrilled if he just retired out of the blue and the Brewers freed up that money and roster spot. If nothing else, we wouldn't have to hear about how he's still the best hitter on the team ad nauseum.

We signed a 32 year old center fielder to a $80 million, 5 year contract because we are in year 3 of a 5 year rebuild? No, they signed him because he's a terrific player and they won 86 games last year so they owe it to themselves and their fans to try to upgrade if the player and the cost is right and they don't have to compromise their future too much. Hopefully last year was not a total fluke, and it was worth a gamble. However, that doesn't change the fact that the rebuild appearing to be so far ahead of schedule could have been a fluke, and it certainly doesn't mean it's reasonable to completely reset your expectations for how good they should be this year after a whole bunch of cast-offs and trade throw-ins had career years. It's not really complicated. If last year proves to be a fluke, then you would be holding last year's success against them by letting it reset your expectations and forgetting what situation they were in just a few years ago. If they would be doing a better job in your eyes by winning 75 games last year (and make no mistake - winning 75 games with this system and having just a few of the stopgaps like Shaw and Anderson emerge as assets would have been a very successful season under the circumstances) while having the same bright future they have now, then there's something really wrong with the way you're evaluating their performance.

These are talented but deeply flawed players. That's the only reason the Brewers had a chance to acquire them with the limited fiscal and talent capital they had in the first place. You don't just "fix" guys like that, and it's a fascist attitude to think you can just keep yelling at them or lecturing them or benching them. These are mostly stopgaps until the real wave of talent arrives, and it really bothers me that so many people have their expectations completely out of whack. You're basically punishing them for being so unexpectedly successful last year if you've completely changed your expectations and lost sight of the fact that this team, by all rights, should be in year 3 of a 5-year rebuild. People like that would be more respectful of the work Stearns and Counsell have done if the Brewers had won 75 games last year, because they'd appreciate the work they've done to build the young talent pool and develop the youth they have. They'd respect Counsell for working through going pains and sticking with guys to see what you've really got and develop assets, and they'd see how Stearns has built one of the deepest systems in baseball. But instead people have these completely whack expectations based on a bunch of cast-offs having career years at the same time, so in effect, winning 86 games last year makes people think they're doing a bad job when they're doing a great job. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

I don't think they'll feel obligated to keep Sogard just because they're paying him $2.5m. Being stubborn about sunk costs is fatal in this business, and I think Stearns understands that. I would give it a few months, but there's nothing wrong with DFA'ing either one of them if they're not hitting. ETA: Not to defend them too vociferously, but a lot of middle infielders don't hit. You still have to have them. Both those guys have proven capable of a ~2 WAR season as non-regulars in recent years, which is pretty good. Right now I'm more concerned about the alpha guys not playing well in general.

#ThanksObama

I'm not sure anyone has advocated a true piggy-back situation. I called it that for a few weeks before I realized that it was more rigid than I thought. What I want to see is starters coming out after their 2nd time through their order (and before their 2nd plate appearance, if possible) more often, and relievers going multiple innings more often. I believe starters are often a little overused and relievers are a little underused. By the same token, relievers are used in overly specialized situations and starters are a little under-specialized. For example, why start a guy like Suter against an RHB-dominant lineup if you can pitch him in long relief a day or two earlier against an LHB-dominant team. The rigidity of rotation turns creates some ridiculous situations. I think you could mitigate the roster issues by having only 4 starters, because I think starters go often pitch on 3 days rest if they're only throwing ~70 pitches per start. A move like this is long overdue, especially for a team with the roster composition the Brewers have.

I've been hoping for that for a long time. I think there's a lot of dogma in current practices. A team with as many long relievers and short starters as the Brewers should definitely be trying this. I think as soon as teams start doing it, it's going to become less unusual pretty fast because it will prove effective in many circumstances.

Oh dear god, "Yelich" and "lock" should never be written in the same paragraph when discussing the HOF.

I think a lot of people have taken the home/road splits too far. Everybody knows PETCO was a big boost to his numbers. However, you can't dismiss his PETCO numbers completely, because even factoring in ballpark, his numbers at PETCO were better than what a bad pitcher would do. He pitched 16 home games and 16 road games. If you dismiss his home games completely, as opposed to just adjusting his performance for ballpark factors, then you're only basing your assessment of his performance last year on 16 road games. You don't get to just throw out the home games completely. It's not at all unusual for a pitcher to have skewed home/road splits in a season for no particular reason other than the fact that it's not a lot of games and some random fluctuation is completely normal. His road BABIP was .353 and that is unlikely to happen again. I think he's probably a decent 4/5 starter when it's all said and done. Mostly I'm just glad they went with a stopgap to keep that spot warm for Burnes and Peralta, among others. Not to mention eventually having Nelson back.

As for Yelich, I certainly think he has a much better chance than Braun. I suppose you could theoretically say Hader and Knebel have an outside chance, but I think there are indications that HOF is going to stop over-inflating the value of saves, as they bloody well should. Yelich's counting stats should skyrocket in Miller Park, and his defense is a pretty big plus in LF. Defensive value is all relative to the other bats at your position, just like offensive value is affected a lot by position. You don't have to be a C, SS, or CF in order for your credentials to get a big boost from your defense. ETA: Also, don't forget that OPS consistently undervalues OBP. That's especially important when you're comparing a guy who's played for a slugger-friendly team his whole career to a guy who's only been a Marlin until now. Braun is actually a bit of an underachiever when it comes to OBP, and would have helped his team more if he had been more patient at the plate like Yelich.

Didn't ESPN predict the next hall-of-famer for each team? It was kind of pathetic for the Brewers, as every other team had at least one semi-realistic candidate. I could swear they picked Dubon for the Brewers. Greinke and C.C. obviously would not go to the hall as Brewers, so they didn't count.

No, quite the opposite. The idea that Braun is in Yount's class because of some of his gaudy hitting stats is offensive to me - pun intended. Braun is not even 2 tiers below Yount. It reminds me of how so many basketball fans just equate ppgz with effectiveness without accounting for how much better the opponent's offense is (or isn't) because of that player - as if only the points you score count, and you don't have to worry about the points scored against you. Braun doesn't have a chance IMO, nor should he.

No, not even close. People are really underrating Cameron's career here. What's being ignored is that defense is an enormous part of his resume. I think that's the first time I've seen defense mentioned since the conversation started. That tells me everything I need to know.

While I personally disagree with your stance on Braun (I guess I'm more indifferent to him), I have enjoyed reading this back-and-forth, and I believe you have laid our your stance on your feelings toward him well, without getting overly defensive and/or telling people that they should or need to agree with you. You've had a solid argument to most retorts, even those that have been unfairly put together to even mean-spirited. I agree, too, that you can be a fan of the team while strongly disliking (or even loathing) a member of that team. If he does well and helps the team win, you are happy for the team, but not the player. I get that. Thanks, good post. You know, the best counterargument is that you can't hold onto your hate, and you have to forgive for your own sake. But those people are misunderstanding what I mean when I say I hate him. It's dispassionate and it doesn't keep me up at night. It just means he still gets a thumbs-down from me. As someone whom I will never know personally and who is only a ball-player to me, all I care about is whether you seem to be a decent human being in your personal life, whether you work hard to earn what's been given to you, and whether you cheat. That's not asking a lot. (Of course production is a factor too, but when I say I hated Wily Peralta, it's not the same as saying I hate Ryan Braun.) More importantly, it seems there are just as many people, if not more, getting bent out of shape that some people still despise Braun, and they're the ones that need to get over it. Life is too short to live vicariously through your favorite athletes. That's not healthy, and it also seems kind of naive to think people would ever let him forget it. They really don't owe anybody any explanation if they want to give him those two thumbs down for the rest of his life. It's not the same as never forgiving him as a person, and it's not a punishment; it's a perfectly normal feeling they have for him. You can forgive an ex for cheating; that doesn't mean anyone has a right to tell you it's time to get over it and you should stop disliking them for it.

He said he would have found it hard not to. That's not the same as saying he's do it. And if he did, I wouldn't like him. I hate that do anything you can to get ahead and bend rules as much as possible mentality. I hate people like that in my personal life and in sports. I still believe the essence of sport requires some honor.

I don't think there is any way he would have been the best brewer ever. Yount was better.

No, you can't question my morals just because I dislike Braun for lying and cheating. That's utterly ridiculous. You can't even be serious. Are you? Please tell me that was supposed to be blue font. He's a proven liar and cheater. What a ridiculous false equivalence. But you can judge others? Got it. You and a few others don't seem to know the whole context of this argument. I did not say that in reference to people who like Braun despite his mistakes. That's their prerogative, just like it's my prerogative to dislike him. I said it in reference to people who are openly questioning, and even attacking (see seabass's first post, which is the worst post by far I've ever seen here, an amazing feat) anyone's reasons for disliking him. Those people act like having any moral standard for whom you like and don't like is immoral in and of itself, and that is what shows a complete and utter lack of a moral compass. It's as if the moral standard should not even exist. Nobody needs any more justification for disliking him than the obvious, and it's total homer hypocrisy to suggest otherwise. You know you'd hate root against him if you weren't a Brewer fan, and I want no part of that hypocrisy.

So you can question the morals of someone but no one can question yours? Don't judge less you be judged by others. If you hate Braun, just say you hate Braun and be done with it. No, you can't question my morals just because I dislike Braun for lying and cheating. That's utterly ridiculous. You can't even be serious. Are you? Please tell me that was supposed to be blue font. He's a proven liar and cheater. What a ridiculous false equivalence.

It should be obvious because I answered the question of the whole thread by saying I hate him because he's a liar and a cheater. What more justification could I possibly need? Several people here have implied, and practically even said outright, that using perfectly sound moral standards to decide which players I don't like is not acceptable. I mean, what?? Sorry, but that's a sign of a lack of a moral compass. It's not the fact that they've forgiven him and moved on that bothers me and I don't think I implied that at all. It's that several people have suggested it's not even my place to hold a player to a basic moral standard if I'm going to like and respect him, and one person even suggested it was juvenile (see seabass's post, or better yet my post were I quoted him because there's a good chance he has realized how inappropriate his post was by now and edited it). ETA: One guy even brought my own morals into question. Honestly I think that was pathetic. If someone steals your car, would you expect the police to say "well, you're probably no saint yourself, so you shouldn't really hold it against him". You seriously can't make this stuff up.

It's not that kind of hate. It's not something that keeps me up at night. In a way, he's just a brand to me. I hate him the way I hate Lee jeans or Kashi products. It's personal preference and it should be really obvious why it's my preference.

There are several posts in here basically telling people that they shouldn't hate Braun. Everyone who dislikes it has made it patently clear why they do. What's there to debate? It's not anyone's place to tell people they need to move on and forget about it, and pointing out other bad things that other people have done is completely irrelevant. His history is a good enough reason to dislike him. It's no mystery.

Good post. However, it's not really holier-than-thou morality. It's not even saying anything about me, really. It's saying that my personal preference is players who haven't cheated, and that is my right. I despise him, and I would expect others to despise me if I cheated at something that basically ruins the spirit of something they care about. All I know or care to know about him is as a baseball player, and that's a permanent part of his identity now. Shame plays an important role in society, like it or not. We've tilted too far towards making it a 4-letter word. People have a right to dislike cheaters. I don't see how that's even debatable. And I would argue that letting him play is that second chance. I don't think people are entitled to a second chance to win back people's hearts and minds at all. That's different. A criminal can be rehabilitated and given a second chance in society; that doesn't mean the people he or she wronged should EVER be told they should forgive him or stop hating him. Nobody has a right to tell them that or ask for an explanation; they can decide it on their own if they wish, but it's their business.