monty57

You can't DL him without an injury, and I think it would be a bit fishy if they DL'd him and immediately had him throwing games somewhere. Who knows what's going on with Henderson, but these things are usually mechanical or mental. Either way, if he's a little off I'd rather have him working on it in a game we're down three runs in the 8th than in a game we're up a run in the 9th. If it gets really bad, they could option him (I believe he has options remaining) and let him work things out in the minors, but management must not think it's that big of an issue. Rodriguez is perfectly capable of closing, so let him. If Henderson pitches well, he can fight his way back to the closer role.

That makes sense, as the range of players is early 20's to late 30's, with few players at either extreme. Most MLB players are mid-20's to mid-30's, so most teams will have similar average age. It'd be nice to see a weighted average, giving preference to star players and starters over role players. For example, Wang brings down our average significantly, but will never play. Had the Brewers kept a random 30-year-old instead of Wang, they'd probably be in the bottom third age-wise. Meanwhile, had they kept Francisco instead of Overbay, they'd probably be in the top third. Neither of these moves would have changed the "star power" of the team, but would have significantly affected the average age.

Nice post. There are cases where most managers favor veterans, but I don't think this is one of them. On-field management gets to see things none of us see, so I applaud Roenicke for noticing that there is something wrong with Henderson and acting on it. He has a perfectly fine candidate to pitch the 9th in K-Rod, so it makes sense to use him. Henderson can work things out and if he looks like the better candidate when he "gets his stuff back," then he can pitch in the 9th. He got Henderson in in a "low pressure" situation yesterday and he struck out the batter he faced. That's a positive to build on, whereas a blown save on opening day could have been a big psychological negative.

Yeah, looks like straight platoon. I think that at this point Reynolds is the better player and should play more often, but he'll probably end up getting 20% of the starts unless Overbay proves to management that he's completely washed up. That would take something like an 0-for-50 stint. Let's just hope that everyone else plays well so it won't be as big a deal if we have limited production from 1B.

I think the Brewers really bad history is the reason many are happy with getting to two playoffs with no World Series appearances, even if it cost the team "future value." What's ironic is that many Brewer fans are also Packer fans, and as Packer fans, they would not accept it if the team gave up their future for two playoff appearances in five years. I'd just like the Brewers to be run more like Thompson runs the Packers. Make the moves that are best for the future of the franchise, even if the fans boo you. They'll come around when the team wins. I also lived through many bad seasons with the Brewers, but to me that's why I'm upset with what has happened in the recent years. Dean Taylor started turning the team around by taking the focus off the MLB team and focusing on the farm. Melvin took over and continued this strategy. I live near Beloit, so I got to watch these kids play, and got really excited. Even though they had one of the worst MLB teams in club history, I could see that brighter times were ahead. Then these guys hit the majors, they started to win, and the fans loved them. Had they followed the model teams like the Rays, A's and Ryan's Twins have used successfully, I figured they had a chance to be a continually good team for the foreseeable future. But, as we all know, teams only "control" a player for six seasons. Braun had already extended, but Fielder wouldn't extend, so rather than trade him (and probably others), the Brewers decided that they had to do anything they could, regardless of future consequences, to win in the "window" that they had Fielder. That got us a second playoff appearance, and since then the Brewer PR machine has been doing everything possible to keep fans believing that we are still a playoff team. Really, we're a team that could make the playoffs if everything went right, which really could be said about every team but the Astros. What makes things worse is that while we're on our downward slope, every other team in the division is heading upward, making last place finishes look like they'll be the norm for quite a while. That's why I get frustrated.

Yesterday's game was televised, and at the start of the game, they said that Segura is playing games in the minor league camp. He's expected to be ready for Opening Day, but they aren't putting him with the MLB squad for the small chance that he tweaks something, as that would lessen how far they could backdate the DL trip. But your point is valid. They are very thin at most positions. Their replacements are weak, so any injury could really hurt them.

Overbay's is what $1.35 million? They might end up eating most of that before it's all over anyway if he's hitting .165 on June 1. He's making about what Alex Gonzalez got last year. Oh yeah, neither Overbay nor Reynolds make enough that they'll play no matter what. What I was saying is that if the Brewers were going to make a move for another 1B this spring, they would have done it before Overbay and Reynolds' contracts became guaranteed. I can't imagine they will make a move for Ike Davis or someone else now when they could have saved a couple million by making the trade a couple of days ago. As the season progresses, if the Brewers are doing well record-wise and Reynolds and/or Overbay aren't pulling their weight, the Brewers won't hesitate to eat the contract(s) if a better option becomes available. In that scenario, I doubt the Brewers would hesitate to do almost anything (trading any prospect, spending extra money) if they thought the move would get them in the playoffs.

Duke and Gorzellany (when he's back) can go multiple innings as well, so it would really be a bad move if he's the "long man." The "long man" role should be reserved for a vet pitcher who you don't mind sitting on the bench for extended periods and then pitching multiple innings several times in a week. In other words, someone whose future arm health is not a concern to the team. I think we'll have Hederson as "closer," Rodriguez as "8th inning guy," and probably Kintzler as "7th inning guy." Wang will get forgotten on the bench, Duke will be "long guy," leaving many, many appearances for Thornburg and Smith. I could see him pitching 80 games if he stays in the bullpen all year, and I could see that not being the best for the future of his arm. But, he won't be in the bullpen all year, as he will be called on for a "spot start" here and there. At that point, he'll be unavailable from the pen for a few days, and will be limited to 3 IP or so in his start, so the bullpen will be completely trashed by the time his spot start is done. If his future is as a starter, I'd rather just have him stretched out in Nashville, ready to step in when needed. That leads me to believe that Nelson (and others?) has surpassed him on the depth chart, and the Brewers see his future as a reliever/spot starter.

I think you have to consider that the Brewers had a group of highly touted prospects reaching their primes at that time as well though. The timing was right to make a playoff push in those years and you don't do that by trading away one of your key pieces for minor leaguers, especially when you're a team that doesn't have the finances/appeal to fill that hole through free agency. I agree that under different circumstances (ie. no realistic shot at the playoffs for the duration of his contract), trading Fielder for prospects that could create a situation in the future "to go for it" would make sense. But they were already in position "to go for it". It's hard to continually trade for the future and ever get there. Unfortunately, not having the financial resources is exactly why they have to do things like that. For teams willing to suffer the angst of the fans who get upset at a "name player" being traded away, it's really the only strategy that has worked for small market teams to maintain success over time. Not doing it leads to teams being really bad, then being good for a few seasons and then being bad again. No one knows exactly what would've happened, so it's all theoretical, but we got one playoff appearance by holding on to Fielder, and have been horrible since. I think there's a good chance we could have had more success by trading him than we had by not trading him. Really, that one decision led to pretty much all of the future decisions, and changed us from being a team built around talented, young, inexpensive players to a team built around expensive, aging players. When you don't have as much money as your competition, I think that's a losing strategy.

If Segura doesn't take this then I think he has an inflated sense of worth in today's market. He may just not be interested in extending, preferring to maximize his potential payout by going year-to-year until free agency, but he isn't going to flat out say it (bad PR move), so he'll just listen to the Brewers' extension offers and politely say "no thanks." That's the way Fielder was, and I don't hold it against players like that, but I think the Brewers need to have a different strategy than they used with Fielder. It seemed obvious to everyone except the Brewers that Fielder was not going to be a Brewer beyond his six years of "team control," so I hope the Brewers learned from that.

nobody could have predicted corey hart, mat gamel and taylor green all missing the entire 2013 season with injuries. all of those guys were either established big leaguers or promising prospects at that time. plan for any more depth than that at a single position, and you've created a log jam (plus holes at other positions). I was really going for a scenario where they would have had his replacement by his first or second year of arbitration so they could have traded Fielder with 2-3 years of service time for a king's ransom that could help the team for years. I don't really get into the year-to-year find a hole and patch it through free agency theory the Brewers use.

Given the current situation, I'm fine with Estrada being in the rotation, but I do wish Thornburg was starting in Nashville. With Wang and Duke on the team, I don't expect Thornburg to be the "long man." Instead, he will be used as a regular middle reliever. When injury hits, he will not be stretched out, so if they decide to go with him as a starter, his first start will be limited to around 2-3 IP, then a little more, then after 3-5 starts he'll finally be allowed to pitch a full game. If we are indeed trying to win this year, why would we throw away games like this and burn out our bullpen when it would be really easy to just keep Wooten on the roster as a middle reliever and call up Thornburg when he's needed? He also appears to be the only RHP in the bullpen who will not be labeled "Closer" or "setup guy." That tells me that he will be pitching nearly every day. Do we want to put that much stress on one of our best young arms, especially considering he's trained himself to be a starter, pitching every fifth day? On a different note, there looks to be a possibility that Weeks could be traded to Texas. Not saying it's likely, but if this happens (and if we didn't get a MLB player back), who would everyone replace him with? Would you go with someone like Herrera who can play everywhere, Gindl as a 5th OF/LH bat off the bench, or someone else?

My guess is the Rangers will get Barney from the Cubs. With their team, the extra defense is worth more than gambling on a potential bounceback offensively from Weeks. Either way, I don't expect much in return. If you're just hoping for Weeks to be gone to save some salary and open a roster spot, that looks like a possibility. If you're expecting to get something valuable back in return, I think you're sights are set too high. If he was worth a valuable return in trade, there wouldn't be so many people lobbying to get rid of him.

I will be flabbergasted my entire life that it took Doug and RRR watching all of 2013 to realise that first base was a problem in 2013. I'm flabbergasted that when Fielder repeatedly turned down their contract extension offers early in his tenure with the Brewers that they did not start planning for the future at first base then. The best time to address problems is before they happen.

I kind of thought this would happen once Simmons raised the dollar value with his signing. I'd always consider an offer if someone bowled me over, but I think that with players who want to go season-to-season through free agency, the Brewers should start to shop them in their first or second year of arbitration. It would really need to be a phenomenal offer to get me to trade him now, as that would mean Bianchi/Herrera would be our SS. However, while they don't have a replacement now, if they wait a couple of years Arcia may be ready to take over for league minimum, and Segura should still have a lot of trade value. I do think the Brewers should take the hint, which is something they couldn't do with Fielder. If a player is willing to take the risk, he has every right to go year-to-year to free agency. If he risks it in his pre-arbitration years, he is very unlikely to extend in his arbitration years, when the risk is lessened and he's earning much better money. The Brewers need to figure out their plan moving forward and trade him while he still has "team control" remaining. They've got plenty of time to groom his replacement, so form a plan now... don't let this end up like our first base situation.

From CBSSportsline.com Report: Rangers scout Rickie Weeks The Rangers scouted Brewers second baseman Rickie Weeks at Tuesday's Giants-Brewers game, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. The Rangers are canvassing the league for infield help with Jurickson Profar sidelined by a shoulder injury for the next 10 to 12 weeks. The Brewers have a young player capable of serving as the team's regular second baseman in Scooter Gennett should Weeks be dealt. Not a whole lot of info there, but they are scouting him. He's looked pretty good this spring, so who knows, maybe they'll at least be able to save money, and maybe even get a low-minors prospect with some upside.

I'm glad Wang made the cut. I do wish they would have left Wooten on the roster and let Thornburg remain a starter in Nashville. Wang and Duke can both go multiple innings, so we don't need him as a "long man," and keeping him in middle relief means he won't be stretched out when someone goes down and a starter is needed.

I just don't see Overbay riding the pine as much as you guys think. I agree. I'm okay with Reynolds at 1B, but it will probably be more of a platoon situation, so Overbay will get tons of PAs. It's possible that Reynolds could be an .800 OPS guy, while Overbay won't come near that, but when given the choice between "that guy who strikes out all the time" and "the guy who's got experience," I think Roenicke will favor the latter, even if it's not even the case. I think Overbay at this stage will strike out nearly as much as Reynolds with none of the upside.

This would be a great situation if we were looking beyond this year, but not when we're "going for it." We could use some MLB pieces to pry Bradley and Didi away, Arizona raises their chance to compete this season, and while we take a step back at the MLB level this season, we're set with two young studs for the next six years. It'll never happen, but it's the type thing we need to do if we want an ace in the foreseeable future.

Not that we couldn't do a trade, but I believe Overbay's contract just became guaranteed and Reynolds' will become guaranteed today or tomorrow. If Melvin was going to make a trade, I would think he would've done if before he owed a few million to Overbay and Reynolds.

I think a majority of us on this board didn't want Juan as our 1B when we discussed this in the off season. I don't know if some have bought in to his spring numbers or if more people are just coming to the board to discuss. I think it's just that when your options are a "1" or a "0" most people take the "1." Next to most first baseman Francisco looks bad, but next to Overbay he looks good. He at least has power and some upside potential, while at this stage of his career, Overbay has no "plus" skills. I really hope they don't go with a straight platoon, but rather just let Reynolds be the "everyday" guy with Overbay getting occasional starts and being the primary LH bat off the bench. Given PAs, Reynolds could potentially be decent. Overbay won't.

What more could add clarity? In Overbay's contract, he has to be added to the 40 man by today or tomorrow or he can become a free agent. Reynolds is a couple days later.

I expect Reynolds to be the regular 1B. Just because there is a lefty and a right, there doesn't need to be a straight platoon. Reynolds at 1B isn't great, but it isn't the end of the world. The end of the world (or at least the end of the Brewers' hopes of a .500+ record) will be when Ramirez gets hurt and Reynolds will be at 3B with either Overbay or Francisco at 1B every day.

I think Melvin made his offseason moves with the thought of Reynolds being the everyday guy with Overbay getting some starts here and there and being a PH off the bench. I think Roenicke will like Overbay's style of play and make him the everyday guy. I don't think that would turn out well.

danzig, I agree with you that the Brewers have been bad at drafting players. As I mentioned, I think part of that is bad luck, part is bad judgement, part is bad development, and part is that they went for "high floor/low ceiling" guys in hopes they would quickly rise through the minors and be with the big league team during the "window" when they still had good position players. The first rounders flopped, but we have some "low ceiling" guys we drafted in this period that are MLB ready #4/5 starters, but they'll either be in AAA or the MLB bullpen. However, there are other ways to stock the farm. A big one is trading "proven" players for prospects. Had we made some of these moves in the past, we may have taken a few wins off the MLB team over the past few years, but we'd have a much better farm right now. Instead, we have traded from our system, and most trades have been to help the MLB team right away instead of looking for a higher upside player that isn't quite ready for the majors. When you draft for "low ceiling/high floor" and you don't trade for high upside prospects, it isn't surprising that you have a farm which everyone says is full of guys who could have a major league career but has very little star talent. I'll defer to Logan's quote "You need stars to compete at the MLB level. We can't afford stars through free agency so we need to develop them. We don't have any future stars in the minors." Recently, the Brewers have started to draft high upside guys, so hopefully this will help turn things around, but the whole system changed last year. By giving up their pick for Lohse, they not only didn't have that pick, but the Brewers were handicapped financially because of the new "pool" rules, and ended up picking high upside for Devin Williams and then a bunch of guys projected to be bullpen guys from the get-go. If we continue to draft for upside, and don't give up any more picks, we will eventually have a better farm. However, this will be a long process, so as long as we continue to try to tread water and make free agent moves to sell tickets at the MLB level, I don't think we'll be a good franchise for a long time. If Attanasio truly believes that prospects are trade chips, then I don't think we'll ever have a good farm, and therefore will never have a system in place to be continually good. Finally, as to the "notoriously cheap owner who enjoys filling his bank accounts with healthy profits," that's why it's tough to run a strategy that is proven to work for small market teams. Owners who implement this strategy get panned by the media and fans as "notoriously cheap," while owners like Attanasio who try to run a small-market team like a big market team are praised by the media and loved by the fans, who choose to point fingers at everyone but him when the MLB team continues to fail and the system is devoid of talent.