monty57

I hate the "Long Man" role in the bullpen, as I'd rather just have a couple of middle relievers who could go 2-3 innings when needed, while letting the "#6 starter" start at AAA to remain stretched out. However, if we have to have one, I'd much rather it be an older guy without much upside. Therefore, I wouldn't mind seeing Narveson in the "Long Man" role, but I'd hate to see them stick Rogers, Estrada or Peralta there. If Narveson is healthy and in the rotation, I would like it to mean that either Peralta or Fiers was going back to AAA. If I had to guess right now, I'd guess that Melvin wants a lefty in the rotation, and doesn't want three lefties in the bullpen. That gives Narveson a bit of an edge, as does his "veteran presence." I don't want it to happen, but my guess is that we open the season with Gallardo, Fiers, Narveson, Peralta, Rogers/Estrada with the "loser" of the Estrada/Rogers being dumped into the "Long Man" role. Edit: This of course assumes that Narveson is healthy for Spring Training/Opening Day. It may actually work out well if Narveson needs to start the season in "extended Spring Training" or on a Minor League rehab, giving the team an extra month or so to see how everything is panning out before deciding where Narveson fits in.

Colin Kaepernick giving the Brewers some love in his ESPN interview. This probably will showcase me as the most out of touch poster on this board, but I didn't even know that he was from Milwaukee.

Re: Seattle trading for Gallardo It would be akin to Melvin trading for Marcum and Greinke to take advantage of when the Brewers had Fielder/Braun. Like Toronto trading away Marcum (their opening day starter the previous season), the Brewers could have enough young arms to allow for them to trade away Gallardo after the 2013 season. It would take a really good return to get the Brewers to trade him, but look what Seattle was willing to give up for Upton. GMs/owners get greedy if they think they have a shot at a title, so it's plausible. However, Melvin doesn't seem capable of trading away a good player, even if in-house options are available, until the team is 10+ games back at the deadline and the player is going to walk in free agency. In my opinion, Melvin would be more likely to move starting pitchers to the bullpen, keep MLB-ready guys in AAA or trade away "lesser" starters like Estrada or Fiers then he is to trade away Gallardo with two years of control left.

If Seattle is trading away Felix Hernandez, then they are going to want a huge pile of elite young talent, and there are lots of teams that would be much better trading partners for Felix Hernandez then the Brewers. I don't know when the new lists come out, but going into 2012, Baseball America had the Brewers' farm ranked # 26, and Baseball Prospectus had it ranked #28. While things have changed over the past season, I'd have to guess that we're still in the bottom half. There are plenty of teams with more young talent to offer. Throw in that our farm's biggest strength is in pitching, but none of our young pitchers are nearly as highly touted as Seattle's crop of young pitching, and I really don't see a match. However, Hart may interest Seattle if we were looking for prospects. Aoki may also draw interest from Seattle, as he's very affordable for the next two seasons, and would cater to Seattle's Japanese fan base. I'm not looking to trade Aoki, but I would certainly do it for the right price. As to the original poster's thought of looking into the crystal ball a year into the future to potentially trade Gallardo to Seattle so that Seattle could have a 1-2 of Hernandez/Gallardo, a lot would have to happen over the next year. I don't see it being likely, but I see it more feasible from the Brewers' standpoint than from the Mariners'. If the Brewers' young pitching progresses, they will eventually be in a position where they'll have "too much" pitching, so trading guys away will be necessary. I don't know if we'll be there by 2014, but it'd be nice if we were. If they could land some of Seattle's top prospects for Gallardo, I'd probably be pretty happy with that deal. Seattle probably won't be ready to go "all in" going into next year, but they'll be more ready on the pitching side of things than they will on the hitting side of things, so if by some chance they were going all-in, they'd be more likely to trade for a hitter than a pitcher. Honestly, I'm beginning to think it unlikely Melvin will ever again trade away a good player until they only have a couple of months on their contract, so realistically, I'd say the odds of Gallardo and Hernandez being a 1-2 punch for the Mariners or the Brewers are somewhere around 0%.

I doubt Hart is traded, as holding onto him is the safest move. I just personally think it makes a lot of sense to trade him now, assuming you could get something good for a year of Hart plus the ability to make a QO. I don't think we'll get much for 1/2 a year of Hart without the ability to make a QO, so if we go into the season with him, I'd probably prefer we hold him all season and make the QO at the end of the year (assuming we could afford him if he accepts). Of course we'd test the market on him mid-season if we're out of it, I just don't think we'll get much... the ability to make a QO is looking pretty valueable. It's what's keeping Lohse, Bourn and Soriano unsigned, and what caused LaRoche to sign a team-friendly deal (less than the QO would've paid him) with the Nats.

The MLBtraderumors write-up did say that Wilson is one of the few on the list who has drawn quite a bit of interest, so I'd expect he'll get a decent payday. Soriano (Boras agent) would cost a draft pick, so that's limiting interest in him. The rest just don't seem to be drawing interest. Sounds like a lot of GMs aren't willing to put a lot of money into a RH reliever, so they're waiting for the price tags to come down as Spring Training approaches.

Well, he'll be 37 in April and hasn't really pitched since 2007 (one game in 2009 in which he got injured). If this is indeed true, I'll just have to believe that Melvin and company did their due diligence. Escobar was a good pitcher "back in the day."

MLBTradeRumors.com has a list of RH relievers available. Says there isn't much demand out there. It still lists the Brewers as having showed interest in Farnsworth, Rauch and Mark Lowe. It also highlights Soriano, Valverde, Brain Wilson, K-Rod, Lyon, Capps and Durbin. If the Brewers feel that they need to add a RH reliever, it looks like they could add one at a decent price.

Totally irrelevant. Prince and Rickie grew up together and are great friends. Maybe...but Prince didn't take a below market contract to stay in Milwaukee like Braun did. I agree that it is exceptionally unlikely that Melvin would think this way but it could play a factor in keeping Braun happy. Like I said, it was just a thought. Any friendships Hart has may be a reason he would accept a below-market deal to stay with the Brewers. Any friendships Braun has should not be a reason Melvin signs, trades for, extends or drafts anyone.

Absolutely. I think they should either trade him this offseason or hold him and make the QO. It's possible someone gives us something good mid-season, but I just don't think Hart is good enough that someone would give us better then what we could get from the QO. If Melvin does not want to make the QO to Hart, then I think we need to trade him now.

Anything that allows teams to have more guys on short term deals is good for the game in my opinion. K-Rod had a miserable year last year that the Brewers didn't see coming but because he accepted an inflated one year arby deal, at least he's off the books now and doesn't affect future Brewer teams. Had they instead signed a guy on a 3 year deal to replace him or given him a 3 year deal and then he or his replacement failed, it would have affect their future. That's why I like it for the Brewers when it comes to a guy like Hart. Assuming Hart has a good season and assuming the Brewers can afford another $14MM (or so) contract in 2014, at the end of this season, they can offer Hart the QO. He may look at the LaRoche/Lohse situations and decide to accept, in which case the Brewers got Hart on a one-year deal rather than having to extend him to a riskier multi-year deal. They could continue this until they felt Hart wasn't worth the QO amount. Hart could always turn down the QO, but he's taking the risk that a team is willing to give up a first rounder for him. If he turns down the QO, then the Brewers either get a high draft pick if someone signs him, or they end up with all the leverage in dealing with Hart on a new contract if no one signs him. Of course, the Brewers would have to be willing and able to pay the player the QO. With the current obligations due in 2014, they may not want to pay Hart $14MM. If that's the case, then they should look to trade him now, as the team they'd trade him to would be able to offer the QO to keep Hart around for a few seasons (or get a draft pick), so Hart's value will never again be as high for the Brewers as it is right now. Note that I said "I like it for the Brewers when it comes to Hart." I don't generally like rules which specifically screw over a small group of people, and I don't like Hart getting what he would feel to be the "short end of the stick." However, that's the rule these guys signed on to, so the Brewers should do what they feel is in their best interest given the rules as they are set. That to me looks like either trading Hart right now, or holding him to the end of the season and offering the QO. That being unless some team offers far more than I expect them to in a mid-season trade. Now for a guy like Gomez, I don't see how he would be worth $14MM to the Brewers in 2014, even on a one-year deal. If he's offered the QO, I would have to imagine that he'd take it, and that could be disasterous for the Brewers. If they could get a good deal for him now, they should absolutely trade him and let Schafer play.

Unfortunately, if you see this sign: $ anywhere in reference to baseball, the Brewers usually aren't going to be able to do some things the bigger money teams can. The one exception I can think of is in revenue sharing, where the small markets make out better than the big markets.

Not necessarily because you also lose how much you can spend in the draft also. The Indians will actually have a lower amount that they can spend on the draft than the Brewers will with the loss of that 2nd round pick. The Yankees will have a higher pool of funds to spend also. I have seen a few articles talking about the downside of less money in the signing pool. But, unless you want to overpay the slot for a player that has college options to make sure you get him, I don't see the big deal. Yes, you have less money to spend on your draft picks, but you also have one less higher level draft pick to actually sign. Am I missing something else? That's pretty much the way I look at it, but I'm not an expert on the draft. If you don't have a 2nd or 3rd round pick, you don't have to sign them. You can still not sign your 6th round guy and use "his money" to overpay the 1st rounder if you feel the need.

It's pretty obvious that starting in 2014 the Brewers are going to have a good solid increase in revenue coming in from a couple different places (New TV contract & MLB's new 12.4 billion deal) 13 million of that they I believe they will see as soon as this year, or whenever it takes effect. We are talking about minimum of 20+ million of additional revenue, so the Brewers in 2014 can clearly push the payroll beyond 100 million, likely to somewhere around $110-115 million and be fine. That's a reasonable assumption at this time. You are correct that there will be additional revenues. It's assumed to be around $9MM for their new TV deal plus their share of the national revenue. However, I don't know that "$100-115 million and be fine" is necessarily a reasonable assumption (and it's a pretty broad range). They pushed the payroll to around $100MM last year, and were around $10MM over budget in an "all-in" year, so their baseline "all-in" budget (pre-new TV deals) is around $90MM, with around $80MM as the "non-all-in" payroll budget. Now let's assume they get $20MM in new revenue from the TV deals. Not all of that can or will go to the payroll budget. What if the vendors demand a pay raise, or some other variable cost goes up? What if the owners deciede they want to keep 5-10% of the additional revenue for themselves? It is reasonable to believe that there is the possibility and even probability of an increased payroll going forward, but I think your projections may be a bit high. I'd think a baseline of $90-95MM is probably a reasonable amount, with the "all in" budget around $100-105. That doesn't mean that they couldn't do what they did last year and go well over budget, but the owners might be a bit gunshy after what happened last year. But then we should look at another angle. Just because the revenue is there, do we have to spend it all every year? As Americans, we seem to have been groomed to expect that if there is money (or even if there isn't) we need to spend it. Personally, I'd rather spend $500k on a guy with "x" talent level then spend $10MM on a guy with the same talent level, even if I have the $10MM to spend. Of course the Brewers will need to spend eight figures on some players, but I prefer a strategy that looks to add as many good, young, inexpensive (and non-guaranteed) players as possible, so the number of guys we need to guarantee tens of millions to is limited to the elite talent. This may mean that in some years our payroll is well below what it could be. I'm happy with that as long as we have a talented team with a lot of good pre-arby guys. That allows a lot of flexibility to do all kinds of things you can't do when you're contractually obligated to huge payments over multiple years which eat up most of your budget.

As to the effect on trades, we'll have to see. Remember that if the Brewers trade Hart prior to the end of this offseason, the receiving team would be able to offer the QO. My post above is purely speculation, but if it proves true, wouldn't that make Hart a really valueable trading chip right now, as the receiving team could have him for years, or at the very least get a high draft pick for him. As to the QO offer going up, I believe it's the average of the top 200 (?) or so salaries in baseball, so that should mean that it's structured so that it won't increase at a greater rate than the rest of "baseball inflation." So yes, the nominal price tag will go up, but the real price tag will pretty much stay the same. I don't know that it will be good or bad for baseball. It's probably good for some teams and bad for some players. It'd just be the "Law of Unintended Consequences" working out. Most regulations/rules end up having a lot of effects that weren't the original intent of the regulation. The entire thought of a group coming together for a "collective bargaining agreement" which, once in place stays in place for a set number of years, while the actual players who are directly effected aren't sitting at the table, seems to be a pretty bad way to run a business, as there are always going to be bad rules (or at least consequences) that you're stuck with. In this case, if a rule hurts a subset of players, the effected players have no recompense until the current CBA runs out, and then they just have to hope that their concerns are deemed worthy of recognition. If the teams like it they'd demand a lot in return for giving it up, so if the union isn't losing much money, they very well could let guys like LaRoche and Lohse hang out to dry. Something that came to my attention after making my earlier post (and after reading a post by Mass Haas in a different thread) is that the QO rule could allow teams with "protected" first round picks or teams which have already given up their first rounder on an elite FA to make out like bandits with this rule. Let's use the Dodgers for example. They just signed Greinke and were fine with losing their first rounder to sign him to a long-term deal. Now they could look at the "second tier" QO guys. Other teams would need to give up a first rounder, so they aren't bidding on the "second tier" guys, but the Dodogers would only lose a second rounder, so they may be the only team bidding. Therefore, they could get their elite guy on a market deal, and get a "second tier" guy on a steal of a contract, just because no one else wanted to bid on him. Heck, they could sign another "second tier" guy on a steal of a contract and only give up a 3rd rounder. They'd lose a 1st & 2nd round pick, but that doesn't matter nearly as much to the Dodgers as it does to a team like the Brewers, especially if they now have two players (one "elite," one "good") signed long-term.

That's an interesting scenario, Mass Haas. It also means that good-but-not-great players could be more likely to be signed by teams that have already picked up a better free agent. In your scenario, Cleveland could just sign Lohse to start for them, and they'd only give up a 3rd round pick for him as opposed to the 1st rounder most other teams would lose. This may benefit big-money teams who are more likely to sign multiple big-money free agents in the same offseason.

It will be interesting to see how the qualifying offer rule plays out. Teams seem unwilling to give up a 1st rounder for anything but top talent. That has now affected at least LaRoche and Lohse, and will probably mean that going forward more players will accept the QO. As is evidenced with LaRoche, if no one is willing to give up a draft pick for you, you can only negotiate with the team that made the QO, and that leaves you with very little leverege. Going forward, I could see it as a way for teams to extract extra seasons out of good-but-not-great players in the future. Why sign Hart to a 2-3 year extension when we can just make the qualifying offer year-after-year and he will pretty much have to accept or be forced to sign a lowball offer to the only team who will sign him? We'd essentially get him for the rest of his career (or at least as long as he's worth the QO bid) on one-year contracts. The risk is mitigated by the fact that if he doesn't accept the QO, either a team signs him and we get a high draft pick, or no one signs him (unwilling to give up the draft pick) and he either has to sign with the Brewers or leave the MLB. That would also apply to anyone we'd trade him to this offseason, but will only be available to the Brewers after this season begins. I originally saw the new QO rule as a big win for the union, but it could end up being a big win for teams, and something the union will fight to get changed in the next CBA.

Doubtful. Lohse turned down the QO. And I don't think the Cardinals plan on signing another free agent starter as I they have multiple young guys that will compete for the spot. I suppose if he gets cheap enough..... If they're the only demand, the price would be pretty low. The question becomes "If his price tag becomes low enough, would a team be willing to give up a first round pick for him?" If the answer to that is "No," then St Louis is really the only team that would/could sign him, even if it meant coming back at veteran minimum wage for a season. That or he could pitch in indy ball or overseas. It's kind of a catch-22. No one wants to sign him for a long-term deal because of the risks he carries (age and potential to regress), but no one wants to give up a 1st rounder for one year of Lohse. Now that he's a free agent, I don't even think he could get the Cards to sign him and then trade him to another team, as the rules don't allow a team to trade a FA immediately after signing him. He's probably kicking himself right now for not taking the QO, and if he does go back to the Cards for a year, I'm sure he'll tell them that he fully plans on accepting the QO if offered next year. While Lohse is getting hosed on this deal, it would work out well for the Cards, who could get him cheap, pitch him for a couple of months, saving service time on the young guys, and then flip the inexpensive Lohse at the deadline while calling up a prospect.

Will never happen. I know. Neither will Hart for Felix Hernandez. As you know, I'm all for trading Hart if we can get a good return, but he's not nearly enough to bring Hernandez back. Plus, we're woefully poor in position prospects to sweeten the deal, and none of our pitching prospects would be close to as good as the pitching prospects they already have, so I don't see a fit. However, if Melvin can get Jack Z to drink enough Molson's that he'll sign a Hernandez-for-Hart deal, then I'm all for it. I just think Melvin would have to add an "I'll hire you back when the Mariners fire you" clause in the contract.

Yes. The one guy. So if the Angels call and offer Trout, or the Nationals call and offer Harper or Strasburg, you're not making the deal? I think you have way, way too high of expectations for Mr Hart. As to the topic at hand, as others have said, we need to see what happens this year with Gallardo and our other pitchers as to what the future holds. I hope we'll be able to start cycling our pitchers up through the system. I'd expect that at this time next year, we will have "too many" starting pitchers, and if Estrada has a 2013 season in line with how he's pitched so far as a starter, we'll look to trade him. I hope we don't have to extend Gallardo. I hope that when the time comes we will be in a position that we can trade him without destroying the team. The best way for that to happen will be for our farm to produce good pitching.

Lohse rightly has yet to receive an offer this winter! I was going to respond to an above statement on Vazquez giving you just as likely a chance of pitching above 4.5 to under 4.0. Well Lohse for his career has only 3 seasons out of 12 where he's been an under 4era pitcher. And 5 have been 5 or above! I think my opinion that Lohse will re-sign with Stl is going to turn true. I just wonder if Stl's offer reaches 10mil or more now. What's happening with Lohse could be good for QO'd teams down the road in the player accepting it. No one is going to give up a 1st rounder for Lohse and still pay him what he wants, so the odds of him returning to St Louis have to be pretty high. Other players will see this, and teams are going to have to be very careful about making qualifying offers in the future, as most "marginal" players (good players who teams may not give up a 1st rounder for) will accept. Therefore teams will only make the offer if they are absolutely certain they want the player back for an expensive one-year deal. There are going to be a lot less "sandwich" picks in the future.

I would think something really whacky would have to be going on for him to get the call with three righties coming up in the inning. But then again, Roenicke is the guy who named Loe the "8th inning guy" when he should never have faced lefties. Most managers seem pretty cognizant of putting LHP vs RHB whenever possible. As to Rogers, I really hope they give him a chance in the starting rotation. I understand that he may eventually end up in the bullpen, but his ceiling is still a top-of-the-rotation starter, so if he can stick as a starter, he would be far more valueable to the Brewers than if he is relegated to the bullpen. I'd be pretty upset if they sign a "proven" vet with an 88 MPH fastball and he bumps Rogers to the pen. I think Estrada should remain a starter as well, so if they sign a vet who ends up in the rotation, I hope either Fiers or Peralta starts the year in the AAA rotation because they have options and Rogers does not.

I'd speak with Hart and get a list of teams that make sense as a trading partner and with which he would be willing to sign an extension. Then I would target those teams for trade. If Hart is willing to work an extension, then we would be able to ask for a lot more in return. - Hart would feel that the Brewers were good to him in allowing him to be a part of things (not just shipping him off somewhere he doesn't want to go), and he could get the "certainty" he seems to want by going somewhere he'd be extended for potentially the remainder of his career. - The Brewers get more in return in trade. - The team trading for Hart gets to lock him in long-term, locking in a middle-of-the-order bat for 3-5 years instead of one. They'd essentially have the deal in place prior to the trade, giving them "exclusive rights," something they couldn't get if pursuing a free agent.

I've always liked Vazquez as well. Throws a lot of innings and strikes guys out. It'll be interesting to see what type of interest he draws and what type of contract he signs. Assuming he's healthy, I'd take him on a low-base, incentive-laden contract. Off of Reilly's list, Karstens has already been discussed, and seems like he could be a decent fit. Marcum's been discussed a lot, but if he's still there in a month or so, he may be signable on a one-year deal. I don't think I'd pay any of the other guys what they'd ask just to knock Fiers or Peralta out of the rotation.

One of the gurus on this board corrected me once when I commented on Harts no-trade provision. I believe he stated that the provision was only for a year or two, and that it's now gone. I may be wrong.