monty57

Is there a group that specifically wants an "all in house rotation?" I don't want us to sign a multi-year deal for a pitcher that we'll regret in a couple of years, and that same logic would apply to signing Hamilton to a long-term / $20+MM-a-year deal. Just like I'd be fine with signing a top-of-the-rotation starter to a 2-3 year deal, I'd be fine with signing Hamilton to a shorter-term deal. Just like I wouldn't sign a big, multi-year deal to a CF who is no better than Gomez/Schafer, I do not want to sign a big, multi-year deal to a SP who is no better than the "in-house" guys we already have. Getting a significant upgrade at a position is great, and that's the only reason you'd sign a player to a position where you already have "MLB caliber" players. We have CF covered, but Hamilton is a big enough upgrade where you'd consider signing him for the right price. We have SP covered, but if we can get a significant upgrade at the right price we should look at upgrading. In neither case should we sign a veteran just because we have some money to spend and it'll look to the fans like the front office is trying. Not that that's what you're advocating, but some seem to think we need to get a veteran pitcher "just because." From my perspective there are a large number of posters on this site who would prefer Melvin to do nothing this winter so a couple of pitchers with a mid 4 ERA in AAA along with a journeyman who was dumped by the Nationals can be given every rotation spot behind Gallardo. There seems to be a large number of Brewer fans who were upset by our late season surge because it prevented an all our rebuild like they desperately wanted. ...and after reading my post, is that still your perception of my reality? I desparately wanted Melvin to trade Greinke when the ship was sinking, and am very glad that he did, as it shored up a big hole at SS for the next six years and added some hig-upside talent to our stable of young pitchers. During the late-season surge, I later said it could be a perfect scenario where they got a good return for Greinke and still made the playoffs. While the Brewers were hemming and hawing about trading Greinke, some posters wanted the Brewers to lose a few games so that Melvin would pull the trigger on the trade, but I don't believe anyone wanted the Brewers to lose after the Greinke trade was made. I am a fan of free agency, as players shouldn't be forced forever to play under the control of one team, but I hate the fact that free agency means the Brewers can lose good players for nothing. Therefore, I'm an advocate of at least testing the market on any player who is entering their final year of "team control," and why I dislike trading away talented young players with 6 years of control for players with a year or two remaining on their contract. That may be perceived by those who don't read through entire threads/posts as a desire to "trade everyone," but I definitely don't want to blow the team up or "fire sale." In fact, I try to look for a methodology which would lead to us never having to go through a "fire sale." Teams which have to have "fire sales" are in the situation because they get themselves into too many expensive, long-term deals which destroys their financial flexibility. Trading (rather than extending) Greinke and bringing back a long-term inexpensive answer at SS, along with allowing the young pitchers to prove they're "MLB Caliber" has gotten me excited at the prospect of having a lot of good, young, inexpensive talent filling in the holes around the higher-priced vets we have on the roster. It was the "couple of pitchers with a mid 4 ERA in AAA along with a journeyman who was dumped by the Nationals" who turned the ship around and almost got us to the playoffs. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at upgrading, but it certainly doesn't mean that they're all worthless and should be blocked at any cost by any veteran FA we can find. Peralta (one of those "mid 4 ERA in AAA" guys) is the Brewers top prospect, and will almost certainly be in most "Top 100" prospect lists. Rogers obviously has loads of talent, and we lose him if he's not on the roster. Estrada, the "journeyman who was dumped by the Nationals," has 30 starts for the Brewers, with a 3.76 ERAs, 1.15 WHIP and 133 K in 129.1 IP in 2012 and a 3.70 ERA, 1.09 WHIP and 33 K in 41.1 IP as a starter in 2011. That said, I have certainly acknowledged that starting four inexexperienced guys behind Gallardo would have a lot of risk. However, there's also a lot of risk in making a trade or signing a free agent. I just like to look at things like cost vs value, as opposed to those who argue a point either with a snide remark against a strawman or with something like "it's not my money," or "we need a veteran." Everything has a cost, and everything has a value. When making any decision in life, always weigh the cost vs the value. If you do this, you may miss out every now and then, but you will almost never be the big loser.

Is there a group that specifically wants an "all in house rotation?" I don't want us to sign a multi-year deal for a pitcher that we'll regret in a couple of years, and that same logic would apply to signing Hamilton to a long-term / $20+MM-a-year deal. Just like I'd be fine with signing a top-of-the-rotation starter to a 2-3 year deal, I'd be fine with signing Hamilton to a shorter-term deal. Just like I wouldn't sign a big, multi-year deal to a CF who is no better than Gomez/Schafer, I do not want to sign a big, multi-year deal to a SP who is no better than the "in-house" guys we already have. Getting a significant upgrade at a position is great, and that's the only reason you'd sign a player to a position where you already have "MLB caliber" players. We have CF covered, but Hamilton is a big enough upgrade where you'd consider signing him for the right price. We have SP covered, but if we can get a significant upgrade at the right price we should look at upgrading. In neither case should we sign a veteran just because we have some money to spend and it'll look to the fans like the front office is trying. Not that that's what you're advocating, but some seem to think we need to get a veteran pitcher "just because."

IIRC from back when we were discussing whether we should trade Greinke or take "the picks," the team which signs the player still gives up the same picks they always did, but the team losing the player no longer gets the 1st round pick - it simply goes away - and the team only gets the comp round pick. Once the board found that out, more people jumped on board the "trade Greinke" wagon. Therefore, if the Brewers sign a "Qualifying offer" player, they would lose their 1st round pick (there's no longer "Type A," "Type B," etc) and the player's previous team would get a comp round pick. With the 17th overall pick, I would guess that it would have to be a very special player for Melvin to give up his draft pick. Lohse and Jackson probably don't fit in that category, and I agree with nate82 that if the Cardinals make a qualifying offer to Lohse, he will probably be a Cardinal next year. But remember, players who did not finish the season with the team on which they started the season cannot be offered the Qualifying Offer, so we could still make a run at someone like Greinke without having to give up a pick.

If we could get a Bud Norris-type starter without giving up any of our talented prospects, then I'm all for it. I don't see that happening because three years of a proven middle-of-the-rotation guy like Norris should cost more than a couple of months of a proven top-of-the-rotation guy like Greinke. That means we'd give up multiple "unproven but talented" guys to land him, so Houston would probably require some package that would contain at least one of Peralta, Rogers, Thornburg group plus something from the near-MLB-ready group (Jungmann, Nelson, etc). "Proven" costs a lot. "Proven with three years of inexpensive control" costs even more. Picking up someone like Norris, a proven #3 starter who could add some certainty to our coming rotations would mean giving up two or three guys who would not be too far away from being a part of our rotation, or at least the bullpen for 6+ years.

He {Olney} said the Brewers could be frontrunners if another team doesn't overpay for Hamilton's services Sounds like some top-notch journalism... the Brewers may not make much of an offer at Hamilton, but if they happen to end up being the highest bidders then there's a chance Hamilton could go there. In other news, if one candidate gets more than 270 electoral votes in next month's election, he could be the frontrunner at being President for the next four years. Good old ESPN... if there's no news, make some.

If the Giants wanted to free up the money and would give him to us if we simply pay the $22MM for one-year, I'd probably get behind it since we'd only be on the hook for one year. I may even throw in the perceived value of the 2nd round pick we may get at the end of the season if we offered him the qualifying offer. Any more than that, no thanks. If a team is going to buy his name, and offer the Giants some young talent for him, I hope that team is not the Brewers. The Brewers would do a lot more damage to their future by giving up young pitching talent than they would receive in value even if Lincecum bounced back and had a good season next year.

So we should trade away several of our MLB-ready starting pitchers for a "proven" middle-of-the-rotation starter like Norris and put two others in the bullpen... no thanks I agree that the odds are that we would be better next year if we forget about the future and focus all of our attention on getting the best, "proven" talent available, regardless of cost. However, I don't agree that this would be the best road to take when considering more than next year. Estrada has been a starting pitcher for the Brewers for two years. How long until he's no longer considered an "unproven prospect?" Fiers cannot be considered young, and he pitched for the Brewers for half of this season and never looked overwhelmed, although he seemed to tire late in the year. I'm not sure, but I doubt he's considered a rookie anymore. Of course there is risk to putting "unproven" guys out there, but there is also risk to putting "proven" guys out there. History is riddled with "proven" guys who fail. We are finally getting to a position where we will soon have "too much" young starting pitching. We're not there yet, but should be there in a year or two. If and when we get to that point, we will be able to name our suitor and bring back loads of talent in trade. That opportunity is the cost of trading away the young guys now to try to open the window a little bit more for next year. I'd rather not take that risk. As I said earlier, if we don't want to go into the season with so much inexperience in the starting rotation, I'm sure we could find a vet on a one-year deal, or we could find a team with an overpaid starter they'd like to salary dump. We could afford to add on salary for one-year if it means we get the player for little to nothing in terms of players we'd have to give up. That may not "move the needle" next year as much as giving up the farm for a better pitcher, but we'd still have all of our prospects for future Brewer teams.

They hired him to appeal to the Hispanic audience of Miami, and he quickly destroyed that appeal with his comments on Fidel Castro. I'm sure they wanted to fire him then, but they let him ride out the season. Now the big question is whether anyone else will take the risk of hiring him on as a manager.

In the playoffs though, they have had some amazingly timely hitting. As a team in the NLDS against the Reds, they hit .194 and won. In the NLCS, the Giants had 3 of the 8 regulars (Scutaro, Sandoval & Belt) have really good series (.500, .310 & .304 respectively). The other 5 hit .242 and lower, with their #4 & #5 hitters (Posey and Pence) hitting .154 & .179. They just find a way to win. The Cardinals did a good job of (literally) throwing away their chances with errors. That helps a team win a series while not hitting all that well. Kind of like how the Brewers fell apart defensively last year, costing them the series against the Cards.

After being really disappointed at the outcome of the last round of the playoffs, I'm really happy with the outcome of this round of playoffs. If I can't cheer for the Brewers in a playoff series, then my next "favorite team" is usually whoever is playing the Yankees and the Cardinals. Seeing them both getting knocked out is nice.

Rogers' biggest issue right now is that he's out of options. We either have to put him in the 2013 rotation, the 2013 bullpen, or trade him. If the Brewers' brass feels that his value in trade is greater than his value as a member of the 2013 team, then they should probably look at what they could get in trade. However, the injury issue you mention will certainly lower his value on the trade market. I think he could help the 2013 Brewers, and while the injury risk is always going to be there, it's only a $500k risk at this point as he's pre-arby. I'd like to see if he can cut it as our 5th starter going into 2013. If we sign or trade for a veteran, it will probably mean Rogers becomes a middle reliever. This is one of my big issues with the thought of bringing in a veteran "because we have to." If we bring in someone like Greinke then maybe it's worth it, but after all the time, effort and money the Brewers have spent on Rogers, I'd hate to relegate him to a middle reliever role so we can get a couple of seasons from a 30-something-year-old non-ace.

Having money doesn't mean you should spend it foolishly. Well put. Also add "...and having prospects doesn't mean we have to trade them" and we have a good starting point. I know everyone is excited about the final months of the season and want to see us do whatever we can to make the team better for next year. There is certainly reason to be optimistic about next year's team. I just caution that any moves need to be gone over with the proverbial "fine tooth comb." As you mentioned that free agent deals can be "recipes for disaster," so can trades, whether it be trading prospects for veterans or trading veterans for prospects. I personally think the biggest positive to come out of this season was that when we failed with the veterans, the inexperienced guys got a shot and made the most of it. Maybe it's coincidence, but this team gelled once we traded guys and let our "young" players shine. I'm not overly enthused about signing players simply to block some of the guys who turned our team around this year. If we feel that we need to add a veteran arm, I still like the option of signing a one-year deal to someone who is trying to rebuild his value. This is a low-risk scenarion with decent upside potential. Another option if innings counts are an issue is simply to save the money in reserve and pick up another team's "salary dump" pitcher mid-season if we are in the race. Again, low risk as the money's only spent if we need the bump mid-season. Heck, we could even look for a "salary dump" candidate this offseason, as long as it's only a one-year committment. I just don't want to get stuck into big-money long-term. In that same light, I don't like the concept of signing a mid-tier guy to a multi-year deal. We have plenty of guys who are either MLB-ready or near-MLB-ready that will fit into the middle of the rotation for $500k, so there's no reason to bring in someone making seven or eight figures who is simply blocking the similarly-talented pre-arby guys. I also don't like the thought of making another "multiple-prospects-for-two-years-of-a-veteran" deal. We are in a position to field a young, inexpensive, homemade rotation with a continuous stream of young talent on the horizon. We are realistically in a position that in the not-too-distant future we could deal from a position of strength by having an excess of young, talented starting pitching. In the baseball world, that's like being able to print money. I think trading them now would put us on the wrong side of the trade. We should wait until they're knocking down the door and then see what we could get by trading Gallardo, Fiers, etc and replacing them with the guys from the minors. Why trade our top prospects for Shields now when in a yaer or two we can be the ones in the Rays' position, demanding someone else's top prospects for our guys?

Five starts is about 15.6% of a starting pitcher's projected workload. That's roughly the equivalent of asking an everyday player to sit out around 25 games. First, it hurts the team, as you would presumably sign a free agent who is better than the guy he's replacing, so you would limit starts by better pitchers to add starts by worse pitchers. The 25 or so starts going to the 6th guy are directly taken away from the five better pitchers (Gallardo, Fiers, the free agent, etc). Second, the players want to play and they want to put up numbers. Braun would have a hard time shooting for the MVP if you asked him to sit the bench for 25 games, and a starting pitcher would have a hard time posting 20 wins or notching 200 k's if you only let him start 25 times in a season. The fact that we have "extra" pitchers is why I'm a bit confused that so many are saying we absolutely need to acquire a veteran starter for the rotation. However, if we do acquire a veteran starting pitcher (without giving up one of our other MLB starters) then I really hope he is expected to pitch every fifth day.

In my humble opinion, the biggest problem with the Brewers recent bullpens is roster inflexibility. It seems our pen is always full of guys out of options, so we never have guys who can bounce between the majors and the minors. This means that if someone's having a rough stretch, we have to stick with him or risk burning out the rest of the bullpen if we give the struggling guy a couple of days off. Also, if we have a few games in a row where the 'pen has to carry a big workload, we can't bring in a fresh arm to help out. This year was exceptionally bad, as it seemed everyone in the pen forgot how to pitch for extended periods, so I don't know what would have been the answer. Going into next season, I hope we have some middle relief spots filled with guys with options. If we offer arby to some of the guys from this year and sign free agents for the other roles, we will once again go in without flexibility, and I'd guess that will lead to periods where we're all very nervous whenever it's time to call in a reliever.

I wouldn't go the trade route because it's a LOT easier to recover from overspending than it is to recover from giving up young prospects. That's an interesting philosophical debte topic, but it could get circular, which I think you illustrated in your next paragraph. If you don't give up good, young prospects, then pretty soon you'll find that you no longer have to overspend. The big question going into next year is do we have to do either (trade for a pitcher or get a pitcher in free agency). The "win now" mentality we've grown accustomed to says we will do one of the above, and in that case I would agree with your premise that signing a free agent to a 2-3 year deal would hurt us less than giving up prospects for someone with 2-3 years left on their contract. However, there's a good case for the arguement that we don't have to do either. We could go into the 2013 season with the pitchers that nearly brought us out of the gutter and into the playoffs this season. That wouldn't be sexy, and some fans might complain that the Brewers aren't trying to win, but we certainly have at least five guys who have proven themselves to be MLB-ready starting pitchers. Or, instead of trading away prospects, we could trade MLB players who are nearing free agency and for whom we have in-house replacements for good, young, less "proven" players at positions of need (SP in this case). That would certainly upset the "win now" theorists, but would get us both younger and cheaper and fill the perceived need amongst some that we need SP help going into next year.

I generally dislike the "long man" role. I'd much rather have a few guys in the 'pen who can go multiple innings instead of one guy who only pitches when the starter gets hurt or gives up a lot of runs early. That said, if you choose to go with the "long man," I'd rather it be someone like Hernandez than someone with talent who is being wasted in the role. For instance, I don't want Rogers to be slated to the "long man" role next year.

My 6-year-old is cheering for Detroit because of Prince and Verlander, so I guess I'll go with that. Otherwise, I wouldn't normally root for a team who's city police had to warn the fans to enter the city at their own risk. The options are the Yankees and Cardinals who are two of my top four least favorite teams, and San Francisco, who is by default my runner up, but who I normally root against. I would definitely rather cheer for Cincy, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington or Texas than any of the teams still in it. It could be worse... it could be St Louis vs the Cubs and the Yankees vs the Red Sox.

"Think of it as making up for being underpaid during the arby years". If I'm an employer, I want to pay you what you are worth to me right now. I don't want to pay you based on your numbers from a year ago because there is this feeling that we need to "make it up to you". I think what Logan was saying is that compared to other sports, baseball players in their first three years are paid a pittance, so naturally the arbitration years are going to give players a raise. If the team doesn't think the player is worth the raise, they simply don't offer arbitration, allowing the player to find a job on the open market. Most jobs don't draft employees and hold them with "team control," disallowing them from finding work with a competitor. Star free agent players make a lot of money, but I'd guess that the average baseball player makes far less in his career than the average player in other sports, largely due to the pre-arby/arby system.

I don't care if they add a LF bat or not. I hope they keep our LF bat as is :-) I'm not big on signing long-term expensive deals to players over 30, especially ones with injury history, so I hope they stay away from Hamilton. It would very likely be one of those deals that feels really good early on, but by the end of the contract you're really sorry you signed it.

Braun is also in the class of players that you really can't put a trade value on. You'd almost need a Herschel Walker-type trade to make it worth it for the Brewers to trade him, and no team is going to be willing to do that. Gallardo is good, but nowhere close to Braun's league. He could get a lot in trade, but he's not going to end up in the Hall of Fame. I don't think it's time to trade Gallardo, because we don't have five other pitchers to push him to the trade block. Assuming we don't "gut the farm" to acquire another two-year rental, we might have enough young, cheap talent to allow us to trade Gallardo, but we're not there yet. It will be great if we can get in a position where we trade someone like Gallardo because we have an excess of good, young, inexpensive, team-controlled pitching. Imagine the return we'd get, and how that could shore up other holes and add to the MLB ready depth. If we don't make a "win now" trade this offseason, we could be in this position within a year or two.

Had we not had the late season upswing, I think we would have seen some "radical" (for Melvin) moves, like trading away Hart prior to losing him to free agency, and letting some moderately unproven players fill important roles. The late season upswing makes it "safe" for Melvin to stick with what he's done the last few years. Thankfully, we were able to trade away Greinke to find a long-term solution to our biggest gaping hole and strengthen our pitching depth. I don't think we need to do much, but here's my guess at the offseason: SP: We should probably just go with what we've got, since the "young" guys proved that they belong in the majors. I doubt Melvin will do this, as he will feel we need another "proven" arm. With this in mind, I hope he signs someone with talent who needs to rebuild his value on a one-year deal. My guess is that we'll see another trade where we give up some of our young pitchers for a veteran with a couple of years left on his contract. RP: I think Melvin will sign at least one, and likely two veterans to fill the setup roles. Other than that I have no idea how the bullpen will play out. C: We're set here, and I really hope he doesn't include Maldonado in a trade, since I like having two talented catchers on the roster. I worry that Maldonado will be involved in the trade to bring in the SP listed above. 3B: Ramirez is now a Brewer for 2013 & 2014. He won't be traded this offseason, and he won't be tradeable next offseason. He is a good hitter, so as long as he stays healthy and doesn't have the inevitable age-based decline, we should be okay. Even though he proved he couldn't play the position, the Brewer brass has already hinted that Gamel will be the backup at 3B next year, and Green will be in AAA as another option should Ramirez get hurt. SS: We should just go with Segura and Bianchi. There is a good chance that we re-sign Gonzalez, which brings the question of who should go to AAA. I don't see Gonzalez signing to a backup role, so either Binachi or Segura will be the bench player. Segura should start, but I could see him sitting the bench or playing the season in AAA. 2B: Weeks. Bianchi will be the backup (maybe Segura, see above), with Green in AAA if needed. 1B: I still think Melvin should see what the market is for Hart, as I think he would bring back a boatload of talent. Since that isn't going to happen, Hart is our 1B with Gamel on the bench and Morris in AAA. The big question is whether or not Melvin will extend Hart this offseason. If he does, then look for Melvin to trade Gamel and/or Morris. LF: Braun with Schafer and Gamel backing up. CF: Gomez will start full time to start the season, but I could see Schafer working his way into a platoon role as the season progresses. RF: Aoki with Schafer and Gamel backing up. The only surprise I could see happening this offseason would be a trade for a SP. Other than that, we'll probably rebuild the bullpen and stand pretty well pat everywhere else.

HiAndTight's point was that Perez is not even in the same league as Corey in terms of trade value. The "others" would have to be significantly more valuable than Perez. Agree. It could be palatable to trade Hart for a top MLB-ready prospect, with Perez as the "other" to add some talent and even out salary for Cleveland. It would not be palatable to trade Hart for a package in which Perez was the top talent coming back. I've typed "trade Hart" as much as anyone, but if we cannot get a good package back for him (including at least one top MLB-ready prospect or pre-arby guy), then he should be our 1B next year. I haven't scoured the free agent reliever market, but I would guess that for a two-year, $10-12MM deal, we could land a pretty good reliever without having to trade someone of value away.

Wouldn't you rather have a top two of Yo AND two reasonably priced years of a frontline starter followed by a bunch of young guns than just Yo or Yo and an overpriced, four year deal starting pitcher ala Wolf, Suppan? I'm not completely opposed to trading for someone, but if the Marcum/Greinke trades are any proxy, the cost of two-years of a good-to-great starter is an "elite" prospect, or three or four really good, MLB-ready prospects. We don't have an elite prospect to trade away, so to get someone like Shields we would have to give up a lot of our promising pitching prospects, at least some of whom are near-MLB-ready. Peralta would almost certainly be in the trade, along with two or three others. Again, we're looking at the marginal difference (the difference between what Shields would do vs what someone like Peralta or Estrada would do), and in this case, I don't think that the marginal upgrade is even close to worth the cost. I understand the hesitancy of going with four "young guys" (most aren't really that young, just MLB-untested), but if Melvin feels the need to add a veteran arm, I'd rather see him go with a short-term answer, i.e. a talented guy who would sign a one-year deal to regain his value after a down- or injury-plagued year. I certainly don't want to offer a mid-teir guy a four-year deal. Melvin did that when we had no pitching and needed to fill holes any way he could for multiple seasons. He knows we have lots of pitching coming up through the ranks, so I think he'd fire himself if he signed a "Suppan-type" deal this offseason.

I don't know if it's correct, but if endaround was right in his earlier post, and 4th year arby guys get compared with 1st year FA guys, then I could certainly see him getting $5MM+ next year. There's no way (Boras is his agent) that Gomez would take a 6 year / $25MM deal. If he hits 20 HR a season with his defense, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone offer him eight figures a year. Schafer should be a good CF, so I'm fine with letting Gomez play out 2013 and hit free agency. Schafer can be our 4th OF next year, potentially becoming the LH part of a CF platoon if Gomez proves 2012 to be a fluke, and then taking over full-time in 2013. If someone comes knocking with a good trade package, I'd also be fine with Melvin trading Gomez this offseason.

I'm not normally one to quote someone from three months ago, but now we can put this into some perspective. We traded away our "top tier pitcher" for good, young talent, freeing up time for our young, MLB-ready guys to get a shot at the MLB level. The result was that we played much better and made a run at the playoffs without Greinke. That said, is it now "sane" to debate that we could build a home-grown rotation without obtaining "top tier" pitching from outside the organization? In that same light, is it now "sane" to believe that we can occasionally trade a good veteran player who is expensive and nearing the end of his contract for a younger, cheaper talent without it being considered some type of give-up, fire sale move? Often, you can even improve your team by trading a veteran player who is blocking someone for some talent in a position of need. In my opinion, trading away young talent for two-years of "proven talent" is the wrong way to go. The marginal difference between Shields and whoever he would knock out of the rotation doesn't make up for the talent lost in the trade, the extra monetary cost, and the needless blocking of talent which has already shown it belongs in the majors.