monty57

My thought on the one-year deal would be for someone like Marcum who is talented when healthy, but has had some problems which may keep teams from offering a multi-year deal. If we could get someone like him on an incentive-laden one-year deal while he tries to rebuild his value for the next offseason, then there is little risk to the Brewers. If he fails to perform, there is little cost in jettisoning him. If he plays well, then he either earns his contract in helping the Brewers win games, or he would be easily tradeable to another team for a decent package in return. With the current Brewers system, I prefer the low-risk, high-reward option. When we didn't have any prospects on the horizon and needed to fill multiple rotation spots, we needed to sign multi-year deals.

I agree with that. I've been hoping for that RH guy off the bench who could sub in for corner OF or 1B for quite a while and Melvin can only seem to find LH batters for the bench. Just a guess, but we'll probably see Schafer as the 4th OF who can play any of the positions, with Gamel getting a few starts in LF/RF as well as 1B. As much as I've lobbied for Hart to be traded for top young talent this offseason, if I had to bet, I'd say he'll be the Brewers' 1B in 2013. That leaves Gamel on the bench, and he'll probably be handed an OF glove and be told to learn how to use it if he wants some PA's next year. With Gamel, Maldonado, Schafer and Bianchi on the roster, that leaves one open bench spot. A slugging RH corner OF/corner IF would be nice, but we'll probably see another slap-hitting utility guy.

I blame myself for that one. I was posting under the assumption that previous posters had posted accurate stats for Aoki when they said he had a .300 OBP against LHP.(which might have been true at the time) A .300 OBP would scream platoon to me for a corner outfielder. His .269/.321/.390/.711 line against LHP I wouldn't have much problem with. Not great(when you consider right handed corner outfielders are not exactly hard to find) but not worth messing with the lineup. That's why the 182 ABs is probably the most important stat in that whole paragraph I wrote. With that few ABs, one good night can make a whole lot of difference. Coming into the season, I heard that he hit lefties pretty well... probably not well enough for Roenicke to call him his "right handed bat off the bench" but well enough to not need a platoon partner. I couldn't understand prior to the season why so many people (national baseball people) wouldn't give Aoki any credit for all he'd done in Japan. I'm just glad that it has worked out for him and the Brewers.

I just said why acquire a pitcher that is signed for more than two years to begin with. Agreed. Four year contracts to pitchers bear a lot of risk. For example, what happens if the pitcher injures his shoulder in the first season, and now we have to pay him not to play (or to play at a much lower level) for 3.5 more years? Sometimes you need to take that risk, but with the young guys the Brewers have, if they think they need to add a veteran arm for 2013, they should look for one who will sign a short-term deal.

So guys getting on base in front of Weeks, Braun and Ramirez does not matter much? Hard to get RBI's with nobody on base. Unless I'm missing something, he got 182 ABs this season vs LHP and has a .321 OBP against them. His overall OBP is .356. While .321 in a small sample isn't great, it certainly isn't screaming for a platoon partner. I'm happy Roenicke finally decided to move "the power guy" out of the leadoff spot and "the bunting guy" out of the two-hole. If for nothing else then stopping the "Leadoff batter reaches base, #2 batter bunts him to second, Braun gets intentionally walked" scenario, I'm happy to see Aoki-Weeks rather than Weeks-Aoki. We can expect Aoki to hit for empty batting average with good but not great defense. We can hope for something more like we got from him this year but we can't just expect it. The same thing can be said for Gomez. If Hart is going to stick at 1B they need a RH CI type to add depth in the OF IMO just in case one or bother of these guys regress to expectations. Aoki had done about everything he could've done in Japan baseball-wise. Many people's pre-season expectations for Aoki seemed to completely disregard anything Aoki did while in Japan. He has always hit, and he came over here and hit. Prior to the season, I said that I expected Aoki to be similar to Morgan, except that he wasn't completely lost against LHP. After watching him for a season, I believe he has "regressed to expectations." I'm always up for adding more talent to the roster, and I think Schafer will be the 4th OF (assuming Braun, Gomez, Aoki as starters), and Schafer could very well work his way to platoon partner with Gomez in CF, leading to his becoming the full-time starter in 2014 when Gomez leaves as a free agent. Assuming Hart is still around, Gamel will probably be the backup 1B/corner OF. I agree that it'd be nice to have a decent RH bat on the bench, but I've hoped for that for a long time.

As a general rule, I'd say there are three times when a team would look to trade someone like Gallardo: 1) In a rebuild in order to get some a lot of young talent back. Sort of like the Sexson trade. Thankfully the Brewers are a long way from this. 2) The team has young, cheap talent to replace the more expensive vet. I don't think the Brewers are quite there yet at SP. I hope they are in a year or so, but I don't think they're there yet. 3) You are completely blown away in a trade (like someone offers you Kazmir for Victor Zambrano). Since Gallardo is a top-of-the-rotation guy, it would take a lot to blow the team away. The downside risk is pretty high, so the upside has to be immense. Something like to aforementioned Bauer/Skaggs/Bradley could qualify, so if this were actually offered, Melvin would have to think about it. Basically, I would be pretty surprised if Gallardo were moved this offseason. If the young arms continue to impress, I could see him moved mid-season if we're out of it or more likely next offseason. It is a good sign that we're much closer to scenario #2 above than scenario #1.

Out of all the hullabaloo that is the "Steroids Era" of baseball, the only thing I really care about is that I think Hank Aaron should still be considered the Home Run King of baseball. Other than that, nothing is going to get resolved and I hope the TV "talking heads" don't have to argue the ins-and-outs every year as Hall of Fame time rolls around.

I just like that we have a real good leadoff batter again Agreed. I wonder if the late season success has changed Roenicke's mind. Last year and early this year he talked about how he liked having a power hitter leading off followed by a guy who can bunt. I much prefer how the lineup has been since Aoki took over the leadoff spot. Although it stinks that it had to come at the expense of Gamel getting hurt, I am glad that Aoki got the chance to shine. I liked the signing when it happened, and I think that had Gamel not been injured, Aoki would've been used exclusively as Roenicke's "Right handed bat off the bench" (as he called him, because he felt he hit LHP well). Looking at his numbers vs LHP, that wouldn't have worked out too well, so good for him he got everyday PT.

Anyone could have Bedard right now for league minimum, and no one's biting. There's probably a reason for that, and I doubt he'll be highly sought after this offseason. If we could get him cheap as a long-man/spot starter, I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't want to count on him.

The chance of Marcum getting a $13MM qualifying offer is gone, but the chance that he will sign a one-year, low base, incentive-laden deal has to be pretty good. If we could sign him to that type of deal, allowing us to start the season with Yo, Fiers, Marcum, Estrada, Rogers/Peralta, I'd be for it. Since it's a low base, incentive-laden deal, it wouldn't hurt to dump him if he performs poorly or gets hurt, and it would be great if he performed well. It may also help us limit Rogers/Peralta's innings (assuming they won't be able to pitch a full season next year). As to this year, it sure doesn't appear that Marcum is 100% healthy. If his balky elbow is sore, I wish he'd tell the training staff, as he'd be better off on the shelf than on the mound giving up a run an inning.

First of all, i highly doubt that Ramirez would have taken a shorter deal unless the Brewers would have paid him 30 plus million over two seasons instead of three, which would be dumb. Hard to say what it would've taken to get him for two seasons, as the Brewers and Angels were the only teams after him. The problem is that we had to sign him to the deal we did because Melvin does not believe in financial flexibility. We were locked into a lot of contracts and the number crunchers wouldn't allow him to pay more than $6MM this year, so he had to get creative, which could hurt us in the future. As for what value will he have brought if the team ends up missing out on the playoffs, you and others will i'm sure disagree with me here, but i place value on competing for a playoff berth in baseball, even if the team falls short. No, I agree with you that there is value in playing competitive ball. However, I would be interested in seeing the ratings the 2012 Brewers get vs previous years, as I think half of the fans lost interest long ago and probably don't even know they're in the playoff hunt, which negates the monetary value of being in a playoff run. Therefore, the "die hards" who would watch the Brewers even during 100-loss seasons are getting to see more exciting ball than we thought a months or so ago, but the Brewers really get no gain from it unless they make the playoffs. Also, we will never know the "what ifs" that could have been if we hadn't spent the money (economists would call this the opportunity cost). I don't want to get into off-the-wall "what if" scenarios, but it is reasonable to believe that we could be better next year and certainly in two years without Ramirez and his contract on the books. I hope he plays well and makes it all worthwhile, but I'm not going to change my stance because he put up numbers I expected him to put up in year one of the deal. He's pretty untradeable now so if he tanks in year three, we will have a very hard time putting together a winning team. If we "eat" his contract in order to trade him, then we will also have a hard time fielding a winning team. The Brewers just can't have a useless $20MM on the payroll, so I really hope he stays healthy and productive through his age 36 season.

So now that LaRussa has admitted the beaning was done on purpose, shouldn't Motte get suspended?

Seriously? Ramirez still cant catch a break around here? Barring injury, I pretty much expected Ramirez to do what he's done this year, except I expected worse defense. I said that when the deal was signed. I just don't like the final year of the deal, and I don't like that the team signed a back-end-loaded deal because they couldn't afford to pay him this year. It's irresponsible to spend when you don't have money, and Melvin was basically saying he'll pay the piper in two years in order to win today. The signing should be viewed based on the totality of how Ramirez performed over all three seasons in relation to his overall compensation. I'll be glad to eat crow in two years if he's pushing us to a playoff bid, but my guess is that many fans will be calling for his head. You don't have to look at a contract over it's entirity, you can simply sign the player to a shorter contract to reduce the risk. Of course, we couldn't do that with Ramirez because Melvin was out of payroll room, so he took on a lot of additional risk and mortgaged some of the future to win now. Maybe it'll be worth it if we make the playoffs this season. If we miss the playoffs this year, then what value was a good 2012 by Ramirez if he and his contract are a reason we don't make the playoffs in two years?

Yea, Melvin got flack from some on this forum when he signed Ramirez, but the only risk IMO was mainly in Aramis declining to where year three of the deal has him being overpaid. In year three of the contract, he will be roughly the age Lance Berkman is now and we'll be paying him $20MM plus a buyout. I hope it's just "declining to where he's overpaid," and we're not watching a guy sitting on the DL all year collecting his pay before retiring after he gets his buyout. If he is still a .800 OPS guy at age 36, the deal will have been well worth it, but there was a lot of risk with the signing. I'd prefer not risking 20% of payroll on a 36-year-old, always-good-but-never-great player. My first answer would be to say that I think Greinke is a bit (gasp) overrated. Just slightly. Some seem to think he rips off his shirt to show off an emblazoned "S" which automatically vaults his team to the playoffs. He's good, but I agree he's not elite. He's seemingly defied statisitcal odds for his career, putting up numbers the "stat guys" love, but the end results don't seem to add up to the sum of all the parts. I love the idea of adding a bat like Hamilton's to the lineup, but I don't think he's worth what he'll likely command on the FA market. That sums up my feelings on Greinke and Hamilton. I'm happy we have Braun for his career. I would worry if we had to dish out $40MM for two guys in a season, so I'd rather build a core around Braun with Lucroy-type extensions. Every time we get told that we can't survive without {insert star player name here}, we learn that we can. I for one was glad we didn't sign Greinke to the (allegedly) offered extension and instead traded him for a high-upside return. If we are able to work our way into the playoffs after making the trade... well, that would be about a perfect scenario.

The new league-wide infusion of cash could get scary. Players with "warts" are going to get long, expensive contracts which I think a lot of teams are going to be begging to get out from under in a few years. The Brewers (and many other teams) are in the precarious position of not wanting to get left behind, while also needing to show some kind of fiscal responsibility. I hope they err on the side of fiscal responsibility, as that's easier to fix if you're wrong.

I agree that every team is going to have a different projection for each player. The question is, how divergent are those projections? Is one team really going to have a .750 OPS for a player that another team has .900 OPS for? I maintain that for 99.9% of the players out there (even the ones who had a "breakout" season the year before), most teams are going to be pretty close to each other. Why? Because in part, GM's know not to just look at one year of results. I think some fans think that 500 AB is an eternity and think that GM's do as well. Whether or not GM's know the term, they believe understand the concept of regression. Agreed. It's the outliers that everyone hopes for, like trading Bill Hall after he hits 35 HR or giving up peanuts for JJ Hardy just before he re-gains his All Star form. I'm with you that while Gomez probably raised his trade value this season, we wouldn't get too much back for him. There's too much chance he really is a part-time player. If Melvin were able to snag a good return in trade, I don't know if I'd call it "selling high" or simply taking advantage of a GM who's been in the bar a bit too long.

My point was, if Gomez continues hitting next year like he did this year, it's not much higher than what his projection suggests he should. He's shown a nice tick in power but it's not like he's having some crazy breakout season. The whole selling high/low thing is just kind of overblown, IMO because most GMs don't think that way. If a career .750 hitter has a surprising .900 OPS season, GM's aren't expecting a .750 or .900 season the following year. In any trade, you're essentially paring your projection off against someone else's projection. If (using your example) you think the player is really a .750 OPS player who "got lucky," all it takes is to find one GM who thinks the .900 OPS is for real... that the player has finally "figured it out." GM's are human beings, and they act independantly of one another. They may all have the same "tools," but they don't use exactly the same projection methodology. One may trust a scout who says the player did something with his swing that means he'll be a .900 OPS player going forward, while another would put more credence in something like ZIPS, and yet another just says "he's always been x, so he will always remain x." GM's have all kinds of reasons they'd do things differently from other GM's. The terminology "Selling high/low" probably is overused, as most trades aren't "sell/buy high/low." I may be stating the obvious, but it's all about how the GM views his player and how he is going to act on that viewpoint. If the "action" is to trade the player, the next move is trying to find another GM who values what you're trying to sell and is willing to give up what you want. To topic, you are probably right that Gomez isn't really a "sell high" situation because his numbers aren't that out of line. Bill Hall or Casey McGehee would've been better examples of "sell high," as they came out of nowhere and put up big years. Using that past history, I would think Melvin would be more apt to try to extend Gomez than to trade him.

Is the expectation that some team will think Gomez will perform even better next year that what he's done this year? "Selling high" is probably more of a belief that the player is going to crash. If you think Gomez is going to fall back to his old numbers, and you can trade him for the value of someone who is going to continue to play at his current level, then you trade him. If you are right, then you "sold high" and got more than he's really worth. If you are wrong, then you missed out on retaining a good player, but should have some talent in return which hopefully will pan out. "Selling low" would be trading someone who is playing below their normal level because you think he's "lost it." If you are right, you got rid of a bad player and his contract. If you are wrong, then you gave away a valueable player for nothing.

My verdict hasn't really changed all along. Weeks is a good player. Whether it was a slump or injury-related, it really doesn't change things. I'd expect him to be a good player going forward. My thought all along has been that we should look at trading him when we have an in-house replacement ready. This year probably means that he won't be shopped this offseason, as his value will be low. If Green or Gennett look ready to take over mid-season next year or next offseason, I'd shop him then. If he puts together a healthy and productive 2013, he will help our team a lot and be very marketable after next year.

Please tell me where ANYWHERE I have advocated trading Hart I took the liberty of adding Hart's name in the sentence "Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart." You could substitute Braun, Gallardo or Weeks and the message is the same. Basically, I was saying that it is a bad idea to obligate yourself financially for something which you know could cause financial strain. Your belief that we should extend Hart because we could always trade a high priced player in the future is the type of reasoning which send people and businesses into bankruptcy. It's the reason the Cubs are paying Zambrano to pitch for the Marlins and would pay any team to take Soriano off their roster. It's the reason Boston gave away Gonzalez, Burnett and Crawford. Teams continually make the mistake you're proposing. You may think the Brewers are not small market, but you have to agree that Chicago and Boston are bigger markets than Milwaukee. If they can get themselves into "fire sale" positions, then it can certainly happen in Milwaukee if Melvin is not careful. We sometimes need to sign players to high-priced contracts. The time to do that is not when you have good, low-priced alternatives at the position(s) the player in question plays.

TLB, Rickie must've read your comment on June 14: "Just off the top of my head, Dan Uggla, Adam Dunn, & Nick Swisher are all good but not elite hitters who've had disastrous down seasons or half-seasons. Each of them proved he hadn't forgotten how to hit, and I think Weeks will do the same. Dunn & Uggla were each in the first seasons of big new contracts and under pressure to be 'the guy', and I wonder if Rickie's been putting too much pressure on himself to be that 30+ HR threat the Brewers lost in Prince." Hindsight is always 20/20, but it is kind of fun sometimes to look back and see fan over-reaction first-hand. There were a number of "trade him for nothing" and "send him to AAA" posts earlier in this thread.

It absolutely does matter. Market size effects TV and radio contracts, ticket prices and pretty much everything else on the business side. If you have less people, you have less fans to draw from. Advertisers don't pay as much. Ticket prices are lower. Yes, IIRC the Brewers had higher viewership than the Angels, but they got a $30MM TV deal, while the Angels got a $150MM TV deal. If market size doesn't matter, why would you suppose the TV gurus would pay so much more to the Angels? Attanasio has done a lot to increase cash flow/revenues for the Brewers, but they seem to be about tapped out on new streams which are unique to the Brewers. From now on, most new revenue streams the Brewers receive will be shared through the league. Therefore, the Brewers are now largely at the mercy of attendance figures. Since that's pretty well maxed out, the only way it can go is down, and any drop in attendance will have a corresponding drop in revenues. In a small market like the Brewers, there should be a higher chance that attendance would drop, as in order to get to 3MM fans, many fans have to come to multiple games, so a small percentage of "disgruntled" fans will lead to less tickets sold. In bigger markets, a small percentage of the fan base getting disgruntled doesn't matter as much, because the fan base is so much larger. Teams like the Packers defy these odds, as a huge percentage of midwesterners would sell their soul to get Packer tickets. I don't think the Brewers have that loyal of a following. I think the Brewers will have a very hard time selling 3MM tickets next year, and I would bet their budget is going to be based on significatnly less than 3MM tickets sold. Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis. So you're arguing that we shouldn't trade Hart, but instead should extend him, knowing that his extension could very well cause us to hit a financial barrier. Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart. Whose analysis is faulty?

This is a bit leading. What exactly is "Build the team for 2013?" Should we trade away Jungman, Morris, Peralta, Nelson, etc for a SP on a one or two year deal? I certainly don't think we should blow the team up, but I'd be upset if we once again gutted the farm to create another 1-2 year "window." We could be better next year if we hold onto Hart, and trade all our prospects for whatever "pair of aces" are going into their final season. Is this what anyone wants? I think most posters are really looking at what we're going to do with Corey Hart, but building somewhat of a strawman arguement against the other side by saying either "they want to blow up the team" or "they want to give up the future." Of course we are not going to give up on 2013, but that doesn't mean we couldn't trade Hart for a package of prospects around the level of what we got for Greinke and still field a talented team in 2013 that will be young and getting better over the next few seasons. This is the direction I'd go, but I won't get upset if they decide to keep Hart at 1B. I'll only get upset if they decide to gut the farm to "win now" for one more year. For those like myself who see the probable rotation next year as somewhat of a question mark (high upside, but will have growing pains with the young arms), trading Hart makes sense. If we are going to be competitive next year, it will be because the pitching came together and pitched well. Hart is a good hitter, and would be missed, but Gamel could be a more-than-adequate replacement and the player(s) we get in return could make us an overall better team than we would be if we simply hold onto Hart. Maybe not, that's the nature of baseball.

I know there are some who feel that players should be called up so they get to know what it's like in the big leagues, but I don't like calling up players unless there's a role for the player on the team. If someone is up and gets hurt, he will spend his time on the Major League DL until healthy, potentially eating up a year's service time in the case of something like Tommy John. If Burgos is at/near his innings limit, let him rest this offseason and hit the ground running next year. If they feel a need to "reward" the player, have Melvin or Roenicke give him a personal phone call to congratulate him on a good season. If we were fighting for a playoff spot, and one or two outings by Burgos instead of Stinson could make the difference, I'd feel differently, but unfortunately we are not in that situation.

This article from the Brewers' own site sure makes it sound like there's a good chance Marcum will be traded: http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120829&content_id=37556608&notebook_id=37556722&vkey=notebook_mil&c_id=mil Roenicke's even practically begging a contender to trade for him, which is kind of odd. "I don't know how many teams there are in contention, and I know that Shaun is better than a lot of their fourth and fifth starters," Roenicke said. "I know that. I look at it, if I was on another team, like we were last year, and we needed a fourth or fifth starter, and I saw Shaun Marcum out there, I know exactly what I would tell Doug."