monty57

Marcum is a good player. I'd have no problem trading someone like Veras for nothing just to free the salary. I don't find sense in giving another team a good player just to save money (and I'm the guy who constantly harps on how important finances and financial flexibility are). If teams grow to expect good players to be given away in August, they will cease to offer talent in trade in July. If the Dodgers want to limit their chances of watching the playoffs on TV, they will give up something of value (prospect) in return for something of value (Marcum). Rios was let go by the Blue Jays because the White Sox were dumb enough to place a claim. The Cubs would let Soriano go to anyone dumb enough to place a claim. While saving $1MM is nice, Marcum's contract is not the type that would cause a team to just give up without getting something back in return.

I agree. Players like Weeks, Hart and Ramirez are still going to start most days, but I have no problem if they get days off now and then to let Green and Bianchi get some starts. Same with the OF - Schafer can spell the starters here and there to see how he does with semi-regular playing time. I'd really have no problem with him playing almost every day between CF & RF, as he is key in determining what we do at CF next year. Melvin could use this time to see if he wants to offer arby to Loe, Veras and Parra. If he's already decided not to offer arby to any of them, they should either be dumped or sat on the bench so we can see what some prospects can do. Starting pitching will pretty much be dictated by who needs more innings and who needs their innings limited.

Just getting some good starts out of Marcum for the fans to watch is better than getting someone who will never get out of A-ball. If the Dodgers want him - and they are certainly acting like they want top MLB talent at any cost - they'll have to give up something of value for him. It may not be a top prospect, but it would have to be someone who would be expected to help at the MLB level at some point (a high-upside A-baller or a low-floor AAA guy). They're 3.5 games back in their division and 2.5 back in the Wild Card race. They may have some egg on their face (at least to the LA fans) if they spend billions and miss the playoffs. I doubt they'd give up Zach Lee, but someone like Joc Peterson (OF) or Angel Sanchez (P) in high-A might be doable. These aren't top prospects (most of the Dodgers top prospects have already been traded) but they would bolster the Brewers farm system.

Note that I'm getting this from a fantasy baseball website, but cbssportsline says: "The report states the Dodgers could put in a claim on Marcum, but nothing official has been announced just yet." Since the Brewers could get a comp pick for Marcum, and the Dodgers have gone clinically insane, there is a chance that we could nab a decent prospect from the Dodgers if they indeed are the ones who claim him.

My goal for this season is to get things straightened out for next season. Get innings to starting pitchers who need them. Limit innings to starting pitchers who are at their limit. Allow relievers from the minors to showcase their arms in all situations. Let some young position players like Schafer, Green and Bianchi get some starts. I expect the Brewers to closely watch the SP innings. I doubt they'll let young relievers or young position players get much work, as it would mean shelving K-Rod, Loe, Parra and Veras (whichever we don't plan on having around next year), and giving Ramirez, Weeks and Gomez days off with prospects playing, and I don't see Roenicke doing anything like that.

Unless they have to add him anyway to protect him from Rule 5, I really hope they don't do this. 40-man spots are pretty valueable, and Morris probably won't be a Brewer next year as Hart and/or Gamel will cover 1B, so I'd rather they keep him off the 40-man until he either needs to be added, or he forces his way onto the big league roster.

If the big markets do hold their budget to the luxury tax, that just means those owners pull in that much more net profits or decide to put it into their minor league system, scouting, foreign player postings, etc. Yep. The money is there, it's just a matter of whether the owners decide to spend above the cap or not. If they decide not to, they will pocket boatloads of cash. I'd guess that as soon as the Yankees miss the playoffs, their media and fans will dictate that they spend the extra money on the field rather than putting it in their pockets. The luxury tax was a major win for Selig and I'm surprised he got it instituted. However, teams with the resources will go over it, and I would guess that it will rise as more and more big market teams reach the cap. If it doesn't have some sort of "inflation clause," then it would suppress team salaries over time. It wasn't that long ago the $100MM seemed unthinkable for a MLB team, and it won't be that long before most of them will be at $200MM. That's why I would be surprised if there isn't an "inflation clause" that will make sure the big market teams maintain some advantage.

From NBC: About Mark Walter Walter is chief executive officer of Guggenheim Partners, a financial services firm that deals with investments and securities among other services. The company manages about $125 billion in assets, suggesting he'll be the one signing the checks. He may want to show the LA public that he's as flippant as they are, but I'd bet he knows to the exact penny what their ceiling is. Maybe he is one of those owners who will treat the team like a toy and not care if it bleeds cash, but it would seem odd to me that someone who has made a very good living by valuating investments would not have a pretty detailed account of the team's finances.

And we can stop with the "this player would make 3 pct of this player," type of argument. No. I will never stop comparing relative value. Both production and finances have to be considered. When one player is making $12-15MM per year guaranteed for multiple years and his replacement will play for $400,000 with no guarantees, the prior player needs to be much, much better to justify his salary. Whatever the business, whatever the conditions, money matters. Risking spending it has to be a justifiable risk. Maybe guaranteeing Hart eight figures for the next three years would be justifiable risk. If you took the time to read my post (the same one with the 3% quote you noted), you will note that I said: Meanwhile, we have Gamel who is in the majors now, and Morris who will be in the majors in a year or two. They're both due around $500k, so they would make somewhere around 3% what Hart would make without the risk of a guaranteed contract. We could also trade Hart for more guys who could be good players playing for around $500,000 a year and be under Brewers' team control for six seasons. The guys who look really good could be extended to "Lucroy-type" deals, giving us around eight seasons of team control. I like Hart, and it is heartwarming to have someone who really likes to play for your team. However, this is a business, and Melvin needs to consider what is in the best interest of the franchise. If he doesn't think Gamel & Morris can cut it, then extending Hart may make sense. If he thinks they can, then he should trade Corey for young guys who will be Brewers for a long time. In a follow-up post, I said: Melvin may decide that extending Hart makes the most business sense, but I don't see how unless he really thinks that neither Gamel nor Morris will cut it as a major league first baseman. So, to your There is a reason Hunter Morris isn't a top 100 prospect and Corey Hart is a multiple time all-star. So to just say, "meh, we can replace him for cheaper..." C'mon. I've never been a huge Hart fan, but a .270/.340 25-30 HR a year hitter who helps out your IF defense like Hart does and has(which has been just incredible this year) comes out and says what he has, and you just list other FA's who've left and make no logical attempt to distinguish between the vastly differences. I would reply that (A) I never listed other free agents, that was Slapzilla, proving Raw Biz's point that you attribute quotes to the wrong poster (B) I acknowledged that Melvin may not think Gamel and Morris are MLB-caliber players. If he does not think they are, he should extend Hart. If he thinks they are, they should trade Hart. I don't think you're really arguing with me or Slapzilla or Raw Biz or anyone. I think you're combining multiple posters' thoughts into a strawman and arguing with that.

I agree with you markedman5. I just hope the Brewers make their decision based solely on the business side of things, and not the emotional side. It sounds rough to say that, but I'll feel differently as soon as I start seeing players with guaranteed contracts saying "I'm not earning the contract, so you don't need to pay me." The rules are set (and I agree with guaranteed contracts), so the Brewers have to work within those rules to do what's best for the franchise, including trading expensive guys when you can pay someone $400-500k/year to do the same job. Now, Melvin may decide that extending Hart makes the most business sense, but I don't see how unless he really thinks that neither Gamel nor Morris will cut it as a major league first baseman.

Sure, but there are millions of people who have said they love their job/employer, but still lost their job for whatever reason. It is highly doubtful that Hart would take a pay cut to stay, so he would be paid at least $10.333MM/year while he will be 32, 33 and maybe 34. It is likely that he would get a pay raise, so probably at least $11MM/year and more likely $12-15MM/year. Meanwhile, we have Gamel who is in the majors now, and Morris who will be in the majors in a year or two. They're both due around $500k, so they would make somewhere around 3% what Hart would make without the risk of a guaranteed contract. We could also trade Hart for more guys who could be good players playing for around $500,000 a year and be under Brewers' team control for six seasons. The guys who look really good could be extended to "Lucroy-type" deals, giving us around eight seasons of team control. I like Hart, and it is heartwarming to have someone who really likes to play for your team. However, this is a business, and Melvin needs to consider what is in the best interest of the franchise. If he doesn't think Gamel & Morris can cut it, then extending Hart may make sense. If he thinks they can, then he should trade Corey for young guys who will be Brewers for a long time. I won't feel too bad for Hart. Regardless of who he plays for next season, unless he gets hurt he will get a monster deal from someone.

Perhaps the two of us disagree and I may have a different opinion of firesale. My opinion of a fire sale is when your in a position where your team has valuable players, but isn't winning and you want to start a rebuilding project and you deal away your tradable assets. I think both in reality are applicable. But if you traded Aram, Weeks, Hart, K-Rod,Marcum and Greinke, and "anyone else of value," that's a firesale, despite the fact it isn't due to financial reasons. And these players where all players that TC07 was advocating trading if we could get players in return. Terms like "fire sale," and "rebuild" have a derogartory connotation, but they are often used whenever someone says we should make any trades. I look at something like Boston just did as a "fire sale." It's semantics, but I think the feeling people get when they hear the term "fire sale" is a negative one, so saying that another poster (or group of posters) is calling for a fire sale is not doing justice to what that group is advocating, unless they are truly calling for the Brewers to make a trade like the Red Sox just made with the Dodgers. Most posters are not proposing making tons of moves, although looking at any move in a vaccuum may make sense. In other words, I would trade pretty much any player in the right deal. It doesn't mean I'd want every player traded. If a team with a better system than our wanted to trade their whole system for ours, of course I'd do it, but that isn't going to happen. We need to make sure to look at posts as they're intended. If someone in a Weeks trade says they'd be willing to trade Weeks, and in separate Hart & Ramirez threads says they'd be willing to trade Hart/Rmairez, it doesn't mean they're advocating trading all of Hart, Weeks and Ramirez. It just means that in the right deal, they'd trade any one of them. Also, guys who are going to be free agents at the end of a season (at they time of the post you quoted: Greinke, Marcum, K-Rod, etc) should be traded if we're out of it, since they'll be gone anyways. Not a fire sale to trade away someone who is going to walk away, it's just getting something of value where you would otherwise get nothing of value. I recall you being a strong advocate of re-signing Greinke, but stating that if we could not re-sign Greinke, we should trade everyone. To the best of my memory, you are the only one I can recall stating that we should do a complete rebuild, and that was contingent on our not retaining Greinke. I guess I don't get advocating a complete teardown of the MLB roster and then getting on someone else who thinks we should make some trades. Since we didn't extend Greinke, I would think you'd applaud someone who is calling for guys like Hart and Ramirez to be traded.

The problem wasn't the amount of money they spent, it was that it was spent foolishly. Overspending for the "top guy" is overspending for the "top guy," whether that "top guy" is Greinke, Gonzalez, Crawford or anyone. Sometimes it pays off, oftentimes it doesn't. How often do you see top paid guys traded for a bunch of talent relative to the number of top paid guys traded in salary dumps? It could be argued that whoever "wins" a free agent bidding war is always overspending, because they spent more than anyone else was willing to spend. Therefore, "winning" any free agent could be dubbed "foolish." Teams all over baseball have someone on their roster they'd love to get rid of, but no one will take him. Of course teams are going to need to occasionally delve into free agency, but it can't be the way a large portion of any team is put together. Not in Boston and certainly not in Milwaukee. Beckett and Crawford were way overpaid and vastly underperformed. And who's to say whether Greinke (or anyone) would be worth the $23MM/year we apparently were going to pay him? What would the Brewers look like if Greinke had nagging injuries that only allowed him to start 10-15 games / year over the next five years? Crawford and Beckett were expected to perform to a certain level, and have not. That happens all the time. The risk is just much greater when you commit huge money to someone over an extended period. The Brewers breaking the bank for Greinke is no where close to the same situation as what the Red Sox are in right now. Had the Brewers signed Greinke to somehting like $23MM/year, they very easily could have found themselves in a similar situation to Boston in a couple of years, when Ramirez is owed $20MM, Braun and Gallardo are both making more, etc. That would have been compounded further with a Hart extension. Boston has the money to afford those contracts, they're just trying to get below the luxury tax threshhold. The Brewers could have gotten themselves into a situation where they didn't have the money to afford the contracts, which is far, far worse. I'm sure that when Boston "broke the bank" to extend Gonzalez, and "broke the bank" to sign Crawford, they didn't envision it ending up with the trade we just saw between Boston and the Dodgers. I'm sure they thought they were being smart. Boston was expected to be the best team in baseball when they signed those deals. The Brewers were hoping to remain a good team with a playoff shot. I'd argue that they at the time of the signing, the likelihood of Greinke hurting the Brewers financially would have been higher than the liklihood that the Crawford/Gonzalez deals were of hurting the Red Sox. We know how Boston turned out, we will probably never know how Milwaukee would've turned out if they had extended Greinke, but there was a lot of risk in offering the extension. I'm happy with Segura, Hellwig, Pena and financial flexibility.

Remember a couple of years ago when everyone was upset about the uneven playing field in MLB when Boston traded for and signed Gonzalez because San Diego knew they were going to lose him, and signed Crawford away from the Rays? Remeber prior to last season when the Red Sox were being touted as one of the most talented teams in baseball history? Even in baseball, where millions of dollars are thrown around like nothing, being financially sound is important. What we see in this trade is what I was/am worried about when people say things like "break the bank" for Greinke, or that extending Hart is a no-brainer. When you get financially stuck, it seems good to trade mega talent away for a boatload of scrap. How would we feel in a year or two if we traded Braun and Gallardo for James Loney? Would we still say "we fleeced them because we saved money?" We could very well have been in Boston's shoes if we had extended Greinke and held onto Ramirez, Hart, Braun, Gallardo, etc. If this can happen to Boston with their cash flow, it can certainly happen in Milwaukee if Melvin/Attanasio aren't careful. Long-term, big money, guaranteed deals can be dangerous.

I'll be very surprised to see a rotation of Yo and 4 guys currently on the roster consisting of Peralta, Thornburg, Rogers, Estrada and Fiers. I expect Melvin to sign one veteran "bounceback candidate" SP to a one-year deal. Gallardo, Fiers, "Bounceback candidate," {two guys from the long list of young pitching available} You can't contend with young pitching? Somebody tell Oakland quick. Who said that? Young players can be more up-and-down and they are harder to predict because they don't have as good a track record as someone who has logged innings in the MLB. There is definitely a chance that the young pitchers pitch well, but there is a chance they won't. The question to me is: "From what we will know heading into this offseason, is it worth it to mortgage some of the future on the Brewers' playoff chances in 2013, or is it better to hold back a bit to get a better read on where we stand?" We can still make a playoff run even if we don't "go all in." We can still end up with a sub-.500 record even if we do "go all in." The way I see the playoff chances, I'd rather we lean towards moves that will help us for many years rather than what will help us for one year. We also just gained some financial flexibility by trading Greinke for three young, high-upside guys rather than extending him. I don't want to see us destroy that financial flexibility this offseason. Doing something like signing Greinke and extending Hart this offseason could very easily land us in the situation the Red Sox just found themselves, where we would have to dump good players for nothing just to free up salary. I don't want us in that situation.

To me, what makes this important is the Hart factor. Of course we could make the playoffs. We could also end up last in the division. The question to me is how big a chance to we have to make the playoffs, and is that chance worth potentially ending up with nothing (or a sandwich pick) for Corey Hart? If Melvin feels strongly that we will compete, then we should hold on to Hart. If he feels it's long odds to make the playoffs with our young rotation, he should shop Hart this offseason. Personally, I think we should rely heavily on young players next year. That includes a lot of starting pitching, but also Schafer in CF (full time or as "soft platoon" with Gomez), Lucroy and Maldonado at C, several bullpen spots, Segura at SS, Bianchi and Green as utility guys. Any player can have up and down years, but young players can take that to extremes. While all the young players could gel quickly and shoot us to the playoffs, I think we will probably not be a playoff team next year. Therefore, I'd use this offseason to prepare for a potential down year where the young guys get their feet wet, and be more prepared for a playoff run in 2014 and beyond.

Yeah, as bad as this initially looked (cutting him on his birthday), I think Melvin was trying to be nice to a veteran pitcher. He could've easily stuck him in the bullpen, which would've killed Wolf's value this offseason. Now, Wolf could either contribute to a playoff run, or he could step into the rotation for league minimum on a non-playoff team in need of a starter. This had to be done to garner "goodwill," as the purely financial aspect would say that he could still help the team in the bullpen and we're still paying him, so he should've been moved to the 'pen. Who knows, maybe now he'll talk nice about the Brewers and that'll help us land a free agent in the future.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to offer him his true value (6-10), then if he takes it, you still have extra to use to bolster the bullpen and if he doesn't, then go after someone else with the money you aren't spending on him? Yes it would. If he proves healthy and effective for the rest of this year, I'd offer him a one-year deal to see if I could get him on a "lowball" deal to allow him to rebuild his value. If he doesn't take this deal, I'd have to be pretty sure he's going to get offered a multi-year deal by someone else before I'd make the qualifying offer. I'm sure Marcum would take a 3-year/$30MM deal over the qualifying offer, so if the market looks like it's going to give Marcum a multi-year deal, Melvin could make the qualifying offer. However, his misread of the market last year is the reason K-Rod is still on the roster, so he might be gunshy. Marcum recently said something to the effect that he'll be pitching for the other 29 teams as he's showcasing himself for free agency. That quote didn't lead me to believe he's going to be a Brewer in 2013. I think he'd love to sign here, but he's never been approached, so I'd guess he's going elsewhere.

I'm not assuming that all the under performing players will play better and all the over performing players will continue to over perform in 2013. That would be assuming some luck. My expectations of players for 2013 are based largely on projections. Those projections anticipate some regression (both up and down). Players should have a 50% chance of being above or below that. I'm also assuming that Melvin can get fair market value for the wins he will be trying to buy in free agency (e.g. starting pitcher, relievers). That is being neither optimistic or pessimistic. Again, I have not done any kind of comprehensive study on this but I suspect the Brewers can get to an objective, unbiased 85+ win projection for 2013. I don't doubt your motives, but the projections for the young players don't have a lot of information to go on. As I've said before, it would be nice if the SABR guys would be able to come up with player specific standard deviations, along with an upside / downside feature. Why is a player 50% likely to be above or below projections, and by how much? They're taking an educated guess, so is it really so accurate that there is exactly a 50/50 chance? If so, does a specific player have a greater chance of doing excessively well than he has of doing excessively bad? Are some players easier to project than others, and if so, is that detailed in the projections? After this season, Fiers is going to be projected to pitch really well. Maybe he will, but all/most of his risk is on the downside, as he probably can't pitch much better than he's pitched this season, but he could end up getting shelled next year. Are the regressions specific to him and are they going to accurately calculate upside/downside risk? Gomez is another one. Projecting him is not nearly as precise a science as projecting Braun (which still isn't extremely precise). As we found this season, most bullpen guys are a crapshoot. How the young guys pitch is a huge part of how well the Brewers play in 2013. I know they have the talent to pitch well. I hope they pitch well. I don't think anyone can reasonably project whether or not they actually will pitch well. Fixing the bullpen will also play a huge role, but it's hard to say that anyone could get "fair market value for wins" in a bullpen. I'd say the odds are probably pretty good that the players we will non-tender because of poor performance this season will pitch as well or better than whoever Melvin picks up will do for the Brewers next year. Veras, Parra and K-Rod are all talented, they just stunk this year. Whether that's attributed to "bad luck" or "pitching being contagious" or "Roenicke's fault" or whatever anyone wants to call it doesn't matter. The bullpen was supposed to be one of our biggest strengths coming into 2012 and it turned into our biggest weakness. Melvin may spend $10MM fixing the bullpen and have them be lights out or terrible, it just depends on how they throw in their limited innings. Meanwhile, depth was supposed to be a weakness this year, but almost everyone who filled in for an injured player did well. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems far easier to get "fair market value for wins" in position players or even SP than in the bullpen or bench simply due to the number of chances they will recieve. But "easy" is probably a bad term, because an expensive player can bust at any position the same way an inexpensive player can flourish. Barring injuries, if we hold on to Hart, we should have a good offense, as most of the players have a pretty good track record to go off of. It really just comes down to how much faith Melvin has in the young pitching. If he thinks they're a playoff-caliber bunch, he'll hold onto Hart (lower standard deviation, higher % chance of meeting projections) and try to make a run at the playoffs. If he thinks they need some more time to "gel," then he should probably trade Hart for prospects and stick Gamel at 1B (higher standard deviation, could be boom, bust or anywhere in between). The saying is "you make your own luck." Going off of that, really the only "luck" would be injuries. In 2011, we got very lucky that we only needed six different SP all season. This year, we were unlucky in that we had a lot of injuries, but lucky in that most of them were in positions where the replacement did very well (notable exception at SS). If we are "lucky" in 2013, we will not have any injuries. If we are unlucky and key players get hurt, we will be hard pressed to make the playoffs... something which could be said about most teams in baseball. Other than that, if the young pitchers and the rebuilt bullpen pitch well and no key player on offense implodes, then we could make a run at the division next year. I just have reservations that the young pitchers and rebuilt bullpen will pitch well enough to get us there.

I don't see why we have to assume the Brewers have to get lucky to be able to compete next year. I don't know if I'd call it "luck." We need the guys who played well this year to continue to play well, we need our young pitchers to have good years and we need to rebuild the bullpen and have that rebuilt bullpen pitch well. Everyone talks about the players who played poorly, but they fail to take into account that we had some players play better than expected. I doubt Lucroy will post an OPS over .900 next year. I doubt Fiers is really a sub-3 ERA pitcher. Braun could "only" post an OPS in the mid-to-upper .800's. Greinke and Marcum both posted ace-like stats, and neither will probably be around next season. Players ebb-and-flow from season to season, so while we can expect to see better play in places like the bullpen, it's pretty likely we will see worse play in other areas. Actually, other than early injuries and the catastrophe that was the bullpen, I'd say we had a bit of luck this season. Braun won his PED case and is playing better than he did in his MVP year. Melvin seemed surpirsed his lowball bid won him Aoki, and where would we be without him? Almost all of our young players and injury replacements have played well above what most expected. Outside of SS, our injuries have occurred in positions where we had depth. To me, I just hope Melvin looks at what's best for the Brewers in 2013 and beyond, not just what's best for the 2013 Brewers. The chance of them winning is there, but it's not high enough to give up some of the future to "win now." To topic, I'm kind of surprised that Wolf wasn't relegated to bullpen duty, where he could at least provide something to the team that is paying him. I think this is a case of Melvin trying to be "nice" to a veteran player, in allowing him to seek a deal as a starter elsewhere rather than being typecast as a long reliever going into free agency. Hopefully the goodwill created will be worth more than the utility we'd receive from having Wolf in the pen.

I hate to say it, but Yuni was a far better hitter than Ransom. Yuni just had the range of a piece of granite.

According to ESPN, in the National League, there are 36 pitchers with an ERA of 4.00 or better, and 19 pitchers at 3.50 or better. It looks like they must be using around 120 IP to qualify. Wandy Rodriguez has been a pretty good pitcher this season, and his ERA is right at 4.00. If Fiers and Rogers could put seasons together in 2013 like Wandy has in 2012, they will help the staff. While either or both could do better than that, I don't think it's a good idea to expect them to perform at a much better level than that. It wouldn't surprise me to see either or both of them post an ERA over 4 for a full season in 2013.

To me, a fire sale is trading anyone for anything, not caring about the return. This is usually done either to get out of a budget pinch or because you're losing them all as free agents at the end of the year. That differs from saying "I'd trade Hart while he has a year of team control left and should net a good return while we have other options for RF (Aoki) and 1B (Gamel)." There have been some saying that we should dump Ramirez for nothing just to get out of the contract, which I don't think is a good move. If we could've traded him to the Dodgers for some good prospects, I'd have been fine with it, but certainly not for nothing. I believe the only person who has said we should trade everyone except Braun is you when you said that if we didn't extend Greinke we should do a full scale rebuild, gutting the entire MLB roster. Since we didn't extend Greinke, your jumping on TC07 sounds a little like "the pot calling the kettle black." Plus, you quoted a post from sometime in early July... are you just trying to do an "in your face" retort because Melvin did actually (for the first time in his tenure) bring back prospects in a trade instead of insisting on "proven MLB talent?" I'm glad Melvin made the trade he did for Greinke. I'm glad he made the trade he did for Kottaras. I hope this is leading to a new methodology going forward. If he continues to pick up top prospects and insert them for league-minimum into the lineup, I'm sure a lot of the people who have complained about how he's run the team will be elated.

Specifically to Ransom though, I think they like Bianchi playing everyday until September. Ransom probably can use the roster time toward his pension (unlike the others that are set), and they are rewarding him for coming in and doing some positive things. I hope this is the case, because otherwise Roenicke really believes that Ransom should be playing ahead of Bianchi and Green. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll believe that Bianchi and Green are ahead of Ransom on the depth chart when I see them getting starts ahead of him. If September rolls around and either Bianchi/Green are not called up, or they sit on the bench while Ransom gets PA's and starts, then I would guess that Ransom will be our utility IF in 2013. Good point that there are a lot of wasted roster spots right now. It will be interesting to see what happens come September. The Brewers have already said that Wolf will continue to start, so I don't see a whole lot of changes other than managing the young pitchers' innings and having some more bullpen arms up (we'll see if they play).

We know Ransom won't be on the team enxt year. Do we? He's still pre-arby and the Brewers are playing him ahead of Bianchi and Green now, so I wouldn't be so sure. Assuming no trades, our backup IF's next year will be between Gamel, Ishikawa, Green, Bianchi and Ransom. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2013 bench of Maldonado, Schafer, Ransom, Green and either Gamel or Ishikawa with Bianchi in AAA as "insurance" if he has another option. Schafer would be primary backup at all OF positions, with Hart getting some starts in RF. Gamel/Ishikawa would be a bench bat, getting some starts at 1B. Green would backup 2B/3B and Ransom would backup SS. I think Roenicke likes Ishikawa more than Gamel, and Ransom more than Green, so what I think will happen isn't necessarily what I would like to have happen. But w/ Gonzalez coming off his injury and Segura, while promising, still needing to continue earning his stripes, I'd much rather re-sign Gonzalez for added depth and "Segura insurance" First, I doubt we'll pay $4-6MM for a bench bat. More importantly, I doubt there's any way Gonzalez signs knowing he'll be a backup and get less than a start a week. We've seen how valuable shortstops are. That's why we were stuck with Ransom and Izturis and why we traded Greinke for a SS. Gonzalez will almost certainly sign a deal to start somewhere. The lack of SS's in MLB is also why I think we could see Ransom as our 2013 backup with Bianchi in AAA. Even though he's not good, we've lacked depth at SS for a long time, and since he'll play for near-league-minimum, we may hold onto Ransom for one more year.