monty57

TheCrew, I agree that our biggest need is starting pitching, but it's hard to get. Right now, young starting pitchers are the most expensive (in terms of trade value) commodity in baseball. I think Melvin's moves of signing players for whom we'd get draft picks and then using those draft picks on starting pitchers, making our low-level farm teams stock full of pitching talent is one way Melvin is going about improving our starting pitching. It doesn't correct the situation now, but it will in a few years. The problem facing Melvin is to fill in the gap until these pitchers arrive. Since we can't sign the elite free agents, we either have to sign guys like Looper or trade top talent players. Either Melvin didn't find a deal to his liking this past offseason, or he wasn't ready to put Escobar in the starting lineup from day one this year. I hope Hardy picks up his game for the second half of the season both to help this year's team, and because he's probably the one player we could trade to bring in a decent young starting pitcher. That said, I don't think trading Gillespie and Mercedes for Lopez should be looked down on simply because it wasn't a deal for pitching, unless you believe that one or both of these players would have had any impact on our ability to trade for a young starting pitcher. The only possible connection I could see would be if Gillespie were to become the starting LF (moving Braun to RF) after Hart were traded for a pitcher. Right now, I don't see Hart as being valueable enough to net the young #1/2 starter everyone wants, and instead we'd get another "back of the rotation" guy which we don't need. In my opinion, we'll have roughly the same staff next year as this year, with the possible exception of a pitcher netted in a trade of JJ Hardy replacing Looper, who will likely be gone to FA after the season. After next year, we hope some of our youngsters are ready for the bigs to replace Suppan and Bush. Only one deal needs to be made, and that is a Hardy trade this offseason. The Lopez trade shouldn't have any effect on that. TuesdaysWithRillo and FTJ, I think the fact that Lopez will, with no degree of encertainty, be a bench warmer for the Brewers if he accepts arbitration should be enough to cause him to pass. I feel your angst, and it is certainly a possibility that he accepts, which would mean we get a good (albeit expensive) backup as opposed to a draft pick. However, he's at an age that he will want to start to continue to increase his contract value, so I believe he'll probably decline. Someone will sign him, as he is a decent player, and the signing team won't have to give up a draft pick if he's a Type B FA.

The problem that I see is the BABIP of .207. That's likely to happen when you hit weak grounders to second on a routine basis. That said, Gerut does have upside, but as is commonly the theme for this year's Brewers' bench, it's awfully hard to get into any kind of rhythm when you get around 1AB/week. If Catalanotto PHs ahead of Gamel on Macha's list, Gerut doesn't stand a chance. I don't know that I'd start Gerut three times a week, but Hart definitely hasn't shown the need to start everyday, and Cameron could use a day off here and there, so Gerut should have more than 40 PAs in the time since the trade. As was stated, if you are young-ish and don't produce in your first 10 or so ABs, you are going to be on Macha's "do not play" list.

i am not sure if one pitcher will help this team get over the top right now,and hopefully Melvin holds onto our top prospects. Amen, agree completely. They shouldn't be "backing away" at this point anyway. The division is still quite winnable, and they play a lot of bad teams in the next few weeks. What happens if they go, say, 6-1 over their next week of games? Then are they suddenly back in it? That wouldn't leave much time to suddenly become buyers, either. We've got ten days to trade deadline and we're one game over .500, tied for third place, three games back. I agree the division is still winnable, but we seem to have got the "old" Parra back, and will soon get argueably our most consistant pitcher this year back in Bush. Obviously signing a Halladay or a healthy Peavy would help, but our big problem with pitching have been that Parra forgot how to throw strikes and Bush got drilled in the arm, sending him to the DL. If Hardy, Hart, Kendall and to a lesser extent Cameron don't start to click, picking up one star pitcher will not do much to get us to the playoffs this year, and could substantially hurt our chances of getting to the playoffs for the next decade if we give up too much talent to get them. What CC did last year will probably be unmatched by any mid-season free agent pitcher pickup ever again. He was phenominal and almost single-handedly got us to the playoffs. A healthy Peavy for eight starts in August-September instead of Parra, Bush, Suppan or Looper would likely only mean one extra win or so this year. Plus, Peavy makes so much money over the next few years, he would hamstring our roster, even though he should be a good pitcher. I'd say hold onto prospects we feel will help the team in the future and stand relatively pat with this team, which could win the division without mortgaging the future. If Bush cannot get healthy, or if something else happens to the rotation, make a less costly deal like the rumored one for Doug Davis that will not cost us major parts of our future. The chance of winning rests on the aforementioned position players playing better. If that happens, we have a good shot of winning the division without a major deal. If it doesn't happen, we will not make the playoffs even with a major deal. The upside of a major deal doesn't seem to outweight the downside at this point. The fact that we insisted on major league talent back when we got rid of Lee makes me think Melvin is not strong enough to back away from going for it any year in the forseeable future. I worry that you're right. If we are to make a big deal this season, I'd hope it would include Hardy and be for a pitcher that will help us for a few years, but I may be asking too much.

I don't think Gamel's stats can be taken at face value, as any player, particularly a young player, is generally going to have worse numbers without regular playing time. I'm happy that Counsell and McGehee are having the years they are having. I am unhappy that Gamel was brought up, and kept up simply to sit the bench. If he wasn't giong to play, he should have been in Nashville long ago. That said, it's good to see Lopez get off to a good start with the bat, even if he did have running and fielding mistakes. Like it or not, he's now a Brewer, so I hope he keeps up his good season, and I hope we are able to make the playoffs and get a sandwich pick for him in next year's draft. On that note, if he does continue to play out of his mind, what would it take for him to end up a Type A free agent? Would that even be desireable, considering it would mean that other teams would be less likely to sign him, knowing they'd have to give up a draft pick (a la Graffanino)?

I am going to assume Burns gets skipped with the off day on Thursday and Looper will be starting on Sunday, so that buys the team some time. Good point, but if that's the case, they should send Burns down and bring up a reliever to help out the bullpen during this time. I see it as a mixed blessing. There's an open spot in the rotation, why not fill it with someone who may actually have a shot to stay there permanently? Giving Cody a shot to start a game, especially in a lower-pressure situation (knowing that it's a spot start until Bush returns), could give him a good "feel for the bigs," and give the Brewers (and fans) a chance to see him in action against MLB talent. Macha decision to give up on McClung as a starter is really starting to haunt us. Did Macha really think McClung was going to be an instant success as a starter? McClung pitched well enough as a starter last year. He, not Burns, should have stayed in the rotation. Sending him to Nashville to get a start or two would have been ideal, although probably not practical. McClung just seemed to be missing about 5-6 MPH off his fastball when he started vs. when he was in the 'pen. Early in the season, when he missed over the plate with a 97-98 MPH heater, he could get away with it. When he started, he was throwing 91-93 MPH, likely in an effort to last 5+ innings. When he missed in the middle of the plate with a 91 MPH fastball, it got hit hard. Now he's back in the 'pen, and whether it's a lack of confidence, him being upset at being sent back to the 'pen or what, he hasn't been pitching very well. He did a respectable job last year as a starter. He was thrown into an unfair situation this year, being asked to start without the chance to stretch out. He wasn't cutting it, but maybe he wasn't given the oppotunity to show he could cut it. Just one more reason for me to dislike what Macha's doing this year. I really want to like a Brewers' manager, but he's making it tough. Of course, as far as starting pitching, Melvin didn't give Macha the best tools in the shed to work with, so I can't lay all the blame on Macha.

I, too, think this trade only needed to be done due to Macha's unwillingness to play young players. That said, Melvin's in the nest he built. He interviewed and hired Macha, and at that time he should have found out how he felt about playing young players, who are a key to Milwaukee's success. As it is, Macha will not play Gamel regularly, and therefore I would assume that he wouldn't play Heether or Iribarren regularly. That leaves us with Counsell & McGehee playing full time on gimpy knees, which probably wouldn't have a happy ending. Something needed to be done, and a second straight year of firing a manager mid-season when the team is in a playoff hunt probably wasnt appealing to Melvin. That, in my mind, is why we didn't "solve the problem" in-house. While there are risks involved, I'm okay with the trade. I've always liked Gillespie, but he can only play LF, and likey won't put up good numbers for a LF. It's also hard to be a 4th OF when you can only backup LF. I also long for the days when we'll be able to stop spending millions of dollars on transiant middle relievers, and instead can fill those roles cheaply from within the organization, saving money to be spent on more important positions. Mercedes therefore had some value to the Brewers' future if he could adequately fill that role. That said, if we do get draft picks for Lopez (not a certainty, but probably likely), that along with whatever value Lopez adds should make up for the value we lost. While we've scored a lot of runs on the season, the offense has been getting shut down on a regular basis lately, so a shake-up may have been needed. Counsell and McGehee have been playing well, but could falter and they are playing hurt. It would seem to be hard to upgrade most other positions at this point, so I understand why the move was made. Lopez fills the "Weeks role" on the team - playing everyday at 2B and leading off, adding some much needed continuity to the lineup. While there is a chance he accepts arbitration, it seems likely he'd test the FA market, assuming it's better than last year (which isn't an extremely strong assumption). I wouldn't think he'd want to come back to a team in which he knows he'll be a bench player, when some team should sign him to be a starter given they won't have to give up picks for a Type B FA. At best, he helps us win the division and we get picks for him when he leaves. At worst, we lose some moderately talented prospects and end up with Weeks, Escobar/Hardy, Gamel with Lopez as a super-sub next year. The best case scenario is wonderful, and the worst case isn't that bad, so I guess on that note I think the trade's a positive.

I was looking at buying out two years of free agency (my 5-year example included inflating this year's salary). I agree this is unlikley to happen, but it's what I'd shoot for. As far as cost, as I mentioned, if Prince gets $7.5MM this year and $10.5MM next year, he'll likely get around $12-13MM in his final arby year (20+% increase in salary), making the total $31-32MM. Even if he gets $20MM in each of his first to FA years, which doesn't seem likely, his net would be $71-72MM over the same five years in which my example would have paid him $69MM guaranteed. The guarantee has to mean something, and I'd guess it would be worth more than $2-3MM over 5 years. In my opinion, you are correct in that Prince will likely not sign a contract that will buy out FA years in order to maximize his possible income. That's fine, and I don't hold it against him. He can and should do what he thinks is best for him. However, I doubt the Brewers will offer much more than what I put in my example. If they're guaranteeing money, they are going to demand a discount. I'd also guess that Prince wouldn't want to sign too long of a deal now, as it would limit his chance at signing another long-term deal when this one is up. I think the deals where the team really gets hurt (and therefore the player get paid more than he's worth) are the long-term deals signed when the player is near the end of his prime. Prince will want to make sure that he can sign one last long term deal and eke out another $80-$100MM to play through his 30's. That's the deal I wouldn't want any part of.

Overall, a well thought out post. I like the way you're looking at things. Here's my two cents (if it's worth that): I like the thought of Bedard, as he's one of the only pitchers available that would upgrade the Brewers' pitching without being unGodly expensive. That said, I'd hate to trade Green, who I see as valuable not only due to a good bat, but because he plays 2B & 3B. He's an insurance policy on Gamel not being able to stick at 3B, and at 2B until Lawrie is ready, if Weeks continues to get injured/play inconsistantly. Felipe Lopez is also intriguing, as he is a good player the D-Backs seem to want to trade away. That said, I'd hate to give too much up, as the Counsell/McGehee platoon has been very productive so far, and Hall could jump into that platoon if one of the others falls off. Again, I know you occasionally trade prospects to get better for the playoffs, and Iribarren wouldn't be a huge loss, but he could be a good bench player for a few seasons, as he can backup 2B & CF, which are two positions we may need help with next season. If Melvin feels Lopez would get them to the playoffs this year, then losing Iribarren would be worth it. Signing Prince is being discussed elsewhere, and if he'd be amenable to it, I'd love to see it. JJ/Clay is also being discussed, and I'd love that trade. However, Anundson looks to be a stud in his own right. I'm of the group that believes that JJ/Clay is a pretty fair trade, as JJ is one of the better SS's in the league and Clay is a top prospect, but unproven in the majors. We may have to give up someone else to make the deal, but I'd hate to trade away any of our young group of stud pitchers, especially when their value is still so low. I agree on Hall, but we'll probably just end up letting him go and eating his salary. He probably has as big a negative value as any non-injured player in baseball right now. Dear Mr. Melvin, please don't bring back Kendall next year. Maybe he's just my pet peeve player, but I'd rather see just about anyone else catching for us right now. His OPS is below .600, and I can't see anyone's defense being so good it makes up for that. We should play Rivera more now, and I wouldn't be opposed to trading for a rent-a-catcher if anyone's available or bringing up Salome if his defense is anywhere near MLB-ready. Reed Johnson is also interesting, as we will have a hole in CF next year. Maybe he's not the answer, but he's at least worth a look.

I agree that OBP is very important, and that Katin needs to improve his OBP skills. That said, is there maybe some chance that putting a bunch of high OBP players in front of a high SLG guy could lead to some runs?

Prince is now guaranteed to make $19MM, even if he gets hurt tomorrow, so an extension will be a much more difficult sell then it is to someone who is pre-arby. I advocated locking up Fielder a couple of years ago, was very happy with Braun's deal, and think they should act on Yo soon possible and Gamel in the next year or so. Just for fun, I'll take a stab at this: Prince's current salary is $7.5MM, with $10.5MM next year and a final year of arby after that. If we added some money to the first years and gave him a big guarantee, there is some chance he'd sign. Let's say $8.5, $12, $14.5, $16, $18 for a 5 year $69MM deal right now. That would be a big guarantee for Prince and his family, as no matter what happens baseball-wise, the Fielders will be set for a long time. Plus, he'd still only be 30 when the contract ended, so he could still get another long-term deal when this contract was over. What he would be "giving up" would be a guaranteed $19MM, a year of arby probably somewhere around $12MM and a possible big contract. Even if he got $20MM in each of the first two years of that contract, he'd only be giving up $2MM in this scenario (which probably means I'm putting too big of numbers in what the Brewers would offer). The question for Prince would be "is the risk worth it?" On the Brewers side, there wouldn't be much change until 2011, when they will be rid of Hall & Suppan's contracts (and Hardy if he isn't traded before then). As has been noted, they will likely be able to field a decent group of low-priced postion players (1B Fielder, 2B Lawrie, SS Escobar, 3B Gamel/Green, C Salome/Lucroy, LF Braun, CF Cain/Schafer, RF Gindl/Katin?) plus, some of our young pitchers should be getting ready for the show in a couple of years and we should pick up some talent in trades of via FA over the next few seasons. On paper, I think it's feasible and I have a lot of faith in Mark A to make sure the numbers work financially. The big questions are (1) What are Fielder's plans and would a large guaranteed contract change those plans, (2) What would Fielder get in trade, and (3) Would the lineup listed above (or some variation of it) be better than the same group minus Fielder, but plus what we get in return and what the extra salary saved would net. Let's say we get a true young #1 for Fielder and save the $69MM from my example. That money could be used to lock up Yo & Gamel and still probably add another player to fill a hole. Unfortunately, if that's a pitcher, we're more likely to end up with a Suppan than a Sabathia, as I still don't think we'd have enough money for a $20MM pitcher. I guess with all that said, I'd be happy if we were able to get Fielder to agree to a five-year deal, as he does seem to be the one player on our team (along with Braun who is locked up) for whom we do not have a replacement somewhere in the system. It would then be important to trade Hardy/Hart for starting pitching help, and we fans would be able to enjoy the Braun/Fielder combo mixed with other young talent from the system for a long time. I still believe the more likely scenario (considering the Boras factor) is that Hardy is traded this offseason, Fielder is traded next offseason and we sign some of our young, pre-arby guys to Braun-type deals.

Logan, if I look at that table properly, the chance of scoring 0 runs with a runner on 2nd with 0 outs is 36.8%, while the chance of scoring 0 runs with a runner on 3rd with 1 out is 33.8%. Therefore, if you are trying to score more than 0 runs, you have a 66.2% chance with a runner on 3rd with 1 out, and only a 63.2% chance with a runner on 2nd with no outs. Now, I'm sure this second number includes all of the times a runner successfully moved from 2nd to 3rd on a sacrifice bunt/grounder to right side/fly out to RF, so the numbers are actually skewed in favor of "runner on 2nd with no outs," and still it is more likely to score a run with "runner on 3rd with 1 out." Using only aggregate stats, that seems like it's really dumb not to bunt someone over to third with no outs and a runner on 2nd when you are in a situation that it is important to score one run. Again, this is not every situation. I'm only looking at "bottom of the ninth in a tie ballgame" type situations, and it looks like in that case the correct move is to move the runner to third. Of course, as I've said several times, situations change. The chance to score with a good hitter at the plate should be greater than the chance to score with a poor hitter at the plate. Personally, I would never sacrifice bunt with Albert Pujols, Ryan Braun, etc., but for those who want to stick absolutely to the numbers, it looks like the move should be to bunt.

That's pretty much how I see it as well, DocBucky. In some cases, you want to do what is most likely to get you one run, which would seem to be "runner on 3B, 1 out." If someone has access to all of the pertinent data, it should be easy to determine in what percentage of cases with a runner on 2nd, 0 out does at least one run score vs. in what percentage of cases with a runner on third with 1 out does at least one run score. However, it also matters who is up at the plate, Albert Pujols or Jason Kendall. It also matters who is pitching, Derrick Turnbow or Mariano Rivera. That's where I'm saying that in many situations, situational statistics are more valueable than aggregate stats. Managers (or arm chair managers) who simply "play the odds" aren't really playing the odds if all factors haven't been considered. It's funny, because SABR studies came about to de-bunk myths about the game, and a lot of really good strides have been made. However, followers of SABR studies seem to have created some myths of their own. Those myths are seen as absolute truths until someone else comes around and proves it wrong. I'm all for doing what it takes to make the likelihood of success as great as possible. If I'm building a team, I look for aggregate stats. I don't really care what Player X did in the three times he was in a certain situation last year. However, if I'm in a certain situation, aggregate stats can become less meaningful. Very few things are absolute. When dealing with evaluating people (as opposed to machines or cards) there really become no absolutes, only probabilities with more or less variance. All of these probabilities need to interact (or correlate) to achieve an end result. It's not likely a set of numbers like: Runner on 3B, 1 out: 0.969 runs Runner on 2B, 0 out: 1.150 runs is going to take in all of the variables in the particular situation a particular manager is going to be in on any given day. Can they help when forming a decision? Yes. Should they be the one deciding factor used to determine all decisions? Probably not.

The Brewers are in a precarious position. No team in the division has been playing overly well, which has allowed the Brewers (among others) to still be in the race, while not playing their best baseball. This makes some pine for a trade, while the trade market is fairly thin. At any given point, any of the teams in the race could get on a hot streak and take the division. I worry that a trade will be fairly costly, and the Brewers have more holes than one trade will fill, so it might still not be enough to get them in the playoffs. Conversely, it's possible that they could do nothing (or make a small trade or two) and win the division. Things will go one of three ways: 1) They'll take advantage of the easy schedule after the break and go on a winning streak, putting them in first place, so Melvin is comfortable making a big trade. 2) They'll remain in the race at trade deadline, but still not be in a position where Melvin is comfortable making a big trade, so we make a minor trade or two and hope for the best. 3) We continue our recent trend of bad baseball, getting us far enough out of the race that we trade away our biggest chips (Cameron, Hoffman, Looper and to a lesser extent Kendall and Counsell) and re-tool for the future If I were a betting man, I'd say the most likely scenario is #2. There is way too much risk in "betting the farm" two years in a row. If it doesn't pan out this year, we'll have hurt our future and Melvin will have put his job in jeopardy. We're also in a position that our fans are not that far away from the days of broken promises in the Selig era. A full-scale sell-off could lead the fans who recently jumped on board to quickly vanish, hurting our revenue stream for the next few years. As Al said, I think we still have the talent to win the division even if we do simply hold the course. By not trading away our top prospects, we will still have a good team for years to come, and we will likely have some Type A & B free agents in Cameron, Hoffman and Looper (if the offense complies to help him get his win total up there) to keep our lower level minor league teams chock full of talent.

Hardy is about 27 years old, and is pretty much a known quantity offensively. As such, whether he was hitting for a .650 OPS or .900 OPS in the first half, I would value him as the .785-.815 OPS hitter that he has proven to be and expect him to hit at that level for the rest of the season. That's how statistics work - there is no magic "regression to the mean" or "correction." If you flip a quarter and get 100 heads in a row, the odds for the next toss are still 50/50. Similarly, whether a baseball player hits .200 or .400 over a first half, if he is a .300-type hitter he should be expected to hit .300 the rest of the way, not necessarily end up at .300 for the year. I agree that Hardy should be viewed as a .800ish OPS player for trade value, and I assumed that's how you'd answer, but I never like to assume. As far as flipping a quarter, while both are termed statistics, it's not exactly apples and oranges. Outside of some parlor tricks, if you flip a coin it is going to have a 50/50 chance of landing heads/tails. A .333 hitter is not automatically going to be 1-for-3 every day. Hitters are going to have ups and downs, sometimes significantly so, but after a significant amount of time, you expect someone with a proven track record to meet a certain bogey with some degree of variance. Notice that I said "If that has any relevance over half a season, JJ is due for a monster 2nd half." I'd like to believe that Hardy will end up somewhere shy of an .800 OPS this season, but he's a fairly streaky hitter, even as far as streaky hitters go. In other words, he has a significantly large variance, and could have a huge 2nd half or a pathetic second half. Given the short time frame of a half a season, and not knowing any other contributing factors, it's impossible to predict which will occur. Given the randomness of "ups and downs," a full season is a generic representation of things "evening out" (if that's a preferable term), and since he's had more down's than up's in the first half, things often have a way of straightening themselves out. Assuming anyone with any degree of randomness will do anything over a short time frame is pure guesswork, but that's the way statistics work. That makes GMs who do "rent a player" trades look like geniuses or fools with a relatively equal degree of certainty. That said, I agree that Boston would be taking on risk in this trade due to the shorter contract status, while the Brewers would be taking on risk due to the lack of a proven MLB track record. However, Boston would be dealing from an area of strength to an area of weakness, and likely would be upgrading their team for a potential World Series run. They also have deep enough pockets that they would be able to sign Hardy to a long-term deal, which is something the Brewers may not be abe to do at this point in his arbitration process. As a Brewers fan who tries to look both at the present and the future situations, I'd love the deal, as we have a replacement-in-waiting at SS and have a couple year gap before our pitching prospects are ready. I also realize that there are a lot of Brewers fans who would hate this trade. In that same light, I understand your reluctance to do a trade like this, while I'd bet there are a lot of Boston fans who would cheer it on.

Reluctant to recycle Ned's strategy of avoiding Kendall GIDPs by batting him ninth, Macha is batting him leadoff to ensure he gets at least one at bat a game with no opportunity to GIDP. I still like the strategy of avoiding Kendall's GIDPs by playing Rivera more. Not sure if that would have a big change for total GIDP for the team, but it would have to help their overall offense... Kendall's OPS is now below .600!!

The closest any of those guys have to a superior pitch is Looper's splitter. Suppan has a terrific meatball pitch he can throw in almost any situation. Kidding aside, I agree that Villy has been thrown around a lot in his career. Others have stated a "lack of a plan" for pitchers who come up through the organization. Dillard has been talked about in this context, and Villy would fall in here as well. He was rushed from the minors a couple of years ago, at a time that the Brewers undoubtedly had pitching questions. He pitched pretty well for a while, and was then given a very short leash as a starter last year, and has been moved around the bullpen since. I know there are differing opinions as to whether there should be defined roles in a bullpen, but Villy has been to the extremes. He's been used as a closer, 8th inning guy, 7th inning guy, "Marmol role," and high leverage and low leverage long man. Just this year, he was envisioned as the closer until Hoffman was acquired. Then, it seemed they were going to use him in the Marmol role (pitch high leverage situations no matter the inning, sometimes for more than one inning). Then Coffey started filling that role, and I'm not sure if they have any plans for Villy's future. Briggs, I guess I'm more or less with you. I'd like for them to have a plan for his future. If they expect him to be a closer in the coming years, tell him that, and try to use him in the 8th inning (once he's throwing well) to get him used to what goes into being a closer. If they don't see him as a future closer, he seems to have a higher ceiling than that of your typical middle reliever, so they may be best served doing what you're suggesting and sending him back down to work as a starter. Dillard doesn't seem to be putting up the numbers you'd like to see as a starter in AAA, but he pitched well as a reliever last year, so maybe have the two of them switch places.

Topper, I look at it this way: in defined situations, situational statistics are better than aggregate statistics. Most SABR studies are based on aggregates. Since every situation is different, statisticians will say that there is not enough of a sample to determine whether it's true or simply "statistical noise," so therefore they will revert back to the aggregate. I believe everything has a value and a price. The value of one run in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth is far, far greater than the value of one run in the top of the first inning. The price of moving the run over is one out, which also has value. Again, aggregate stats are thrown out, showing that a runner at second could be worth more than one run, which, in this situation, is a statistical impossibility, but that doesn't matter, because we're only using aggregates. Therefore, since a runner at second could score 1.1 run, when only one run is needed, the SABR-minded will state that it is always wrong if the chance to score from third is less than one run. I'm simple, I'd just like to know in this situation, "what is the chance of one run scoring, considering who is on base and who is up/due up?" However, since that particular runner being on base with those particular batters in this particular situation, will only occur a few times in history, it will be dubbed a statistical insignificance, and everyone will revert to aggregates. In my opinion, what should be looked at in this situation is "what will help me win this game." The situation will undoubtedly change tomorrow, and if a runner hits a single in the first inning, all things will be different. I don't follow this nearly as much as most of you, but I'd like to see SABR studies venture in corralatory statistics, which I believe would do for SABR studies what econometrics did for economics.

Great post TLB, Baseball in general is streaky. Bullpens are "streakier" than any other position. I think that if Melvin picked up someone like Carlos off the "scrap heap" right now (i.e. someone who's pitched well in the past but is having an off season), we'd all be very excited. We get more emotional about our own players because we all hang on every pitch.

FV, I don't know it it's true, but I heard Halladay actually has a clause that if he is traded he can opt out of his contract after this season, making it truly a rent-a-player. As far as locking him up, I think that's done all the time. One instance I remember off hand was Johan Santana. He would only accept a trade to the Mets if they would sing him long term. I don't know if Halladay would accept a trade to the Brewers, and if so, if he would opt out of his contract at the end of the season, or if he would demand a long term deal (probably in the CC range).

Last year we weren't fighting for second when the trade was made, we were right there with the Cubs. Their hot second half, combined with our team's near collapse made the acquisition of CC the only thing that got us to the playoffs. I'm not saying this isn't the year to "go for it," and I'm not arguing against occasionally "going for it." However, by doing this too often, you can turn a good farm system into a bad farm system pretty quickly. Judging by Melvin's comments on LaPorta, he seems to have been dubbed a trading chip from the day he was drafted. Personally, I thought Fielder would be traded for a pitcher that could help us long-term and LaPorta would be his successor, but that's obviously not the case. However, if we now trade, say Gamel, Escobar, young pitcher for Halladay, we had better sign Hardy and Fielder long term, and hope McGehee isn't a fluke. Hardy is going to be in his final year of arby next year, so a long-term deal would be really expensive, and as you alluded to, Fielder isn't going to sign long-term unless something really changes. Honestly, in two years, our lineup could be 1B Errecart/Kjeldgaard, 2B a rushed Lawrie, SS Brewer, 3B Green, LF Braun, CF Cain, RF any of a number of people. Do you think Braun's yelling for help now... wait until he's part of that lineup. Conversely, we could lock Escobar and Gamel into Braun-type deals and have two more "cornerstones" for eight years. Therefore, after last year's "going for it," we kind of shot ourselves in the foot as far as "going for it" again soon. If we trade substantial prospects away right now, we will have closed what I see to be a fairly long-term window into a "this year and next year" window. I understand that not everything remains the same, a lot will change, prospects won't pan out, etc., but there's also a real risk that the Brewers still won't make the playoffs or will get knocked out early. Maybe Halladay, Yo, Prince or Braun gets hurt. Maybe Prince gets the "Carlos Lee curse" by hitting in the HR derby and flails away all 2nd half. Maybe Yo's arm can't stand up to a full season. Maybe Hart and Hardy continue their hitting vacation, or McGehee, Counsell revert back to what was expected of them. Again, maybe the Cubs realize that they're "supposed to be" a 100-win team and go on a second half tear like they have the previous two seasons. Pinning everything on one season can feel really good or really bad. All I'm asking for is that we wait a couple of weeks to see how Parra and Bush look when they come back, and make sure we don't have a significant injury in that time. If we're potentially talking about trading away players that are expected to make up the nucleus of this team for the next 6-8 years, I hope Melvin has the patience to be really, really sure it's going to get us to the promised land.

I think that's what you get when players "speak their minds" and stop using "athletespeak." Maybe more of this is what it will take to get Braun to stop trying to be a media darling.

But how do you guarantee a World Series? The Yankees had the best team in the majors for a lot of years that they didn't win. The Cubs were the best team, at least in the NL, last year and they got swept in the first round. Actually, that's two years running for them, with two pretty darn good teams. If there was a sure-fire way of guaranteeing a World Series, I'd be all for it, but unfortunately there isn't. The best way to give yourself a chance to win the World Series is to get to the playoffs a lot. The best way (in my mind) for a team like the Brewers to get to the playoffs a lot is to draft well, develop those players and sign the "cornerstone" players to long-term deals. Fill in holes by dealing from areas of strength to areas of weakness. Occasionally, when the stars line up right, make a big trade that could push you over the top, but since the probability of it getting you a World Series win if you are not already a World Series contender is slim at best, don't mortgage your entire future on one or two big moves. The Brewers are getting to the point that they can be very good for a long time if they don't run into tremendously bad luck, or do something really dumb. They shouldn't be in a situation where they have to overpay players like Suppan, as they will be able to get that caliber player from their system. In the not-too-distant future (3-4 years), they'll likely even be able to trade pitchers to fill other areas of need - it's not a certainty, but it's a likelihood. Maybe, just maybe, acquiring Halladay will make us the team to beat. However, we still will be very streaky offensively and will still be relying on some combination of Bush, Suppan, Looper, Parra to pitch 60% of our games. The Cubs would still have a much more talented pitching staff than ours, and they might start to remember how to win games. There are a lot of question marks that signing one starter won't answer. Of course it would help us make the playoffs this season. It may even help our chances next year, but it would also greatly hamper our chances of making the playoffs for the following 6-7 years. I, too would LOVE the feeling of the Brewers winning a World Series. However, while adding Halladay would make that slightly more likely, at this point I don't think it's worth it if it means giving up Gamel/Escobar/Parra type talent. Now, if we go on a little hot streak here and are 4-6 games in first place near the end of July, my thoughts may change. Again, for a move that would have that much future impact, I think a little patience would be prudent. Let's see where we are in a few weeks.

I have a feeling that when we look back on the season, we'll note those as Kendall's "hot" months, as that's probably the upper end of his ability at this point. Also, somehow, some way, 146 starting pitchers in the major leagues and all of the rest of the pitchers in the world are able to toe the mound without Kendall behind the plate. Not picking on you here, but many make it sound like our pitchers would be paralyzed on the mound if it weren't for Kendall's glowing presence behind the plate. I'm sure we'd still be able to get through games with someone else. As far as "working the umps," if anything I'd say that we get more bad ball/strike calls against us than for us. Maybe that's "Brewers goggles," but our pitchers seem to get squeezed all the time.

JustABitOutside, First, welcome to the board. Second, I don't think you're a minority around here in wanting to build a team that is a playoff contender for a long time rather than "mortgaging the farm" to win it all in one year. I'm with you on that, and I know a lot of others are as well. That said, occassionally there comes a time when a big trade should be done. The question is always: "Is this that time?" Last year, we traded some non-integral chips away for Sabathia in order to break the 26-year playoff drought. Plus, if Sheets had stayed healthy, we had a legitimate World Series contending team. Now, that has made some believe we should do this every year, which obviously isn't the case. So, would it be worthwhile to trade some of our top young talent to acquire a player like Halladay? That spurs a lot of debate, and I personally think we should wait a couple of weeks to see where we stand. This will give us a little more time to see if Bush will be healthy and if Parra can find the strike zone. If both of those things happen, we could win the division or the wild card without giving up six years of Gamel and others. Also, it will give us more time to see if we should be a buyer or a seller, and to see what injuries pop up around the league. We know the Cubs have talent, but will they begin to put it together? Are the Cardinals for real, and are they going to make another big move (like for Holliday) that will put them a step above us? For all we know, we could be ten games back of the Cardinals by trade deadline, in which case I'd much rather see us trade Cameron, Hoffman, Looper, Kendall, Counsell to help us in the future than trade prospects in a futile playoff push. We are definitely a team that needs to build from within, and making too many trades of prospects for rental players will seriously impair our future. As I said earlier in the thread, I'd be upset if we sell and the division is won by a team with 86 wins, but I'd be more upset if we trade away the likes of Gamel/Escobar/Lawrie for a rental player. Those guys are the ones who will keep us in playoff contention for the foreseeable future, and who will keep us from having another 20+ year playoff drought. Halladay may be one exception to the rule, as he is an elite talent, and is signed through next year. I just think we need to have a little more patience to see where things are nearer the end of July.

Much of baseball's statistical analysis is based on a "regression to the mean" way of thinking. If that has any relevance over half a season, JJ is due for a monster 2nd half. He has proven to be a good hitter and a good defender, and a big second half from him could be enough to push us into the playoffs. That said, due to the presence of Escobar, if we have the opportunity to pick up a young stud pitcher for JJ, I think we have to take that shot. It may or may not help us this season, but over the course of the next 5-6 years, I'd be very happy to have another top-of-the-rotation starter on the Brewers, especially considering we'll still be set at SS. The Red Sox may or may not be willing to part with Buchholz for Hardy, but this is the type trade we need to be looking for. At some point, a contending team in need of a SS who plays good defense with a power bat, and with some depth in their rotation will be willing to make a trade like this. If this trade doesn't materialize before July 31, we ride out JJ this season and hope the "regression to the mean" occurs, and then we trade him for a young starting pitcher in the offseason. Either way, I don't see JJ as our SS next year. 804Sox, you've made some good points. Would your opinion differ if JJ had an .800 OPS at this point instead of the .655 he's sitting at?