monty57

I think Stearns is trying to reform this team from Melvin's team to his team. Melvin liked power - pitchers with big fastballs, and hitters who could knock the ball out of the park. Stearns prefers all-around players, sacrificing power for things like defense and discipline for hitters and control for pitchers. I think the whole reason he re-signed Sogard is that he was one of the few guys last year who was not a high-strikeour / big-power guy. Unfortunately, he's just not that good a player, and it will take some time to get a team full of guys with that approach who also have talent. We are still early in our "rebuild/retool" process, and filling up a franchise with "your guys" takes years of drafting, trading, and development. I just worry that the good year last year has made almost everyone (fans and management) forget how early we are in the rebuild, and that there is still a lot of work to do. We are a team with talent but some big holes, and a farm that is deep but lacking a lot of "superstar talent." I hope we can make the playoffs this year, but if we're not at the top of the playoff race in July I would rather "sell" and bring in more young talent than "buy" and miss the playoffs.

Arcia was brought up before his bat was ready in order to spur fan interest by bringing up the team's Top Prospect during a rebuild. I'd be fine with sending him down to refine his approach, but all that would do is open up the everyday SS position for Perez or Sogard, and that's not an answer. That would really be a move to help future teams at the expense of this year. I'm fine with that, but I don't think that's where management is right now. I like JosephC's idea of batting Villar 9th in an effort to get someone on base in front of the few consistent bats we have in the lineup. This offseason, many posters thought it odd that Stearns built a team that would have good hitters sitting on the bench every day while subpar players would be on the field every day. That was countered with praise for the options the team would have with all of their "depth." That result has been that good hitters are sitting on the bench while management shuffles subpar players around the field and between the majors and minors in a futile effort to find someone who can do anything positive. It's fun watching Cain and Yelich play, but it's no surprise that Villar/Sogard/Perez are not the answer when they were the problem last year.

To me, the Brewers need to prove they're contenders before they should consider making any trades. So far, they have looked horrible against decent competition, so trading away a Hiura or Burnes seems foolish when they could be sellers anyway in a couple of months. Unless something happens like the Yankees DFAing Walker, they need to play with the guys they've got for a while to see where they stand. If they're at or near first place in July, then there might be an argument to be made that they should sacrifice some future for this year.

Yeah, there are three teams in the NL that have been horrid to start the season, and the Brewers have been fortunate that they have played an inordinate number of their early games against them. That isn't going to continue, so they are either going to have to start playing better, or they're going to be sellers rather than buyers at the deadline. The guys we're complaining about are the same ones who were so bad last year that we brought in Walker, so I'm not overly surprised to see that they're laying an egg again this season. I don't think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if they bring up Hiura before too long. It's just a flip flop on Arcia, who was ready defensively but wasn't nearly ready with the bat when they brought him up.

I'd guess he'll be back in the closer role, and the rest of the guys get bumped an inning. Instead of throwing innings 8 & 9 or 7, 8 & 9, they'll go 7 & 8 or 6, 7 & 8. That bumps the weakest performers who would have pitched the 6th or 7th inning, while keeping the better guys throwing the same amount they're currently working.

Me too. I just don't believe that trading away four of our best prospects for Yelich and spending $80M on Cain had no effect on other moves made or not made during the offseason. Making those moves limited our ability to do other moves. I love having Cain and Yelich getting on base at the top of the order and playing stellar defense. Unfortunately, we cheer for a team with a relatively small revenue stream, so having a few expensive guys (in terms of money and/or prospects required in acquisition) means we'll normally have a few holes in the roster. There is hope that Villar can bounce back and that Pina can hit a little better, but this year looks like the bottom of our order is going to make a lot of outs. As time moves on, I expect that Stearns will continue to add more of "his type" of guys, sacrificing power for the ability to get on base and play defense. Yelich and Cain were a good start to that journey.

Yes. Spending resources to get a minimal upgrade, if at all, is definitely not a great way to do business. Yelich and Cain are definite upgrades. The slew of 2B's might, probably wasn't going to be. No way to be certain, but I'd guess that if we floated multiple top prospects or $80M around, we could have found something better than Villar or Sogard out there. Everything's relative, and Stearns obviously thought the upgrades he made were better for the team than the upgrades he didn't make. I'm fine with that, as I'm used to the Brewers having to make decisions that big money teams don't have to make, and I'm glad we have someone in charge who seems to be pretty good at his job.

I'd guess that's having an effect. Plus, it's hard to judge a long-term deal on the first three starts. I think we "dodged a bullet" by not signing a 30-something year old pitcher to a long-term, big money deal. We instead signed a 30-something year old CF to a long-term, big money deal, but that's for another thread. There are so many variables, it's hard to tell what we shoulda or coulda done. I'm just happy our current rotation has pitched pretty well, and hope that continues.

I didn't want to sell the farm for Archer, and I didn't want to go long-term on a 30-something year old (Cobb, Arrieta, Darvish). I hoped to get a 1-2 year deal, and when I saw what Lynn signed for I wished we had signed him. Looking at how he's pitching (0-3, 8.37 ERA, 23.2 IP, 27 H, 22 ER, 5 HR, 23:26 BB:K, 2.11 WHIP), I'm glad we didn't.

I really hope Dubon wasn't their plan B if Villar/Perez/Sogard failed at 2B. I don't know that there was a "Plan B." They thought the opportunity to get Yelich was too good to pass up, so they spent their available prospect capital to get him. They decided that upgrading Phillips/Broxton at CF was more important than upgrading Villar/Sogard/Perez or Suter/Woodruff, so they used their available monetary capital to sign Cain. That didn't leave us much capital to upgrade elsewhere. Stearns signed some lesser-value deals with Chacin and some relievers, but had to hope that some of the Villar/Perez/Sogard and Pina/Bandy/Vogt groups stepped up. That hasn't happened. That's the life of rooting for a low-revenue team.

Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling basically won the playoffs and World Series by themselves for Arizona. That's about the most extreme example I can think of that illustrates how dominant starters can be in a string of series with plenty of days to rest. The Cubs won with three Cy Young contenders and a star closer. The converse of that is Washington. They have had dominant pitching and can't seem to win a series no matter what they do. LaRussa liked to pull his starters and go to the bullpen early, and of course the Royals are the current example being used for all of baseball that has driven up the price and perceived value of relievers. Personally, I think as an individual, a good starting pitcher is much more valuable than a good reliever. For the aggregate pitching staff of a team, it probably depends on your roster. If you have a bunch of starters who can't go deep into the game, you need several good multiple-inning guys. If you have some great starters who regularly go deep into games, you don't need as many good relievers. I would think that anyone would take a rotation made up of guys like Kershaw and Scherzer paired with a so-so bullpen over a so-so starting staff paired with a bullpen made up of guys like Miller and Hader.

Very few relievers ever hit the 90 inning mark, and no one has hit 100 since Scott Proctor in 2006. Over the last decade there's generally only a handful of guys that get over 80. If they plan on using him for 90-100 innings regularly as a reliever, I'd plan on him having a short career. That brings up the question of whether it's the number of innings pitched, or the frequency of the appearances that poses the injury risk. What effect does it have to repeatedly warm up to then not get put into games for instance? The 1-inning relievers cap out at 70-80 or so, but that also means working on slightly more than 1 days rest on average, and likely going 2-3 days in a row on several occasions. Should pitching 3 innings every 4 days (~120 IP) really carry more of an injury risk than your average starter's workload? Or perhaps more applicable to Hader, 2 innings every 3 days (108 IP) or something similar? Naturally you can't really keep a strict schedule as well as you can for a starter as reliever usage is situational and based on need, but if you make it a priority (And that means passing up some decent opportunities) I don't see why you couldn't get a fairly balanced workload. Make sure he rarely, if ever, warms up when not entering the games and avoid pitching on consecutive days, and I think 100 IP isn't unreasonable. I obviously don't have access to the kind of data you'd need to say anything for sure, but the way the Brewers have been using him so far would suggest they feel fairly comfortable with it. Hader has pitched in 11/30 games (37%), going 18 innings (1.64 Inning/appearance). 37% of 162 is 60 games. 60*1.64 is 98.4 innings. He gets twice the appearances of a good starter with half the innings. Is this genius or crazy? Will this win more or less games than if he were a good starter? Will it cause his arm to fall off? He may not get up and down as much as most relievers, but he will have warm-ups between innings that most relievers never see, and pitch in "stressful innings" that people say can be harder on a pitcher than "easy innings." Maybe this revolutionizes baseball, or maybe it de-values your best pitcher and potentially causes arm problems. I guess my question is: If you don't know what effect this will have on a young player's arm, do you want Hader to be the guinea pig?

Very few relievers ever hit the 90 inning mark, and no one has hit 100 since Scott Proctor in 2006. Over the last decade there's generally only a handful of guys that get over 80. If they plan on using him for 90-100 innings regularly as a reliever, I'd plan on him having a short career. In the "Andrew Miller role," Andrew Miller has pitched 74.1 and 62.2 innings over the last two seasons. If we're trying to decide which role is more important, what does anyone thing the odds are of Boston converting Sale back to a reliever, since they know he can be dominant there? Does anyone think that Boston should convert Sale back to a reliever, where he could be used in "important innings?" I'm not trying to throw off an appreciation thread. I really appreciate what Hader's doing. I just think that he could be much more valuable as a starter, and has the potential to be one of the best starters ever to wear a Brewer uniform. I just worry that he's doing such a good job that he'll get himself stuck in a less valuable role for fear of "messing up a good thing."

I appreciate Hader a lot. As a stater, he could be one of the most valuable pitchers in the game. As a reliever I agree that if he continues to dominate he could be as valuable as a middle-of-the-rotation starter.

I think we need to note that while we took a big step forward last year and expectations are high, we are still in the process of our "rebuild/retool." Stearns is still trying to move the team from one built around home run hitters who strike out a lot and play poor defense to one built around guys who get on base and play good defense. This is not something that can be done overnight, especially on a limited budget. Guys like Arcia, Perez, Pina, Bandy, and Villar are not OBP guys. Santana's better than he's showed so far, but there's a reason Stearns brought in Yelich and Cain and was trying to trade Santana. He's transforming the offensive look to the team, but as long as most of the roster is made up of guys who swing for the fences and strike out a lot, the offense will continue to be streaky. As hard as it is, we have to be patient. We are ahead of schedule as far as the rebuild goes, but we're still not a finished product.

There may have been some "doom and gloom," but most (like me) thought it was just odd that the team built a roster where we'd have an All-Star caliber player sitting on the bench while we had guys like Sogard, Perez and Villar getting regular PAs and Suter / Miley in the rotation. I liked that we added Chacin, and when they decided to keep Hader in the pen I hoped they would get one more guy on a shorter-term deal as a bridge to our talented prospects, allowing Suter to be the "long man" in the pen. Suter has been our weak link and is now being moved to the "long man" role. Who knows, maybe Miley will end up being the guy I was hoping we'd get. I am very glad that Anderson is proving that last year wasn't a fluke and that Guerra seems to have found his 2016 form. As to the offense, injuries have certainly hurt, but the big problem is still that we have too many "automatic outs" in the lineup on a daily basis. Everybody expected Santana to be better than this, but there was a lot of reason to believe that Sogard, Perez and Villar would be bad, and Arcia's value is defense, not offense. We have limited resources, and this offseason the Brewers spent them on Yelich, Cain and bullpen help. Those guys have been fine, but we're 23rd in offense in ISO, 24th in OBP and 23rd in Runs scored. We need some of the guys who weren't upgraded to play better, or it's going to be time to give up on them.

Because they're not a very well-run organization.

That actually sounds like a valid reason to fire the manager. They have a lot of youngsters on the roster and will rid themselves of Mesoraco's $13.125M salary after this year. If they can flip some vets (Gennett and Hamilton will be in their final arby year next year) for young talent this year they could be a decent team in the near future. Note that "decent" probably means ".500 talent hoping things go well" instead of "playoff favorite." It's more common these days to do a bigger tear-down/rebuild, but the Reds probably figure that they don't want to waste Votto's MVP-caliber years. They seem to be a bit of a rudderless ship with about half their salary going to Votto and Bailey, but they're not without talent (veteran and prospect).

Milwaukee catcher OPS is 16th best in the majors (.003 from 14th place). The catching position really isn't the downfall, lots of teams have catchers that can't hit. Shortstop and 3B are the biggest negatives when compared to the league. I think the point was that we have a surplus of talent at OF/1B, while we have some holes elsewhere. With Braun and Yelich back, Aguilar (one of our best bats so far this season) will sit everyday along with one of Braun, Yelich, Cain, Thames, and Santana. Meanwhile, guys like Arcia, Villar, Bandy, and Perez will be playing. Arcia brings plus defense, so at least he's helping the team there. The rest of those guys don't bring much to the table. Regardless, we are where we are. Hopefully some of these guys start hitting and the team starts scoring more runs. Watching double digit strikeouts while hoping Thames hits a home run won't bring long-term success. We should be better offensively than we have been so far, so let's hope for that reversion to the mean to happen quickly.

I've been thinking the same thing. Stearns seems to want guys in the rotation who can go 4-5 innings without completely sinking the team, and a strong bullpen with several guys who can go multiple innings a few times a week. Top that off with guys with options who can be shuffled to AAA after a long outing (or when the #5 can be skipped) to bring in a fresh arm. I'm skeptical as to whether this can work over a 162-game season, but for the Brewers' sake, I sure hope it does. It would sure help the situation if we could get some 6-8 inning outings at least a couple of times a week.

Glad to get Yelich back. We've been striking out a lot lately and Yelich can help that some. Plus, Perez and his .152/.200/.333/.533 line will see more time on the bench. It was good to see Lopez get some MLB innings under his belt last night. Now he can work on some things in AAA and hopefully be back to help the Brewers before too long.

The good thing about last year was that they were able to expand payroll and play up their playoff chances to sell more tickets for 2018. The bad thing about playing up your playoff chances and selling more tickets is that the fans buying those tickets expect the team to win every day, and they believe the world is collapsing if they don't.

That is a good sign. I think we can be okay with 5-6 inning starts, as long as we occasionally get a 7-8 inning start peppered in here and there to rest the 'pen. We have some pitchers who are capable of that, but it would be really nice to have "that guy" who can do it semi-regularly. Unfortunately, "that guy" is hard to find in today's world of baseball. Nelson coming back strong will surely help.

I'm hoping it doesn't have to be a choice between two bad outcomes. I hope we can pay league minimum for good production, freeing up payroll for acquisitions or extensions of good players. You're spot-on with the first sentence. We have a lot of pitching talent in the minors that will help us in some way in the future. Even if that is a bullpen arm or middle-of-the-rotation starter, that's a lot of production for league minimum that can help the team a lot.

It wouldn't be "Yelich vs 2017 offense," but rather "Yelich vs the person he's replacing" relative to "pitcher vs who he's replacing." Yelich is basically taking PAs from Braun, Thames and Aguilar, so it could be argued that a good pitcher taking starts away from Brent Suter could have been a greater need than Yelich taking PAs away from Braun, Thames and Aguilar. However, I think FVBrewerFan hit the nail on the head. This was a move to try to mold the team into one that fits Stearns' idea of what the team should look like moving forward. He wants "complete" position players who can play defense and put together "professional" at-bats, while he is willing to put a lot of innings on his bullpen arms.