monty57

When the shift is on batters are almost certainly worked exclusively inside so going the other way (in theory) isn's as easy. All shifts are now different. The defenders are placed based on where a particular hitter hits the ball, regardless of how they are pitched, so the pitcher is supposed to pitch them as they normally would.

Yuni was interesting because he could make contact with anything the pitcher threw, and that was a disadvantage because he swung at everything. The pitcher knew he could throw a ball a foot outside and Yuni would hit a pop up to second. I think a high contact rate with a good eye is a nice combo. I know "stat guys" think very little of RBIs, but making contact with a runner on third often gets you an RBI, while striking out does not. Over the course of a season, this may not show up as a "blip on the radar" in aggregate stats, but it can add some additional runs to a team every year, and that could be meaningful.

My biggest concern is age and length of contract. Walker isn't ancient, but players start slowing down past 30, and he'll be 32 next month. He could be one of those guys who can play until he's 40, or he could hit the wall and is washed up soon. There are more guys who fade out in their early 30's then there are guys who are still good into their mid-to-late 30's, so signing a guy in their 30's always scares me. Three years isn't a really long time, but it's still guaranteed that for three seasons you will pay him, even if he falls off a cliff. The difference between a 2-year and a 3-year deal may be the difference between whether I'd like to sign him or not. He's been good in his prime, but now that he's coming out of it, will he continue to be a guy you want to be committed to?

The 3rd year could be an issue if somebody this offseason gets a big deal for 3 seasons. But I guess my question beyond that is, how will it hamper the franchise? There may be an unlikely situation where some ace is available at the deadline but we can't absorb a $25 million/year deal for 2 seasons but otherwise (again, strongly assuming Mark will spend his usual amount) I don't really know how it will hamper the franchise. I tried to think of a good word to use, and "hampered" was as good as I could come up with. I'll use the term "excess cash," by which I mean the difference between the amount of money available to spend on payroll less the amount of money actually committed to payroll. Excess cash is a tool, and it should be used wisely. In some cases, it makes sense to use the excess cash to sign a FA, while in other cases it's better to not spend the money and let a prospect get his shot. The Brewers should have plenty of excess cash over at least the next few seasons, and I hope they implement a strategy where they normally have excess cash. They could run out of "excess cash" if they commit themselves to too many contracts, so a couple of ways this hypothetical contract could do harm: 1) They sign multiple guys to deals like this, filling up all of their "excess cash." One of these deals may not seem like a lot, but it only takes three $15M deals to eat up $45M/year of "excess cash." That limits our flexibility for making deals going forward, and I'd rather not use up this money on aging vets who provide limited marginal upside. 2) At his age, he could hit the wall at any time. If he goes downhill in year two of the deal, we may not want to "eat" $17-$34M, so he could be kept on the roster even if he stinks while a better option sits in AAA waiting for the contract to run out. 3) Akin to #2 above, $17M may guarantee him a starting role beyond the time he deserves it. Even if Walker is still playing okay, if someone like Dubon is a better option in 2019, would we use Walker as a $17M bench bat? One 3 year / $17M per year contract would not cripple this franchise, but it could do harm. We would really be looking at Walker as an answer for one year, as we have prospects who should be ready to take over before too long, and Walker is almost 32. If we could get him on a one-year deal, which seems unlikely, I'd be all for it. I'd pass on a multi-year deal for him.

Melvin did a lot well, but he definitely let the bat play at the expense of defense. It won't surprise me a bit if our pitching looks a lot better as the Brewers put more emphasis on defense.

I like using free agency for things like role players and relief pitchers. It's when we try to fill important roles through free agency that we could really get burned. That said, I think that Walker will probably be too expensive for his marginal contribution to the team for us to consider signing him beyond this year. Even if it's only for three years, signing him to something like $17M / year could hamper the franchise. He turns 31 next month, so he's on the downward side of his career. That could be an untradeable contract in a year or two, and if we have better options at that time, that would be a lot of money to simply "eat." Therefore, even if we have "excess money," I don't think this would be the best way to use it. I'm glad we got him for this season, but I'd let him walk at seasons' end.

You're statement above assume that the current Brewer players aren't capable of a hot streak. Say you bring in a Kinsler and he goes on a tear. All of a sudden, pressures off a bit and another guy lights up. And another and another. You're telling me that you've never seen something like that in baseball? Or any other sport? It's not that Kinsler magically waves pixie dust or teaches anyone to hit and all of a sudden we are the 1927 Yankees. But it can spark a flame that other guys pick up. It really isn't unheard of. Isn't it just as likely that Broxton or Villar go on a tear, because Broxton has gone on a tear and it hasn't made a difference.

I just think it's an odds thing. To start the year, the odds weren't high for the Brewers to make the playoffs, so they filled their gaping holes at 1B and 3B, but traded away most of their bullpen and went into the season with a pretty low payroll. They had a relatively good first half, mixed with a very bad first half for the Cubs (both relative to pre-season expectations), so they were willing to part with some money and/or prospects to improve the roster. However, the odds of the the Brewers continuing to play a little better than their talent level, the Pirates and Cardinals continuing to play below their talent level, and the Cubs continuing to play a lot worse than their talent level weren't high enough that the Brewers were willing to go overboard in spending to improve their roster. Stearns didn't sit around doing nothing. He improved the bullpen, which was the weakest area of the team. The fact that the offense, which had been productive, suddenly forgot how to score runs isn't Stearns' fault. If anything, the knowledge that the team could fall apart was the reason he was hesitant to give up too much, and we should be glad that we didn't throw away guys like Brinson, Hader, Ortiz, etc only to have the team fall apart. I seriously doubt that the addition of Kinsler or Quintana would have made much difference when pretty much the whole team has laid an egg since the All Star break. I was one of the guys who wanted Quintana, but I am very glad we didn't give up what it would've taken to get him, as something like Brinson, Ortiz and Ray probably wouldn't have beaten what the Cubs gave up. If we could get Kinsler for a song, then I'm sure he'd already be a Brewer. That he's not a Brewer probably means it would take something significant to get him. That or someone else claimed him so that the Brewers or another team couldn't get him.

I don't think I'd bring Granderson in to teach anyone how to make contact. Maybe on how to hit for power or take walks, but not to make contact.

There are no trade clauses that could make a Lewis Brinson and Josh Hader for Ian Kinsler trade not work. I'd say there are some sanity clauses that should make us not do that trade as well :-)

The Mets' owners lost a bundle in the Madoff deal, so a few million to them is probably substantial.

That was well written. Kudos for him for making this public and for the extra work he's put in to try to figure it out.

I wouldn't call this year "fool's gold." I thought going in that they could be a .500 team, and that's pretty much where they are. The reason they're in the playoff hunt is that the Cubs seriously under-performed their expectations. There has been a lot to like about the Brewers this year, and they have shown that they are probably going to be in the playoff picture sooner than most would've guessed. That said, I think Stearns was prudent this trading season. He shored up the bullpen without giving up too much, and held back when the price tag for the bigger pieces got too big. Bruce wouldn't have helped us, but I'd guess that if there is a 2B sitting out there to be had for nothing more than salary relief, we'll try to get him. We have a much better picture of what needs to be done now than we had six months ago. I have no doubt that Stearns will make some moves this offseason and those moves, along with our young guys getting a year older, will make us a more talented team next year than we are this year. Until then, let's hope the guys we have can remember that they are decent hitters, and that the Cubs continue to stumble. We can still win this division.

While there is disagreement on his future role, it seems that most agree that Hader needs to work on his command and his secondary pitches (at least on his change-up). I can't believe that the 22.1 IP he's received as a Brewer has been overly meaningful to the Brewers' success, and it can't be helping him work on what he needs to work on. I think we're going to look back on the decision to call him up rather than letting him continue as a starter in CS as a mistake.

I agree. He's not going to get the innings he should, and if he is indeed not throwing his secondary pitches, they are not going to develop. The current usage is one that could turn a potential top-of-the-rotation starter into a situational reliever. He could definitely use more time in the minors, but the ineptitude of the bullpen was enough that the Brewers brought him up in a pennant race. That decision could help this year's team, but it could really hurt his future. Like you, I really hope there is a plan in place that I'm just not seeing.

OBP over the last 30 days for guys who are currently available: 1) Braun .368 2) Shaw .365 3) Pina .359 4) Thames .323 5) Santana .312 6) Arcia .311 7) Broxton .277 8) Perez .274 9) Villar .241 10) Aguilar .231 11) Sogard .139 12) Susac .000 Not really a lot there to work with. I'd probably go with Santana, Thames, Braun, Shaw, Pina, Broxton, Arcia, Villar/Sogard, Pitcher with Perez filling in as needed. As to Arcia, I'd move Villar/Sogard to #8, so Arcia should move up at least one spot. Broxton's on a bit of a hot streak now, so I'd keep him ahead of Arcia for now.

TJseven7, I don't disagree with you, and I think that's all fine as long as money doesn't matter, but it does. My concern is that we will "groom him" in the majors during his pre-arby years, and then get 1.5 - 2.5 years of him as a starter before we trade him away. The team that eventually signs him to a big-money deal when he's entering his prime will be very pleased that we used all of his service time "grooming him" and kept innings down so they're less worried about him getting injured. The Brewers need to maximize the value of their players. I don't think bringing prospects up before they're ready is maximizing value. They did it with Arcia and they're doing it with Hader. Maybe they just don't want players spending time at Colorado Springs, but they're going to lose their top players sooner because they're bringing them up before they're ready. Hader's been up nearly two months (June 9 call-up) and has 21.1 IP. For some reason, people are happy that Hader's first year of service time will net the Brewers around 40 IP, and will not give him enough innings to even have consideration for a rotation spot in 2018. If you're going to burn a year to try to help the team make the playoffs, at least use the guy every now & then.

I agree, LouisEly, although I think Broxton's value to some extent is yet to be determined and I think that's why he's going to be our starting CF the rest of this year. He could go on one of his hot streaks, ending the season with an OPS over .800 with a bunch of HR and SB. If that's the case, he could net a good return this offseason. Or, he could be cold, ending with a batting average around .200 and an OPS in the low .700s, in which case he would have significantly lower value to a rebuild team looking at his potential. Either way, I think he will be traded because of our "logjam." Next year will be Braun, Brinson, Santana with Phillips either our 4th OF or sitting in AAA waiting for an injury. Garza is another question mark. We could trade him this offseason and get an okay return for him if he continues to pitch at the level he has this year (and if he can get/stay healthy). That's the same reason we may decide to hold onto him for another year, as he's a solid mid-rotation starter who could help us next year. Ideally, we'll have enough confidence in our other guys to be able to trade away Garza for youth, so it will be interesting to see which way we go. As you mentioned with guys like Jungmann and Wilkerson, I think you're right. The decent players who don't have a clear shot with the Brewers but could play elsewhere will probably be used in trades. Hopefully we can always keep a strong farm, so this will always be the case. Plant the seeds, tend the crops, keep the cream of the crop for yourself and sell off the rest of the yield for help elsewhere.

If Susac is a capable defensive catcher, then he'll probably be okay for a start a week until Vogt is back. I wonder what's happen with this guy. I had high hopes for him when we acquired him last year, but he sure hasn't done much at AAA.

It has to be really hard for you as a fan with this completely glass half empty approach you have to the franchise. Stearns didn't want to give up pieces he finds highly valuable for a small increase in our chances to win a world series. That doesn't mean our prospects all stink and it doesn't mean he thinks our odds of catching the Cubs are futile. Quintana and Gray are the big controllable pieces that were moved and neither of them look like that big of upgrades over what we already have given their peripherals, health history etc. We easily could still trade for a Kinsler or Verlander type this month if things look more favorable. Not to mention that I keep hearing how relievers' value is so much greater in "today's game," even to the extent that some believe that Hader will be more valuable if he remains a reliever than if he joins the rotation, but people say we made no moves when we picked up one of the better closers in the game this year to be Knebel's setup guy. We now have a pretty dominant late relief crew. We just need our offense to remember that they're actually pretty good and then we have a shot at taking the division.

I don't know if Stearns will ever view us as being in any particular stage (i.e. rebuild, "win now") or as anything to ever be "complete." I think that as long as Stearns is GM and Attanasio trusts him, we will always continue to look for ways to infuse talent into the system at all levels. We added MLB pieces when we have not been expected to win at the MLB level, and we will trade away guys from the MLB roster when we are expected to win. Stearns seems to be very "big picture," so he will continue to try to add value to the entire franchise, not just the current MLB team. No one is perfect, but I'm kind of fascinated by how Stearns works.

I'd like to see Woodruff replace Guerra. Then, when everyone's back, you have Nelson, Anderson, Davies, Garza, Woodruff... not a bad rotation if everyone pitches like they have been. Hopefully Guerra can regain his confidence in AAA, giving them another viable option or at least a solid long-man for the 'pen.

If there is a good SP who hits free agency around 27 years old, then I could see Stearns going after him. I doubt he'll make the four-year deals to 31-32 year-olds that we saw during Melvin's tenure. Unfortunately, most SP who are young & good get extended, so by the time good SP hit free agency they are too old for the Brewers to risk signing them to a "monster deal." As to "the plan," I think we've built a decent core. I could see some extensions this offseason, and I think we'll see some trades out of areas of depth (OF). Free agency will probably be used mainly to fill in some holes, although Stearns likes to surprise with moves like the Thames signing.

I'll guess that Broxton, Brinson and Phillips would be about even for the remainder of this year. In other words, it's hard to say which of them will be hot over the next couple of months, and which will lay an egg. Brinson is obviously the top choice to be the CF going forward and I think they really like Phillips, so the future will belong to them. Since the odds are probably about even as to who will perform better over the next two months, and playing Broxton could greatly increase his trade value this offseason, I understand why they'd do this. Letting Broxton play well in AAA would do nothing other than make other GMs think he's a "AAAA guy," while Brinson and Phillips can use what they learned at the MLB level to improve a bit so they're more ready to take over when they're brought back up. If Broxton doesn't get hot, then he will probably have about the same value he currently has, as someone with a ton of potential who could be appealing to a rebuilding team. People have seen what he is capable of, so his trade value probably won't go down much, but could go up quite a bit over the remainder of the season.

I agree that we will need to do something with the OF logjam. They did move Cordell for Swarzak, which cleared up one MLB ready/40 man guy. I'd guess this offseason we will see one of Broxton/Phillips traded, and the other will be our 4th OF in 2018. I guess the best scenario would be that Broxton gets brought back up and gets on one of his hot streaks, where he "plays like Mays" and that entices someone to give up something of value in trade. I think rival GMs probably share your feelings on Ray, which is why he wasn't seen as a headliner in trades, and why they all insisted on Brinson. Again, best case is that he starts playing well. If he doesn't, he just becomes another failed Brewer first rounder. Stearns made some moves. Not headliner moves, but he picked up Vogt and traded for some relief help. He didn't want to trade Brinson or Hader, which is understandable, so he got outbid on the players who would have given our rotation an upgrade.