backup catchers

Thats losing attitude. If we build a winner, fans will come and revenue will increase. In turn we will be able to easily afford to resign Prince and Weeks and Billy Hall. You could sell out Miller park every game, double the TV and radio contract and it still would be dwarfed by NY, Boston and several other big markets. The fact is there are less people so there is less money. No matter how good the team no matter how good the ballpark unless you can figure out a way to import 25 million or so extra people or get the Brewers to become a national icon the team will never have the money the Yankees or Red Sox do. To keep a team of players who could make Soriano type of money will be more than this market can handle. Consider the fact that if Sheets, Hall, Weeks and Prince each make 15-20 million annually. That is 60 - 80 million for just them. If they are as good as we hope 15-20 will not be out of the question. If we can retain one or two and add good young talent we can be an Oakland or Minnesota type team. Giving out bad contracts to Pierre or whomever is a sure way not to even be able to afford one of them. That said it Doesn't mean it's a losing attitude. In fact it is the only attitude that has a chance of not losing. Much like Oakland could lose an all star first baseman, shortstop and pitcher and still win year in and year out the Brewers can as well. The way to do it is not to view blowing money foolishly as being cheap. There are times to overspend a little. On a short term contract to fill a hole on a good team, or to lock up someone in an area that is difficult to replace like catcher. But those time are not here and those situations are fairly rare.

I think we sometimes get so stuck on what a particular guy is worth we lose sight of what our needs are. Free agents get their money because they are pieces the team couldn't get without paying for it. If we have a guy who is worth more than he's paid overpaying for a free agent to fill a need isn't a bad idea. If the Brewers had a $60 million payroll and only spent $50 because they didn't want to overpay a freeagent who would have helped but not been worth the total $10 is cheap. Not overpaying the same free agent because it would hamper the teams ability to pay for other needs isn't cheap. At this point the Brewers want flexability in the next couple years so a long term big contract isn't the smartest idea. Why pay Lee or Pierre just to lose Prince, Weeks or Hall two years form now?

I want the team to be better---not jsut teh bullpen if adding jason jennings makes the team better overall, then i say go for it... Agreed. I think the disagreement is how it makes the team better. Like you said, the way we put the pen together in the past was to get a bunch of guys and see who stuck. I agree with that approach for the most part. The reason I didn't like the Cappy or T-Bow part of your trade thoughts was becasue we need numbers in the pen. I'd rather collect arms than get rid of them. For the record I'd be ok with T-Bow going somewhere else because of his salary but Latin Cappy is still cheap and certainly as functional, with heat and a high ceiling, as any scrap heap guy we could find.

pogo would you agree we should improve the bullpen? Latin Cappy (love that name BYW) was every bit as sound a prosect as Eveland and Sarfate and he wasn't great as a rookie. Why get rid of a guy whose already gone through some of the rookie learning curve and replace him with someone who has to go through the same thing? Eveland has had time in the bigs and that didin't turn out so well. I'm just not sold that those two are going to replace anyone. In cases where you have few solid answers I think the next best option is to give yourself as many parts to work with as possible and see what sticks. Getting rid of some of those parts and relying on a rookie or a guy who pretty much fell flat on his face when he had a chance last season seems like a pretty drastic gamble. Especially when there are other options out there to improve the team without losing workable parts in an area of weakness.

what about Clark (or TGJ) and Turnbow or Cappellan for Jennings? How does depleteing the bullpen help the team? We need help in the pen as it is. We are at the point where we need to target teams with a shortage were we have a surplus. Improving one area while making a bigger hole in another is like cutting a hole in the bottom of a boat to fix one in the side. Either way your still going to sink.

Judging from Bush's stats in 2005, he would never have been capable of putting up the strong season he did in 2006. The Bush Lopez comparison can go even further. It shows that guys who have one good year can come back to Earth. As Lopez shows we should not just figure Bush is going to continue to be as good as he was in 06. He may but why just assume he's going to be as good or better? If we don't assume Bush stays the same and the young AAA arms will all pan out then it makes sense to see if we can trade some of our spare parts for what is essentially a spare part from Baltimore. More arms with the versatility to pitch either in the pen or the rotation is a good thing. If it cost $3 million it's still better money spent than on guys Kolb. It's lot easier to put a puzzle together when you have more interchangable pieces to work with.

I think it's were the guy started to become an actual prospect. If someone picked up an throw in player via trade and that guy came into the organization and took off it would seem to me the development really started with that organization.

Not to say that Krynzel "can't", but using Hall as the example just doesn't work. How does using a guy with virtually the same numbers at about the same age not work? I'm not saying Krynzel is going to be the next Hall by any means. All I'm saying is we shouldn't just say he is not worth anything and should be given up on without even a chance to compete for the fifth outfield spot. Even if he doesn't hit very well he has speed and is a very good defender. Couple the fact that he can help the team in other areas, the basic tools he has to work with and the possiblilty that he could, as Hall did, improve offensively why not see what he can do? Mush like Hall's inconsitant defense and poor strike zone judgment improved so can Krynzel's inconsistancy and slow adjustment time. Will it happen? No one knows. Would it hurt to find out? Not really from the fifth outfield spot.

Dave K. has spent his years of 22-24 at AAA and gone from a .748 to a .740 to a .673 OPS. He's regressed.. You need to take into account he is coming off injury. Self inflicted or no it still makes a differance. Bill Hall spent his years of 22-23 at AAA, not the same development timeline, Dave K. has spent his years of 22-24 at AAA I'm not sure how that isn't the same timeline. He played middle infield vs. CF. Hall was not good at all he just couldn't play without trowing the ball away or botching the easy plays. Center isn't leftfield and Krynzel is and always has been very good. He was rushed and probably shouldn't have been called up(primarily due to OBP) but the Brewer teams of 2003/2004 weren't as good as those of 2005/2006. The reason Hall was called up was because he was out of options and like, JDLR and Krynzel, had to much potential to just let another team take for free. There is no reason a 500ish type team couldn't use a plus defender with potential as the fifth outfielder. Not unless there is someone in the same boat as he is who is better. Gwynn may be better but he really isn't good enough yet IMO and has options left.

Not to be a Krynzel apologist or anything but look at this comparison. Bill Hall AAA numbers BA OBP SLG OPS 252 299 347 646 vs Krynzel BA OBP SLG OPS 252 322 397 719 Bill is a great athlete but Krynzel is the superior defender at the same development time line. Not every one does what Billy did but it obviosly isn't impossible either. I would rather see Krynzel as the 5th of with Gwynn in AAA. Not because Krynzel is better but because Gwynn isn't quite ready, IMO, and there is no reason to push him at this point. Not to mention the upside of Krynzel if he does pull a Hall.

I get why Money wasn't happy and even agree Gallardo should have been talked to abou thow to go about hitting someone. That being said Coleman knew he was going to get buzzed for hotdogging it so why should he be mad about it? It's a pretty simple decision from his perspective. Run the bases like a professional or hot dog it and take the consequenses. Instead of getting angry because it took three pitches or it was higher than you thought acceptable just act like you should.

I don't really want to see anyone up on the major league roster to learn anymore. That era should be past. They should only be called up when ready. At this point I think Braun needs more work on defense. If he doesn't make it up until 08 or 09 so be it. At his position there are plenty of major league ready players on the team for next year. Barring several injuries he should be in AAA all next year. Or until he proves he is completely ready. However long that takes.

I know the value of the k/walk ratio but I'm curious if it can be used across the board for every type of pitcher. My question is if you have a guy who doesn't k a lot of guys but doesn't walk many either does the sample size become to small to really be a good indicator? Groundball pitchers can be effective and have very few k's. If they get a game or two when they are a wild it can take a long time for the rate to even out yet it is only a couple bad outings in a season that can really screw up the total. I'm more or less talking about relievers since it a couple bad innings can be a fairly big chunk of a season.

I'm sure Hall goes back to super U when Hardy gets back but he is playing all star calibre short right now IMO. If Hardy did perform as well over all as Hall we would all be pretty happy. So the question does have to be asked. Can we really hope Hardy can someday play better than Hall is now? If not why not just keep Hall there? My answer to that is we can have both of them for another couple years anyway and Hall is the more versatile.

Wow Kinney vs Franklin debates? Makes me even more mad I didn't find this site sooner.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/embarassed.gif

Couple thoughts. Has the era of specialized bullpens been around long enough to make hard and fast rules based on the past uses of said specialist's role? There are decades of evidence to show loogys role is useful. Taking into account the individual hitter/pitcher matchups of course. I just don't know if there has been enough managers over the last 15 years who have taken a radical approach to the ace reliever's role. Most managers just hand the top reliever the closer role don't they? If they fail they take the next best guy and he becomes the ace of the relievers. Second I thought it interesting they mentioned how managers are still playing the bullpen roles as much by intuition as they do numbers. It may be they don't trust the data because it isn't steeped in a century of testing. It also may be how all changes in baseball work. Some rebel get's an idea in his head and does it. Even when it goes agianst conventional wisdom. When it's used over a period of time the stats will determine it's worth. In the bullpen, at this point in history innovation, may be as useful or more so than statistical evidence.

In my effort to learn I'm putting this out there as an opinion. If I am far off or behind the times please excuse my ignorance. OPS is one of those stats that many people look at for a quick referance look at a players performance. The problem I've seen is one that plagues many "combined" stats. Ones that combine two or more other stats. Usually those stats have a flaw in that it's components are usually treated as equal when they are combined. As Russ has shown with ops is the components aren't equals at all. That leads to false conclusions about players abilities. I use ops as an example because it's the one that gets used most. Many times it's the only stat used for an arguement for or against a player. To me I would rather see obp and slugging over ops because it tells a more complete story about the type of player. I personally think ops is the thing that makes many non stat people cringe. Quite frankly I don't believe real stat people would ever use one stat for anything. They are usually smart enough to know better. If someone has a defense for using it please educate me. I am willing to learn.

I couldn't get the audio of 1e's post but I think I get the point. Looked at the link Russ posted and got a flashback to college stats.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/sick.gif I've always felt era for relievers is the equivelnat to batting average for a utility guy. Not a big enough a sample size to determine real value. I would like to see an inherited runner stat totally independant of era. It could an expected run vs. actual runs correlation or something. Probably is something like that already but it just doesn't seem to be something generally used in evaluting relievers. Not by many fans anyway.

The thing is, I don't think players HAVE specfic roles. I bet Yost and Melvin don't agree. The 8 hole guy's role is to get on base when nobodys on base so the pitcher gets up that inning but changes when there is a guy in scoring position. Then he is supposed to drive him in, not walk. That will maximize runs scored not letting the hitter bat him in after he walked. Brady Clark's role was not the same as Lee's. Clarks role was to get on base so the middle of the order could bat them in. Jenkins and Lee are supposed to drive in runs. Those roles came about because each hitter has differant strengths. I've said in this thread, the job of all players is to maximize runs scored for a team. Agreed the way to do that is put each player in a role he is best at. Otherwise why does it matter if Lee hits fourth and Clark hits ahead of him? Why not have Lee leadoff and Clark bat 4th? According to you it shouldn't matter. Your #4 hitter doesn't HAVE to score all the runs and it certainly doesn't make sense to sacrifice OBP to have him do it. If your 4th batter has a better chance to get a base hit to drive in a run than your fifth does it make sense for him to take a walk? The better hitters have to work for a hit, not just get on base and let the next guy, who has a greater chance of failure, try. That is how you maximize run production. It's just not as easy as higher obp for a particular player=more runs scored. That may be true for a team not necessarily individuals. If about 25% of the Brewer's runs were scored by the #5 and #6 hitters in 2005, doesn't that illustrate the importance of maximizing RBI opportunities for them too? Only if they are as good a hitter as #4. When Lee drove in most of his runs (first half) they had a relatively poor hitter behind him. Jenkins as you recall was really bad. Some of the other guys they tried with the exception of Overbay just were not as good a hitter as Lee. In the first half last season I would rather have seen Lee try to score runners himself than take a walk and let Miller or 3TO do it. Just a hypothetical here but what if the manager felt the same way? Thus he had Lee working for a hit not just a walk. His OBP suffered but the overall team production was better.

His RBI's are a function of opportunity, his power and ability to make contact. They are a simply a result of his abilities, not an ability in itself. I think you took "Seems to me rbi and power are the two things defenders of him bring up all the time." Out of context. It was in regard to endaround using rbi as a stat against Lee. His RBI's are a function of opportunity, his power and ability to make contact. They are a simply a result of his abilities, not an ability in itself. You have a point but are missing one important factor. He produced in those opportunities. I know you don't like rbi's and have put forth very good arguements for your distaste for them. Just like a leadoff guy, a middle of the order guy has a role. Driving in runs is that role so rbi are probably as useful as OPS in assessing if he was productive. Probably more useful than OBP. If you believe I counted that twice because it is covered by the other two I can see that though. Much like I believe OPS and OBP cover the same fault. So if that is what you mean I concede that point.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tired.gif His steals has to be the single most irrelevant thing anyone brings up about him. He had 13 steals and 4 caught stealing in 2005. For his career it's 77/30. The value of that is just about ZERO. I admitted as much. But, again it was as a counter arguement directed at using his defense as a negative. So to use it in context of the arguement I believe it to be valid.

Other Lee faults: BA OBP VORP Defense RBI/baserunner Endaround maybe you could give me a little clarification on these supposed faults for Lee. Since when is a carreer .284 average for a power hitter bad? OBP is part of OPS so that is kind of like counting it twice if you use it along with OPS. In fact his low OBP is the main problem with his low OPS so you may want to use it instead of OPS as a critisim. VORP I don't really like it (kind of gets overused as well IMO) but it certainly is valid one so I'm fine with you using it. That makes two faults low OBP and VORP. Defense. He isn't Jenkins out there but he isn't Manny Ramirez either. It is a fault but in reality defense is fairly minor for a power hitting left fielder. Kind of like finding fault with Ben Sheets because he can't bunt very well. While true not really a big deal. To be honest in most cases I agree wtih you on defense though so I'll give you the point. RBI/baserunning are very valid things to bring up. I just need a little clarification on how his rbi totals are a problem. Seems to me rbi and power are the two things defenders of him bring up all the time. Baserunning wise I guess he must have made more baserunnig blunders than I remember because he stole more bases than I thought he could. Not to mention at a better rate than I thought he would given how many steals he had. Lee supporters are the ones who dismiss all stats to focus on RBIs and to a lesser extent HRs. There is nothing out there that projects well for Lee going forward." You can't dismiss all stats if you use rbi and HR after all they are stats. Just not ones you like or believe are viable. But to be fair here are my reasons why I like him. He produces when given the opportunity. As Rluz demonstrated he has had ample opportunity to drive in runs and he did. Power. 30+ homeruns would seem to show he projects well for a couple more years. Durability. While some have mentioned his size as a future problem there has been nothing to prove other than he can play everyday. I do wish he was in better shape but 30 isn't so old as to believe he will start to fall apart any day now. IF he was 35 or so I would be more worried. He hits for average. Down year this year but his over all body of work shows he can hit 300 some years and certainly is a good bet to hit over .275. He puts the ball in play. If someone wants to count low OBP we also have to look at how he helped add power without Jose Hernandez type of k's. For this particular team finding a right handed power bat was important. With a team history of strikouts another K prone slugger could have looked a lot like the Sexon, Jenkins, Burnitz, Hernandez bunch. We all know how that worked out. Steals bases at a good clip. If I grant his below average defense as a negative I should be allowed to count this as well. Not a major factor one way or the other but as important as defense is for a leftfielder.

It's ONE stat, and while it's a very important one, it shouldn't take precedence over those other 3 also-very-important ones Amen to that. OPS may be the best single stat we have today. Which is why it gets abused. It can't be used alone as an indicator of value. No stat can. So to use it alone to assess a player's value is useless. When we dissect OPS into it's parts to determine if it is on base heavy vs slugging heavy we get differant results. I believe Rluz did his usual excellent analysis on this a while back and found all OPS was not created equal. And as Geno just stated it doesn't take into account number of games or trying to get a hit to score a run vs a walk and let the scoring up to a lesser hitter in the lineup. So to me if OPS is Carlos' only fault you need to show why this particular stat for this particular guy is so important that you can dismiss his other stats.

I think we are all looking Carlos from differant persectives. Some look at him in terms of how he rates vs other left fielders, some look at him for his offensive qualities regardless of position, and still others look at him as a specific type of hitter. A well rounded offense has differant types of hitters. Russ and co. are right about rbi being a poor indicator of most players. I do believe Geno has a point as well, rbi's are meaningful when it comes to middle of the order guys like Lee. They are judged by a differant standard. Kind of like a closer is a differant job than the rest of the pen. Rbi are what count. A middle of the order hitter like Lee has to be replaced with a middle of the order type hitter. You don't replace a threat like Lee by committee. Next year is probably to early for Prince to be that guy. Hart/Cruz just isn't the same for the middle of the order as Lee. So keep Lee for next year and see what happens.

If the reason for trading Lee would be to improve the team I'm fine with that. I'm for anything that improves the team. If trading him is because of the money I'm ok with that as well. Provided they can get the same production via the trade for a cheaper price. If the only reason for the trade is the fear that we will get nothing in return for him if he leaves via free agency I just can't see the arguement. If we keep him for all next year and we can stay in the post season race then lose him for no compensation I don't see that as a waste. We have moved past that era when everyone that leaves via free agency instead of a trade is a critical error that is bound to have an impact for years to come. We have a farm system that can absorb the loss of players like Lee. So my vote is keep him next year if he is the best option for 06 and let him walk after the season and let the farm system work the way it's supposed to for Milwaukee to be successful.

If this Statement from my previous Post didn't spellout My Support 4 Carlos I don't know what else I can do 2 help You understand??? Just a suggestion snuff. I know it's been suggested before but maybe repeating it will help. Try SPELLING out your posts. You have some good points but trying to decifer your posts with all the 2's, 4's and various shorthand hurts your credibility. I am not trying to insult you by any means just trying to help.