And That

I think it largely depends on how much you associate any individual member with a band and it is largely a personal opinion. Some bands are dominated by individual personalities, some are dominated by the idea of the band itself. For instance, Led Zeppelin is considering releasing a new album without Robert Plant as the lead singer (or John Bonham on drums obviously). To me, Plant is a big enough part of Zeppelin whereas if they released a record without him on lead vocals, I'd have a tough time calling it a Zeppelin record even though Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, and Jason Bonham were all present (Page especially). The flip side of this is two of my favorite bands - Wilco and Spiritualized - have had tremendous lineup turnover. However, Jeff Tweedy and Jason Pierce respectively are the center of their bands and all parts around them can and have changed, and the band is still essentially the same due to its core member. On the other hand, there are many bands that have undergone wholesale changes to its core and have still continued under the same name to the satisfaction of their fans. Lynyrd Skynyrd comes to mind first for me, Yes, The Jazz Messengers (of course not ignoring that Art Blakey was the constant member), The Yardbirds, maybe Big Star, etc. If you think Axl Rose has always been the driving influence behind GnR so that essentially GnR=Axl Rose, then maybe you could consider it the same band. Music is great that many people can have many differing outlooks on it, so maybe there isn't a definitive answer the question. It's personal taste and affiliation. To me it would be when the essence of the band changes, even to the extent that the same group of musicians starts making drastically different music. For instance when Wire went all new wave in the late 80's-early 90's, I consider it to be a new incarnation of the band and it to be essentially different from the Wire of the late 70's that put out those great albums. Or the Kinks of the same time period. Mercury Rev after Boces was not really the same band at all, though I like them a lot more without Dave Baker. Basically... it's up to the listener to decide.

Already being discussed in the minor league offseason transaction thread.

Already being discussed in the minor league offseason transaction thread.

Does this quietly end the reign of Brian Shouse in Milwaukee? I tend to think the Brewers might be happy picking up a draft pick for Shouse if he won't come back on a 1-year deal.

Neither Jeffress nor Gamel is going to be involved in a DeJesus deal unless we're getting back more than DeJesus. DeJesus isn't a big enough upgrade over any OF on the roster to warrant that, nor is he worth it IMO. Lucroy (note, the C is not capitalized) might be the key piece for the Royals, but that's as high up the prospect totem pole as the Royals would get from the Brewers right now, and maybe not even that. They might be somewhat more interested in pitching prospects and relief help anyway. I could see a Periard, Aguilar and Fryer type deal.

This borders on condescension, which is against the rules of the board. Polite disagreement does not include personal hyperbole.

If they have a few extra 40-man spots and they really like a guy, they might take him and then work out a deal to keep him when the roster cuts down to 25.

My girlfriend and I were at Green Mill sort of late last night, and we ordered a pizza with no cheese, pesto, basil, garlic and sun-dried tomatoes. No cheese because I'm a vegan. So, the pizza gets to the table and as the waiter is putting it on the table, he gets a disgusted look on his face. The pizza has cheese. He apologizes profusely and gives us onion rings while they make another pizza. That's nice. By the time the second pizza is made, we're both really tired and want to go home. We ask him to just box it up. We pay (about 1/2 the price was comped) and leave. We get to the parking to find her car's front passenger window was smashed, but nothing was stolen. The cops come, we file a report, they say there's nothing they can do. We drive home. We get home. I open the pizza box to finally have a slice of pizza for dinner before I crash. There's no pesto on it.

Our offense would've been our downfall without CC. I would argue our pitching was more effected by CC than our hitting. Without Sabathia, you have God knows what happening in the rotation after Sheets goes down. It would have been tough to blame a pretty decent offense if our rotation finished up being Gallardo-Bush-Suppan-McClung-uh?. The exact same thing will happen again without him. Proof, please. And not just the "slugging offenses like that" argument, which has not yet been based in any quantitative manor.

It is more likely we will have a better shot at the 2009 playoffs if Sabathia is on the roster, but "we will not make the playoffs unless" statements strike me as too absolutist at this point in the offseason. It is impossible to tell on 11/22/08 what will or will not push the Brewers into the playoffs in '09.

I am less concerned with Lowell's handedness than I am with Lowell's healthiness.

6th out of 16 in OPS and 7th out of 16 in runs scored is nothing to be proud of. That's barely[/i] above average. I agree that's it is nothing to toot your horn about, but it is not something that calls for a major overhaul, either. This is why I don't think we need any major changes... Brewers' NL OPS by position (compared to league average): C: .663 (.712) 1B: .876 (.837) 2B: .759 (.747) SS: .804 (.734) 3B: .726 (.774) LF: .869 (.802) CF: .804 (.760) RF: .765 (.786) Catcher, third base and RF were the only positions where we were below average, and we were well above average at 1B, SS, LF and CF. So basically we have three spots to look at. -I'm pretty confident that Hart will bounce back to somewhere around league average or better, and if he tanks it by midseason, there is time to salvage the position via trade, or from the farm system. -The Brewers won't make a switch at catcher. Kendall is what he is, though I think the OPS at catcher will improve marginally if Kendall doesn't start 140+ games next year. -That leaves third base to make the most improvement, IMO, and in the opinion of many others. Just a smart platoon with Branyan/Hall or Lamb/Hall or even Gamel/Hall probably gives you suddenly average or better production at third base. There are other ways for the Brewers to get better OBP from outside the organization, or by trading Hart, etc., but until the pitching situation is figured out, I don't think they'll worry about it too much simply because they don't need to. Keep in mind that we barely made it in as the wildcard. The key words in the sentence being "we... made it in as the wildcard [sic]." 6th in the NL in OPS won't cut it if we wanna make the playoffs next year. There is no way to know this. I'd like to see how the pitching staff shakes out here, and how other teams are put together before I'd come close to crawling out on that particular limb. The big difference between us and the Phillies was the ability to get the big hit. Well... The Phillies' 2008 high leverage situation team batting: .247/.332/.423 (754 OPS) The Brewers' 2008 high leverage situation team batting: .253/.344/.434 (778 OPS) The Phillies' 2008 late & close team batting: .249/.344/.420 (764 OPS) The Brewers' 2008 late & close team batting: .267/.353/.462 (815 OPS) What's the big difference?

So there are no good defensive first basemen under, say, 6'3? Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly are both shorter than Mat Gamel.

So how do you know Gamel will not be a good first baseman?

Why don't we need to make significant changes? Because our offense, while not dominant, was above average. If you don't want to use OPS, we scored the 7th most runs in the NL (3 runs behind Atlanta, the 6th best run scoring team). I agree the offense has its problems. I'd like some more OBP certainly, but even then we were .006 below the NL average. However, its problems are not significant enough to make significant changes. I guess it might vary on your definition of significant. The Nationals and Giants need to make significant changes. We just need some tweaks. It's impossible to get anywhere with a team that relies on the home run as much as the Brewers do. We got to the playoffs whilst "relying on the home run" as much as the Brewers did. I'd personally call that somewhere.

Gamel is an inch or so taller than that, and Prince can't be much over 5'7. Gamel is pretty close to, if not more than, half a foot taller than Prince. In regard to Mat not making a good first baseman based on his height, I guess I don't know how much being a bit over 6'0 has to do with his potential ability, or why it would preclude him from being a good defensive first baseman. Gamel is very athletic and pretty agile - I'd imagine he'd make a very good first baseman once he got adapted to the position. Certainly as a baseline he'd be noticeably better than Prince.

In regard to "everything being better" Milwaukee had the 6th best OPS in the NL last year. We don't need to make significant changes to the offense.

This is false. Some bad plays are not given errors (e.g., Braun had no errors in the field in 2008). Some bad plays are given errors, but given to the wrong person (e.g., Prince Fielder is poor at scooping/picking balls in the dirt and costs other people errors while Derrek Lee is excellent and saves other people errors). Some errors are given on borderline plays that may not have been errors at all (e.g., the "error" on Sabathia in Pittsburgh). While some bad plays do result in errors, not all do, and not all errors come on bad plays. To make the situation worse, minor league error are notoriously doled out in an even more haphazard manner than major league errors. Minor league error totals have some value, but their value is only useful in terms of generalization - a guy with 50 errors at SS probably has a few more problems than a guy with 10 errors at SS. Any further detail on their defense gleaned from this information is rather anecdotal. It is true the biggest hole in Gamel's game is his throwing. He needs more work on that before he's major league ready, IMO. The difference defensively between Gamel and Braun is that Braun's range at third base was historically bad, like the worst range by a regular third baseman in 100 years bad. Gamel doesn't have mind blowing range or anything, but he gets to the easy balls that Braun never was able to get to. If Gamel can just slow down, concentrate on footwork and get his throwing to first down, he can be a good defender at third base. I doubt Braun ever would have gotten to that point.

Since you started the topic, what do you think?

Sports really don't matter, C is more selfish than E and D is ridiculous, so the answer is E.

While he's not a pitcher, Josh Hamilton hadn't played in years I think it makes a huge difference that he wasn't a pitcher, and that he didn't miss time due to a debilitating injury. Rogers 100 MPH fastball and massive K totals suggest his raw talent is immense. I'm not sure why its a major issue that Rogers hasn't played in years. Rogers hasn't had a 100 MPH fastball in years, to the best of our knowledge. Rogers had a significant pitching arm injury - significant enough to knock him out of professional competition for over two years. Given that a pitcher's biggest asset by is his arm, that he missed two years is a very big deal. Even assuming he's back to 100%, which I think is very far from likely, I find it difficult to believe he'd be competitive against big league hitters. I mean, he was having control problems in '06 against A-ball hitters. I take it that his inclusion on the 40-man roster means his health must be progressing somewhat. And I realize that he would be a long term project for a team if he were a Rule 5 choice, but if you're on the 25-man roster, you have to be marginally competitive. Again, if there is precedent for a guy being selected in the Rule 5 after not pitching for two years and sticking with the team throughout the season, I'd like to see it.

More than a bag of balls to the right team. (Nice touch on the pink balls, FtJ.) He can play shortstop decently, and might still have a 750+ OPS year left in him. That's decently valuable in and of itself, but the $15.7 mil he's owed the next two years negates most of that value, to most teams. Joepepsi mentioned the Orioles... there are probably a few other teams that would assign some positive value as well. He also has some inherent value in a my junk-for-your junk change of scenery trade. We could mine a nugget from that, I guess.

Scarpetta will have four option years. This was the case with another Brewer pitcher recently... Sarfate maybe? Quoth Wikipedia: However, if a player has less than 5 years of professional experience, he may be optioned to the minors in a fourth season without being subject to waivers. He'll be able to be optioned through the 2012 season and a 25-man roster decision won't be forced until spring 2013.

Josh, Cain needed to be added to the 40-man in order to be protected in the Rule 5 draft, correct? Do you know why he wasn't protected?

Yes, however most all of them have pitched within the past few and a half years. Again, I'd like to see the list of pitchers taken (and kept through the beginning of the season) in the Rule 5 draft who had not advanced past A+ and had not pitched in 2+ years. I'm surprised they put Rogers on the 40-man, but I guess they thought there was a risk to him being taken. Maybe his velocity has picked up. I'll take it as good news. Scarpetta was another surprise selection, I did not know having your original contract voided meant you were Rule 5 eligible afterward. No Cain?