Bucky Rules

You know he wasn't offering up the former as a legitimate option. If you're trying to sell that he was, I'm not buying. He's not necessarily presenting an argument that Yost didn't make, but he certainly is stating that the argument isn't valid based on the assumption that it was a result of looking only at 19 ABs. The fact that he said "Gee, I wonder which it is?" is a pretty important comment. It essentially throws out option 1 as legit. He presented Yosts words and invalidated it because he took Yosts words and turned it into something he didn't say. He didn't say that the results of those 19 ABs alone drew him to that conclusion. Maybe that doesn't fit exactly into the square hole of the definition of a straw-man argument, but it certainly flirts with the borders. He certainly is going out of his way to make some assumptions to make Ned's comment look idiotic. And dismisses his ONE AND ONLY option that could make it look like an intelligent comment by saying "Gee, I wonder which it is". As far as absolutism goes... there can be no debate on this one. "Like every other time Yost has quoted statistics on anything in his entire career, he's just looking at this year's MLB stats for his splits." Come on... this is the poster child for absolutism. Yes, I do. There are several forms. Taking Yosts words and adding your own assumptions to make the comment look idiotic comes close enough for my liking. See above. No... your post exposed a bias. You made an assumption on the reasoning of his statement. The only assumption that you didn't summarily dismiss was one that would lead you to the conclusion that the statement was "foolish". I didn't say that your post should be ignored because you wrote it and you're biased. I said your post exposes a bias. You claim that option is based on "educated guesses." I call it a bias. By the way... we can now add condescension to your list of bbs no-no's. I'm aware of what ad hominem means, and I can even spell it (see, I can be condescending, too). I don't need you to provide a definition for me. If at any time I'm not aware of a definition, I'm sure I can look it up on the internet. Thank you.

Hey FTJ -- can I get an acknowledgment of "straw-man" arguments and absolutism with this one? How 'bout at least some recognition of a flat out bias against Yost? It's amazing how a thread to discuss the swap out of Gagne for DiFelice turns into another opportunity to take a shot at Ned when he has arguably little - certainly not the final say - in roster decisions. What Ned has to say on the subject is immaterial. If you want to look for relevant quotes, find out what Doug said.

The crash and burn has begun.... muahahahahahahahahahttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/devil.gif

Thank you for completely depressing me Tbadder. I guess we should just give up.

Well... it is a bit early to see how good the guys we just drafted are. But, it's not too early to see that Linebrink did nothing for us, and Inman and Garrison (and Thatcher, too right?) look like they have a legit shot.

The Brewers organization appears to be attempting to rid themselves of that label. Their payroll is no longer one of a small market mentality. If memory serves, they're about in the middle of the pack. The best thing for the long-term health of the franchise is to win. I think it's very reasonable to win with a middle of the pack payroll. I've said 5 years and $100MM is do-able. If it's 7 years and $140MM, I could probably be swayed to your side of the argument. The contract that I've been talking about would end when he's 34. I think we're pretty safe with his skills being in tact there - barring serious injury. I agree there is a point where I would say we just have to let him go. I guess I haven't completely settled in on where that point is. I think I'm good with 5/100MM, though. I just follow the discussion boards. We've talked about this several times in the past. I've been on board with re-signing him every step of the way. No, probably not. But, it's apples and oranges. Guys with Suppan's talent level are easier to come by, and it doesn't require dumb luck to develop a guy like that. If has a checkered health history, you just check him off the list and move to the next innings eater kind of guy. I'm not trying to belittle what he does, because there is value to it. It's just not anywhere near the kind of value of a Sheets. It depends. Is your goal to win 85-90 games year in and year out and make the playoffs occasionally? Or is your goal to put together a team that can legitimately win the World Series? Without at least one Sheets-like stud, IMO it is much tougher to win a WS -- although on occasion teams have done it. Lightning did strike for the White Sox and Angels when their entire pitching staffs put up extremely nice seasons and Buehrle and Washburn put up near CY type seasons. I just think Sheets gives you a guy that is capable of putting up those seasons regularly, if healthy. Guys with that capability are rare. I think we can all agree his best is considerably better than Buehrle or Washburn's best. Right? You're probably going to pounce all over that "if healthy" caveat. But, my stance on his health issues has been stated a hundred times on this thread and others. I think its over-blown. He's missed the equivalent of 1 season out of 7 seasons in the big-leagues. And the types of injuries that he has had does not indicate to me that he's any more at risk than 90% of the other pitchers in MLB to have serious problems down the road. Of course, I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV. That guy on the FA market will cost you near-Sheets-type money. That guy in a trade will cost you Prince Fielder -- or multiple prospects that give you a chance to keep your future payrolls reasonable and still compete at the highest levels. Not to mention, we shouldn't be looking to keep the status quo in starting pitchers. We should be looking to upgrade. If you start by letting your legit Ace walk, it's long way to upgrading. Essentially you're gambling on Yo and Parra to become ace-like and healthy. And then we fill in with another $10MM innings eater like Suppan -- or maybe trade for one that costs less. It's possible -- I'll grant you that. It's just much likelier with Sheets than without. If you're OK with the status quo for a staff (which I'm not), then of course you let him walk. Because Yo just might be close enough to Ben's equal to say we'll be OK. Personally, I want them both. And I think we can make it work.

I agree. And let's hope its in the 2015 World Series.

I believe our payroll is at $84MM (correct me if I'm wrong). Mark A has gone on record that there is room to grow if the situation arises. Our attendance will be around or over 3MM this season. We need to lose the small market mentality. This market may be small in terms of television ratings, but we support our baseball team. And Mark A has not had a small market mentality. He's treated it like medium market. I don't think we should sell ourselves short in that regard. No... we're not the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers/Cubs. But it wouldn't shock me to see our payroll hit $100MM in the next couple of years. Then the cost of replacing Sheets is Prince Fielder. But, beyond that... if Prince fetches us a "pretty darn good pitcher," there would still be room for that guy in a rotation with Sheets. I see no problem with that. SP is one of the few positions that we don't have a logjam of depth waiting to take over. There's always room for one more. I mean, wouldn't it be awful to have a rotation starting with Sheets, Lincecum/Verlander/(or someone of that ilk), and Yo as your top three guys? Wouldn't that be a lot like Webb/Haren/RJ -- maybe better? How many chances do you think the Brewers would legitimately have at a rotation like that? But you're right about signing Sheets being a risk. So is signing any pitcher (or player for that matter) to a lot of money for a number of years. I think letting a guy as good as Sheets get away is an even bigger risk. You don't get many chances to get FAs like him to come to Milwaukee very often. Acquiring guys like him in trades are generally more expensive than just cash. And you have to get dumb lucky to develop a guy like him in your system. He's just not that common a guy to just take for granted and dismiss.

If the Brewers only offer him 4 years / $50MM (assuming he completes a healthy season) there won't be many that believe that offer looks good. He's getting a lot more than that. I would think he's getting a lot more than your proposed Texas offer. I'm not sure if this was intended to re-create the Carlos Lee situation or the Francisco Cordero situation. Either way, I don't think it works. The difference between Melvin's offer and the one Cordero accepted was 1MM/yr, not 3.75MM. The Cordero offer was a fair offer that would've made him the highest paid closer at the time. If you're referring to Carlos Lee -- that makes a little more sense because we only pretended to be close to signing him. But, let's be honest... if Houston could get out of that deal today, I bet they would. Personally, I'm thankful that Lee didn't accept the Brewers offer and that they didn't get involved after he turned them down. But, hey... I could end up being completely wrong on this one. Sheets could turn out to be the next Ted Higuera (post big contract). And his signing could end up keeping us from signing other guys down the road. I just think the guy is a stud. And I think having studs in your rotation is a big part of winning in MLB.

On the free agent market that costs Jeff Suppan money. This is why I believe spending almost 2x Jeff Suppan money is worth it to keep Sheets. One Ben Sheets is better than 2 Jeff Suppan's. If Sheets goes down for 1/3 of the season or even 1/2 a season, we're most likely not any worse off combining that with our #6 for the remainder of the season than with a Suppan-like guy for a full season (quite possibly still better off). If Sheets stays healthy we're miles ahead, and a legitimate contender. The costs involved in your plan is that you have no better than a mediocre pitching staff unless you get lucky with some young guys that explode on the scene. You're giving up almost any chance for excellence. Depending on who you're talking about giving up, the cost here is your future. I'd rather trim $10MM (if necessary) somewhere else off the roster than give up a LaPorta or Gamel or other top prospects when we already have an ace in our hand without giving them up. Especially since I'm of the opinion that Prince will be walking in three years (if he isn't traded sooner than that). If you want someone that I'd be calling a (your phrase) "pretty darn good pitcher," you're talking about multiple prospects of that caliber. Is that worth $10MM/year. Those kinds of guys will be making the league minimum for a big chunk of Ben's contract. I'm not sure you even save any money in that scenario -- depending how much service time this "pretty darn good pitcher" has already clocked.

If Sheets isn't on the team, what do you mean by plan appropriately? Who will they be pitching in his spot? If it's someone already in the organization, then that "plan" is in place even with Sheets. Or will it be a FA signing? If so, how much did we spend for the next mediocre guy? Or a trade? If so, what did we give up and for who? I'm interested in hearing more about this plan. There are costs to every possible outcome.

I read somewhere else -- and now I can't find it to properly credit the source -- something that nails my feelings on the subject better than my words to this point. "You're either going for it, or your not." Ben Sheets is definitely a "going for it" kind of move. Without him (or another pitcher of his caliber -- like a Rich Harden/Roy Oswalt/CC Sabathia kind of guy) you'll end up replacing his spot in the rotation with either a young guy feeling his way for next to no money, or a free agent veteran possibly as good as Suppan (and saving no money by having two Suppans for one Ben). If your goal is to make the playoffs and try to win a world series, I think you're much better off with Sheets, and trying to save some money elsewhere. Starting pitching is just too important.

Check me if I'm wrong hauser, but I seem to recall you making the case that Chris Capuano was actually the staff ace once upon a time when those discussions were en vogue. Capuano is not (and never was) anywhere near the pitcher Ben Sheets is. On top of that he's now had two Tommy John surgeries - which IMO makes him much more of an injury risk than Ben. My point is that perspective on a pitcher's ability to take the mound every turn changes in a hurry. A guy you were calling durable and effective one year is now the guy that I would be calling "brittle" -- and never called anywhere near an ace. When healthy, Ben has never been anything less than the best pitcher on this team for the last five years, and at his best he's been one of the elite pitchers in all of MLB. And for the duration of his entire career, he has missed the equivalent of one full season. Not nearly the amount of time that some make it out to be. Suppan has helped the team. No doubt. But, my feeling from the point we signed Suppan (and I stated it on several occasions) was that I was fine with the signing as long as it doesn't keep us from re-signing Sheets in two years (which is now). IMO we are much better off with Sheets, Yo, Parra, CV/Bush/McClung, than with Suppan, Suppan equivalent, Yo, Parra, CV/Bush/McClung. Not to mention I think Sheets will come a little cheaper on an annual basis than Suppan + Suppan equivalent. If you follow what I'm trying to say here. Now... if the argument against paying Sheets is that ALL pitchers are one pitch away from season/career ending injuries, and therefore none of them are worth paying $100MM, then I don't have much to combat that point. But, if anyone is worth it, I'd roll the dice with Benny.

That may be true, but it's possible that it could get to a point where he'd rather stay where he's comfortable than go to New York. We'd have to put up a big number, though, I would guess -- and then MAYBE we get a discount. If the Braves or Houston or someone closer to his home puts up a big number, we may not get any discount.

That does not excite me. Replace "Some DM unknown scrapheap FA" with a guy named Sheets and I could get excited. I know that's not the premise of the thread. But, that rotation without Sheets, but instead some guy off of a scrapheap is going to be a very risky proposition at best. It's arguably worse than this year's rotation, and I'm not all that comfortable with this year's after Sheets.

No, but I would be willing to pay Ben Sheets up to $20M/yr for 5 years. Guys as good as him don't come along very often. And I consider him more unlucky than injury prone. He's had no arm/elbow surgeries. He did have back surgery, but I don't believe he missed any time for that. That's my rationale and I'm sticking to it. Even in the three years that everybody points to as evidence of his being injury prone, he still made about 63 (?) starts to the tune of about 400 IP.

Why does that concern you on the surface? I'd be much more concerned with how many close games that he came into without any LHBs due up. There are so many situations that could cause those numbers and it could still mean a poor decision was never made. What if a LHB was due up and PH for? What if a switch hitter was turned around? What if he came in to get some work in a blowout? If anything, those numbers suggest that he actually is more than a LOOGY, because even though he's facing an equal amount of LHB and RHBs, his overall numbers are still very good. Like I stated earlier... nobody wants to see him come in and face the heart of a RH order. But, until Yost actually uses him in that situation, lets not jump to conclusions and assume that he intends to do so because of one most-likely-innocent-pat-on-the-back for Shouse.

As Stevo spelled out, signing Sheets to a 5 yr/$100M is do-able, and I think I'd do it. If it took trading Suppan to one of his non-exempt teams, I'd do whatever is reasonable to get that done, too. I sincerely hope that the Suppan deal does not end up being a big contributing factor to not re-signing Sheets. I'd clearly rather have a $20M Sheets over a $10-12M Suppan. No question in my mind - and there never was. If Sheets comes a little cheaper than that -- Great!

I don't care how we get there, I just want this trip to end with a 5-5 record - or better. Then I'll be happy.

I had to do a double take on that myself - it's just slugging, though. I'm pretty sure of it. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I agree he's been warming up for a while now, but this past week is what sent things soaring into the stratosphere. His week of .364/.440/1.091 raised his YTD OPS by 55 points. Not easy to do at the end of June. I guess 5 HRs will do that though. But you're right. Even if you remove the obnoxious numbers he put up in the BAL/TOR series, he has still put up a very good June of .308/.400./.558 --- if my math is right (not including HBPs which I was too lazy to look up).

It's amazing what a great week can do for a guys numbers.

I thought he was going to be in Nashville's rotation. Could be wrong on that.

Some would say he'd have to be a masochist to stay.

Does "contact" include foul balls? Because we've seen a couple of foul balls where he should be credited with 5 or 6 total bases. He has been more than impressive to say the least.