Matt Breen

Thank You Boston! Don't count your chickens yet. I have a feeling Dempster wants to play in Milwaukee (close to home, spring training in AZ, National League). I also think Melvin wants him. Boston serves as leverage for Dempster. Someone will blink - I think Melvin will. I think he'll give him the three year deal. Or maybe they'll manage a fairly large payout on a third year option. All just guesses on my part.

I have felt this way all along. If the idea truly is to get a veteran, innings eater then Marcum at 2 years $16-$20 million is a much more comfortable situation for me than Dempster at 3 years $36+ million. Sure he has his injury history, but whoever we sign is likely a space holder for 2013 and possible trade bait after 2013 given the development of our young pitching. Count me in on re-signing Marucm if we TRULY have to bring in a veteran to be in this year's rotation. I think Marcum on a short term deal would be great. One year and an option would be perfect. However, the fact that the Crew have basically written off Marcum (at least it seems that way) makes me wonder if they have some serious health concerns about him. He would seem a much safer choice than Dempster, yet neither Marcum or the Brewers have indicated they want a reunion. I'm totally speculating on Marcum's health. It just seems silly not to consider the guy if they feel he's healthy.

Dickey seems to be at an impasse with the Mets. He wants a 2 year/$26 million extension. He'll make $5 million in 2013. So what would it take for the Brewers to get him? It might be impossible, as the Mets are looking for high impact prospects. We'd have to provide a bit more quantity than quality - compared to what some other teams are offering. So what are other teams offering? Texas reportedly has offered Mike Olt. Dave Cameron wrote a nice article about what it might take for Seattle to get Dickey - http://www.ussmariner.com/2012/12/11/should-ms-make-a-play-for-r-a-dickey/ - he suggests offering SS Nick Franklin (ranked 29th by MLB on their end of season prospect watch - http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2012/), and pitcher James Paxton - a guy who was ranked last season by BA as #52 on their prospect list going into 2012, and was listed at the 25th best pitcher going into 2013 - http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/10/8/3474586/preliminary-top-50-pitching-prospects-list-for-2013 I'd also simply take a look at what we got for Zach last year. Two nice arms with potential (but not Top 100ish material - at least not yet), and a guy ranked around 40-60 in the Top 100 Prospects by scouts at mid season (for example, BA had Segura at 43, I believe John Sickels had him around 70). This gives us a base to work at on acquiring Dickey. Again, let's start at the Greinke trade. Begin with Pena and Helweg. We don't want to give up Segura, so that means we need another top prospect. That means Thornburg or Peralta. Personally, I like Peralta better, so let's say we include Thornburg (he was ranked 84th on the MLB prospect chart). These three aren't going to be enough. It's a worse package than what we got for Greinke. And we're getting Dickey for three years (assuming he'd agree to the extension as part of the deal). LA got Zach only for a couple of months. So we'd need to sweeten the pot with some real value. I'd say Maldonado would have real value for the Mets (they are looking for a catcher). So the deal would be Maldonado, Thornburg, Helweg and Pena for Dickey. You probably need a bit more to be competitive, but this is a good start. Dickey would sign a two year extension, meaning he'd be under control for three years at about $30 million. Maldonado would be a tough lose. But you have to give something to get something. And Dickey is not without worries. His age is certainly a concern (38), but most people feel he's good for a few more years since he throws the knuckleball. The Mets might not like the offer, instead going for more of an impact player like Olt. But I was just trying to really see what might work in a deal for Dickey.

This would be awesome, but I doubt Seattle would be interested in this. Not just for one year of Hart. Hultzen's walk rate has been kind of scary, but he's got mucho ability.

I think the Suppan comparisons are really unfair. In the three years leading up to free agency, Suppan had accumulated a fWAR of 4.5. Dempster has a 9.2 WAR over the last three years. I also don't think it's fair to cite career ERA as a reason to not sign (or sign) a guy who's been in the league for 15 years. Jim Thome has over 600 HRs - but no one is clamoring to sign him. But the comments nail several crucial items. Dempster is old. Several years older than Suppan was when we signed him. He's 35 - old for a pitcher wanting a 3 year deal. He's got a lot of mileage on his arm. Don't forget that he had a strained shoulder last year. Fangraphs did a recent article on Dempster: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-dempster-changes-remains-the-same/ They wonder if his heavy use of his slider is beginning to wear on him. I'd like Dempster in the rotation - but not at three years. I don't think he's Suppan - who never was very good to begin with, then came to a team with a much worse defense and a tougher ball park. Two years for Dempster is risky enough.

Porcello would be great. Any idea what the Tigers want for him?

The Brewers are very unlikely to deal Hart. Melvin does not take big risks - especially if he sees the team as capable of making the playoffs. He has an offense that ranked #1 in the league last year, and it is coming back intact (assuming Segura is the SS). He's going to count on an above average offense and average pitching to win. Corey ranked 9th in MLB 1st basemen in WAR (fangraphs). He was 5th in HRs. He has a good chance to improve defensively with a year of experience. He's an above average 1st baseman right now. Melvin simply won't take the chance of dealing that production away based upon Gamel's potential. I actually like Gamel - and think he could do fine. But Melvin isn't going to take the risk. That's my thought.

Where exactly is Oakland drafting this year? The 1998 Marlins started rookies or 2nd year guys in all but 9 games (including rookie Ryan Dempster getting 11 starts). They won 54 games.

Great write up by John Sickels at Minor League Ball on the deal. http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/12/10/3750830/apocalypse-now-royals-rays-dayton-moore-shields-myers-trade Some interesting comments, including, "There are vague rumors that the front office wasn't impressed with Myers' makeup and didn't consider him a team player." Sickels doesn't like the deal. Pretty much feels KC gave up way too much.

This article nails the big issue with this trade. It's a poor deal for the Royals because now they simply will give Francoeur 500-600 plate appearances. Sure you upgrade your pitching. But you're doing at ruining your chance to dramatically improve RF. Dave Cameron said it best in the article - "Trading Myers for Shields doesn’t make them (the Royals) better. It just makes them differently bad." To top this off, KC is throwing in their best pitching prospect (Odorizzi). And they even get a former top 20 prospect (Montgomery) who has struggled the last year or two, but is one of those guys that you don't want to give up on too soon. This is an awful trade for KC because the simple fact is they are not a starting pitcher or two away from competing. Myers had the chance to be a superior power hitting outfielder. Now they have Francoeur. I suspect that Moore must be feeling the heat to win. I realize a starting rotation of Chen, Guthrie, Odorizzi, Santana and Hochevar wasn't going to win you any championships. But does one of Wade Davis, Guthrie, Shields, Santana and Hochevar or Chen? And let's not forget it's Francoeur in the lineup everyday instead of Myers. Oh well, not my team.

Just because something happened doesn't mean it will likely happen again. You see that over and over in the world (but somehow people don't seem to learn the lesson). I call it the 'anecdotal evidence' dilemma. A person latches onto limited evidence or a small sample of information and uses it as a basis for their argument. It's a poor, poor way to make plans (not just for a baseball team, but for just about anything in life). I'm not saying that Oakland's approach last year was wrong. I am saying that it's dangerous to take that one instance in the baseball world and use it as your justification for constructing your roster. You need to take a greater sample to understand the odds of such an approach. Oakland did win a lot of games last year with very young pitchers, so it does show you can have success with such a roster. But just because it happened once doesn't mean it's likely to happen again.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8720706/philadelphia-phillies-get-ben-revere-minnesota-twins-play-cf Phillies get a CF and leadoff guy. Twins get two young pitchers.

Blanton's ERAs the last three years are 4.71, 5.01 and 4.82. He missed 2/3 of the 2011 season. His bWAR is -0.3 over the last three years (-0.1 last year). Fangraphs is much kinder to him - giving him WARs of 2.4, 0.6 and 1.8. He keeps his walks down, but gives up lots of HRs. To me he's maybe a $5 million a year guy. But with the way prices are going up, you never know. He's probably a good fit for the Angels. He provides certainty at the back of the rotation. There's some value in that.

Dempster believes that he'll get three years once other pitchers start getting 4 and 5 years. I can see Edwin Jackson and Sanchez getting 4 years (more for Sanchez). Not sure if Lohse will. I guess Dempster can play it slow and see what develops. If the three year deal doesn't emerge, he can still get two years. It's unlikely all the teams interested will pull back their interest.

I'd be thrilled to have Cappy back. I guess - like all these ideas - at what cost.

Dempster was reportedly offered 2 years / $26 million by KC. He turned it down, and the Royals dropped out after bidding 'escalated'. http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/29/3940310/contract-decisions-loom-for-royals.html Price of FA pitching is only going higher. I have a feeling we end up with some back of the rotation veteran - a Joe Blanton type.

Greinke is going to probably get $25 million a year. I bet for six years, with an option. The two LA clubs have the money and need. Revenues are rising. Especially for the big market teams as they ink big cable deals. One of the teams will justify the expense. Plus, any team can look forward to 2014 and see that no pitcher like Greinke (healthy, young and successful) will be available on the free agent market (a big bounce back by Lincecom might do it, but that's about it). This is the chance to lock in a top of the rotation starter. Someone will do it. Could Greinke turn around and say he loved Milwaukee so much he'll play for 20% less? Sure. But he could have done that last year, and did not. Yes, maybe the experience in LA will make him appreciate Milwaukee more. But the odds of Zach in Brewtown is microscopic. I'd love to see it, but I don't see it happening.

Anyone like Harden is strictly an after thought - a low salary with incentives kind of deal with the Brewers under no illusions that he's going to help them in 2013. If he works out and helps, fine. But don't expect anything.

Let's hope he is used properly - unlike Loe. I think a lot of a reliever's success is how he is used. Kameron Loe last year - Batters Faced: Righties: 161 (.745 OPS) Lefties: 114 (.843 OPS) Badenhop: Righties: 163 (.610 OPS) Lefties: 80 (.844 OPS) I realize our lack of a quality lefties forced us to use a guy like Loe when we didn't want to. But a team should recognize when a guy has a weakness, and not try and force someone into being something they are not. Like Loe being the '8th inning guy' back in 2011. I also think that the inability of our starters to go deep in games really makes our relievers vulnerable. Tampa relievers threw about 50 less innings than our relievers. Those extra innings add up and force the team to trot out a guy like Loe more often than we want. Still, I don't think it's just a coincidence that the Rays seem to have a good bullpen year-after-year, even as personnel change - sometimes dramatically. You need to use the guys you have as efficiently as possible.

Floyd and Thorton both would be great. Take $15 million off the Sox hands for fringe players. That's exactly what we want - no long term - and expensive - additions. If Floyd pitches well the worse you do is get a draft pick for him in 2014. At best he helps you to the playoffs.

Sure it would be worth it for us. But not for the White Sox. You gotta give more than narveson and green. No one even knows if Narvy will be ready next year (and if he is, will he be any good), and green isn't even a lock to make the team next year. Floyd is a decent guy to go after, but you'd need more value than a couple of question marks. My opinion.

$8.5 million a year is pretty hefty for Martin in my book. But that's just me. At least it's only two years, so the commitment isn't outrageous. Martin's .211 BA was awful, but I sometimes forget that catcher's tend to be challenged offensively. Martin takes his walks, has decent power, and is pretty good defensively. That's not all bad. WAR seems to like Martin OK - he's generally around a 2.0 WAR player. Not bad to have. I thought McKenry looked like a decent player last year. But I don't really know that much about him. I guess if the Pirates don't see McKenry as a full timer, the signing makes sense, because they have such a hole at the position. Barajas had a negative WAR last year in almost 400 plate appearances. A guy like Martin is a huge upgrade.

I agree that Gamel is too small a return for Walden. They need starting pitching more than anything.

Walden would be great. I guess the question is 'at what price'? Angels will probably argue he's a 'closer' and want a lot. I guess it can't hurt to find out. Houston was reportedly shopping Wilton Lopez: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lopezwi01.shtml The guy has great numbers over the last three years, but I don't really know much about him. Philly reportedly had a trade set up, but that doesn't look like a done deal. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/phillies-to-acquire-wilton-lopez.html I'd love either player. Again, at what price?

Three years of Dempster certainly scares me. Two years is okay. I'd take that risk. I might even do two and an option. I will say I'd feel more comfortable with signing Dempster to three years than with the Wolf or Suppan signings. But I'd rather the team go one year with someone who's riskier. Or a year and an options. Say McCarthy (assuming he checks out physically - and no one offers him a multi-year deal). I bet we offer three years. I just think the team will feel they need the arm in the rotation and take the plunge.