adambr2

Don't worry Ax, the rest of the pen sucks too. No one is challenging you for the job.

Pathetic. You score 9 runs, you expect to win. Period.

If Villy would like to kick his leg out in the middle of the strike zone one more time, 95 MPH right down main street should do nicely.

I've seen worse at-bats this year, but considering the situation, the fact that they had pretty much yet to throw a strike all inning, for him to go up there hacking away was pretty dumbfounding. Even with a different pitcher.

And just to clarify what I've been saying, I don't think all hope is lost, I just think too unlikely to make standing pat or buying worthwhile. Yes Weeks could come around, Lucroy is coming back, and the bullpen should pitch better. But 8.5 games against the Reds is a lot to make up. Come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised to see but they are somehow only 5 GB of the Wild Card. So I do understand that they're still within distance enough to make some feel that they should go for it. If so, they need to play a lot better, obviously.

Who's a situational pitcher? I count one, Perez, and he'd be the guy replaced. The problem is the guys that can go multiple innings, Parra and Dillard, can't do it very well and the one inning guys have been to put kindly rather erratic this year. When Estrada returns, that adds a better choice to the pen to cover multiple innings be it Fiers or Estrada. Dillard is definitely a situational pitcher (ROOGY) even if he's not always used as such, and Loe is a ROOGY/groundball specialist.

Thank you. This is exactly what I am trying to say, I don't know what is so controversial about it. This is based on a few premises: 1) Our chances of making the playoffs this year are very slim, probably less than 10%. We are not better than the Reds, so I don't know why it's so hard to believe that making up 8.5 games on the Reds throughout the rest of the season is an unlikely scenario. 2) We are going to be facing an uncertain future in 2013. We currently have one guaranteed returning starter in Gallardo. If we can't re-sign Greinke, and it doesn't look like we will be able to, 2013 may be a rebuilding season. If there is a short rebuilding process, in order to make it easier, it would be better to maximize return on pieces that we are very unlikely to keep anyway. Even if you want to re-sign Greinke, and I do, there is no prohibition on us trading him in a season if we won't make the playoffs anyway, and attempting to sign him again in the offseason. No one is suggesting blowing up the team. And certainly no one is suggesting having an auction and just selling off our best pieces to the highest bidder, that's not what it's about. If you can't get any bites on Greinke and Marcum that definitively outweigh the value of the potential draft picks, then don't do it. But I'd like the brass to be realistic about the direction and future of this team, not just blindly optimistic to the point that harms us next year. I keep hearing that if we rattle off 6 in a row or 8 in a row, we're right back in it. Sure, that might be true. Have you seen anything that makes you think that's in the cards this year? Do you think this team is capable of a 21-7 August like the 2011 team did?

No, Fan, I have not. But I'm not going to re-hash all that and dive into every post just to prove a point. Also, we were never 8 1/2 out last year. It's not impossible, but it's a big hole, and things have to go right. I don't recall calls for selling when we were 13-19 last year. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. We are 6 games under .500. I said after the Dodger sweep that the next 15 games should decide our direction -- that we had a really easy stretch coming up, we had a chance to make hay and rise to the occasion, and if we could go 10-5, we would be back to .500 and right back in it. Well, we didn't go 10-5, we didn't get back to .500, we didn't rise to the occasion, we played like a mediocre team and went 7-8 over that stretch and made the Dodger sweep look like a fluke. I thought the season might be turning around after the Dodger series, but there was absolutely nothing I saw from this team the last 15 games since then to make me think they're playoff caliber. But the bigger issue is the position we're in. At this point, this pitching staff is being gutted next year. It's a pretty uncertain future right now, and there are certain actions that should be taken to ensure this is a smooth transition where we are able to remain competitive, and not a painful rebuilding process. I am not, nor have I ever said trade anyone for the sake of doing so, but it would be negligent of Melvin not to consider the opportunity if such an offer was presented. As far as your infield answers, I'm more referring to the left side of the infield. Ramirez is fine for now, though at a high price tag, but I have not seen any indication that the organization has any belief that Taylor Green is the 3B of the future. SS is a much larger concern. And both of you are ignoring that I indicated that if we re-signed Greinke, I might feel differently. At this point I think there's about a 5% chance that they re-sign Greinke before he hits free agency and 20% at best of bringing him back -- and that will certainly require overpaying after the Cain deal.

I'm just wondering if anyone feels that we can actually get anything of value for Wolf and K-Rod. I'm not sure we can. Wolf is a soft-tossing vet who still has an ERA over 5.00 in the rotation near the end of June. Both are overpriced for their production level. Even though it was a little different situation, we gave up nothing of value to get K-Rod, who was pitching better at the time. We might be able to get something for K-Rod, but he isn't worth a top prospect to anyone. Both are also overpriced for their production level.

It makes me feel better that at least there is a recent precedent with Uggla. I can't fathom that a player as physically talented as Weeks just suddenly dropped off a cliff and just became this horrible player at age 29.

I think that this is the first year that yes, they are doing a 1 game tiebreaker even if both teams would have already qualified. If there is a 3 way tie, they designate the teams "A", "B", and "C". Depending on tiebreakers, the teams in order get to choose which they are. Team A plays hosts Team B first. Then, the winner of that game hosts Team C. So Team B is at the biggest disadvantage. Team C is the only one that has to win only one game, but it has to be on the road.

We need spots for Izturis and Ishikawa too, though I don't really feel that either of them are a necessary roster occupier. I'd be fine with dumping Izturis, but we won't, mostly because of the infield depth, and Mayonset will go down which is fine. Ishikawa is just basically George Kottaras without the ability to play catcher.

So agreeing that it buying bullpen arms would be a waste, is Lidge worth a flyer? Washington just released him, and he's been pretty bad this year, but 9 innings is a pretty small sample. He's been very good the last two years. I'm not sure how his stuff has looked.

And here, despite the fact that I expressed my feelings quite logically and explained my thoughts with rationale, DHonks responds with a condescending "of course you want to sell" remark about how all my posts suggest the same (quite wrong, if you've actually read all my posts), and how I want a "all players with talent must go" type approach, when all I'm claiming is that the likelihood of us making the playoffs this year is probably not strong enough to make going for it more desirable than setting ourselves up for 2013 and beyond. I want the Brewers to succeed just as much as you do -- just because I don't share your opinions on their short-term ability to do that and encourage a more patient approach does not make my perspective "wrong". We are "in the race" for the NL Central? We are 8.5 games out of first place. That's exactly where the Twins are at, are they in a race too? Should they not be fathoming selling either? I'm going to ask this of you nicely -- please do not attack my personal opinions again, here or in the trade forums (where this kind of discussion is sort of expected). This is several times now.

Braun and Lucroy are really the guys to build around in the lineup. You're kind of stuck with ARam, so he stays at 3rd. SS will definitely have to be addressed through free agency. Bringing back Gonzalez would be fine with me, at a slightly smaller salary. Bring back Ransom, too -- he is owed $480,000 next year and can play every IF position. I don't want him starting, but he is exactly the kind of cost-effective utility infielder that we should be building our bench around. Please do not bring back "Izzy".

I'd almost prefer to sell regardless this year. As things stand right now, we are going to be a very bad team next year. Now true, we have to wait and see who we go get in free agency, but free agency as a "go to" method to boost you from a 60 win team (which I think we would be next year with a rotation of Gallardo and pick 4 of Thornburg/Narveson/Fiers/Estrada/Peralta) and a 90 win team is just not a sustainable strategy. If we lose Greinke and Marcum for picks, it's going to be a few years before we'll see any compensation for them at the MLB level (if ever). Meanwhile, we just don't have the depth in the farm to weather the storm until then. We have some pitching, but answers from the farm for our infield problems just aren't there. We can continue to try to plug the holes with free agency, which I'm sure we will try, but the money there is limited and we're having pretty limited success with free agency. If we trade Greinke and Marcum, we can acquire pieces that will help us fill the holes at other positions and put ourselves in a better position to contend in 2013 and beyond. ESPN currently has us at a 10.3% chance to make the playoffs. While that probably doesn't take everything into account and is just a guesstimate, it gives you a pretty good idea of what we're up against. Even if we get in -- we then have to get through the one game playoff if a Wild Card, then win several playoff series' to make it worthwhile. While anything can happen if you get there, to still go for it this year because of this chance is a pretty big roll of the dice. Of course, if we extend Greinke I might feel a little bit differently, but at this point I just don't see that happening.

I wouldn't trade Nyjer now. I think trading him back in February/March after we knew Braun wasn't going to be suspended and Nyjer's value was overinflated, probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. But then, I have really no idea what the market was for him then. If it was little more than what we gave up for him, no point in dealing him.

Not really. Gallardo and Marcum would combine to be at least an average #1/#2 combo, Wolf would be a below average #3 (an average #3 if he could return close to last year's form), and Fiers and Estrada are above-average #4/#5 starters. If you want to accept Fiers small sample so far as an average, I'd argue that Fiers is an average #3, Wolf an average #4, and Estrada an above-average #5. I think your point is that with the Brewers offense so far that wouldn't hold up, but if the Brewers offense returns to what they should be doing that staff would not be painful at all. Gallardo/Marcum as an "average #1/#2 combo" is very generous this year. I think that underestimates the #1/#2 that most teams have. Gallardo is a low-end #1 at his best, and probably more of a #2 this year, and Marcum is more like a low #2/high #3. Wolf's numbers this year resemble more of a #5 than a #3, although I agree he could improve and be a #3 at his best. Narveson was a high end #5, Estrada is more average. At this point, Fiers probably has a shot to be a career #5. A small handful of decent starts doesn't change that. Gallardo/Marcum/Wolf/Fiers/Estrada isn't a historically bad rotation, but it's probably no better than 2010.

Can we really demote Fiers at this point? I mean, to me, Estrada vs. Fiers is probably a wash, but we desperately need help in the bullpen. Fiers is already stretched out, Estrada won't be. So why not keep the momentum with Fiers, who might very well have a future as a #5 starter in this rotation anyway, get Estrada in the pen, and get rid of one of the back end of the bullpen arms?

Random question for fans here based on what we've seen/known from Weeks this year and career-wise. If you could be rid of the Weeks' contract right now (about $38M over the next 3 1/2 years), in exchange for nothing (basically, a waiver drop and someone else picks him up), would you do it? Nothing in return, but we don't owe him another dime. Would you go for it?

It's bad value for us on paper, but assuming that both sides assume the contracts of the player they're receiving, if you think Weeks will never come around again and your goal is to dump his salary to increase flexibility over the next few years, it's not a bad move.

Haha, I don't have a problem with nicknames, but the adding "ie" or "y" to any name is so cheesy. I think we all called "Izzy" a month or two before Roenicke first used it.

Depends what you're using that $10M for. If you don't develop your own farm and constantly use your prospects as currency to acquire proven MLB talent, then you're right, $10M will not take you very far at all in free agency. If you be patient and build from within and develop your own players, $10M will potentially get you two young very solid pre-arby starters, a All-Star caliber first year arby player, and a MVP caliber second year arby player.

This in bold to me is the key and why I think this team is heading for a rebuilding process. To teams with budget constraints, 0-3 pre-arby contributors are worth their weight in gold -- for the simple reasons that you are getting production at basically no cost! (relative to usual market cost). Bryce Harper is a great young player (and just one of many examples), but you know what the part that is just as good for the Nationals is? They pay him next to nothing! That offers you tremendous flexibility to use your budget elsewhere where you haven't been able to fill the void with arby and pre-arby players. This is why, when you trade a guy like Brett Lawrie away, as excited as some people are to get Marcum, you haven't just lost Lawrie, you have lost all future flexibility that you had at 3B to basically have a productive position for "free", and as a consequence you'll now be paying an aged Aramis Ramirez $16M in 2 years which hinders $16M of your payroll to use on a reliever, shortstop, starter, anything. We have no 0-3 players currently to be excited about. Our best 0-3 players are a backup catcher and a utility infielder. There are none on this team that are likely "superstar" or even "starting" players. To me, that says it all -- the writing is on the wall that we are just not built for success in the near future. Sacrificing long-term building for short-term success in MLB is not a sustainable strategy if your team is not the New York Yankees.

Wow, and I thought Weeks' 75 K's so far this season was bad. Of course, if Weeks had 22 HR's so far this season, I'd be fine with his strikeout total.