adambr2

I'm glad I'm not the one who has to sort this out. Vargas has been good. So have Villy and Parra. Bush and Capuano have not been -- not likely what Yost and Co. were hoping to see. Vargas has generally been thought of as the odd man out in all this, but that seems to be becoming less of a foregone conclusion these days. I'm not sure we want to lose the depth at this point. It seems almost unfathomable that either Capuano or Bush would head down to Nashville, but both do have options left. Similar to Braun last spring, I'm not sure that there's anything Parra can do to fight himself onto the roster. It's a question of smart business logic with him at this point, and we may re-evaluate in late May when we can afford to bring him up without having to use this year as a service year for him.

Sheets took our cash, but then again, maybe it was partially because he's been paid so often for sitting on the DL that he felt a bit guilty. --------------------------- At the time of his deal, Sheets had mostly a reliable and healthy past. That deal wasn't too "long-term", though, just buying out his arby years and I think 2 years of free agency. He'll still get a major multi-year deal if he stays healthy and has a good year.

That is the most bizarre career path I've ever seen. Started out in Rookie Ball, then went to A, then High A. Then back to Rookie Ball, then A again, then High A again. Up to AA for 2 years. Up to AAA for a year. Back down to High A. Up to AAA again. A few days in MLB. Back down to High A. Back up to AAA. Non-roster invite.

Can't really draw any conclusions from such a small sample size, but it looks like he's a hit-or-miss strikeout pitcher with control struggles.

Our bullpen blew how many small leads last year and we threw out guys like Aquino, Spurling, and Dessens, when we could have had Chris Narveson giving us 2 scoreless innings all year and leading us to the playoffs??

I think he means that Prince doesn't have to apoligize for anything, but who knows. Obviously, we don't really know more than what we get from the media. I certainly hope wthat they can reconcile someday, but from what we've heard from the media, it sure sounds like Cecil needs to be a man and own up to some things.

Cecil says that hopes that him and his son will reconcile someday and expects that they will. Cecil also made some vague remarks that their relationship will improve when Prince realizes what sometimes happens with a woman. He also denies he ever had a gambling problem, and doesn't believe it is temptation for him any longer. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3266177

We need to see a little more out of Weeks before preparing him a 10 year deal for $11.5M a year. Not sure why we would want to commit $30M to TGJ who could be a career 4th outfielder unless we were certain he was the CF of the future. That would probably be the smallest 10 year deal in the modern MLB era anyway. 10 years $170M for Braun sounds reasonable after two full years sounds reasonable if you mean after '08 and '09 and he plays at an MVP level in those 2 years. Prince I think is the least likely to be a Brewer long-term. Boras is one big reason, and just seeing the kind of money Howard is making might make Prince too costly in the future, especially if LaPorta can replace him. I also think Prince is the most likely of the youngsters to decline earlier in his 30's.

Well, you can throw 103 MPH and it isn't going to do you squat if you can't get it to hit the strikezone. A secondary pitch also makes a fireballer's fastball that much more effective, as long as they don't rely on it too much. A fireballer who does nothing but throw gas (McClung) isn't hard to figure out. Sometimes I feel those relievers rely on their secondary pitch a little too much, though. Was it just me, or did Cordero pretty much go slider, slider, slider, every time he got ahead 0-2 in the count in '07?

I think the idiocy in anyone who says "clogging up the bases" is a problem is pretty evident, no matter how you look at the quote. If Dusty Baker wants to think that reaching base a high percentage of the time is overrated, I think that's great -- for us. The game has passed him by. His accomplishments in Chicago and the arms of Prior and Wood speak wonders to that.

I don't think it looks good right now. Doesn't it seem like we're in a real Catch-22? If Sheets pitches up to his ability and stays healthy, he's going to get a big deal in free agency. I don't think there's any way around that. If he doesn't, and makes 15 starts this season, do we really want to count on him for the rotation beyond '08 anyway? Sure, we could offer him another deal with an injury discount, but we're taking a big risk doing so with a closing window of opportunity to win with our young core here.

Did he? I thought I remember Linebrink mostly getting 7th inning duty last year or mopping up Turnbow's messes. I could be wrong, though.

I haven't heard anything conclusive that says Cameron will be batting 2nd this year, although it's one of the possibilities. I'm not sure how moving up from 7th to 2nd in the lineup would result in less HR's, though, especially considering moving up that far in the lineup would probably result in 40 additional AB's throughout the season.

From what has been said, they're going to try to avoid Fielder batting behind Braun. They feel that neutralizes Braun's speed, since they don't want to let Braun steal with Prince at the plate.

I think you were on the right track when you started by talking about money being at stake in MLB...money is tied to stats such as the save, which is why you'll see a teams closer burned in a 3 run game when their worst reliever was in the game the previous day to protect a 1 run lead with the bases loaded and 1 out. A lot of "conventional wisdom" has been derived from such things. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that the pitcher batting 9th is one of them, but a manager definitely puts his reputation at stake to experiment with strategy that goes outside the box of conventional wisdom. I think you'll probably see a different game in some aspects in 20 years because new things will be tried that will or won't work well, and conventional wisdom and trends will change. Just like you don't see the same game now that we saw 20 years ago. (edit: long quote --1992)

To tell you the truth, I'd be a little upset with managment if Mota doesn't make the team, because it would be pretty much like we wrote a check out to the Mets for $3.4M just for the fun of it. We could have non-tendered Estrada and payed nothing. The Mets did. I mean, I know we're spending more money these days, but come on, that's a very foolish use of resources and payroll. The fans are spending a lot more money on the team to support that payroll. $3.4M just for a spring trainer flyer on an aging reliever? C'mon. At the same time, I don't want them to just keep Mota around because of the money if there are definitely better options than him to pitch.

So, our 2008 bullpen has an entirely new look. A new look with some questions...first of all, who are we keeping? I'm going to assume we keep 7. I think you can pretty much pencil in Gagne, Riske, Torres, Turnbow, and Shouse, barring injury or a spring training disaster. After trading for Mota's 3.2M salary, I can't see him not being in their plans. They could have just non-tendered Estrada and saved the 3.2M. Plus, Mota does have a decent arm and decent stuff. I think he's in. So I think that leaves Choate, Bray, McClung, Stetter, Parra, and Spurling in AAA for depth. Vargas doesn't seem to fit into the equation anywhere, and I think Villanueva will probably start the season as the long man once again. Another question -- is Turnbow still our setup man? I'd prefer Riske being in that role -- and like to see Turnbow in a 7th inning, less pressure-packed role. Gagne starts as closer, but other options are in place if he falters. Very good chance that the structure we see at the beginning of the season may see several changes as the season progresses. As it stands now, I'll say: CL - Gagne SU - Riske, (Turnbow or Torres if Riske is overworked) 6th/7th - Mota, Torres, Turnbow LOOGY - Shouse Long Relief - Villanueva

I don't think he'll ever hit 35 again, but I think he's a 20-25 HR a year guy.

Would it make Sheets the worst #8 hitter in the history of a professional lineup?? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Yeah, if Dillon gets 20 HR in 300 AB, then he didn't get nearly enough playing time. I don't think he'll get 300 AB though, I think 150-200 is probably closer. Really, everyone in our lineup is capable of 25+ HR in a full season besides Kendall. Just for my guesses - Weeks - 28 Hardy - 20 Hall - 21 Hart - 27 Cameron - 16 Braun - 43 Prince - 52 Add in some by Gross and Dillon, a small handful from Kendall, Munson, and maybe a couple from a September call-up (Branyan??) and the pitchers, and we should have a great chance to beat the total put up last year. Sorry TGJ, I just don't see it. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

What about Hardy batting 3rd? 1 - Weeks 2 - Braun 3 - Hardy 4 - Prince 5 - Hart 6 - Hall 7 - Cameron 8 - Pitcher 9 - Kendall Hart is the ideal #5 hitter IMO. Hardy would see some good pitches to hit sandwiched between Braun and Fielder, and Braun could still be running not being followed by Fielder. Weeks and Braun get some additional RBI opportunities which will take advantage of the HR power that both have.

Well folks, according to the JSOnline blog, our hero is now considering a lineup that would feature the pitcher batting 8th, Kendall batting 9th, and Braun batting 2nd. No idea who would be batting 3rd and 4th, I'm sure one of them would be Prince. But then if he has Prince bat 3rd after Braun, that takes away Braun's stolen base opportunities, which is what Yost was trying to avoid. At least he's thinking, which I hope he can do more of during games this season. ------------------------------ (added tag --1992) (thread merged with "Why mess with Braun third, Prince fourth?"; see reply #93 --1992)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3256452 Wow, a little surprising in my opinion. Record $10M first arby year. This can't be good in regards to how much Prince will end up costing after this year.

No, I did not say it did not work because Turnbow is not capable of achieving the goal. Again, it was a bad idea because Turnbow was generally not successful in that situation a great percentage of the time last season. Just like we wouldn't bring Shouse in to face a string of righties in a close game, we shouldn't bring Turnbow in during the middle of an inning with inherited runners because he generally struggles. Couple other points -- You are acting like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel and sending pitchers out there to face Turnbow. I will grant you that Stinnett is garbage, but Schumaker and Ludwick are at least servicable hitters. Also -- it does not matter if Turnbow is facing Albert Pujols or Jennifer Love Hewitt, they're going to reach base if Turnbow suddenly loses it and can't find the strikezone whatsoever. That is a tendency that he had shown in the past with inherited runners, and that is exactly what happened in the 8th.

I certainly wasn't arguing to plunk Pujols with Turnbow. My original point was that we shouldn't have plunked him at on. I understand Pujols is dangerous, but the bases are empty. You're not putting anyone on for free with the bases empty. Especially in a 1 run game. Statistically, if you look at Turnbow's BAA when he starts an inning vs. when he doesn't, there really isn't any comparison. When I have more time, I'll dig up the stats on it. I don't think Turnbow's preparation really had anything to do with it. Turnbow entering a game with 1 on and nobody out in the 8th is a bad odds situation for him. That's been proven time and time again. Even aganist Ludwick, Shumaker, Cairo, and Stinnett. It's not a favorable situation for him. That's not saying that he's never got the job done in that situation, but it's well documented that such a situation is not putting him in a position to succeed. Using Turnbow's performance after striking out the first guy with a runner on first is really skewing things. That's not the original situation Yost put him in, and that wasn't the entire task -- that was 1/3rd of the task. I'm sure the odds went up, but it still wasn't a good situation for him, and if you watched Turnbow last year, I'm sure you saw more than 1 time when he struck a guy out in an inning, only to completely melt down later that inning. The fact that he struck out the first guy wasn't evidence of it being a good decision, any more than the fact that he melted down later was evidence that it was a bad decision. It was a bad decision because it had been proven many times in the past that Turnbow does badly in those situations. Therefore there is historical performances to use in making future decisions. If Turnbow is a guy who strands inherited runners at a sizzling rate and does well with men on, then it's a good decision, even if he melts down. That still leaves the matter of the free runner that Yost put on 1st, but at least he would have been going with a guy that does well in a given situation rather than just rolling the dice and crossing his fingers. I don't base my opinion that it was a bad decision on the fact that it didn't work. I base it on the fact that Yost knew that it didn't work very much in the past.