adambr2

That's what bothers me a little and makes me think that the bar is still set at a .500ish level for Ned. It's like we're so used to losing baseball in Milwaukee, anything better and we should feel priviliged. Ned did lead us to our first winning season in 15 years, but it was due to a roster that was a hell of a lot more talented than pretty much any other in the last 15 years. It wasn't because he did the best managing job in the last 15 years. Yost has had 6 years to work with this core, he is blessed with MVP type talent at a couple positions, all-star talent at other positions, two ace arms in the rotation, and at least average MLB ability at pretty much every position. He also has a payroll now pushing $90 million, unheard of 6-7 years ago. Seriously, the excuses are over for Yost -- at least they should be. 2007 was actually less satisfying to me than '06 or '05. In '05, it felt good to get back to .500. We took a little step back in '06, but with the countless injuries, there wasn't much that could have been done. In 2007, we had the talent to win a very weak, easy division, and we didn't do it. Somehow, after a 24-10 start, we managed to add Gallardo AND Braun and stay relatively healthy, and still finish the season 10 games under .500 after the 24-10 start, while choking away an 8.5 game division lead. Honestly, I was a big Yost fan until '07. He lost me last year. I hope his team puts it together in '08.

I would have to say that it most likely is. The fact that Melvin and Mark A. are letting him manage as a "lame-duck" manager alone indicates that they are uncertain of his future. He was good with the young guys when he was brought in....but this is Yost's sixth year. He's not the new guy on the block anymore. 6 years, a new owner, and an $85 million dollar payroll. Say what you want about why we didn't succeed in 2007, but barring unforseen circumstances, I believe Yost will not see his contract renewed without a playoff berth. ------------------------------------------ Note: It's been reported that Ned's 2009 option was picked up in December. Jump to reply #84 for discussion. --1992casey ------------------------------------------

I do wonder how much our pitchers struggles were due to how the game was called. Our #3, #4, and #5 starters heading into opening day all finished with ERA's over 5.00, which was completely unforseen and one reason we fell short of the playoffs. I'd be interested to see what the splits were for our pitchers with Estrada versus Miller. I think that pitchers know how to call a game, too, however, though that rarely gets brought up. Pitchers know their strengths and weaknesses better than anyone. A catcher just makes a suggestion, the pitcher has to approve it.

Again, I'm not saying their job is easy. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that it isn't easier (at least as far as in-game performance) than being an NFL or NBA official. If you asked me to step in today and put on a uniform and officiate an NFL or NBA game, I'd make an absolute mockery of myself. If you asked me to step in today and umpire an MLB game, I'm pretty certain I could pull it off without really bringing any attention to myself at all, even moreso if I wasn't working home plate. Actually, my employer does do that kind of thing, it's part of the background checks to approve my security clearance. They actually dig deeper than that (credit score, acquaintences, lifestyle, etc). The umpires aren't bound to MLB. They can leave at any time. Like you said, your employer doesn't probe into your personal life. The MLB does. If the umpires don't like it, they're perfectly free to explore opportunities at jobs that won't probe, which, as you mentioned, are definitely out there. That's life. If they value their privacy more than their job, find a job that offers more privacy. Every business is run differently. If I showed up to work an hour late and was fined $500, I'd be absolutely appalled at the severity, but professional sports do it all the time, and every athlete who agrees to participate in their league understands that. I get randomly drug tested at my job, as do many athletes -- for some, that would be very unappealing, and such people probably shouldn't seek employment that requires random drug testing.

The Nats did sign him? I missed it if they did.

I'm a little puzzled about Johnny Estrada. Granted, the guy wasn't very popular in Milwaukee. He doesn't walk much and was always near the bottom of the league in defensive statistics. But, the guy is an established .280 catcher who can give you 10 HR or so a year. If you look around the league, there just aren't many of those. We didn't get one of those to replace Estrada when we signed Kendall. That's leaps and bounds better than Munson. So there is an MLB catcher out there that is pretty much good for .280 and 10 HR who can't get a job with any of the 30 MLB clubs right now? Not even as a backup??? That's just....a little shocking to me. I mean, Estrada must just be a horrible clubhouse cancer and/or distraction. There just has to be more to Estrada than we know. No one wants anything to do with him.

I'm with the MLB on this one. Couple things on that: - The griping from MLB umps the last few years is getting rather annoying. They're quite priviliged IMO, to have the job they do for the salary they earn. MLB umpiring is, with all respect to the umps, by far the easiest officiating job of the three major sports (baseball, football, basketball). It's the only sport that you could replace one umpire with Joe Blow for one game, and the average fan isn't going to notice. That's not saying it's easy to umpire a 3 hour game multiple times a week, but when you compare it to the fast-paced momentary reaction environment of football and basketball, there really isn't a comparison. - MLB is just like any business. If I choose to accept a job, I also accept the conditions of that employment. If they don't like the conditions of their employment, they can seek another job.

Gus Polidor was shot and killed in Columbia.

Seems even before spring training starts, we should have a pretty good idea of what we'll see. Rotation: Sheets, Gallardo, Suppan, Villanueva, and Capuano. The first three are locks. Villanueva isn't a lock for the rotation, but I'd consider him pretty much a lock for the roster. Bullpen: Gagne, Turnbow, Bush, Shouse, Mota, Riske, Torres All are pretty much locks except Bush, Mota will get a spot with his contract. Bush could be replaced here with Vargas, at least one of them will be in the pen IMO, the other could be traded, unless Villy starts the season in the pen. Lineup: Weeks, Hardy, Fielder, Braun, Hart, Hall, Cameron, Kendall All 8 are locks, barring trades. Bench: Munson, Gwynn, Dillon, Counsell, Gross Munson is a lock unless we bring in something better. So are Counsell and Gross. Gwynn is a good bet and Dillon's versatility will probably get him a spot. The way I see it, we've got at least 21 out of 25 roster spots already spoken for, and good bets for the other 5. Gwynn, Dillon, Capuano, and Bush are the other 4, and I think they're all likely to be on the roster opening day 2008. One of Capuano, Bush, and Vargas won't be, though. Sorry Parra fans, but I don't think there's any way he doesn't start the season in AAA.

I guess that depends on criteria -- best baseball players ever to play for the Brewers? Or are we only using what they did when they were with the Brewers to judge them? Hank Aaron was probably the best player of all-time who was a Brewer, but he was only a Brewer the last two years of his career, and he didn't have much left at that point. Most of his accomplishments were with the Braves.

I disagree about Bush. Considering Cappy has the more proven track record, and has proven to be a very effective lefty starter in the past, I would say a rotation spot is his to lose. I think we've seen enough of Bush to see that he is what he is -- an average #5 starter. Which is fine some years, but not good enough to make the 2008 Brewers rotation. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him or Vargas get traded before the season. I think Bush could be very effective in a long relief role. Parra starts the year in AAA.

Here's my take: 1) Sheets 2) Gallardo 3) Suppan 4) Villanueva 5) Capuano Possibly swap Sheets and Gallardo by season's end, Capuano could move up....but the rotation order doesn't really mean much, anyway.

Sure you wanted this in blue?

October 9th, 2007 As for the job done by Leyva, Yost said, "He worked hard and gave us everything he had. I'm certainly not putting anything on Nick Leyva. I just felt like I wanted to make a change." October 9th, 2008 As for the job done by Yost, Melvin said, "He worked hard and gave us everything he had. I'm certainly not putting anything on Ned Yost. I just felt like I wanted to make a change."

Weeks = Good. I can't wait to see what a healthy Weeks can do in a full season next year. For the Weeks doubters, he pulled off a .375 OBP this season and is ending up pretty close to being the 2nd 20/20 guy on the team in a struggling, injury plagued season where he spent some time in AAA. There's no question he's a huge part of our future.

Our season ended the minute McClung plunked Pujols. Everything was downhill from there. We couldn't get it done with everything on the line at home in the last 7 days. We had the advantage, we were at Miller Park where we wanted to be, and we got a gift of a swee from the Marlins over the Cubs, and we couldn't get it done. Period. As glad as I am that we were in it till the end, my disappointment is bigger than my pride in this situation. We haven't gotten any better, record-wise, since 2005. Ned needs to go. He's not taking this team to the next level. We were 8.5 games up in the division in late June. There are no more excuses. We had the talent, and we have more talent than the Cubs, and we couldn't get it done. We choked. There's no better way to put it, I'm sorry. We had the division in our hands, it was ours to win or lose, and we lost it. There's nothing left, and it's time to start over in management before it's too late. No matter how I try to look at it, 2007 looks like the most wasted season in our franchise history.

For the NFL fans on here, I'd like to point out that Yost reminds me a LOT of Mike Sherman when he coached the Packers. Both worked very hard and were well-respected by their players. They usually come up with pretty decent gameplans or lineups, and tend to handle game preparation very well. Both are/were very poor in-game managers. They will seemingly freeze up in crucial gametime situations. Whether it's substitutions, clock managment, crucial decision making, they both seem to come up very short. Experienced managers/coaches will make them look ridiculous with the game on the line. Also, both will generally avoid taking any responsibility for shortcomings in a game. I have never heard either take the responsibility for the loss of a game on himself. They will generally give some statistics or try to come up with excuses rather than admit that their own decision-making was regrettable.

I will say it again: If Yost ordered Counsell to bunt with 2 strikes and the tying run at 3rd with less than 2 outs, that was a monumentally boneheaded move. Like, "guy who should be led off to the clubhouse in a straightjacket" boneheaded.

For the love of God, would a reporter please step up and ask Yost straight out if he had Counsell bunting with 2 strikes in the 10th?

Regarding arbitration figures, there is no chance Bush gets $5M, if he's even back, he'll get no more than $2M. $5M sounds close for Estrada. Also doubt Mench is back, but he's sure not back for $5M. We can say $4M to be safe, but I doubt he's back -- I wouldn't be surprised if we just take our chances with Dillon for cheaper. $3M sounds close for Hardy but I'll say $3.5 max. Cappy shouldn't make a penny over his $3.25 salary next year, but you could say $3.5 to be safe. Vargas shouldn't make more than $4M, but I'd be surprised if he's back. Shouse, Wise, and Spurling numbers look close enough. So I think even on the safe side, if we tender every player there, we should have about $5M more left, at the minimum. Jenkins might be back, but not for his $9M option. If he wants to try to land a big contract before his career ends, he'll have to go elsewhere. He can probably come back here in '08 for $5M or so. I think you can safely count Mench or Vargas out next year to cover Jenkins' salary if he's back.

Right, and I agree with that point. No reason to assume that a new manager would do it differently, but then the issue would be with that manager. I just hate the rule with a passion. So many unwritten rules in baseball which I think professional managers are very scared to go against.

Strawboss, regarding your first paragraph, it's simple mathematics, in my opinion. If Wise pitches a scoreless 10th, can we not assume that he would do the same in the 11th? Let's break it down like this. Let's say that the chances of Wise giving up a run are 40%, more than 1 run, 20%, and the chances of Cordero giving up 1 run are 15%, more than 1 run, 8%. Now, that means we have a 40% chance of losing the game in the 10th if Wise pitches the 10th in a tie game. The chances of Cordero are much lower. Then say we score 2 runs in the 11th, we don't have Cordero anymore, but we've given Wise some breathing room. If he fails, we cannot blame Yost. Why? Because if Wise gave up a run in the 11th, we can assume he would have done the same in the 10th, ending the game immediately. Now we still have a chance. I wish a statitician could break this down, but I have always been very compelled by numbers and statistics, and I do believe the odds of winning the game to be better by using your best relievers early. Obviously you don't agree, but I feel like I have pretty much tried to break this down as much as I possibly can. I don't have a vendetta against Yost by any means, it's not like he kicked my dog or anything that would make me dislike him personally. I don't think he is a good in-game manager. I think he generally puts good lineups out there, with a couple exceptions this season. I think he's good at motivating the guys to keep playing hard when things are going rough. I think he's a poor manager at making in-game decisions. I believe he's near the bottom in MLB at doing so, and I think with our window of opportunity the next few years with this team, we can't afford a guy like that. Again, that's just my opinion, obviously there's nothing statistical that I can do to prove that Yost is among the worst in-game decision makers in baseball. BTW, I see what you are saying about majority of managers doing it, and I still disagree with that assessment. To me, that's like saying that because 27 of 30 people tell me that the earth is flat, I can't criticize the one who is telling me it, because other people will say the same thing. Ned doesn't need to be guided by 26 other managers. He's a grown man and can make his own decisions. That's why my issue is with him, not the others who say the same thing. If we got rid of Yost and hired Dusty Baker, and he did the exact same thing, my issue would be with Dusty Baker.

Here's what irks me more than anything: The division was WIDE open this season. I don't believe that Yost should get his job back if we fall short, because there is absolutely no reason for us not to be in the playoffs this season. The division was literally put on a platter for us, we were 8.5 up in late June, and we've just been treading water the entire season and barely staying in this. Some people seem to think that all this is is just, "Hey, we're just a year short. We'll get 'em next year". I'm sorry, but that's just not necessarily true. This is a 6 team division, and there's 5 other teams looking to improve every year. The Cardinals won't be very good next year, and neither will the Astros. The Cubs, Reds, and Pirates will all improve. The Central is not going to suck every year. Other teams will improve. If we don't have solid leadership, it's quite plausible that the entire Prince, Braun, Hardy, Hart, Weeks, and Gallardo era could pass us by without even so much as a playoff berth. It's a scary thought. I just want to make sure the team does everything necessary to make sure it doesn't happen.

Here's the thing: I don't really care what 27 other managers would do, and I don't think any of us should, including Yost. That's half the problem. It becomes harder to go "against the grain" once unwritten rules get established that managers refuse to violate. The A's don't play that way, and the Cubs don't play that way, and I think that's about it. (think it's a coincidence that the Cubs bullpen has been lights out in the 2nd half, despite them not using Marmol as their closer?) The problem with other managers doing the wrong thing allows for our own to do the same thing and simply excuse himself by saying others would do the same. I don't understand why we need our best reliever to protect a 3 run lead in the 9th inning, because it's a save situation, but we can't bring in the same reliever with the score tied on the road in a sudden death situation. I just will never believe that makes any sense at all.

Not trying to be condesending, but I think some people really need to fall out of love with the idea of a "save". It's the most brainwashing stat in baseball, and unfortunately, so many people just eat it right up, hook, line and sinker. A save is nothing other than happening to get the last outs of the game in a close game. There's absolutely nothing special about it. Some people seems to gasp and go "Oh my God!" at the thought of having to put a different pitcher than a closer coming in to protect a lead, but are fine with the same reliever coming into the game to protect a tie in which we lose if the other team scores ANYTHING, which is obviously a higher leverage situation. And Yost's snippiness just makes me want him out of town even more. "I didn't say I was going to be stupid". Sorry Ned, if you can't see how going against baseball logic here with your season on the line is the right move, I'm afraid you're not the smart one here.