RobertR

I disagree strongly that the Carter signing means anything in regards to Lind's return. The alternative wasn't "don't trade Lind" but rather trade Lind for different prospects. The Carter signing was a clear win but it doesn't mean the Lind deal was good. Signing Carter AND getting good prospects back was the goal.

Yes, playoff contending teams do it, because there's an actual benefit to them if they can find an extra win. Do teams fighting to stay out of the cellar do it regularly? I think we've beaten this to death, plenty. I think it's a) a move that almost never amounts to anything, and b) is only really defensible if a team is in real contention. Why screw with a performing pre-arby player's paycheck otherwise? There's no PR boost to winning 69 games instead of 68 or for calling up a nobody like Andy Wilkins. It didn't change the Brewers playoff odds any. It took money out of a deserving player's pocket for no reason and didn't create any goodwill. Now, maybe goodwill doesn't mean anything and maybe Davies is never going to be more than a back end of a rotation guy, but rewarding performance is generally a good thing. As they actually teach in business school. I think the question is if a similar situation pops up again next year, will they do it?

You can't agree that Toronto is actually contending and the Brewers are not? And that makes a difference? You don't think the context is different? Heck Sanchez ' s playoff share might make up any loss in earnings. Toronto ' s goal for this year was to win as many games as possible, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship. The Brewers had the goal of not losing 100, and developing a foundation of future success which should include not potentially angering a potential part of the future rotation for no benefit. And they called up a bad player in the bargain which didn't even help the goal of short term wins. These situations are not even remotely alike. Why trade Lucroy if you're worried about maybe winning one more game?

I don't see how that should make a difference. He's not hurt, he's not going to play in the minors, and I'm pretty sure I read he won't even report. If people are going to throw a fit about what the Brewers did with Davies they should be doing the same about Sanchez. The only difference I can see is that Sanchez agreed with the move while Boras was a big crabby pants about it. The difference is that there is enormous potential short term gain for Toronto and no short term gain for the Brewers. Toronto is asking Sanchez to make a short term sacrifice for the goals of the team. The Brewers asked Davies to make a sacrifice for no gain for the team or Davies. The Brewers had about a 0% chance of making the playoffs before that move, and even if Wilkins came up with a big hit, they had a 0% chance of making the playoffs after the move. There was literally no benefit to the Brewers. The potential benefit was that the Brewers finished 19 games out of the playoffs instead of 20. The benefit to Toronto for potentially winning even a single extra game is enormous. That might be the difference between the playoffs, and potentially the World Series, or missing out. There's enormous benefit for that move to the club. The cost/benefit ratios are wildly different. One is a legitimate baseball move with tangible benefits, one was just being cute. I don't blame Davies or Boras one bit for being upset over Davies sacrificing a good percentage of his salary for no benefit to himself or the team.

Toronto is in a totally different situation. They're tied for 1st place. A single game could be the difference between winning the division or a one game playoff. A single game meant nothing for the Brewers.

The one thing that makes me pause is the lack of a superstar / ace. Teams have won championships without one though.

Like others have said if he continues to get on base there's no reason Villar can't be a productive third baseman. Frankly given his defensive inconsistencies I don't think he's going to stick at short anyways. But I doubt moving him now changes his market. My guess is that second is Villar ' s ultimate destination. There's nothing particularly notable about Gennett.

Who cares if someone claims Garza? Let him go and save $12.5 million plus whatever he's owed for the rest of this year. I can think of over 15 million reasons why he won't be claimed.

I was generally good with the Cleveland deal, but if Cleveland wasn't going to satisfy Lucroy's demands to waive his no-trade clause, that's just life. This is the second time this year where I do wonder about Stearns' communication skills with the players. Certainly it was no surprise that a deal was in the works. Seems like Stearns could have saved himself some work and a potential headache if he had found out what Lucroy was looking for and communicated it to Cleveland in advance.

How soon we forget Johnny Estrada. I guess the numbers say that he wasn't the worst, but his defense and lack of hustle took away any value his bat had.

I disagree in that I think that's limiting. Get the best package of prospects you can, regardless of level, and worry about the rest later. You can always flip talent.

He's hitting 0.238 in Colorado Springs. The answer should be obvious. I understand not wanting to burn an option or start a true prospect's service time. Or even to reward an organization soldier but the baseball reason to bring him up was always questionable.

You note a tangible benefit in your last sentence and it was perfectly reasonable to decide Hader and Arcia weren't ready to perform at the major league level before the season so apples and oranges. There was no benefit short term or long term to that move. Where we disagree is the notion that the Brewers "needed" a bat. (We also may disagree on whether Wilkins constituted a "bat".) Predictably the Brewers saw no benefit from the move only cost. A predictable negative cost benefit ratio is a bad move. They'll teach that in business school. I'm persuadable if people could point to a real tangible benefit. But I see zero benefit here. When your benefit is predictably zero that's not good business. Saying baseball is a business doesn't mean that every move management makes is good or doesn't deserve scrutiny.

When did it become good business to take money out of the pocket of a performing employee for no organizational benefit? You think any business school would endorse that? I agree that this thread has gone much too long. But I think the Brewers should learn a lesson from it. Wilkins predictably didn't make a difference. Sometimes it's better to do nothing.

That is all that really matters. It probably isn't a big deal in the long run and could have huge benefits for the team. You almost never hear about players not resigning with a team because of stuff like this. Remember back when Fielder didn't want to sign his contract with the Brewers because they didn't offer him a significant raise? He signed a two year contract the next year that avoided the first two years of his arbitration. MLB is just not about relationships. Especially when the agent is Boras. It's about money. Whoever offers the most money or close to it will get the player. Milwaukee can't compete or come close to competing for the biggest contracts. Explain what the "huge benefits" to the team are. I see no benefits from the move. I just don't see the point of messing with a player that might be part of the team's long term plans. It doesn't even matter if Boras is Zach Davies agent. It affects how other young players perceive the organization.

So, if we agree that the Brewers aren't saving anything this year because they're paying Wilkins, then it's going to cost them an extra $24k next year to make it right to a valuable employee. The cost is a mad employee or $24k to soothe that employee over. Considering that Wilkins may very well go 0-fer his callup, what's the benefit here? Or, heck, maybe they win a game because of a key hit by Wilkins, again what's the benefit of finishing 18 games out of the playoffs as opposed to 19 games out of the playoffs? Saying "other teams do it" may be true. That doesn't make it smart. Especially when an extra win really has no value to the Brewers this year and Wilkins has no long term (or arguably short term) value. I'd argue that this is a bad move, simply because there's no benefit to it. It benefits Wilkins certainly. This could be his Only ML experience in his lifetime. And if that is so, Davies if he's any kind of Man, won't sit there and be a complete douche about it like Boras is. It's a good faith move imo on the Brewers part to give Wilkins some ABs. For Davies 24k is a chunk of money for him, yes, but for Mark A and the Brewers ownership, paying 24k more next season to compensate Davies is pennies to these guys. And especially so when Payroll is more than Half what it was last season! The benefit is to Wilkins and his family. Maybe one of these PH situations Wilkins does something special. For Davies or other players to hold a grudge against teams for 10days roughly with all the money they are set to make, I don't believe in it. Why have that attitude? Flat out, you're not taking the mound once in this timeframe, we can however have extra bat to PH or give someone a day off. Being upset about this move, just goes along the lines of what today's society is. Entitled. Sit back let your bosses do their job be grateful they are employing you. Is it a guarantee Baltimore would have him Starting games for them this season even earning a ML paycheck? I dunno if he'd have 15 games Started being with Baltimore still. Pitching vs. the Powerful AL East. Gets hammered and sent down potential. He's in a situation where he can relax, pitch and not worry about his results compared to if he was in Baltimore where every Start means Division Leading consequences/Playoff future stress. It's just like the deal Boston did for Hill. Aaron Wilkerson who has stats that are Promotion worthy instead being traded away, because his overall potential supposedly, is something Boston felt wasn't fit to be put in to a Playoff race as a Rookie. FWIW, Davies is over a 4ERA along with Fip. This isn't like Taylor Jungmann through 15games having under a 2.5ERA last season and now being demoted. Did Boras open his mouth when Trea Turner played 2games, went 3-3 with 1 BB and get optioned back to the minors? It's a business decisions are made that are agreed with or argued against. While Davies/Boras can voice partial displeasure, Wilkins and his Agent will be voicing gratefulness for the opportunity. Why presume that Davies blames anyone but management? And, IMO, that anger is perfectly justified. He suffers a real harm because of pointless gamesmanship on the part of the Brewers. Gamesmanship that was always unlikely to have any effect. I'm sure players have no ill will towards Wilkins. But his opportunity came at the expense of someone that a) is a valuable player now and should be a valuable player in the future and b) is a player that is not all right with it. You can claim he should be, but clearly he's not. And, frankly, I think it's awfully cavalier to say a player should just give up $24k without a gripe. At least the Nationals are actually competing for the playoffs. That's an apples and oranges situation. A game could mean many things. There's a real benefit. Is this a big deal in the long run? Probably not. It's probably not something that can't be fixed either. But, nobody has ever made an argument that there's any kind of significant benefit out of the deal. Why make a young player mad, for legitimate reasons, when the team isn't gaining anything in the bargain? There's no benefit to the cost.

So, if we agree that the Brewers aren't saving anything this year because they're paying Wilkins, then it's going to cost them an extra $24k next year to make it right to a valuable employee. The cost is a mad employee or $24k to soothe that employee over. Considering that Wilkins may very well go 0-fer his callup, what's the benefit here? Or, heck, maybe they win a game because of a key hit by Wilkins, again what's the benefit of finishing 18 games out of the playoffs as opposed to 19 games out of the playoffs? Saying "other teams do it" may be true. That doesn't make it smart. Especially when an extra win really has no value to the Brewers this year and Wilkins has no long term (or arguably short term) value. I'd argue that this is a bad move, simply because there's no benefit to it.

$24k, plus per diem plus the inconvenience of a sudden move, is more than enough to be "self-centered". That's an awful cavalier attitude. Shouldn't Wilkins feel bad that he took money and service time from Davies all the while not moving the odds of the Brewers making the post-season one iota? Zach Davies didn't deserve to lose one cent by being sent down. There's no short term gain to the Brewers by calling up Wilkins. You ended up punishing a valuable employee, and yes I consider $24k to a pre-arbitration player a punishment, while gaining nothing in the exchange. That's poor people management, whether the employee in question makes $24k per year or $500k per year. Again, what's the gain? Wilkins stinks, has no future with the organization, and doesn't even play a position of need. Meanwhile, a performing player is justifiably mad at the organization for costing him a chunk of change. There's no calculus where this is a good move for the organization as they're not even close to contending. It doesn't make sense because what happens to the Brewers record over the next 10 days will a) not be related to Wilkins in any significant way and b) will have no long term effect on the organization.

Yeah, it's a reminder that you're managing human beings and have to worry about things like making sure that they're being treated respectfully, especially guys you want to have for years to come. $24k is still a good chunk of change for a pre-arbitration player. And it's not like Wilkins is an actual player that a) will help them win games this year or b) has a future with the organization. There's value in treating valuable employees well. I don't think there's any value in winning an extra game this year. I'd say the move is not worth the trouble.

At some point, the home team has to take responsibility for communicating with its fans. The guys in the press box knew what was going on. So did both of the managers. No reason the home manager can't relay the information to the stadium announcer. No reason, the home team can't put the relay on the scoreboard either.

That assumes Abrams isn't lying. This is a guy that swore that Khan wasn't in Star Trek into Darkness. It's pointless to hide Rey's parentage if it turns out to be some people we've never heard of before. Pick one of Palpatine, Solo, Skywalker, or Kenobi for her last name.

There are lots of things I like about the design. But I think they made a mistake by not considering the overall statement it makes. It seems a design by committee where the chief buzzwords used to describe Milwaukee were "water", "gritty", and "industrial" and they were just combined. I don't know about you but I'd rather not have a major architectural statement be "Milwaukee = brown, industrial water".

So, is this where we talk about the new renderings for the arena?

Worst: Lind. Lottery tickets are a bad investment strategy. I think the odds of any one of the three making it to the bigs is a long shot much less having any type of value. There's a good chance that Stearns traded a decent major leaguer for nothing. Best: Segura/Wagner. Stearns moved a guy blocking a top flight prospect and managed to get an interesting prospect back, who might turn out to have the most long term value, but also the best current player in the deal. That's a coup.

Good. I'd like it if the team played some defense this season. Who knows, they'll miss Davis' s bat but the defense could make up for that.