MNBrew

1. Boof Bonser was completely horrid last year. Stats don't fully tell that story. He was in such crummy shape that they had to prescribe and later enforce a workout regimen for him. Bonser is guaranteed nothing as far as a roster spot goes. 2. The bullpen is one of the Twins' strengths. Guys like Neshek and Guerrier aren't going anywhere. They're very solid and extremely inexpensive, relatively speaking. 3. What the Twins don't have in their rotation is anything in the way of a time-tested ("proven") major-league starter. That's why they're looking into Josh Fogg. And they wouldn't have to give up any players to get him. If I'm the Twins, I should be realizing that proven innings eaters (theoretically Capuano, definitely Bush) are there for the plucking only 350 short miles to their southeast. 4. The Twins probably do have enough solid low-level pitching prospects that you could probably get one of them for a proven starter in the right deal. And from the money end, the Twins do have some wiggle room because they just sent a $13M salary to the Mets in exchange for no one assured of an Opening Day roster spot. 5. Pat Neshek grew up mostly in the Twin Cities even though he was born in Madison. He played little league in and attended high school up here in Brooklyn Park, a near-NW Mpls suburb that's the town where our one-time loud-mouth over-the-top-personality former pro-wrestling former governor was once mayor before his 2nd career (politics) really took off. I'd still guess the odds of something happening with the Twins aren't great, but there's at least real validity to the notion that they profile as good trading partners in a few ways that few other teams really do.

Gus Polidor died quite a long time ago. Nothing recent about it. I couldn't remember when so I looked him up. According to baseball-reference.com, Gus died on April 28, 1995. LINK

While it's only a side note in the original post, I don't get how you think Tim Dillard AND Manny Parra will make the team (especially Dillard) over the guaranteed contracts of Mota and especially Torres, who signed with the Crew as a free agent.

Jaybird, I'm guessing you're on the younger side. Being in my 20s and 30s when most of those guys were in the mix, half of them aren't obscure - they're just from an earlier era. Doug Henry was a very solid closer for a year or two and put in a lot of years in the bigs. Felder, Braggs, & Higuera spent many years in the bigs. Higuera was the Brewers' best pitcher in the late '80s before his arm problems. Matt Mieske was the guy I thought would be my hero for many years after the Sheffield trade. MVP of his league two straight years in the minors (sound like Corey Hart in that way?). Solid tools all around. Unfortunately, never could put it all together in the bigs. I did see him hit 2 homers (among the 5 or 6 the Crew hit that night) in the 10-2 (or 11-2 or 12-2, whatever) win against the Twins the night after Scott Erickson no-hit the Crew. When you start digging into names like Willie Lozados, Carlos Ponce, George Canale, Rob Picciolo (okay, he was on the '82 team, but he played less than Enrique Cruz and may have been the only guy not to homer that year), Jack Lazorko & Ray Searage, brothers Steve & Mark Kiefer, Sid Roberson, Brian Givens, Ron Rightnowar, Izzy Alcantara, Mike Birkbeck, Tim Pyznarski, and my all-time favorite Brewer name, Bryan Clutterbuck, then you're really starting to talk obscure.

chadomac, you're right on: Parra has stud starter potential, to be sure. So, too, does Villanueva. The only real reason the Brewers had Villanueva, whom they've always planned on as a starter, in the 'pen was that he pitched SO well in spring training last year that they couldn't justify sending him down to AAA, where he would've started. He just flat out made them keep him. But they had no room in the rotation until injuries happened, so he pitched well in the 'pen 'til he was overused and worn out. They sent him to the minors and had him start again, then he joined the Brewers' rotation for September and proved he deserved the spot that seems his to lose this spring. Should the Twins have kept Johan Santana in the 'pen 5 years ago because he was successful there even though they knew his future was as a starter. Granted, the Twins didn't know just how good Santana would be. And I'm not saying Villanueva will be as good as Santana, only that both organizations' long-term views of them as young guys putting in time in the 'pen was that eventually they'd both be starters. I hope Parra pushes his way onto this team. But if he pitches well and doesn't make it, hopefully that means we just have that many better pitchers and that much better depth.

No, not at all. I did misspeak, however. I should've stated "power & run production." Hall had a hard time cracking the lineup consistently in those earlier years because he hadn't pulled his game together, so to speak. Hall had an off year, but his only real stud-like power/run production year was '06. Blalock had 4 years of comparable production. That's my point. To boot, Blalock is also nearly a year younger than Hall. Really, it's all in what you place value on. "Deeper stats" tell parts of the story that "surface stats" don't necessarily indicate. But they don't always trump or discount them, either. The fact that we don't place as much value in all the same stats doesn't make either of us wrong.

Does he? The past three years he's had SLG% of .431, .401 and .543. Hall's have been .495, .553, .425. Yes, a better overall track record than Hall as far as his power numbers over time. Slugging is important, but when the numbers are this disparate, SLG alone is an oversimplification. The past five years: Blalock: '03: 29 HR, 90 RBI '04: 32 HR, 110 RBI '05: 25 HR, 92 RBI '06: 16 HR, 89 RBI '07: 10 HR, 33 RBI (208 AB) totals: 112 HR, 414 RBI; average: 22.4 HR, 82.8 RBI Hall: '03: 5 HR, 20 RBI (142 AB) '04: 9 HR, 53 RBI '05: 17 HR, 62 RBI '06: 35 HR, 85 RBI '07: 14 HR, 63 RBI (452 AB - twice the AB, not as good as double the production) totals: 80 HR, 283 RBI; average: 16 HR, 56.6 RBI

It sure seems like lots of folks (here and in plenty of other threads) are putting too much stock in Choate simply because his name has been around, he was a free agent signee, and he's on the 40-man roster. He's not good. He's signed to a split contract. He couldn't make the Twins out of spring training last year and never got called up when half the Twins' bullpen was injured. Carmen Cali and Julio DePaula got multiple callups and were horrible. Randy Choate couldn't outpitch them enough to get called up. Stetter has a better chance of making the roster than Choate, as well he should.

If he's healthy, Blalock would be worth Hall, Vargas, & a 3rd (reserve-type) guy. Or Hall & Capuano together. Blalock does have a better overall track record than Hall as far as his power numbers go over time. The nice thing is, a move like these two could still happen just as easily a month from now or two days before the start of the season.

I think at least one and maybe a couple of our extra pitchers gain us some average-to-above-average prospects (meaning at least some fringe ML potential) to give us more farm system depth. And I think that's okay. You're just not going to get studs for Vargas, Bush, Capuano, or Turnbow. I'd bet that none of those guys will bring us anyone for the major-league roster, which is just fine so long as injuries don't cause problems.

Then again, Hall & Willits could be involved in a deal maybe more easily if the right 3rd team were involved. Brewers would get Willits (or Figgins or whomever). 3rd team would get Hall. Angels would get a player from 3rd team. That said, while I'm not as crazy about Billy Hall after last year, I'm thinking the Brewers would be better off trading from their depth/excesses than their young-ish, under-contract starting OF (meaning Hall -- Mench or Gross could still be had).

I'd think Willits, Figgins, or (if healthy) Rivera would fit in nicely in LF for the Crew. Figgins had a monster year and seems to be a pretty respectable OBP guy with very good speed. I don't see how the Angels would want or at least need Hall necessarily, especially if they're serious about Cabrera & Tejada. But they must need something we have extra of. I'm also not sure Hall's the guy I'd look to move in that deal unless we also took one of their relievers, which might not be so preposterous since they at least may want salaries to even out. (Not sure what Figgins makes, and Rivera's damaged goods, but Willits is surely cheaper and also 3 years younger.) Good thought provoking question, Robideaux. (Also, just curious did you mean to spell it the same way as Billy Jo Robidoux?)

Vargas is likely a downward step from Carlos Silva, whose main asset is his durability. He can also be good in stretches, but his bad stretches are more bad than his good stretches are good. On the other hand, the Twins might have some interest in Vargas, especially if they trade a young-ish/prospect pitcher or two to meet other needs, because he is certainly a couple notches above what Boof Bonser put forth last year. He was horrible. In short, a couple other things would have to happen first before the Twins would seriously entertain a deal to acquire Claudio Vargas. Now to the actual thread topic: Matt Guerrier. He & Pat Neshek are both already late-inning studs and potential closers. With Joe Nathan being a bit more unsure of his future (which has been stated will depend on whether the other moves the Twins can make indicate moving forward vs. regressing), Neshek & Guerrier would be very proven late-inning/closer replacements. Since their billionaire owner is hardly aggressive in terms of spending to acquire blue-chip proven players, Neshek & Guerrier are exactly the guys they'll be building around should every other solid veteran also march out of town. While I'd love to see Matt Guerrier in a Brewers uniform, I'm pretty sure the only way we'll actually see that in the next few years is if/when someone with good Photoshop skills has some free time on their hands.

Estrada's OPS ranked so low because his OBP did, which compared to his BA ranking is almost entirely in his case going to be the byproduct of his low walk rate. Other than that, he's still a top-half catcher amongst major league regulars -- not glorious, but still top-half. Runs scored are at least as much an indicator of the poor situational hitting behind Estrada as they are any bit of a reflection of Estrada's less-than-desirable rate of getting on base to have a chance to score. Estrada's not necessarily showing All-Star promise for '08. But he's not all bad and he's better than half the players out there at his position. While a return to normal-ish health isn't an automatic indicator of better production, I'm at least willing to take something of a wait-and-see approach rather than writing him off from the get-go. I'd also bet that his '07 won't give him the greatest leverage for negotiating his '08 pay. And if he underproduces badly enough again, the Brewers aren't committed to him past '08. . . . not necessarily a pure win-win, but hardly a guaranteed losing deal for the Crew.

Estrada has performed for full seasons at levels Torrealba has never touched. Last year Estrada's basic numbers other than CS% still trumped Torrealba's, and Estrada was injured, which may well explain his below-his-norms performance. A return to top form isn't a given for Estrada, but I'd still even take a partial improvement. Torrealba isn't a better overall player than Estrada. Posada re-signed with the Yankees last night. For all our catching position shortfalls, I'd still say Estrada's at least in the top half of major-league catchers. And I'd put production at starting C at least 4th behind bullpen/pitching, situational hitting/OBP, and defense (not in any particular order) amongst offseason improvement priorities. While not a headline grabber, I would certainly agree that our backup C situation needs attention, especially if Miller retires or signs elsewhere. He's a great guy and a good receiver but his bat is about dead (the mega-day he had in Pittsburgh notwithstanding).

Maybe it's 'cause I'm not a stat-head (not meant derogatorily), but I hear a lot about the .800 OPS thing as an important performance point. I just looked up Kearns, Church, and Crawford. None of them have a career OPS over .800. All are somewhere in the .780 ballpark. Recent years have seen them each slightly over .800, but not anywhere close to .850. For the most part they're not 20+ HR/yr. hitters or 100 RBI guys. Other than Kearns (70+ in '07), none of them seem to be base-on-balls machines, either. Yet in other parts of this & other similar discussions, we hear about the "corner OF production." None of those guys fit that stereotype. And so far the message from Command Central in Milwaukee is that neither Hall nor Braun are going to LF. Somewhere in all of this I'm not connecting all these dots. Or maybe they're all frequently heard perspectives but not necessarily all complementary. Can someone help me out here? And, tying it back to this thread, other than age and some degree of salary, how are any of these guys that much better than Randy Winn? I don't ask critically. I hear the various points. I'm trying to understand if and how they all fit together.

If a deal like the Vargas & a B prospect for Winn would work (Bush could be in there instead of Vargas, but I prefer to keep Bush), I think you could still pick up Lofton as your 4th starter, so to speak, and still be ahead dollars-wise. add: Winn = $8.25M Lofton = $5M max, maybe more like $3.5M TOTAL = ~$13M subtract: Jenkins = $9M Mench = $4.5M or whatever Vargas = ~$4M TOTAL = $17.5M or so For an realistic net savings of $4.5M, That would also leave Gross, Dillon, & Gwynn as your 5th - 7th outfielders. Maybe it's not the most likely, but it's at least quite favorable math and not the most ridiculous of the options out there. Ostensibly this would still leave some money and assets (as in personnel) leftover to address other needs (bullpen, bullpen, bullpen, and maybe my favorite Mark Loretta or Jeff Cirillo as an IF reserve, although I've rambled about that elsewhere). Randy Winn isn't the most "sexy" name out there. But he's a pretty proven commodity, still a solid player, and a nice veteran presence. His appeal is not his pop but his overall approach to hitting -- making contact, getting on base, and I love his 42 doubles last year -- which is EXACTLY what the Brewers need to improve.

For what it's worth, I checked the WFLA Channel 8 website's Rays page (http://www.tbo.com/sports/rays/) and nothing in the headlines or blog for essentially the past month mentions anything of this kind. A few Rays fan sites mention nothing about this. wfla.com links to Tampa Bay Online (tbo.com), which is also linked to the Tampa Tribune. Either this is a flat-out ruse (no offense, Madtown Bomber) or MTB's buddy is making this up and MTB's taking him at face value. It's intriguing enough to want to believe. But short of a link or corroboration, and especially in light of all the love for Carl Crawford on this site, I'm very skeptical of any validity here.

"We didn't have a problem with our younger players but we may have a need for someone to talk to veteran players. That way, (manager) Ned (Yost) doesn't always have to do it." I think too many people are going to read into this that Yost doesn't deal as well with veterans, which I would think is the wrong interpretation. The coaching staff are all an extension of the manager. Sometimes the manager deals with the players directly and sometimes he asks his coaches to deliver the message or have the conversation. I take the last sentence of that quote mean that it'd helps Yost because it'd be one less thing he'd have to do every time there was a need.

Jerry Narron? Oh geez. Can we please hire more people with former Rangers ties to Doug Melvin? I like Melvin a whole lot, but this pattern keeps getting more silly. If they hire Narron, they'll start to rival the way Kevin McHale seems to make 3/4 of his moves involving anyone with Celtics ties. Someone commented about Melvin's failure to develop much pitching in Texas. Fact is, hardly anyone can seem to do that with the Rangers. Melvin's job was to bring in the talent. It's the job of the coaching staff -- major and minor league -- to develop that talent unless now for some reason it falls on the GM to straighten out a guy's mechanics. As has usually been the case in Colorado, the Rangers organization (multiple administrations & coaching/managing teams) just haven't had major success developing consistent pitching. And the other fact is, the majority of the pitching talent Melvin has brought into the organization (trades, scrap heap, etc.) HAS developed and HAS achieved, at least for a half-season and often more (Wise, DDavis, Kolb, Turnbow, Cordero, Shouse, Villanueva, and others). Buy low, sell high, right? Over time this board has generally agreed that Melvin has usually done quite well and hardly has bombed on the Brewers' return in player moves.

Then from 87-91 he had 4 out 5 non-losing seasons - that is far from bad. By that logic, the Brewers' record has improved in 4 of Melvin's 5 seasons, with only one losing season in the past 3. And that 6-game decline in '06 could largely be credited to 3 of the top 6 starters coming into the year (Sheets, Ohka, & Helling) and 3/4 of the starting IF (Koskie, Hardy, & Weeks) all missing at least half the season. I don't agree -- he was GM for 14 years -- certainly not everything was golden, but he was a very good GM that produced results both in Milw and Bal. Doug Melvin is also a very good GM who produced winning teams in Texas and is in the midst of overseeing the resurrection of the Brewers' franchise and baseball organization. The Brewers are widely viewed across baseball as a team on the rise and potentially set up for a nice, long run. A-Rod's tenure in Texas failing to produce a winner was the result of Tom Hicks, the owner, overpaying him absurdly -- Scott Boras had 100 times more to do with that move (and the eventual feelings of failure on the part of Hicks) than Doug Melvin, who still took the fall for Hicks' misconceived grand plan. By the time Dalton retired, which was long overdue, the way the baseball side of the organization was run was a huge dysfunctional mess. When Dalton retired and Bando took over, they cleaned house. The Brewers still had many good players at the big-league level through '92 and were only on the verge of starting to declare themselves the poster children of baseball's small-market economics complex. They soon lost many of those good players to free agency (Molitor & Bosio, for instance - only to have Bosio come back & no-hit them so poetically the next spring, & Molitor turn out to be an MVP of some round of the playoffs), retirement, or whatever, and the results of Dalton's mess became more evident over the next several years. I liked Harry Dalton a lot through most of his Brewers years and his overall record is quite enviable. If he were worthy of highest-caliber praise in my book, though, he would've had to have left the franchise so much better poised for the time after his departure than he did. What ever happened to Bruce Manno? Bruce Manno was named Asst. GM in Atlanta just this past Monday (10/22). But I sure hadn't heard his name much in the past decade, either.

Harry Dalton was a good GM the first half of his Milwaukee tenure and a largely bad one thereafter. It was his behind-the-scenes crap that made the Brewers' clubhouse disastrously dysfunctional! Don't you remember when it was reported that Andy Etchebarren & especially Larry Haney were Dalton's personal spies in the clubhouse? Everyone was afraid to say anything because you never knew when it would be used against you. Those two bozos were his "pet" schleps from when they were all with the Orioles in the '70s. Sure, Dalton hired Bamberger in '78 & Kuenn in '82. He also hired Lachemann in '84, Bamberger again in '85, traded Gorman in the first place and then brought him back for a bad 2nd run in '86. He drafted Sheffield - one of the country's best talents - but never made any contact with him before drafting him, then did more things to further distance Sheffield from the powers that be (not that Sheffield did anything much to help matters). Questions nowadays about drafting someone in the 1st round and changing their position right away? Dalton drafted a shortstop who only caught when his brother pitched with the 1st pick in the whole draft (Surhoff, not that it worked out all bad) but passed on Will Clark. You get the idea.

For a true out-of-LF pick, I'd love to see Ben Oglivie or Marshall Edwards. Mark Brouhard doesn't do much for me. Seriously, the Ted Simmons thought is quite intriguing for the reasons already mentioned. He totally gets it. But Money seems a better bet than his former teammate. Kremblas? Could be and I wouldn't complain, either, I guess, although all this manager-in-waiting stuff about him & the notion that Yost is worthless (flawed? yes; worthless? hardly!) is a bit ludicrous based on how I see things.

I don't think any Yankee unrestricted FAs are potential Brewers realistically. I do dig the Bobby Abreu idea quite a lot. Yankees get Bush + Jenkins or Mench + someone at least mildly enticing (+ maybe Turnbow?) Brewers get Abreu + cash Maybe not the most likely, but VERY appealing.

I only raised the question leading off the thread because all of a sudden it occurred to me that in Don Money they have a guy with plenty of minor league coaching/managing experience (just like Kremblas), but also a solid track record as a major leaguer on offense (4 All-Star games incl. starting in '78, I believe) and on defense (credentials already noted above in thread). He wouldn't necessarily be a "sexy" (in terms of future leadership potential) hire like Kremblas, but he would seem to offer credibility, veteran leadership (about 15 years older than Kremblas), and stability, as well as a good history with so many of the young guys on the team, too. And as a minor league manager, doesn't that also mean he's usually spent the games watching from the 3B coaching box anyway? If I'm correct on that, then he's also plenty experienced at the actual position. Again, not that Kremblas isn't qualified. It just occurred to me last night that Don Money is really qualified, too. And he also has something of a rapport and maybe trust level with Yost in a way that Kremblas doesn't since they were teammates for a few years back in the early '80s. Just seems to make him a comfortable sort of intriguing prospect for that coaching position. Like Cooper wearing #14 when he coached, it would also seem weird to see Money wearing a jersey # other than 7.