MNBrew

You're projecting your concerns onto the Brewers. There's no way to know for sure their thinking aligns with yours. That's what many are doing, especially on boards like this, which was my whole point. Off the top of my head (no pun intended), I don't think Lucroy's got a history of concussions.

I don't think there's any reason to think the Brewers actually want to move Lucroy or Braun to 1B. They already have a well-proven MLB 1B and a couple more guys who could well man the position at the MLB level (Rogers & Clark) if/when Lind is gone. Many folks on this site advocate for it, but this is about the only sort of place it comes up -- and obviously it comes up a lot, as some posters are convinced that Braun (most especially) moving there is an inevitability and that it should happen sooner than later. But I have a hard time as seeing it as anything other than a group-think phenomenon that just spirals on itself.

I like Lind and am not eager to see him moved. However, Rogers can hit, period, and that might afford the Brewers the flexiblity to trade Lind if the return's good. I could see Matt Clark in a platoon with Rogers. It helps that Rogers has also been pretty successful as a PH.

On one hand, Rickh150, your point is clear. On the other, I also think you're nit-picking. I think there's a "see the forest for the trees" angle in what he said that's the right idea. I tend to believe that what Attanasio wants is the same thing we want: a consistently successful team that's built the right way, meaning not only that they're successful but also that their success should be based in an organizational approach that makes sustaining that success highly likely. I've read enough of your posts to glean a strong sense of your apparent cynicism if not overt distrust toward anyone & anything currently related to the current ownership & leadership. Could anyone associated with the Brewers right now other than David Stearns say something you'd have any sincere inclination to have any faith in? **I'm sincerely curious and I don't ask that with any intention of disrespect.**

You're right, Briggs. The difference with Ben Oglivie, though, is that he was a high RBI guy, too. Davis has only 65 RBIs to go w/ his 26 HRs. His success rate in terms of driving guys in when he doesn't hit a homer isn't great -- not Mark Reynolds proportions circa 2014, but not light years better, either.

The million dollar question here ultimately seems to be this: Is Khris Davis a guy with one great skill (HR power) and other skills that will evolve enough to make him a thoroughly valuable player, or is he really more of a one-trick pony whose one trick is just really impressive? If the former is more likely, then the Brewers either have quite the strong LF for years to come or a killer trade chip -- potentially a different version of Gomez (Carlos, of course, NOT Hector -- ha!). If it shades the other way, then that would seem to scream "sell high" before the lustre's fully off. Either way, we could probably net a nice return for him this winter. Another way to look at the situation is this: Could he be a guy whose offense evolves into Big Papi Lite? Or is he the more powerful OF version of Bill Hall, whose overall weaknesses appreciably undercut the value of his power? Personally, I love the HR production but I'm still quite concerned that even with this great-power stretch since Aug. 1st, his BA isn't loads better and outside of his HRs he's not doing a great job of driving in other runners (the last bit sounds similar to Mark Reynolds' 2nd half last year -- loads of solo HRs!). Because he's hardly expensive, there's good reason to keep him. By the same token, that would only seem to add to his value in a potential trade. Either scenario seems plausible. I find myself favoring trading him if the right deal's there. How Stearns (with FO & Counsell input) handle Davis this winter -- to deal or not to deal? -- is probably the thing I'm most anxious to see this winter outside of any developments with the pitching staff (hopeful new pitching coach included!). ... Then, as soon as I think I'm done typing, Davis homers off Rosenthal to give the Brewers a 9th inning lead!

This is exactly right. This next year will be a great time for Brewers fans to pay more attention to the draft process. It's something to look forward to, for one thing, and it also shows how woefully inexact the whole thing remains. The best guy doesn't always go first, the obvious guy doesn't always pan out, "Who's that?", sometimes makes it to the big leagues. This is all about scouting - for the draft, for international players, and for players you may trade for, the best information wins. Pay for the best information - put the right people in the field, tell them what you want from them, and use it. Two great examples from the Green Bay Packers' past: The scouts said, "Take Joe Montana", and they were going to, but they needed a noseguard, so they talked themselves out of what their people had told them, and they took Charlie Johnson, from Maryland. Remember him? Oh, I'm sure you do. The scouts said, "Take Ronnie Lott", and they were going to, but they needed a quarterback, so they took Rich Campbell, from Cal. The man simply could not throw the ball at an NFL level. You're welcome, 49ers ... twice. Pay the right people to bring the right information ... and when they do ... use it. Thank goodness for an indirect yet real payback with a happy ending: The 49ers needed a franchise QB and took Alex Smith right away . . . and Aaron Rodgers fell all the way to the Packers, where he learned the NFL game as Favre's understudy and has acquitted himself quite well ever since!

I sure like what I'm hearing about him, but I'm also glad the wisdom, savvy, & experience of Melvin will be around to complement what Stearns brings. Hopefully Gord Ash is kept around, too.

It's been reported many times over: He was offered the chance to pitch out of the bullpen and declined. That's probably not the coolest move on his part, but it's not the same as being told to do so and him refusing a directive. Garza's not too high on my list, either, but there's an accuracy issue that's separate from (obviously widely shared and arguably well-justified) emotion & bias.

After 5-ish years of total suckitude, there's no way the Twins are trading their top prospects, let alone for bats. Their far greater need is pitching.

Garza's commented in many, many game stories this year about how frustrated he's been over how badly he's pitched. He admitted it again in near the end of that spiel over the weekend (paraphrasing, "It's on me because I didn't pitch well."). IMO, he didn't need to say much about it all over again b/c he's been honest about it all along. He's a competitor and still wanted to work his way through his lousy pitching. I like that part. I'd even suggest he has a right to be mad (it's his opinion, after all) about being pulled from the rotation, though if I'm the Brewers, I'd do it again after that many similarly terrible starts. I wonder if his frustration about it is exaggerated due to simply being told about it rather than being asked, consulted, or given some actual input that might've had a bearing on the outcome. I'm guessing that's primarily why he's so upset. He talked about this creating a chip on his shoulder going into the winter & next year. I sure hope so. He has something to prove. And based on his words, he knows it & has admitted it. And looking at the picture of the next two years, it's probably fine that he's ticked at Melvin because Melvin's moving away from the role at the center of this swirl anyway.

Re: potential position moves, 3 starting LFs (kinda) all in the starting lineup, and all that.... I get the feeling that if Melvin's still the running the show this winter, we'll hear a lot of "We're not motivated to move him" regarding Khris Davis and/or Adam Lind.

I never got this line of thinking (it popped up in many other places, too). I'm not interested in him b/c of the results of his guiding the Red Sox over the years since Theo left. The longer Theo's been gone, the worse they've gotten. The basic bio profiles well (theoretically, anyway), but it ignores the obvious aspect of results . . . not to mention results in a mega-market with a ridiculous payroll. If he doesn't get good results with relatively unlimited money, why on Earth should we think he'd do any better with much more limited financial resources?

I was agreeing with you on Clark. I like him and feel he should get another chance to produce at the big-league level. I do like Adam Lind, too, so I appreciate the dilemma of (or some people's frustration about) that redundancy. My point about "a Sept. call-up doesn't change that picture" was in reference to the fact that he's already on the 40-man -- has been all year since they optioned him at the end of spring training -- so calling him up doesn't change the current head count of the 40-man roster. I'm guessing the reason they haven't called Clark up is Melvin's M.O. about not calling up guys who stand little if any chance to get into a game. Whether that's the best choice is a different conversation. I've mentioned before I'd hope they'd call him up.

I second the vote for a call-up of Matt Clark. He was optioned to AAA in spring training, though, so he's already on the 40-man and a Sept. call-up doesn't change that picture.

Well, with Dominguez now gone, that would seem to put the 40-man roster at 38. This seems like preparation for a couple Arcia, Lopez, etc. types. And I'd guess days on the 40-man are numbered for guys like Kintzler, Centeno, and obviously Lohse.

Whatever the unspoken motivations and frustrations -- on both sides, for sure -- the fact is that his starts have again become like Lohse's, in which he consistently gives up 2-3 baserunners per inning and the Brewers again are playing from behind. Like Lohse, Garza's been getting in early trouble and it spirals out control quickly and he hasn't been able to stop the bleeding once it starts, and that caliber of performance on nearly a season-long basis is grounds for removal from the rotation. Whatever else is not being said, the "public" face of this does pass the smell test for honesty. Combine that it's September and the Brewers are hopelessly out of contention, that Garza's currently the team's worst SP by far, and that the Brewers have some young guys they want to see start more than once, and the result is exactly what's happening. I think it shows some sensitivity if not class on the organization's part that they'd even give him the option to choose between pitching out of the bullpen vs. not at all, that the Brewers would even consider allowing the latter to be an option. The other layers being discussed may be there as well, may even be the the primary motivations for this decision, but in pure fact that's still sheer speculation.

One other point: Watch the video clip in the link. Text without tone of voice = an incomplete picture, which is obviously the view many have here based on reactions to the printed text of his words. http://m.brewers.mlb.com/news/article/147600788/matt-garza-upset-after-removal-from-rotation When you read the words, you don't get the tone of voice and it's very easy to make assumptions about it. Actually listening to him speak, those things ticking several of you off sound a little bit different. Obviously he doesn't like the situation -- he's a competitor, he has pride (as do we all), and he'd rather keep pitching. But LISTEN to HOW he's speaking. While he may have spouted a little too much for where I'd think "that line" of professionalism should be, he's not raging (even though he's obviously very ticked at Melvin, he also went through proper channels first, using his agent to raise the concerns directly with Melvin). On the contrary, he's resigned to his fate, honestly and straightforwardly, and at the end of it all, for as upset as he is, he still places the blame squarely on himself for pitching lousy. Garza's a fiery guy and this move is a tough blow to anyone who truly cares about their game. Unfortunately for him, the team, and the fans, all the fiery approach in the world -- which we've heard all about since we signed him -- can't hide his horrible results.

If they are putting him straight back into the rotation next year I just don't see the reason for such a move. Unless of course there are injury concerns. I mean sure they can get a tiny look at other players...but that really won't tell them much. A start or two is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'd be for this move if they were taking away his spot and make him earn it back, but they are basically taking 4-5 starts away and have already named him to the 2016 rotation. Really confusing if you ask me. Makes it sound like they are just trying to avoid paying him more in the future. Which I really don't care about, but the players union will and so will players around the league. They've said he's healthy and the reason is obvious why and it has nothing to do with the fact that they're putting him back in the 2016 rotation (or else they wouldn't have said that directly in other quotes within the story (brewers.com & jsonline.com). Cue Doug Melvin (quote source: article on brewers.com): "Then, the other part of it is, if you're not doing well, sometimes there [are] consequences. We did send Scooter Gennett out when he wasn't doing well. We took Kyle out of the rotation when he was not doing well. To put that in the situation right now is that we have the opportunity to look at other pitchers." [continues McCalvy in writing the article...] In each of Garza's last four starts, he has pitched no more than five innings and surrendered no fewer than four earned runs. In all, he's surrendered 34 hits, 11 walks and 23 earned runs in those outings over 18 innings. .... There it is, as obvious as can be. He's been so terrible with no sign of "getting right," so they're demoting him for now in the only way they can. If anything, Garza should be a little surprised it took this long for them to pull the plug on him in the rotation (and not for the whole season, as it's he who declined the offer to pitch out of the bullpen).

Since they liked him so long in ST, and since he finished his AAA season really well in Colorado Springs' rotation, I have to think Pena's spot on the 40-man is rather secure going into 2016.

I've been concerned about the IF for a few years now. Lind's solid & proven, but there's a lack of definitively starting-caliber talent outside of Arcia at the rest of the IF positions & at the top few levels of the system (including the majors). MrTPlush, I'm with you on that roster overall except for Phillips. The guy hasn't even sniffed AAA yet, and he's not exactly killing it at Biloxi. I don't doubt the talent, just the MLB arrival time (other than anything short-term, anyway). Davis is the one I think of re: "fool's gold" on offense. He's impressive when he's on. The last month has been pretty awesome. The other 4 months of the season (less the injury time) at minimum weren't very impressive and at worst were legit cause to consider demoting or replacing him. I see more promise in Santana, and I just wonder if Melvin or his successor (depending on the timing) might swap him for a nice return -- the "sell high" notion folks here tend to believe that Melvin just won't ever do.

That link -- at least now -- doesn't show anything about Barrios on that page.

Yes, I'm looking at his numbers. I don't get that excited about his high-A numbers when he's mostly stalled out above AA. And I call small sample size on his 119 PAs in 2014 based on the 2013 & 2015 on either side of it. Factoring in Olt's MLB ABs tells me he's done very little the past 3 years including about zilch hitting in the majors. Jason Rogers isn't anything great in the bigs but he's shown more in his time in AAA (for sure) plus in the bigs (small sample on either, in all, but I'd take Rogers' OPS at 60-ish points higher than Olt's). Olt's good minor league numbers (distilling it to OPS) are weighted in A, A+, & AA, and they go downhill after AA, whereas Rogers' track record is more consistent and he continued the upward trend in AAA, which Olt sure hasn't done (.749 OPS vs. Rogers' .989). Olt's inability to make contact and get on base in the bigs almost make Logan Schafer look like a better roster alternative in terms of the odds of getting something other than an out out of an AB.

^^ Right, on the whole, but it sure raised almighty you-know-what when it was Eric Gagne in MIL for $10M, including many BF.net posters just about imploding.

Look at Olt's minor league numbers. His crazy 2012 came out of nowhere and kinda disappeared to nowhere -- that screams "outlier." And that great year was at AA. Hello Hunter Morris!!! Trwi7, who cares if Olt was considered a big-time prospect if closer inspection suggests strongly that that was mostly unjustified hype? I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong and proves that he should be our 3B, but in 3 years he's done precious little to suggest he even deserves much of a chance. Jason Rogers has done far more at AAA than Olt has done in AAA, let alone the majors. If Olt somehow ends up a Brewer and gets major 1B playing time over Rogers . . . I just don't see how that could happen. There's nothing to suggest that's rational at all.