MNBrew

Who cares about all the moves? They've just grabbed headlines early like Billy Beane did. The Padres have stunk for a long time and, just like Oakland, this means nothing 'til they actually put it together. If they make good on it and become a threat, well, I'd rather see them running atop the NL West than the Dodgers.

If that proves to be a persistent issue over the first 2 months of the season, I'd bet one if not two of the bench residents will be different by the All-Star break if not sooner.

Noting your logic in the Herrera thread, it's also possible Schafer *could* have a decent enough 2015 to become the "regular" 4th OF in 2016 when Parra's $6M salary likely is off the books.... and there's no great immediate danger in giving him at least a chance to prove that.

I'm finding my thought processes re: the bench much like SoupTown's two posts above. Nothing is necessarily permanent. Keeping the no-options-left guys on the bench creates depth at low costs -- both with with them at the MLB level (to begin with) and the guys with options who could take their place if they stink and are eventually outrighted or released. There's a part of me still a little chafed that neither Clark or Rogers are coming north. The everyday PT angle makes sense to begin with. I'd be very surprised if we don't see one or both up in MIL over this season. Once Herrera came up and proved he could hit in limited playing time, I started liking him. Going into 2015, his bat off the bench as a "known" carries more clout with me than Jimenez or H. Gomez do at this point. While I hope they prove competent, they might stink. Those two could be could just as easily become the next McGehee or Podsednik as they could become the next Brad Nelson or Chris Duffy. If it's the latter, assuming Herrera loses out to Schafer, at least Herrera's only a phone call away. Keeping Schafer is showing a decent amount of faith on the Brewers' part. But his bat has come around late in spring training, and he's previously shown he could (emphasis on the hypothetical element within "could") be a better 4th OF than 5th OF once Parra's presumably gone after 2015. If he ends up totally stinking off the bench yet again, then he's made himself quite replaceable and there are other options waiting in AAA who also had a respectable showing in spring training.

Comments on a couple of the previous 5 posts: - Chris Perez is a righty, not a lefty. (quote: Chris Perez is the cheaper better lefty option.) - Cotts' one-year $3M contract signed as a FA is guaranteed. Just cutting him, however much he's stunk this spring, isn't likely for two reasons: 1) Given that he's a very-experienced MLB FA signing, he's had enough MLB success to deserve a bit longer leash; and 2) They're not just going to throw away $3M without the guy throwing a single regular-season pitch. If Cotts were an NRI guy, he'd likely have been gone long before Perez, but (sadly, at least for now) that's not the case. (quote: I hope the Brewers will simply cut Cotts if he does not perform like NOW. It would send a bit of a message to the other players.) The positive about the whole situation is that the great spring training debates this year are about last spots on the bench and the end of the bullpen. The one confusing thing is that as poor as Logan Schafer's MLB play has been over the past couple years in a part-time role (and I've been a quietly enthusiastic (yet realistic) fan of his since a couple years before his call-up), for all the reading I've done about the different guys contending for spots, there's been nothing compelling printed about why he's deserving of a roster spot, let alone over some of these other guys. I hope his bat & his bunting come around because he sure didn't add much at the plate in his otherwise limited role -- especially compared to Herrera, who hit dang well considering his very sporadic playing time.

Well, it seems to be down to Herrera or Schafer as the 25th man. Still don't get why Gomez's spot is teflon-coated. Hope he proves worth it -- and if he doesn't, I hope they don't wait forever to send him down. I'm quite surprised that neither Clark nor Rogers made the cut, but Melvin's point about them playing everyday makes sense, esp. if one is to become the regular 1B should Lind end up out for any length of time.

Probably 3 guys stretched out in AAA if Blazek keeps pitching like he has been so far this spring and doesn't make the OD roster.

Judging a starting pitcher on his first extended stay in the bigs(only 70 innings) and ending bad(pitched only 16 innings in September). Then you would like to talk about spring training? Shall we check out Peralta's stats his first year? News flash starting pitchers tend to struggle their first time up...it happens. I normally find that your posts align close to my own thinking, which makes your seemingly condescending tone all the more disappointing. For a young pitcher, of course the struggles aren't unexpected, and I followed closely Peralta's early exploits. My concern re: last year is that the longer Nelson was up, the worse his outings progressively got. I have high hopes for Nelson like most/all here. My greater concern is that he's being handed a spot without showing signs of any consequence of meaningfully correcting what went wrong. I think he should still have to earn his spot, so the teflon coating his spot in the rotation has doesn't make total sense. . . . Sure, there's a balance to maintain in order not to kill a guy's confidence, and Melvin's shown over time he'll make the necessary move(s) when merited -- both upward and downward. That the more experienced (though not by tons) Thornburg seemingly has no chance at Nelson's spot in the rotation at the moment despite his pitching markedly better certainly raises eyebrows.

If Lohse is productive and wants to return next year, I don't think it's realistic to assume automatically that he's a goner. There's an awful lot that needs to happen before any of that has to transpire, and the picture can change a whole lot in either direction in that time. In the meantime, regarding the 6 guys listed as existing rotation candidates for next year... - only 3 would be legit known commodities (Peralta, Fiers, Garza) - Nelson mostly stunk terribly the longer he was in the bigs last year AND HE'S NO BETTER THIS SPRING - Thornburg seems healthy and rotation-ready, so he's the guy I'd be first inclined to add to the top group, BUT he has to continue to show he's fully recovered - I like Jungmann a lot (i.e., rooting for him to do well) BUT he's not thrown an MLB pitch yet and was so-so this spring. It sure seems like having MORE options on hand would be vital, especially a nice balance of experienced & young/promising ones. I want Nelson to bust out, but presently he's the one I trust the least. Anyway, Guerrero isn't overly intriguing to me at this point, but it makes more sense to pursue a trade for him IF a substantial need presents itself and if LA needs to dump him, which would make the finances more appealing/realistic.

I agree with the two posts above. On one hand, it makes sense that the Brewers have lots of 1B-capable depth right now. However, between guys' injury histories (Lind & even Lucroy), plus the fact that Jimenez hasn't proven squat at the MLB level, it makes no sense to ditch a good bat. So Roenicke's comments are perplexing. The Brewers just normally aren't a team to tip their hand that blatantly, and they're not really deep MLB-ready talent in AAA, either. The possibility exists that this might be part of a move they're on the verge of making and Rogers would be who they'd clear from the 40-man in order to keep Perez. But it's 2 days later and nothing's gone down, so if that's the answer, it obviously wasn't THAT imminent on Thursday when Roenicke made those remarks. . . . which again makes those comments seem weird.

^^This. Bird in the hand. Proven depth -- the more you have, the better off you are. If he stinks, he's not a heavy financial burden to get rid of.

I don't think I could find a more worthless player to put on the bench. Schafer would provide 0 value at best...if he would even ever play. Gets even more confusing when you talk about not wanting another all defensive player outside of Parra. Yet you want Schafer who also plays outfield? If someone wants to claim a guy who has a career 66 OPS+ feel free. His defense has no value here to waste an OD roster spot on. Re-read the preface of my post. That isn't necessarily what I want to happen. It's what I think probably will happen. Schafer's leash has to be getting short, and his lack of being able to even get bunts down at all last year did plenty (deservedly) to shorten the leash even quicker. That said, none of the others (Peterson, Petersen, or Long) have exactly built a compelling MLB track record (if they've gotten that far). The fact that Jimenez has been getting time in the OF doesn't bode well for Schafer, his top-level D notwithstanding.

I don't think I could find a more worthless player to put on the bench. Schafer would provide 0 value at best...if he would even ever play. Gets even more confusing when you talk about not wanting another all defensive player outside of Parra. Yet you want Schafer who also plays outfield? If someone wants to claim a guy who has a career 66 OPS+ feel free. His defense has no value here to waste an OD roster spot on. Re-read the preface of my post. That isn't necessarily what I want to happen. It's what I think probably will happen. Schafer's leash has to be getting short, and his lack of being able to even get bunts down at all last year did plenty (deservedly) to shorten the leash even quicker. That said, none of the others (Peterson, Petersen, or Long) have exactly built a compelling MLB track record (if they've gotten that far). The fact that Jimenez has been getting time in the OF doesn't bode well for Schafer, his top-level D notwithstanding.

There are the occasional unique angles folks like to come up with in a thread like this, but I can't help but to think it's going to be the most obvious/predictable outcome to begin with. I'm not sure this is what I want (not sure it's not, either), but it's what I think will happen: Starting 8 C - Lucroy 1B - Lind 2B - Gennett SS - Segura 3B - Ramirez RF - Braun CF - Gomez LF - Davis Bench Maldonado, Jiminez, Gomez, Parra, Schafer SPs Lohse, Garza, Peralta, Fiers, Nelson Bullpen K-Rod, Broxton, Jeffress, Smith, Cotts, Kintzler, Perez Comments - Peterson, Petersen, & Long were all signed to be the AAA OF. I'd be surprised if they beat out Schafer for the OD roster even if the numbers by then indicate any of them should've. I like Rogers & Herrera, too, but I don't think they'll beat out the no-remaining-option guys to begin with (see comment below about retaining depth). I could see Clark as a darkhorse and Rogers as even more of a longshot making the cut, though, just as strong bats since there's already one top-level defensive OF (Parra) and the bench needs quality bats, not just good D. - Thornburg needs to get stretched out as an SP again. Henderson's arm isn't fully back. Wooten has at least one option left. Ditto Knebel. They'll keep all the pitching depth they can, then demote or release fringy Ps on the 25-man roster (thinking Perez mainly, but possibly others) when their performance merits it and start bringing up other guys who've earned the opportunity. - I'm not making any DL assumptions even though it's quite possible something will tip that way in the 2.5 weeks before Opening Day.

One way this possibly plays out is the Brewers start the year keeping everyone they like IN the organization, which means Perez on the roster, guys optioned to AAA who can be, etc. If they pitch well, then -- ta da! -- we have quality depth. If they don't pitch well, you get rid of who you can as long as better replacements are available. As has often been noted, for oodles of reasons & possibilities, the 25-man you start with is never the 25-man you end with.

There's a ton of ST remaining, relatively speaking, but if things continue in the pattern they've begun, I'd like to see Thornburg as the #5 SP and Nelson & Jungmann down in AAA. Nelson wasn't completely terrible yesterday, but he wasn't too good, either, before Michael Strong emptied the bases, let 3 of his own runs in, & left w/ 2 more guys on base (sheesh!). Jungmann today was markedly worse.... If all that comes to pass, and especially if Henderson's still struggling with his velocity, then the current bullpen depth will prove quite fortuitous. Not to go crazy on small sample size, but Nelson was no better yesterday than his last stretch in the MIL rotation last August & September. Hopefully it was just a matter of working on things and not sweating the outcome. But the guy needs to show improvement, too, or Tyler Thornburg's the only MLB-experienced SP we've got (talk about small sample size!). So I'm wondering if the BP looks like this: K-Rod, Broxton, Smith, Jeffress, Cotts, Kintzler, & ________ (I'd guess Perez over Wooten at this point just for depth purposes & to see what we have in him at the MLB level before he hits opt-out dates, though Knebel could beat 'em both out . . . although it may prove better for depth for him to start the season at AAA and be ready when called upon). I also wouldn't be surprised if one pitcher makes the Opening Day roster who's not even in our camp now. I like our depth overall both in the rotation & bullpen, but if some of the guys outright stink, the depth and the contingency plans get exhausted pretty quickly. After that first layer of depth, it seems like the drop-off is pretty steep.

Paciorek?

First off, I'm a big believer in playing smart & playing the game "right" (a.k.a. fundamentally soundly). Re: what I underscored in your post.... In spite of their faults, the Brewers were QUITE successful with their approach to all facets of the game for 80% of the season. While the team's downward trend on offense started around July 1, the ship still righted itself at least enough again, all the way to a 71-55 record and a healthily secure playoff position, before the bottom fell out. The total team slump was bad but simply spiraled out of control (which was not inevitable to begin with), and while the weaknesses or not-ideal tendencies you've cited clearly played a glaring role in that, 1) there were other major issues, too, and 2) those things you've cited weren't ultimately terminal issues for the first 80% of the season because the team did enough to compensate for those things to end up at 71-55. Note that I'm NOT suggesting we "just accept it" as you're saying others are. Clearly those issues were there. I'm saying there's an element of perspective re: the place of this issue within the overall big picture of the team & its performance. The converse, of course, is that in any major or prolonged slump -- especially if those it's a team-wide issue -- most any good things are easily overlooked because the lousy things seem so heinous & glaring. Two other thoughts: 1) Re: "low tolerance for dumb" and handling of players' chronically bad/stupid play by coaches/leadership.... There are so many unknowns in the situation. First off, we don't know everything about how these things are addressed privately, whether verbally or punitively, whether individually or outwardly/freely behind closed doors. We also don't know everything about where players' traits/skills started vs. where they've progressed to at the point when they're visible to us. We don't know all about players' or coaches' respective learning/teaching or thought processes. HUGELY overlooked in this whole discussion is the fact that many of the Brewers' glaring weaknesses were at the plate, and hitting coach Johnny Narron paid the price with his job (far worse than a player benching!). After all, how many Brewers hitters showed noteworthy improvement due to his tutelage? I'd argue that few if any hitters got more than slightly better with him as the main voice in their ears -- and many either regressed or failed to make meaningful adjustments. 2) Re: the passage above I bolded.... The "Shake things up" comment sounds a lot like those who scream for a team to make a trade just for the sake of making a trade, not necessarily because it's the best thing to do. Is that whole bolded idea necessarily the best solution? It's outward, it's visible... and it reeks of the idea that overtly rolling heads is the smartest way to handle things -- like the "new sheriff in town" who claims to be the cure for all that's wrong. There's a "managing people" aspect to this, too, which cannot be ignored, and a knowledge of where both individuals' and the team's balances need to be with respect to maximizing the potential of their skill sets & tendencies vs. reducing the likelihood of undesirable outcomes.

Many of the "aggressive" things they do are incredibly stupid. How many threads last year were there about outs on the bases? Remember when Schaefer got thrown out at 3B on a ball hit to the short stop and that very likely cost the team the game? BF.net was livid and Ron was ho-hum whatever about it. There's aggressive and stupid. Last year this team put more tallies on the stupid side than aggressive and I don't think this is going to change. They made two major bone head baserunning blunders in the few minutes of the first spring training game I saw. We all hate outs on the bases, especially when they seem needless. But reading the threads here over the years, you'd never think another team ever makes a single out on the bases. Ditto for fielding errors or other breakdowns of fundamentals. EVERY TEAM makes mistakes on the bases. EVERY TEAM makes errors or has plays that amount to breakdowns of fundamentals. EVERY TEAM takes chances that backfire, be it a pinch-hitter or pitching change (or lack thereof), a caught-stealing that ends a rally, OF throws to home plate that have no real chance of getting a runner that end up allowing opposing baserunners to advance, etc., etc., etc. . . . Some teams also don't play aggressively enough and regularly miss run-scoring opportunities or outright blow games on account of their chronic unwillingness to take chances. . . . To me the whole opening rant (and some of what follows) sounds like taking yet another opportunity to bash Roenicke. . . . For all the stats-heavy thinkers on this board, I'd think this selective "piling on" would've been countered with the challenge to compare the Brewers' frequency of plays or factors of aggressiveness that succeeded vs. those that failed AND THEN compare that result to the same results for every other team at least in the NL if not in MLB. If such a detailed, stats-driven comparison were available and proved that the Brewers are major failures in that way, well below league average, then I'd think the criticism of Roenicke might carry some validity. But until then... There's another whole obvious angle folks are missing. There's what Roenicke (and many other managers or head coaches) say to the media, and there's what they say behind closed doors or one-on-one to their teams and players. They're often NOT the same. Lack of public shaming is often construed as a manager being soft on his team or certain members of it. Truly effective leaders -- those whose get good buy-in, commitment, and loyalty from their people -- understand that regularly publicly overreacting and throwing their people under the bus is not good for the team and its members. Doing that is a sure way to lose those people. Reprimands or discipline, constructive criticism, teachable moments, and the like are most often best handled internally/privately. The truly good managers don't just manage games but also their people.. . . Roenicke may respond to things more lightly than many of us want in interviews, but I'm quite inclined to think that he knows how he needs to respond to protect his players. When a player knows he's absolutely screwed something up and admits to feeling terrible about it, is it really constructive for the manager to publicly berate him all over again to the press? That may be cathartic or vindicating for the emotionally charged fan, but when one of the keys to players' success is confidence, publicly tearing him down all over again does nothing to help the player have a better chance of succeeding the next time he's in the same position.

However, in this case it wasn't an assumption. There were reports that Boras was dealing directly with Attanasio, and I believe that was also the case last year. Nonetheless, that's still Boras' MO. Boras was quoted again this winter, as in past years, that signing "his" headliner FA (Scherzer in this case) is a franchise/ownership decision . . . presumably b/c of the mega-dollars involved (just like A-Rod signing in Texas, which was NOT Melvin's call or negotiation). Late in the winter, he takes a very similar approach to his upper-tied, still-unemployed clients . . . whom he usually refers to as "elite" as part of his sales pitch.

I think K-Rod can be pretty dang good again but there are plenty of reasons watching him pitch easily makes us all nervous, too, strong stats notwithstanding. I do believe quality bullpen depth & experience goes a long way toward helping a good team make it to the playoffs, and I think the Brewers could be quite a good team again this year (yes, a lot of things have to go right... etc., etc., etc.). I'm not crazy about the 2-year aspect, but if all goes well or at least well enough, it'll be nice next year not having to chase rumors about potential closer acquisitions all winter. K-Rod's behavioral past has given many folks pretty strong reason to mistrust or outright dislike him. At the moment, he's on the Brewers (well, technically not yet, but essentially) and I want him to do well because that helps the Brewers win. I'm no fan of his character, but that's a separate issue.

It was well documented recently that Boras was routinely talking with OWNERS about his available clients with significant closing experience. When Boras gets desperate, he circumvents GMs. The Brewers themselves (read: Melvin) stated often through the winter that the team was looking for another reliever with closing experience. It was well documented that they aggressively pursued a Papelbon trade (which the GM abandoned when Amaro's price was too high in prospects or assumed fiscal responsibility) and regularly kept in touch w/ K-Rod's camp. Given those facts, that hardly points toward a meddling owner. But in recent years on this site, those who are inclined to think Attanasio's a meddler inevitably seem to take any big-money and/or late signing a self-fulfilling prophecy or as further evidence of that perception.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but why would we trade for Papelbon in July/August if we were selling? Doesn't make much sense to me. My point wasn't digging that deeply. In a vacuum, you could trade K-Rod in late August and then have his roster & salary space to add Papelbon. I'm not saying that it's logical, simply that it could happen.

Yeah, they did. It wasn't a good idea the first time 'round and that's probably why they didn't last very long when the fashion world tried to push 'em out again.

To me, the 1970-77 uniforms & logo were very plain and uninteresting, and there's a great reason every team got rid of the baby blues by the mid-'80s (though KC took a little longer) -- like bell-bottoms, it was just an ugly, dated look that's best if it remains in the past. Several years ago, when at season's end the Brewers announced an alternate uniform would be coming during the winter, I kept hoping it would include the ball-glove logo in the current colors. I think it was clancyphile who had several cool possible uniform versions he cooked up & posted in a thread at the time. The result, instead, was the Retro Friday uniform we still see. That uniform has grown on me, but I'd still prefer to see it re-styled in an updated version and with the current navy/gold color scheme. As I've stated on several other occasions, I was super bummed in the winter of '93-'94 that the ball/glove logo was going because it was brilliant and the best logo in all of pro sports at the time. But I loved the new ones so much at the time. It took a couple versions to get the updated look right (the overlapping MB "Motre Bame" idea was a cool idea with some concept/design flaws), but I still love the current look that that process got us to.