MNBrew

Thornburg & Henderson have to a lot to prove in terms of their health, let alone performance, before they should be counted on for the Opening Day roster. That said, I really hope they do prove healthy and to have regained their form. Each would be a big plus for the strength/depth of the bullpen.

Sheesh, this guy continues to be all hype!

One more: When Graffanino was a FA after his 1st year and the Brewers weren't sure they could re-sign him, they brought Craig Counsell back to MIL. Then Graffanino decided to come back before Jeff Cirillo and there was then no place for Cirillo, who really wanted to return & should've, & who was still quite productive in his role in that 2nd go-round in MIL.

Graffanino played primarily 2B for MIL, and did so quite respectably the 1st year before a significant injury (knee, maybe?) the next year permanently affected the rest of his career. Another injury made his presence quite serendipitous because of how well he came in & covered what would've been quite the void. Then the void the next year was his.

Right on, RobertR. For as much as the Cubs & Pirates are seen as teams on the rise, baseball history is chock full of teams whose seemingly-inevitable ascent was derailed for one reason or another as quickly as it became trendy & heralded. So yeah, their futures look quite promising. But I'm thinking that while it's wise to note their ascent and be concerned that the Brewers' ascent isn't of the same caliber (or at all or is trending the other way), it's still foolish for anyone to realistically concede anything to the Cubs (for instance, or anyone else, either) and their apparently-looming dynasty until it actually proves real.

In the name of Garrett Nago, Anthony Iapoce, and Jim Adduci (senior, of course!) -- sorry, just fun names to bring up from the prospect-followers eras of the past -- due to the inexact natures of drafting and prospects developing, I just don't think you can really get too down on the Scouting Directors over the years for some of the guys they drafted b/c that same criticism can be leveled at every single organization. Going a different direction from trades made, these other thoughts come to mind.... - I'd love to go back & undo the Hammonds signing. - To an extent, ditto for Suppan, though in fairness, on quick glance it seemed solid at the time. - Ditto re: acquiring Franklin Stubbs. - Ditto to NOT making a better effort to keep Brian Harper. - I didn't buy the love for Matheny due to his toughness (as demonstrated by tackling 80-year-old Willie Wilson when he charged the mound in a ST game), but in hindsight he proved more worth hanging onto than the cast of characters who streamed through that position in the years after his departure (Greene, Cancel, Bako, Osik, E. Perez, Gary Bennett (huh? -- yeeesh!) etc., eventually also has-beens (as it turned out) like Estrada, Miller, & Moeller). The Vaughn trade return wasn't stellar, but everyone knew he was asking for far more going into FA than the Brewers would pay. They got two promising (though inconsistent) arms (Florie & Villone) and an OF (Newfield) that was the 6th pick in the '00 draft and who hit over .300 in MIL post-trade in '96 . . . before a little weed episode and a lot of bad baseball undermined any further chances of him realizing his potential. While it hasn't come up in this thread, for all who love to trash the Sheffield trade as a bungled situation, analytics as we know them now didn't exist then AND some obvious facts seem to get missed: - Sheffield eventually insulted everyone & everything about the Brewers organization and the final straw was going after his owner (Bud) who always had stood in his corner, regardless. There was really no choice but to trade him in late ST of '92, and given that, the return was pretty good: - Bones showed promise as a young arm that had already made it to the bigs, although it never amounted anything a whole lot better than promise. - Valentin showed promising power as a hitter (albeit with a lousy BA), plus killer range & arm at SS (though an already-glaring track record as an error machine at the same time; witness his 51-error season the year before they got him). - Mieske had been his league's MVP the two years prior to the trade. In the end, Sheffield doubtlessly was the far better player. And granted, there were lots of layers along the way where the Brewers could've done a far better job handling Sheffield all along (starting out with actually communicating with him about their interest prior to drafting him -- one of many major Dalton or Dalton-overseen bungles in the whole Sheffield saga). But Bando, who was in a ridiculous bind thanks to Sheffield's idiotic selfishness & immaturity, made about as good of a trade as he could've at the time.

Molitor had a FAR better 1992 than Yount, yet they offered Molly a cut and Robin a raise from their basically-similar 1992 salaries. Robin had been trending downward VERY obviously. The next year he'd lost so much bat speed that he hardly ever fouled any balls off to RF. Then he retired. Molitor's remaining 6 years were all epically better than any of Yount's last 4 (from '90-'93, Robin's BA ranged from .247-.264 and he OPS'd from .705-.717). Yet Molly deserved the offer of a reduced salary and Yount somehow deserved a raise? And this after Molitor had played in 155-160 games/year from '88-'92 except for except a 103-game year in 1990, and only hitting below .312 those 5 years in the injury year of '90. I loved 'em at the time, but I'm NOT an '82 Brewers retro-sentimentalist in the least. There's no way anything but the Molitor non-re-signing was STUPIDEST OF ALL STUPID BREWERS MOVES!!!

I kind of want to dislike the Brewers' not getting Bonifacio, but there's just not enough there to convince he's the depth/difference-maker we needed. That player may be out there, but I don't have any lead-pipe-cinch inclinations of who it would be without exploring the infinite realm of trade possibilities.

1. Molitor's FA departure ("Just a DH." - Sal Bando... words that will live in Brewer infamy) 2. Favoring their respective replacements rather than keeping/paying/not trading Vina, Loretta, and Cirillo. . . . For all the Brewers' sub-par records in the late '90s, those three made up a very solid if unheralded 3/4 of the IF. 3. The Carlos Lee trade -- not for giving up Lee, but also throwing in Nelson Cruz so we could get (*groan*) Kevin Mench in return. The Bichette trade was horribly short-sighted, too. I don't know that he would've flourished in MIL nearly like he did in COL, but his success vs. Reimer's total lack of it makes it look really, really bad. However, I now think of Bichette with at least a smile post-career-wise since (around the time his son pitched in the LLWS) he bought the house my grandparents built (in the late '50s) and still lived in around the corner from our house in the '70s (now torn down for re-development, unfortunately, though years later nothing's doing on that still-vacant lot -- it was an awesome house in a killer location). (edited for typos)

I'd think unless it's a trade of somewhat inflated contracts, trading Parra would most likely be part of a 3-or-more-player deal. I'd think the only exception would be if Aoki is demanding multiple years and a potential trade partner would place more value on Parra's top-level defense and only 1 year of obligation.

As already stated by several, it represents several significant if's, but ... if Allen Craig is healthy and Boston's OF surplus is sufficient enough that they'd eat some cost to clear an OF & the remainder of his cost from their roster, I'd think that would be a move worth making. Possibly trading Davis is a different question, but I've noticed a few significant times over the years when the Brewers have had both a promising-but-unproven young guy & a proven veteran at the same position, and when they've traded the veteran, the young 'un never ended up matching the vet's production and the Brewers came out on the short end of their own decision (trading Overbay for Fielder to play is an obvious counterexample; I'm thinking of trading Vina rather than Belliard, for one, but there were at least 1-2 similar trades around the same time). Davis strikes me as possibly a current version of Belliard's talent. In some cases you're better off gaining a better return on the value of a guy's plusses & potential vs. hanging onto that guy and having him prove he's not going to come close to his projected ceiling. The Brewers don't need to get older, for sure, and Davis is cheap and can mash the ball. However, I think there are only so many low-walk-rate/low-OBP guys you can get away with having in the lineup at once over a long period of time. Davis, Segura, & Gennett, plus Gomez (who's not going anywhere), represent a nice collection of talent but with a similar glaring flaw. I'm not saying I'd be out shopping Davis, but LF isn't the toughest of positions to replace and I'd think Davis' power, youth, salary, & promise might help net a better return than Parra would, for instance -- and not a Parra or Craig type of veteran in return, but comparable young talent at either a different position or with a different set of skills that fits the Brewers' needs better.

BCD80, you're totally right about the potential risk. However, to improve their roster, I believe some version of risk is inevitable because no one's going to just drop a pot of gold in another's team's lap for minimal cost. The question becomes this: If the Brewers are to make a move to improve their lineup or bench, whether for Allen Craig or someone else, how do they do so where the risk/reward factor is more likely to favorably work for them? If this is about managing risk and making sure not to make moves that screw things up royally, the safest move at this point is to make no further moves of any consequence at all other than a cheap-ish BP addition (or two). Further entrenching the status quo, however, represents a large risk in and of itself given that, far and away, the offense was the glaring reason for the team's fall from a playoff spot. Every year, when we keep looking at teams like the Cardinals, teams who continue to pick up current or former starting players in various trades for depth or filling roster holes, then compare the Brewers' bench construction to theirs, the difference in quality becomes quickly evident. At some point the Brewers need to figure out how to get the right players -- better quality depth -- at the right prices. As much as I'm inclined to root for them, I'm not sold on Luis Jiminez, Jason Rogers, Matt Clark, etc., as being likely difference-makers off the bench. In the end, I think I'd prefer to see Craig & Aoki on the bench rather than Parra, but it would take some significant creative work to make that happen. If Lind ends up injured or proves to need a platoon mate, there's a previously proven everyday 1B in the lineup in Craig. The trick, as always, is that the payroll space to do those moves would need to have to come from somewhere, and the Brewers can't really afford for these types of moves to blow a different hole elsewhere in the roster to fill this one, as Melvin often says.

I think the key re: the 4th OF lies in this: The 4th OF indeed DOES matter in terms of being a top-level team if circumstances necessitate he ends up starting half your games or more because of injuries or poor production. . . . If you don't have a 4th OF with whom you'd be comfortable starting 100 games, that kind of loss of a starter puts you instantly in a bind (ditto re: a 5th IF). Parra's bat is okay, not stellar, and of course his defense is quite good. However, OF defense is WAY down the list of concerns for the Brewers in 2015: Even Davis is okay with the glove -- he's just "blessed" with an arm that's only a notch or so better than Juan Pierre's. HOWEVER, being caught without a leadoff hitter who can consistently get on base could prove to be a significant issue. I don't know that the Brewers can or should over-correct on their lineup makeup, but a step in the direction of better balance would be quite helpful. Khris Davis can mash the ball, that's for sure. But I like Aoki over Parra because he represents a bat that brings a real plus-quality attribute (consistently solid OBP) vs. no standout attributes.

These end-of-the-roster guys could be lightning in a bottle as easily as they could be waived again next week. I definitely like the idea of this guy, at least in terms of his AAA track record (esp 2014). I do find it funny how we're so trained through years of Brady Clarks, Scott Podsedniks, & Derrick Turnblows to start out looking at every waiver claim Doug Melvin makes as potentially the next one in that succession, whereas so many clubs -- especially this winter -- are waiving or releasing guys just a week or two after claiming them. (I keep thinking of Adam Rosales' stint a couple years ago going from Oakland to Texas to Oakland to Texas pretty much solely via waiver claims!)

Spinning off thought behind the Aoki thread, I wonder if Ichiro Suzuki could be a decent bench option. He'd be a cheaper version of Aoki that would still allow us to trade Parra. I think I know all the reasons this isn't a good idea. Age and all that comes with it represent the main downsides of it. But he's a hugely smart bat who could still start nearly everyday in either corner OF spot if need be, and he'd have to be appreciably cheaper than Parra's pricetag. Like Parra, there wouldn't be a long-term commitment concern, or at minimum not one with a potentially escalating cost. . . . With one of the main needs being strengthening the bench, Ichiro's probably a cheaper option than Aoki and also probably has less competition for his services. Then a Herrera or whomever could be the other backup OF since Ichiro bring a similar (but obviously far better version) skill set to Schafer's. The only potential ? would be the primary backup CF.

I like this idea a lot. Aoki brings an element at the plate that the Brewers tend to be thin in -- and one which was painfully lacking in the 11-25 season-ending swoon -- which would help bring some better balance to the offense. Parra has more power, but it's not great power.... and while he's not a bad hitter, he's also nothing special, so how much does he really add? The drop-off defensively isn't much. Aoki tends to bring a fairly smart approach to the plate. And Logan Schafer (or whomever makes the roster over him) would just need to be CF-capable (which we know Schafer is) if Aoki's deemed a bad glove to put in CF. Aoki will make far more this off-season than he made initially, but I see projections for him in the $5M/yr. range. I'd gladly give him that for two years. It would still be about $1.5M less than Parra is projected to make via arbitration. While I still like the Allen Craig idea (payroll limitations notwithstanding), a move like signing Aoki & trading Parra would also make me more comfortable with using a Rogers/Jiminez/Clark backup at 1B (or 3B for the 1st two) b/c Aoki's just a better overall hitter than Parra.

Not overly horrible for a guy who plays decent defense at 3B and solid defense at 1B... he's fine for a backup corner IF. Sure, but after how he hit for us the majority of last year, there's no doubt it was time to move on. I hope he plays similarly for the Cards.

I think Gregerson's a bit overrated and overpaid, and Neshek was born in WI but spent also grew up in Brooklyn Park, MN (Park Center HS) and came up through the Twins organization, which certainly made it like playing "at home" when he came up with the Twins (mentioned in Mpls newspaper articles many times during that period).

Look at his numbers. He's good but so much more of it is hype and he's really not that special. Baseball-reference.com also indicates he signed a 5-yr contract that runs from 2011-15. That being so, I don't get how there can be any debate about being arby-eligible or super-two qualified in terms of that offsetting his contract that's already signed. I get how it could impact 2016 and beyond, but not 2015. Anyway, with Scott Boras as his agent, as well as the stuff Boras has been feeding him about his value all along, this seems like another J.D. Drew saga of career-long prima donna, and certainly that type of guy is too big (in his own head) for a market like Milwaukee -- so even if we got him, he wouldn't last here long (see: Sabathia, Greinke, Fielder, etc.). Take all that into consideration and I want nothing to do with this guy. Trading Gomez might prove to be a really good idea at some point, but I'd rather trade for impact & quantity of talent, not a headliner who's also a headache.

BCD80, you're quite right about the moves made. But NONE guarantee anything yet, a scenario which plays itself out every year. For most of the arguments/positions you put forth, you've chosen the half-empty view of the Brewers' situation vs. the half-full view of their division mates' situations. Your views might prove right -- about all those scenarios have crossed my mind, too. And yet they might not bear out that way at all. The offseason's not 50% over yet and I'm not about to rush to judgement that 2015's a crapshoot and 2016's quite possibly a downward torpedo. I'm not about to imply that this will be how it turns out for the Brewers, but have you noticed that the 2013 Giants hardly turned over into 2014 -- in terms of significant roles, the only noteworthy changes were Panik vs. Scutaro (due to season-ending injury) at 2B, Hudson vs. Zito in the rotation? The Giants' lineup & staff have their weaknesses, and they only made the '14 playoffs thanks to a great hot streak and the Brewers' epic collapse.

I got more than a bit bored looking for Brewers news, too, but I didn't notice quite so much of the sky falling. You're really that peeved because the Brewers weren't even involved in any rumors? Attanasio said outright they're not going to make moves just for the sake of doing so. I choose to trust Melvin's track record of usually not making moves that prove disastrous, as well as his sense of when the prices are right for the right kinds of available players that fit the Brewers' needs. . . . And it's pretty obvious that certain guys who underperformed in last season's epic collapse could still be traded during the season if they're either worth more in a trade than to keep or if their slump of last year looks to be more permanent. . . . Either way, about the only two guys who they wouldn't be trading low on to at least some extent are Lucroy (and that's debatable, too, since his 2nd half wasn't very good) and Peralta, and those truly aren't guys whom, along with Gennett, they should be considering trading right now at all. There's still more offseason ahead of us than behind us, and Melvin's already a) retained a proven-solid, homegrown starter at below-FA-market rate, b) kept a solid 3B who has a chance to rebound and regain his form (no guarantees here, but really, what can you truly guarantee in December?), c) brought in a much better hitting 1B to improve an historically bad position over the past two seasons, d) hired a new hitting coach, e) made a couple low-luster moves for fringe guys who at worst should improve organizational depth, and all this while f) keeping all the Brewers' top 20 prospects and g) not overpaying for anyone (thus far) on the FA market, preparing to strike at the right time (or two) to shore up the bullpen at prices that are more sane...... That doesn't make for a very exciting Winter Meetings. However, it's important to remember that while the winter's good for generating headlines, it's better to make no moves than to make foolish ones (whether "wrong" guys to acquire, giving up too much talent, or not getting comparable talent in return). . . . I'd rather be boring & win the division than fail miserably after expectations were set incredibly high after winning the winter headline sweepstakes. Funny thing is, they could -- however unlikely -- pop up out of the blue & sign Scherzer, trade Gallardo or Lohse for some substantial young talent, and I'd guess the majority of this board would still be furious with Melvin & Mark A. for a) the moves themselves, b) the timing of the moves, c) other moves they wanted to see but which didn't happen, d) giving up another 1st round draft pick, or e) some combination or all of the above.

I don't buy the Beane worship. The fact of the matter is he wanted to cut payroll, so he sold off the entire A's team, not for good prospects, but for terrible mediocre returns. As someone pointed out on Twitter, if Jeff Loria and the Marlins had done exactly what Beane did everyone would have been up in arms. Ditto, SRB.... And then there's also the sorta-glossed-over move that he went out & paid Billy Butler a large sum of money that could just as well turn into a Gagne buffoonery contract as it could a good deal. People rave about the A's doing it, but if the Brewers had signed Butler, MANY on this board would be calling for Melvin's head (yet again) . . . and Attanasio's, too, since they're convinced he's got no sense about him whatsoever and is really the string-pulling man we're not supposed to see behind the green curtain.

It must be because he had a game-winning hit in the 12th inning against the Cardinals, and that somehow stands out and over-represents what he can do. Or maybe it's the fact that he's the new/latest underdog career minor leaguer with only Elian Herrera (quite deservedly) ahead of him, and we sure love our roster dark horses around here! ...Never mind that he only had 2 other MLB hits & 0 other MLB RBIs. He had 1 walk and 9 K's. In other words, he pretty much did nothing. He has a career minor-league .295 OBP and .698 OPS, which amounts to little if any promise/potential. Hector Gomez is a minimum salary guy who's decent with the glove, and that's the ONLY thing he has going for him, IMO, which leaves me still looking for the first legit reason he deserves a spot as an MLB bench guy. That he was a Top 100 guy 5 years ago means nothing now. If he was truly that good, he would've earned his keep in the bigs by now. Jeff Bianchi was a 1st round pick -- so what!?!? -- it means nothing this far after the fact. If the Brewers hadn't needed the extra body on the bench late in the season, it's pretty safe to say that they wouldn't have added him to the roster over this winter b/c his minor league performance certainly wouldn't have merited it.

I love it! Dodgers are positioning themselves quite nicely..... to be like the current Yankees in a few years: they'll have the oldest, most expensive roster with tons of big-buck guys not playing either for health or productivity/redundancy reasons.

It's funny how all those non-Brewers guys have gotten a decent amount of lobby around the forum as 1B (platoon) possibilities for the Crew.