MNBrew

Gomez hasn't hit in any kind of way to show he should be the MLB utility IF -- let alone the RH half of a platoon with Gennett -- over Elian Herrera. Herrera's more versatile in the field, a better hitter, and a switch hitter. Even if Herrera doesn't earn the job, I don't want to see Hector Gomez in that role at all based on what we've seen of him so far and known of him over his few years in the Brewers' organization. Getting away from the platoon thought, I'd guess Scooter's probably better vs. LHP than Gomez is. So why even bother with the notion of Gomez as a platoon mate? (Monday evening additional thought: a post-media-scrum tweet (TH?) was that both Gomez & Herrera are likely to make the team as utility IFs given that they're both cheap. Given the payroll situation, that does make some sense.)

Part of the issue for the bullpen is that 4 of the ideal younger or cheaper candidates are coming off injury/surgery and therefore are probably not to be relied on until they prove they're ready: Hellweg Henderson Thornburg Pena Nelson could be plenty good but is hardly guaranteed a roster spot yet. Blazek is a fringe-MLB guy at best so far. Goforth shows promise but then again so did Wooten, Hand, Figaro, Burgos, etc. My point is this: With all the turnover and/or question marks, assuming a 7-man BP, I'll gladly take the relative stability & known commodity factor of Kintzler as the 4th guy out of 7 after Broxton, Smith, & Jeffress -- a promising trio but which doesn't have a lengthy track record of MLB success beyond Broxton.

Realistically, BCD80, whose roster spot do you think he's taking? An irresistible acquisition (trade or FA)? A deserving young guy? I don't ask that caustically, rather to better understand your logic with which otherwise, at face value, I disagree.... One-hit wonder? Are you forgetting that after being decent in his first MLB season with the Brewers, he was injured and lost most of a year as a result (elbow or some sort of arm surgery in 2011, I believe) and was even outrighted off the 40-man, only to work his way all the way back to MLB by the end of 2012 after starting the year post-surgery in A-ball? Yeah, his 2014 raises some concerns, especially the greatly reduced K-rate. But his WHIP was only slightly above his career avg and it still turned out to be a decent season overall in spite of his inconsistent performance. At age 30, he's a proven, serviceable-and-maybe-better reliever whose VERY affordable salary makes him a fairly painless guy to release if he proves he's lost it with no hope of regaining form or being otherwise useful -- if he's not traded first, which given his performance history is probably more likely.

I don't think you're making a leap at all. I think folks are focusing on his age and kind of (selectively) forgetting or dismissing his results on the mound, which as you say have been overall VERY solid the last two years. Ace? Of course not -- precious few ever are. However, trading Lohse for anything less than a VERY significant return -- in other words, LOTS more than a single mid-grade prospect -- is ridiculous. Who would replace his production NOW? Seriously, after trading Greinke, about all we had of consequence in the rotation was Gallardo. Lohse came in and made for a very nice, stabilizing upgrade to the rotation, then didn't drop off at all in Year 2 in MIL. Let's not forget that more often than not it often takes years of being a bottom-dwelling MLB team to develop a large arsenal of high-end prospects (the present Cubs come to mind as an example), and any lasting success out of that status is not automatic at all. It took the post-Bando Brewers a hugely long time to become even remotely respectable, and even with that stable of top-tier (mostly hitting) prospects, it still took the mid-year addition of Sabathia in '08 and the Greinke & Marcum trades going into '11 to upgrade the pitching significantly enough for the team have a strong shot at making the playoffs. . . . To wit, it also took the Royals much, much longer than a decade of having nice prospects to finally get over the hump -- that was a long, long time of living on promise. While we all seem to agree that the Brewers' drafting & developing needs to perform a whole lot better than they've done the past decade, you still need good starting pitching to get your house in order or the trickle-down ramifications on the rest of the roster and its performance are, well, exactly what the Macha years were -- a serious mess with no real hope of likely success. In the end, it comes back to pitching & defense. The pitching part starts with the rotation, and there the Brewers are pretty darn respectable. The bullpen's an annual crapshoot at least to some extent, and also easier than most areas to find/acquire suitable short-term fixes. If the hitting remains upper-half, let alone upper-tier like it's been most of the past few years, then the defense just has to be average to have a decent chance at playoff contention -- logically, something appreciably better than average defense only improves the outlook. To the point of the thread, the Allen Craig notion intrigues me. Given his large contract & non-starting role in Bean Town, I'd think trading a SP should net at least a Craig & Cecchini in return, and I wonder if it'd take less than Yo or Lohse to net that return if the Brewers took on all of Craig's contract. (Cecchini's MiLB numbers show some promise but aren't consistently high-end, and the guy's extremely blocked by the newly-signed Panda, so I'd agree with the previously poster that he's a hugely valuable asset to BOS.)

First, I agree with pete: While the roster could be set, Melvin also clearly stated that they could well make moves to shake things up & change some of the makeup of the lineup. I hope that he finds the right options to improve things via a bit of a shake-up. Second, for all the recent Hector Gomez positivity on this board, he was extremely unimpressive at the plate in recent years until last year at AAA -- and even then not exactly stellar. Besides the fact that like half or more of the MLB lineup, he didn't take walks, what exactly is the issue with Elian Herrera, who actually hit MLB pitching quite well in sporadic part-time play -- a trait no other MIL bench player matched last year -- that in several folks' minds seems to put him significantly behind Gomez and/or others when it comes to a bench role in 2015? I'm not saying the guy's my hero or anything. But he could actually hit (at least in a utility middle-IF kind of way) -- otherwise a huge problem of which Herrera wasn't really part. Small samples being an inevitable component, esp. for Gomez in MLB, nonetheless Herrera out-hit & out-OBP'd Gomez both in AAA & MLB. Gomez has pop, but we're talking a reserve middle IF spot on a team with good HR power and too many guys who didn't hit well last year.

Regardless of what Hunter may have publicly said before, I don't believe that topic was germane to the point of this press conference. The MPR article linked by djoctagone notes Hunter's thoughts/politics came to light in 2012, and that has NOTHING to do with choosing to come back to finish his career with the Twins. There may well be a time and a place for that question, but yesterday's press conference was NOT it. To me, that the guy brought it up in that particular situation reeks of "sound byte" reporting in the guise of "I'm going to ask the tough question on a controversial topic and try to tie it in as relevant." In the end the reporter's choice to "go there" reflects a certain lack of either wisdom or sensible professional discretion. It bothers me a lot how way too many media outlets & reporters seem to act with the mindset of tabloid journalism, often aiming to ask ("tough") questions at least in part so that they might net headline-generating responses. In many instances the story is reported or subsequently given life from a rather self-righteous posture, coming across with the talk-radio mentality that the reporter's/host's/outlet's perspective is the way everyone should think about the topic -- or even just that it's news because the outlet or reporter promotes it as such. (ASIDE: While that was probably less the case in this instance, an interview with local Twin Cities media), that ESPN has a report & makes a story about that exchange itself so blatantly typifies the issue.) It seems motivated by the "the public deserves to know" mentality that the media constantly touts but which in reality is often generated by the media's self-serving interests. . . . And over the years, that's evolved into a media-generated sense of entitlement to know people's personal business regardless of its appropriateness or the normal "boundaries" by which most of us function in our daily lives and interactions. The media may create a buzz resulting in folks wanting to know, but that's NOT the same as deserving to know, and the criteria for the two is often vastly different. (further rambling...) That's exactly the way the whole steroids/PED thing blew up. While many serious fans were interested in it, my sense at the time was that more fans including most "average" fans WEREN'T as interested and generally weren't talking about it a whole lot, but the media kept talking about it as if it mattered -- that it SHOULD be news -- and along the way largely generated the whole "well, they sure shouldn't be in the HOF" mentality that turns out to be quite ironic given how many cheaters & drug users are in the HOF even though those players from earlier eras ALSO created an artificially or illegally generated competitive advantage, were intentionally using deceptive means, aided their body's recovery time, or otherwise compromised the integrity of the game yet somehow are immune to the equivalent standards. . . . SORRY, I get sidetracked on that particular topic. But the main point in all of this is that going for headlines either for shock value or without substance, or insisting that something's a story that quite possibly truly isn't, is really more about getting a scoop and ratings, and NOT judicious professionalism or responsible journalism. . . . . What ever happened to a proper balance of critical thought, personal integrity, and responsibility to high standards and the big picture/greater whole? BACK ON THE THREAD'S ORIGINAL TOPIC, based on how the Twins have been a pretty unsound & not-good baseball team over the past 4 years (all with 90+ losses), looking at this team's needs, Torii Hunter is the exact sort of player this team needs AND all the more so the type of clubhouse leader to help re-instill the type of clubhouse culture that the team has sorely lacked ever since Hunter left, which combined with the effects of former GM Bill Smith's 4 years of decisions account for much of the major erosion of quality of play & team-focused loyalty/commitment. On top of that, Torii Hunter's still quite a productive player, which wasn't the case for the Twins OFs collectively for most all of last year, decent spurts by Arcia & really-a-SS Santana notwithstanding.

I like that he's got some nice, legit MLB success under his belt, and a pretty good arm, but also that he's not being slotted into a "crucial" (i.e., regular/designated) late-inning role. If there are better options available, there's nothing about this contract that means he can't be traded during the offseason. It'd be different if he was a free agent. But he was under team control unless the Brewers non-tendered him, so he can still be moved. And if he totally stinks to the point where no one would trade for him and the Brewers wanted to dump him, a $900K contract is a relatively painless pill to swallow (at least in baseball payroll terms).

Wow, Beane sure is winning the battle of hype-generating moves since late June. All that action sure is exciting, though thus far it's not helped his team do anything in the playoffs.

My fanaticism re: the Wild nearly rivals my Brewers loyalty. . . . . The one point that bears making is that when the Wild finally made the needed move of dumping original GM Doug Risebrough, the cupboard was totally bare b/c FAs were routinely allowed to leave once their contracts expired. Between that & horrid drafting, the team was in very questionable shape. Enter new GM Chuck Fletcher, well-prepared son of a legendary GM. Scouting got overhauled & thanks to a couple stellar drafts & a couple shrewd trades, the Wild "suddenly" had an amazing arsenal of young talent. THAT is what helped convince Parise & Suter to sign here together. . . . The relevance of that to the Brewers' present plight is self-evident: The Brewers don't have that depth of high-end young talent, not by a long shot. That wouldn't preclude a Scherzer-like signing, but it would seem to diminish the odds that the Brewers will be anything other than bridesmaids in the pursuit of top-of-the-market FAs without throwing a Cano-like contract at someone.

Many great points, reilly, finishing with the above about being nimble. The words that come to mind for me are "wisely aggressive," but the point is the same. Note that my last mention of Scherzer two pages ago, edited down, was focused on these points: Could you imagine if we had a certified ace on our roster long-term? From up here in the State of Hockey, where the Zach Parise/Ryan Suter double FA signing coup has totally changed the perception of the franchise into an up-and-com-er which is also able to make deals from positions of strength & depth, the Brewers have a very convenient example of how adding a top-tier cog at a crucial roster position can have a positive domino effect down the entire roster. (It's a simplified yet rather valid comparison at least on a basic level, but it still works legitimately.) . . . Again, while the odds of this happening seem very long, the potential benefits are just as significant and real as the pitfalls & possibly crippling aspects of it are. Of course for many reasons we're far better off if the certified ace comes up through our system, and that potential arm doesn't seem to be in our system anywhere right now. If the Brewers beat the huge odds and signed Scherzer, it would prove the right move over the long haul ONLY if a) he helps lead them to either many playoff appearances or at least a World Series, and/or b) the Brewers combine that move with a significant increase of "talent capital" within the system which would allow them the latitude of moving most any of their good pieces and replacing them with young/cheap ones for even more talent in return -- a kind of parallel of the Braves from the '90s (cornerstones of Jones & 3 HOF starters, the rest being nice & quite talented but ultimately interchangeable/replaceable parts). . . . Then again, most teams would like to be the new version of the '90s Braves but it's darn near impossible to pull off for any team, let alone one with Milwaukee's payroll limitations and a prospect pool that's at best solid but largely unspectacular (the last point of which ultimately is the source of most BF.net-ers' prevailing concerns).

There's ground in the middle, which I'm pointing out, and you respond by patronizing? Wow. That doesn't lend to thoughtful dialogue.

BCDue80, on one hand, you're right, we sure don't have the glowing prospects. But our cupboard's not bare, either, and we arguably have more talent in the majors than most other teams in the division (StL would probably be ahead of us, Pitt is a wash), and that's not to be dismissed at all. The Brewers don't lack talent. But geez, do many BF.net-ers love diminishing every Brewers prospect while simultaneously exalting the flawlessness of every other teams' prospects. However, the Brewers have had similar waves of highly-hyped prospects coming up all at once in their history and that alone is great proof that young talent is still a crapshoot. Heck, as a different example, a year ago, relatively few folks would've put the Brewers ahead of the Reds in 2014, but that's exactly how it turned out, isn't it -- and fairly safely so. There's prudent thinking, but this "sky is falling" litany every offseason is quite mind-numbing and grew tired a long time ago. Good thing the game's not played on paper or we might as well just mail in 2015 right now!

They're not adding Guerrero. He was already a coach in the dugout last year (and presumably added then in part for his native tongue and the reasons you noted).

A few comments: - I truly felt all along the 2014 Brewers could be a 90-win team with legit playoff chances. As with most Brewers teams, it would've taken about everything going right or nothing going heinously wrong, which was definitely the case until the final 11-25 stretch. . . . Also, I think the point above that takes out their uber-high & uber-low extreme stretches and projects .550 ball for the year is the most level way to look at last year's team. - Perhaps other than St. Louis (because they're pretty current-Packers-like since 2011), darn never every NL team faces lots of ifs. We just know the Brewers' ones painfully well. To discount the Brewers' playoff chances in mid-November with most of the offseason remaining (the World Series ended less than a month ago!) on account of optimism being based on "too many ifs" gives disproportionate credence to the Brewers' ifs without similarly carefully considering in great detail the potential significance of the ifs of all the other teams. - Re: one of the first posts above, Rickie Weeks' numbers seemed pretty hollow much of last year. He was usually a very poor hitter in terms of clutch situations -- yeah, some of the numbers look good now, but he was rarely the guy who would drive in runs, get on base, whatever, when it was really needed. He was just a better version of Mark Reynolds. Need a rally started? Don't expect Rickie to do it. Need a hit to advance a baserunner or, Heaven forbid, drive in a clutch run? Nope. 0-6 with totally bad approach at the plate with the bases loaded, including 3 strikeouts. Ouch. - The notion that some have that Adam Lind & Scooter are each only half of a platoon at best seems like it's already assumed to be automatic. I'm not saying it won't prove true. But I'm not about to fully buy it, either. Some of the numbers suggest it could be prudent. On the other hand, to suggest they shouldn't even be given a chance to be the everyday guy at their respective positions seems foolish and, esp. in Scooter's case, calls out for the small sample police to intervene in the discussion. - The stats just stated above by reillymcshane oversimplify how well things were going before the wheels came off. It took that 11-25 finishing stretch to bring the offense down & pitching facets up to league average. To suggest that about 78% of the year was really just a fluke (a 78% which included the dominant opening stretch and the into-the-ASB buzzkill stretch), that the 22% that was the final collapse was more the reality and therefore should carry the weight, seems like nothing more than a blatantly cynical, glass-half-empty outlook which, because it's how the season ended, gives naysayers the convenient but flawed upper hand in the "prove they weren't this bad" recent memory sweepstakes. (Note: I'm not saying the evident concerns should be dismissed -- not at all. Rather, I'm saying the positives should be comparably considered, too.) - Finally, to the point made about the offense being mostly league-average-ish, I think that's sheer folly which has simply taken the recent-memory thing to an extreme. The Brewers have had one of the top offenses in the NL from 2011 through the 2014 ASB. It took the utter implosion of the offense in the 2nd half, esp. Aug/Sept, to finally bring the offense down to league-average after 3.5 years of being one of the teams most other clubs were chasing. To say they were only average all along is to blatantly close one's eyes to the past 4 years. Were there still obvious flaws in the offense over that span? Of course. But the Brewers were still a higher-end offense than most clubs were in spite of those shortcomings.

I think more than anything that the Brewers & Counsell have a mutual interest in keeping Counsell around the Brewers, probably not unlike Molitor & the Twins had since he retired as a player.

I hope not. He was added to the staff in a kind of nebulous coaching position, at least in terms of a "published" title. They still have "eye in the sky" coach John Shelby plus 6 regular coaches and a manager. Enough is enough.

The Brewers have what might be considered a similar abundance at what amounts to their AAA 1B spot: Matt Clark, Jason Rogers, & Hunter Morris. If it comes to subsequent moves -- which I highly suspect it will -- especially if it's a direct addition w/o a subtraction within the move (in other words, some transaction other than a player-for-player trade), 6 guys as fringe MLB players at essentially two AAA roster slots becomes a fairly easy target for thinning the herd to create needed 40-man space.

I had that same difficulty. But that was pretty interesting. I remember when Terry Leach (the guy at the start of the 2nd longest tree) and Tim Leary were both much-heralded kids coming up with the Mets. Funny that many years later, Leary was a Brewer & Leach ended up on a WS-winning Twins team. Then something like that repeated itself with the Pulsipher-Isringhausen era (who was the 3rd big-time young guy in that trio?) when Isringhausen lasted forever and Pulsipher has a stint with the Brewers.

For all the reasons not to do a multi-year deal to a reliever, I'd nonetheless be very inclined to go there w/ Andrew Miller, even paying a very hefty AAV to do so. I believe a strong, deep bullpen is a hugely necessary ingredient for a good season. Given how poorly he pitched in August and after, Zach Duke isn't worth that kind of money.

I don't love Parra as the team's 4th OF (not yet, anyway), but I think I could go along with this because I've long believed your 4th OF & your 5th IF should both be guys with whom a team would be quite comfortable and strong if each one ended up starting 100 games. Parra definitely fits that bill.

There's no option to pick up because he's arbitration-eligible. The question is whether or not the Brewers tender him a contract. If they tender him, the question becomes either the eventual dollar figure or, perhaps the less likely outcome, if they trade him to another team, which then finishes the negotiation or goes to arbitration if the contract wasn't resolved before the deal.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7SqplVHNBmI/SdD6MynHQbI/AAAAAAAAAII/HkfjsJ5Cik8/s400/Eric+Gagne.bmp Gagne was an obvious mistake. But judging Melvin's body of work over a decade-plus in MIL, Briggs' point is spot on.

Thornburg & Henderson returning to pre-injury form would be huge. But until they've proven that they're ready, to me, the last thing you do is count on 'em -- the Brewers of the past (esp. the pre-Melvin era) were SO often guilty of that! Shoot, Thornburg never really got better and they still don't even know why.

Let's not forget that although Melvin has acknowledged that nearly all the Opening Day lineup may already be on the roster (except for some bullpen work yet to be completed), he's still been public about considering shaking things up. To me, that latter bit is quite significant. Melvin doesn't toss off or even imply "shaking things up" just to catch players' attention or to rev up the local media. If things get as far as Melvin's considering that option actually becoming public info, whether that becomes reality or not, it's at least gotta be a legit possibility. As I've been looking over the roster since the Lind trade, I've also thought that if none of the further "right" moves are there to be made, it's not a bad roster with which you could start the season. . . . That's not to say that's the preferable approach, only a possibility. . . . I, for one, sure hope there's more significant work done & upgrades made.

Willingham's not a 1B, and after watching him for 2.5 years in MN, especially the past 1.5 after his good 1st year, he's basically an OF version of where Rickie Weeks is at -- and we all know it's time to move on there. Re: the 5th OF and late-inning defensive sub role, that's still Schafer's to lose (for better or worse, although he still obviously would have to win it to earn his roster spot back).... Wren could someday fill Schafer's role, but he's still a couple years away from deserving that chance. While it still may happen, Wren has yet to even get to the upper minors, let alone become the quality of hitter that Schafer was for the bulk of his minor league career. Schafer regressed last year and the previous couple (largely due to the tough transition to a relatively limited bench role), and hopefully Coles' tutelage turns him back around even though he won't sniff anything near a full-timer's AB frequency without a couple injuries happening first.