MNBrew

I still think it comes back to pitching & defense. And with signing Garza, our pitching got better. (Defense may be another matter, but Overbay/Reynolds at 1B & Gennett at 2B is an improvment over Weeks & the 2013 Crappy Misplaced-SS Collection.) Our offense is quite respectable, too, although, like that of most teams, inclined toward some streakiness. One thing that's come up little in the discussion is that part of it for Garza is that he likes pitching in the Central. He's had success in this division & it obviously is a factor re: his comfort zone. In that way, he's not unlike Aramis Ramirez, who obviously preferred to stay near his Chicago home.

Much as some of you seem not to like it, Mark A made a darn good point yesterday: The Brewers knew they needed to beef up their arsenal of arms and have done a respectable job of doing so given the limited assets they had. He even missed one. - Blazek added in the Axford deal (most obviously Ax wasn't returning) - Wang added in the Rule 5 draft - Smith added for Aoki (who, while still rather good IMO, may have been reduced to a part-time role given Davis' ascent -- this is the one Mark A didn't mention) - Garza added yesterday In the meantime, guys like Henderson, Wooten, Hand, Kintzler all proved rather capable in the BP over the last season-plus. Thornburg got a chance and ran with it (Hellweg, while promising, had a forgettable '13 in limited MLB time). And guys like Nelson & Burgos have been on the cusp of decent MLB playing time. . . . Maybe not any gamebreakers there, but several guys showing the ability to consistently get MLB hitters out, which I'll take over hype anyday. . . . And this is all without Jungmann & Bradley proving to be bona fide prospects yet, and Pena being a ?. . . . All this after Fiers blew up & then broke his arm, and Rogers flamed out. . . . .Again, for a team without prospects, that's a large collection of names already here before the additions MA cited, and many are doing rather well. I still think some are convinced Mark A's enthusiasm means he's the baseball version of Dallas' Jerry Jones. And like some are skeptical of Braun's truthfulness now, I think if the truth didn't jive with some folks' suspicions, they'd still go with their suspicions regardless of the truth.

The "relative" love for Ike D & his big season sounds an awful lot like Bill Hall.

I think I read a TH tweet that Lepay's involvement doesn't affect Coshun's status at all.

I read in one of the JSOnline blog posts today that Attanasio's typically involved in the negotiations with most of the biggest-buck contracts. Where some here are inclined to construe that as meddling or overstepping bounds, I don't. . . . In simplest form, here's why: Really, if you think about it, do we ever hear of Mark A being involved w/ FA's & huge contracts that don't come to pass? NO. And I think it's pretty obviously because when the Brewers & the desired player are NOT close to making a deal happen, there's no reason whatsoever for the owner to be involved. I just don't think the owner being involved makes a darn thing happen until a deal is already close enough to happen. Using the Garza signing as an example, it was revealed that Melvin's been in contact w/ Garza's reps since the Winter Meetings or before. I seriously doubt that means Attanasio's been active, let alone in the picture, that whole time. Rather, I take that to mean that Melvin & his folks do their homework/research and the "heavy lifting" of contacting, recruiting, sales-pitch-ing, and all that stuff, and then when things get close and it's time to talk $$, it's probably just easier for Attanasio to be involved directly so Melvin's not constantly having to pull the standard car salesman trick ("let me go talk to my boss") which ultimately would interrupt or even jeopardize the process. . . . . In short, to me, I think Attanasio's involvement simply helps Melvin make the big-buck signings happen more efficiently. . . I think the Lohse signing wasn't Mark A meddling, either, but rather this: Melvin realized that most of the young guys he hoped to have in the rotation were so consistently putrid in spring training (Peralta, Fiers, & Rogers, to be specific) -- a chance and a path SO many on this site were championing throughout the winter going into ST '13, that the young guys should be given a chance to perform -- and Lohse was available so late in ST for reasonable terms, the only drawback being the draft pick, that a move was deemed essential and they were the only team who eventually decided it was worth the risk to sacrifice the draft pick to get Lohse onto the team. . . . To me, it was a very logical baseball decision combined with the right player & opportunity (albeit with an obvious drawback that didn't outweigh the positives or at least the highly pronounced need). If or that Mark A was involved in the negotiations is consistent with his statement today and to be expected simply because it was a big contract. So that's my long-winded reaction to your question, Danzig. I'm sure others will disagree. I'd also suggest just what you did, that ultimately, none of us really truly know.

I wouldn't say the silence is quite deafening, but it's been very present today. The Brewers fan in me -- the eternal optimist -- wants to see it as a positive. I also think yesterday evening's Brewers release is telling, admitting that negotiations, while ongoing, are not concluded, is HIGHLY un-Brewers-like and a big indication of how close they actually are. Why? Well, precisely because normally they NEVER admit to being in negotiations with someone, yet they made a nationally public statement about it yesterday. Remaining cautiously optimistic . . .

I think the WBC messed up Estrada just as much. I'm still not keen on making a move for Ike Davis, but as FV said, there's a lot of time before April, let alone September, so I'd be surprised if the picture's not a good deal clearer by Opening Day. But I'm not keen on making a lateral move just to do something and I'd rather hold steady w/ our current collection of options 'til ST is in progress . . . UNLESS there's a deal out there to be had that markedly improves 1B AND helps shed Weeks' contract.

Retiring Spahn's & Matthews' numbers would be like the Minnesota Wild retiring Neal Broten's number he wore with the North Stars -- an idea that would be laughed at in these parts in spite of the fact that he's one of the best MN-born players ever, won a National Championship at the University of MN, was a major player for the Miracle On Ice team that won the gold at the Lake Placid Olympics of 1980, then played in two Stanley Cup finals with the North Stars, for whom he was also an All-Star. There's every bit of the same logic at play. (Side note: The North Stars were moved to Dallas by a greedy owner who was determined to make the move no matter whether or not the powers that be here met his demands -- almost all of which they eventually did, albeit behind his desired timeframe -- and after stringing the process out for a long time, he eventually moved the team anyway, which obviously was his MO in the first place...) Broten's number is retired by the North, er, Dallas Stars, as it should be. But he never played for the Wild. As loved as he is in MN, they should never retire his number. He was an early front-office guy for the franchise and is hugely loved as a native son who's achieved nearly every hockey pinnacle -- and for MN teams (although it took being traded to NJ to actually win a Cup). But he never played for this team. The Walk of Fame or whatever they call it is for the Gantners of the world. Retiring a jersey number historically has been an honor more rare in baseball than HOF induction. Gantner isn't near that eschelon. Spahn & Matthews were of that caliber, but for the Braves -- who honored them accordingly -- not for the Brewers.

I have to believe that if the Brewers had 30-40 years of history behind the franchise and mostly-career Brewers players in the HOF by the time Aaron & Fingers played for them, there's no way the Brewers would've retired either 34 or 44.

SoCal nailed it for why they retired Fingers' number. Really, the same could be true for Hank Aaron b/c he only played a couple unspectacular years for the Brewers, although Aaron had a decade-plus of his Braves years of greatness in MIL, which obviously carried ample (if indirect) sway re: having his Brewers number retired. Fielder? No. Braun? I hope so, but it's way too early to predict. Hoffman & Sabathia? Sorry but no. Lucroy's somewhere on the spectrum between Cooper & Gantner -- hopefully more like Cooper by the end of his career, though he doesn't have anything close to Cooper's power -- and I don't think either of those are worthy of having their numbers retired. (I at least like that we're now able to have this discussion about great players and not just career-long Brewers like Gantner, (whom I remember so well and like a lot and) who was as great guy & an important part of the team . . . but hardly a great player.)

Schafer = late-inning defensive replacement. He's the 2nd best-fielding OF on the team after Gomez.

I like the bench role Overbay can fill as well as that of a veteran leader (somebody's bound to comment about that) . . . kind of like a Mark Kotsay role if used correctly, [sarcasm]which is easy since he won't be playing in CF[/sarcasm].

I'd doubt Reynolds, Overbay, and Francisco all make the team. I've been actually starting to hope Halton really outplays Reynolds and platoons with Overbay. But having Halton a call-up away isn't a bad thing. I do hope that the Reynolds & Overbay signings mean JF21 doesn't make the team. Then, at most, I believe they're out only 1/6 of his contract, or $225K.

To start with I would not have been outbid for Corey Hart. I'm pretty certain I'd be getting an OPS+ of about 120 right there with quality defense. But now he's gone. You really would've been willing to commit to pay Hart up to $13M or more? Besides Hart, what other options did you see?

link? ALL of there actions prove this. They are putting everybody above Hunter Morris. He's dead last on the very long 1B list. Or they're buying him time. He was nothing special his 1st year in AAA, nor was he the two years of MiLB before his MVP/Gold Glove year in AA in 2012. Not that he's another Corey Hart, but when Hart was coming up, he pretty much always struggled notably his 1st taste of the next level up. Then he'll kill it the next year, get promoted to the next level at the end of the year, and struggle. . . . And so on, all the way up to and including MLB. So that Morris isn't being handed the 1B job now just says he has to earn it. Like Gennett, if Morris' play shows he deserves a shot, he'll get it. And the best thing is that if that happens, there's no significant commitment or permanent roster clutter ahead of him at 1B for 2015. Even now, none of the guys ahead of him on the depth chart are either easily expendable or have options remaining. Ultimately I like that Morris is having to earn whatever he gets. And in the meantime, Melvin's already publicly expressed his second-thoughts-in-hindsight about not promoting Morris back in September. That shows the organization's not soured on him. And I think it's a good message to Morris that he still has to improve his game. At minimum he has to have gotten the message that he doesn't have any room in his game to be complacent.

I don't get why people would keep suggesting JF21 as a potential back-up or fill-in at 3B. He was so lousy there defensively that they only played him at 1B after just a few games at 3B. His reputation preceded him to MIL and it only took a few games before they realized it was fully justified. . . . And of course he was totally lousy defensively at 1B, too.

Maybe. However, I'd doubt we'd see BOTH a Reynolds/Overbay platoon at 1B AND a Weeks/Gennett platoon at 2B because they'd quite possible be left with no utility IF . . . or they'd have to carry only 4 OFs.

I don't love this move but I don't hate it, either. And I think it speaks to how poor the 1B market has been this winter. 502, how many legit 100 OPS+ guys are you suggesting were realistically available? By "available" I mean as not-overpriced FAs or as trade targets who didn't require overpayment to acquire.

I still want Morris to be the long-term solution (at least for a while), but he's done nothing outside of a strong year in AA in 2012 to earn the job. But after that, he was disastrous in ST last year and followed that by being very ordinary in AAA. Short of earning the starting job in ST this year, Morris needs to show he can produce at least decently on an ongoing basis in AAA before being handed the big-league starting 1B job . . . unless, a la Sean Halton last year, injuries or others' total ineptitude bump him up to being the best available option.

This post is not on Adam McCalvy's Twitter feed and I doubt it ever was. I think Melvin speaks to that with these two quotes from today's JSOnline story, which twice quotes Melvin saying that Reynolds is NOT being handed the job, but that he has to win it: "I talked with Mark, and he's not afraid to have to beat out somebody for a job," Melvin said. "He's looking forward to the challenge. He's a confident guy." "I just told him who we have — Juan Francisco and some of the younger guys," Melvin said. "I said we might still look at somebody else. His experience gives him a little bit of an edge over some of our guys. All you can do is lay it out for him." link: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/mark-reynolds-is-latest-first-base-option-b99186266z1-240961171.html

Do you really think they should've thrown the money toward Hart that Seattle did? That's what it would've taken to keep him. And I think that approach would've been patently absurd. They already gave him $10M last year and got ZILCH for it! Seattle's signing of Hart could be good, but given Hart's injuries last year and no MLB playing time since then, like your comment about the Brewers' approach to Hart, it stands to blow up in their face as badly or worse as what you believe was the Brewers' approach could do on the Brewers. I totally agree that the other FA options out there weren't great, or at least not worth the money or term some of them got. Getting "in" on a "name" for the familiarity of the name has every chance of backfiring. Besides, from Hart's standpoint, he likely would've been only a 1-year signing in MIL before the Brewers moved on to one of their young guys, and I'm guessing Hart knows he could be back in Seattle with a decent year, but if he'd re-signed in MIL, he likely would've been in the same FA boat next winter for the 2nd year in a row. I'm not in love with the Mark Reynolds idea, but it's a classic Melvin buy-low/low-risk move and at least they've got a lot less invested, which gives them a) flexibility for additional offseason moves, and b) less at stake if he turns out to be this year's version of the Brewers' earlier signings of Todd Ritchie or Brant Brown or (who was that outfielder somewhere about 5-8 years ago who had once been decent but had nothing left and the Brewers let him go well before ST was over?). If Reynolds' defense is only sub-par, it's still notches above JF21's, whose D at either 3B or 1B could be described optimistically as "pure crap" at best. Whoever mention Taylor Green as a LH backup or platoon partner with Reynolds . . . I like that idea a whole lot better than JF21, especially if he's healthy and able to be productive again. Since we now have a slightly better, RH version of JF21, we certainly don't need a matched set. I sure do like the flexibility of Green & Bianchi as the two IF backups. Of course there's the small matter of Weeks still being on the roster (rooting for a great Melvin move upcoming....).

So many people here keep saying that over the past year. But where's the perspective on this? The perspective, to me, is that their 25-man really looks like it's less than 50% of the way to seriously contending. I get that you don't have to have 100% of your positions as strengths, but the Brewers (imo) aren't close. The part in bold is what I was referring to. I agree that if the underlined supposition is correct, then WS contention likely is quite the long shot.

So many people here keep saying that over the past year. But where's the perspective on this? Realistically, I think we all know they're not just going to outright announce that their overall talent level isn't as good that of many other teams, both at the MLB level & in the minors, and that they're not succeeding at the draft/develop game as well as many other teams are, either. Yet I think they sure as heck know that, and they know that far better than we do. They also know it would be PR foolishness to advertise that even once, let alone repeatedly, regardless of how many people on this board seem to want to hear them say that out loud. Here's my take: They know the boat they're in but they're also still trying to make the best of what they have. While addressing/improving both of these angles simultaneously is essential, each is NOT mutually exclusive of the other: - They're trying to improve the talent level -- quality & quantity -- across the whole organization. That takes time. Delmonico & Smith are a nice start. Other teams don't just give away prospects. Rome wasn't built in a day. - They're still trying to develop who they currently have the best they possibly can. Several of those guys will be solid major leaguers even if they're not the rare-gem/"blue chip" types (Fielder/Weeks/Braun/Gallardo caliber prospects or at least as those guys were at the outset).

That's what I was getting at above. It's the lesson we all learned when they brought Alcides Escobar up to play SS & timed sending Hardy down to AAA (even thought they should've before b/c he was lousy that year!) so he'd spend enough time to not get a full year of service time.

Morris is already 25 so in reality it doesn't really matter. There is just no reason to give 1B to Morris based on a few dozen spring training PAs. Spring training should really be incidental to the decision. If 1B becomes a matter of throwing in-house options at the wall to see what sticks, then there's no harm in Morris being named the starter. If he plays well, he keeps the spot and it's a win-win deal. If he doesn't play well enough, there certainly are other options. Re: team control, it's not whether or not he starts the year on the 25-man roster, but if he spends the whole year on the roster. The Brewers would only lose a year of team control if he spends time in the minors but <3 consecutive weeks at any point this year. If that were the case, he'd be eligible for FA after 2019. Otherwise he won't be FA-eligible until after 2020 at the earliest. But if he (or anyone w/o previous MLB service time) spends little enough time in the minors, he likely becomes a Super Two in a few years and thus would be arby-eligible after 2016 at the soonest rather than after 2017 or later (depending on minor league roster time in subsequent seasons).