MNBrew

I get goaded about cherry-picking stats occasionally. This list of stuff is the same thing. There's a heck of a lot of very good hitting this guy has done in the minors, and once he got to the majors, he hardly played regularly, got shafted by Macha for a couple years, then tore his ACL AFTER he'd worked like heck to improve his attitude & work ethic AND had justly won the starting 1B job. Without his having been Brewers property since 2005 (outside of the past 2 months), it would be easy to point out the negatives. But there are tons of positives and SOMETIMES guys like Gamel deserve another shot. In spite of his injuries, if it came down to Gamel vs. Francisco, I'd take Gamel in a heartbeat any day of the week and not think twice. (That said, if Miami would trade us Morrison for Francisco, I'd do that trade before their GM could change his mind, but so far there are no such rumblings.) Gamel & Green both have proven they're no sure things, but they've also proven to have the potential to be MLB regulars -- and yes, obviously, for both that's at least a year or two ago. But if they can still do what they showed they could do in the minors, they're at least guys who wouldn't hurt the team and may actually help quite well -- likely never stars and possibly not even as starters, but Lord knows we've lived through worse years, years when our role players were total crud with no hope of much success (late Counsell, Cody Ransom, Wil Nieves, 2013 Gonzalez, etc.).

If lack of power's the issue and not having too many good-BA/OBP-only hitters on the roster, then Gennett effectively takes Aoki's place if Aoki's traded. Gennett's not a poor hitter, just not a power hitter. Not everyone's going to have a great OPS. As long as he hits well & gets on base at a gradually better rate, I don't care that he doesn't have much power. We've already dealt with too many of the guys with big OPS numbers that only hit HRs (Francisco!) and contribute next to nothing the rest of the time.

If the price is right, he'd be a much more appealing 1B option than Juan Fran-whiffs-co. (Sorry, that's a poor attempt at humor, but also an indication of how much I don't want JF anywhere near the Brewers' roster next year.)

And we have no clue what that is. Maldonado had 256 PA in 2012 and looked like he might have a good bat. In 2013 he put up 202 of the worst PA's Milwaukee has seen in years. Scooter could very well do the same. You're right, anything could happen, but that's not an apt comparison. Maldonado's 2012 big-league offensive output was very out-of-keeping with his minor league output except for 2011, whereas Gennett has hit at every level.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/al-notes-1.html 3rd bullet point down says TB is looking for a 1B. TB has come up previously in this thread. I wonder what kind of pitching we could get in return (Hellickson plus ?) for Aoki + Francisco, regardless if winter ball doesn't go well for JF but especially if it does. That Padres note caught my eye, too, especially Aoki or JF (or both) for Erlin or Burch. Stults at age 33 doesn't do as much for me even though his career numbers aren't bad -- not for performance, mainly for age, meaning I think it's just the wrong direction to go for a return on a VERY affordable quality asset like Aoki.

A few points: TC07, I totally did get your point. It's very obvious we lack lots of high-end young talent (blue-chip prospects, to borrow a football term) both in the pipeline and MLB pre-arby. The team's not blatantly old -- you talk about the ideal team avg. age being 26-27 and the Brewers are in the 27-28 range -- about 1 year too old on average by your standard, which isn't bad, but indeed top-heavy in that the greatest talents are mostly at/above that age level. My point about KC as a comparison is that they've been a team with a decent number of promising/high-end prospects in their pipeline and making their MLB debuts for many, many years. But that's all they had (in other words, for too long they were TOO young -- NO significant or at least meaningfully successful veterans to add some maturity/leadership/perspective -- and part of the result is that they've been nothing but a cellar dweller for the past decade until they finally brought a few needed "good" vets into their equation. . . . which now leads many to say that any moves to add that talent (proven SPs, mostly) were ultimately foolish since it didn't put 'em over the top and cost some strong prospects. . . . My point was that at some point KC needed to do something to break their cycle of lousy teams -- not unlike what the Brewers did, meaning make a stronger-than-usual move to try to boost the franchise into contending status for the first time in 2 decades. It's a calculated risk. But it's also one that can pay dividends if teams like KC still have a strong talent stream and a view of the big picture that wide, wise, and shrewdly forward-thinking. BCD80, you can't just automatically blow off the Gennetts and Khris Davises of the world just because they're not seen as blue-chip prospects. They just come with less of a sense of "guaranteed" success. While the Cubs, Pirates, & Cardinals all have lots of young stud prospects, you can't compare all 3 equally because STL gets to that level routinely without much of a down stretch at the MLB level at all over the past decade. CHC & PIT got to this point because they were SO bad for SO long that they both have more top-10 draft picks than not over the past decade . . . the exact same sort of stretch that put the Brewers in position 10-12 years ago to draft Weeks & Fielder & Hardy & Yo, where the eventual results were good but the MLB team was torturously bad for several years and there was still no certainty that all the top prospects would pan out. While I don't agree with every specific point you both make, I do agree with most and I strongly agree with both of your overall premise that the scouting and player development departments HAVE TO improve their results greatly because they hold the keys to the long-term success of the Brewers' franchise -- they're the lifeline for long-term survival. I'll advance one more point: I think the notion that every >30-yr-old player needs to be moved for prospects is simply too extreme. But in terms of a template, I think the 1990s Braves are a good example of identifying your "true" core players, then mixing/matching & adding/subtracting around that core with from the pipeline of young talent and the right "external" moves -- willingly & readily making moves as they're needed and often having the "right" timing that's sooner than other competing teams or the fan base might realize in terms of moving on from & replacing certain players. The key for a mid- or small-market team like the Brewers is as simple as getting it right nearly every time because their margin for error is so much smaller.

TC07, you've repeated endlessly how this team's getting older. Every team's getting older. The Brewers are NOT that old. They're just not super young, which is what they were at the start of this run when Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, Braun, Hart, & Yo first arrived in the bigs. To wit.... The only SEVEN players 30 or older right now -- between starting position players, SPs, & main BP cogs -- are Estrada (30), Henderson (31), Lohse (35), Ramirez (35), Weeks (31), Aoki (31), & Braun (30). That's 7 out of about 16 (8 position starters, 5 SP, & 3 main BP cogs). Ramirez & Lohse are the only TWO who are older than 31, and they're hardly ancient, never minding that they're still very productive (see post #87 above re: Ramirez's production). Given that most all players get pretty well banged up over the course of every year, I find your cynicism about Ramirez's ability to stay healthy peculiar if not ill-founded, too, given that only 2x in the past 13 years has he played fewer than 100 games -- years with a more substantial or hindering injury, obviously -- and in the remaining 11 of those 13 years he never played in fewer than 120 games, 8x playing in >140 games (the highest 3 years averaging 158 games), and 149 games played in both 2011 & 2012. Your points about the lack of dynamic young talent and staying on the proper side of the age/talent combo/balance in terms of organization building & sustaining are well taken. But I find your interpretation that optimism about this team's talent being a highly biased opinion . . . well, just as biased as your oft-repeated assessment that it's a glaring negative issue that the team's average age has been increasing for years (the main alternative to which is doing what Kansas City has done for the past decade, and which certainly hasn't paid off until finally their "core" young guys aren't really so young anymore: 2013 KC: position players: 26.9 yrs, pitchers: 29.8 yrs; 2013 MIL: position players 27.8 yrs; 28.5 years . . . so why is this a problem for MIL but not the "generally seen as up-and-coming" Royals?)

If the Brewers didn't have Aoki, & you wanted to trade for him (keep in mind you get him for one season, even though it's on the cheap), would you part with Jimmy Nelson? Tyler Thornburg? Marco Estrada? I agree that he has value, but I don't think I'd send any of those guys for Aoki. I'd value them more than Aoki on a one & done kind of deal. If there are no arm concerns & the Rays would send Hellickson for Aoki or Aoki+, I think I'd roll the dice on that deal. Good hypothetical, TLB, but it's not quite the right comparative. You'd have to target a team that needs an Aoki-like OF AND that has young starting pitching to spare. I'd be more willing to part with Nelson, Thornburg, or Estrada IF we already had 5 or more better starting SPs already on the roster and enough other prospects to be able to spare one of those arms . . . or even the right mid/low (#4 or #5) starter above those 3 young-ish guys IF I felt one of them would fit perfectly into the rotation spot "emptied" by trading that guy for Aoki (the Braves in the early/mid '90s come to mind as one real example of what that might have to look like). Certainly the current Brewers aren't a match to either of those sorts of trade equities/scenarios.

I think you make great points on Ramirez. I hope the Brewers move him to 1B to help keep his bat in the lineup. I'd rather look to go with a solid to strong defender at 3B (hopefully who can hit enough to make sense) & slide Aramis across the diamond. He makes a ton of sense to play there at this point imo. Granted, the Brewers are in a unique position if Hart is loyal enough to sign the kind of one-year make-good deal he discussed earlier this offseason. Then it's hard to just say "bye" to Corey. I'm with you. If Hart's health and the deal are both right, his Brewers career seemingly inevitably will continue. If that's not the case, in my dream world, I still hope now-darkhorse Taylor Green comes in & stakes serious claim to a starting spot as a Cirillo-like hitter and enables Ramirez to comfortably & logically slide across the diamond to 1B . . . or at worst Green earns a roster spot as the top corner IF reserve who also can back up at 2B (his original position) and corner OF.

Several people keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. Ramirez's 2012 was pretty much in line w/ his career norms over his previous 10 years (less the one season where he missed a lot of time). . . . The other thing about him is this: His production rates once he was mostly healthy last year (late August & Sept) were creeping right back toward those norms. There's nothing other than a sprained knee he tried to play through but which significantly hindered his play most of the year that would indicate regression's happening with him yet, and an injury (eventually fully recovered from) doesn't automatically = skill erosion. Time will tell, of course, going forward, but I think writing him off as being of limited effectiveness/production going forward is more hunch than evidence-based. One other point boosting PFx1's claim that losing their 3-4-5 hitters hurt . . . It wasn't just those 3. Arguably the Brewers' 4th best consistent & proven power bat was Rickie Weeks, whose 2nd half of 2012 started to show recovery from his badly injured ankle at the end of 2011. But Weeks' ability to hit the ball at all absolutely fell off the planet SO BADLY in 2013 (BB & HBP numbers still respectable, but that only gets you so far if you can't hit the ball for crap). So while Weeks didn't miss time 'til well into the 2nd half, basically his hitting was MIA all year save for a nice month of June. Heck, Weeks was SO BAD that he may not even be here if it weren't for his unfortunate 2014 contract figure.

I'm down with this idea. TB has plenty of SP depth and Hellickson's deservedly highly touted, although the luster's off his star a little after last year. If it takes more than Aoki to land Hellickson, it's only because there's such a premium on quality young-ish/cheap/healthy arms. Aoki's not glitzy in terms of A+ defense (though he is quite fundamentally sound and at worst an average defensive player), and he doesn't have the big power numbers folks want from corner OF's, but he's still a very solid starting OF, a very capable all-around hitter who's SO tough to K, a repeat Japanese batting champion, and fits the stereotypical "classic" mold of a leadoff hitter. Plenty of teams have need for him and he's an incredible value for his skills/credentials. At minimum, that profile should net appreciably more than a reclamation project, which would be selling seriously low. Aoki's payroll figure gives any team a good starting OF at so little budget space that they'd still have $$ room to make more moves, which is worth plenty. For all those reasons, I still like Aoki and am not eager to see him gone. But the one position at which the Brewers have some MLB-caliber or fringe-MLB youth/depth/potential is the OF, so between Davis, Gindl, & Schafer (however non-glitzy they cumulatively are), the 3rd starting OF (after Braun & Gomez) is at the very least covered much better than 1B was when 7 guys started there who'd never played the position in the bigs before (or, in some cases, EVER in pro ball). So if they can turn the right piece of equity around into more talent at a different position, I think they don't have a choice but to try to make it happen.

I can't stand the WBC -- in part because it's contrived and in part because it tends to mess up more guys than it helps. My hunch all along was that the WBC messed Gallardo up big-time. Ditto for Estrada. I distinctly remember thinking at the time that Gallardo really needed a break to get out of his rut -- just clear his head & rest his arm a bit. . . . And after each had a DL stint -- a break I thought they both needed, though Estrada's seemed unusually long -- they came back & pitched quite well. I don't think that was a fluke. I think they each finally "got right," pitching like they did before the WBC. That's why I'm somewhat optimistic that they'll both be fine.

I'm also optimistic, though hardly blindly so. I think the Brewers aren't going to get much love in terms of preseason predictions, but they're a team that could position themselves well for a solid season with a chance to contend. Of course the wheels could come off the wagon again, too. If that's the case, and especially if they're the same wheels that fell off last year, then it may be time to strategically start over. But given how much went wrong in 2013, I'm cautiously optimistic that it wouldn't take a lot for 2014 to be a much better year. It's water over the dam now, but I still think we'd be in a bit better shape overall if Mike Maddux were still our pitching coach.

No, it isn't. It's pretty bad, actually. Could be good, bad, or neutral. If they pitch like they did in the 2nd half, it's a very solid-to-strong 1-4. If they pitch like they did in the 1st half, then they're not. I'll rephrase fondy's sentiment: They could be a very good 1-4, though we all know they've also shown they can be the opposite. I, for one, think there are more reasons to expect good than bad -- not that it's a slam dunk, but I'm optimistic.

Your last paragraph implies the anticipated outcome to every instance/scenario you mention should be negative, which, given all those circumstances compared to the long view of those players' career norms even in light of some of the questions you raise, is just as absurd as you're suggesting PFx1's viewpoint is. On this board it's so easy & convenient to shoot down anyone's optimism (which in this case I share with PFx1), but there can easily be just as much folly in the persistent and blanket negativism. To turn around one of your earlier points above, Hart an another decent SP sure CAN'T turn the 2013 Brewers into the 2nd best team in the division because so many other things went wrong beyond Hart's absence and poor 1st starting pitching. However, IF only half of those "everything that could go wrong did" things go wrong this year in comparison with last year, a healthy Hart performing reasonably, even without another SP added, should help make the 2014 Brewers a whole heck of a lot better than the 2013 Brewers were. Even including his lousy month of May, on the whole Lohse still had a rather good year and you can't really argue that. Everyone knows the reason Lohse signed so late was because of the QO he declined and the draft pick consequently attached to him, all in combination with his reported asking price (whether each prospective teams' hang up was with the dollars, term, or both). Sure, Lohse isn't a true "classic" #1, but there aren't very many of those in MLB at any given time. That said, he is a pretty consistently darn good SP.

Another angle is this: While Attanasio has shown a willingness to drop big coin on the "right" (to use the front office's typical terminology) player, it would seem that based on 2013, currently (on paper) the Brewers are more than just one "right" player from being an upper echelon team. Thus, the projected $1.6M the Brewers saved by trading Badenhop might be an amount by which they can boost an offer to attract/retain Corey Hart. . . . In other words, little bits of wiggle room here & there can be very precious for a team like the Brewers who seem to have limited payroll space for adding guys this winter. Two other thoughts: 1) I liked the idea of Badenhop last winter, and at times he sure wasn't bad. But in all it just never seemed like he was quite as good as his numbers suggested he could/should be. I don't think it would've hurt to keep him, but I can't say I'm upset about the trade, either. 2) There's no guarantee Badenhop's on Boston's Opening Day roster. Because they gave up so little to get him, if they have better players they can add through other moves before the non-tender deadline, it still wouldn't surprised me at all if Badenhop's non-tendered by Boston -- or possibly traded again.

Disclaimer: I didn't look any of this up, so I'm playing hunches, yet with something of a decent generalized memory.... When was the last time the Brewers got a lotta love in the Top 100? Wouldn't it have been when Weeks & Fielder were coming up . . . plus Hardy, Braun, & Hart (but surely Rickie & Prince plus the rest due to their draft status)? And I'll bet Braun was never ranked as high as Weeks or Fielder, but character flaws and all, I'd still prefer having a player of his ability on the team these days over Weeks or Fielder. Hart was never considered a big-time prospect -- regarded nicely, yes, but never commensurate with how his MLB ability turned out -- in spite of good year after good year in the minors. My point is that I think LouisEly's point about BA's predisposition toward top draft picks & big-buck int'l signings is right on. In some ways BA can be very ESPN-ish. Lack of blue-chip of bonus-baby prospects doesn't mean you're devoid of all talent -- just the glitzy kind. And glitz doesn't mean everything. Nieves, Bosio, & Wegman, Braggs & Jaha & Vaughn were all supposed to be the next wave of championship-level players for the Brewers. None proved to be career-long MLB elite players. Arguably Plesac had the best career of any of the pitchers from that era of the farm system, and he wasn't even slotted to be a reliever until he made the team in ST coming out of AA El Paso. At least under Trebelhorn they kept having winning years, but only in '87 & 92 were they even close to the playoffs (and thankfully quite close at that). . . . All that BA love and how many post-season games did that batch of "uber" prospects get us? Right: NONE. All that said, a large influx of high-end talent would do wonders. The Jungmanns, Bradleys, Arnetts, etc. eventually turning into solid MLB pitchers would do wonders, too. Hellweg & Pena finding MLB-caliber control would do wonders, too. All three of these sentences become reality would suddenly turn MIL's system into something they ooh-and-ahhh about again.

I think this article doesn't bring up anything that hasn't been addressed ad nauseum. For however much logic there is behind "blowing it up," there's so little chance that another team would take on the contract and so little chance the Brewers would get anything close to fair value in return. For those reasons alone, I don't see a Braun trade as either realistic or smart. This winter would be about the worst timing for making such a move. If he was indeed clean when he was reportedly tested more than any other player in 2012 and put up better numbers than in his 2011 MVP year, then what is there to fear about him being in the lineup? IMO, to trade him before he proves that to be true would be sheer foolishness. The "talent gap" may be significant, but that also means they need to maximize any opportunity to close it, not just make a hasty or inadequate move for poor "baseball-smart" reasons.

Turner Field is excellent, a very nice ballpark. I've been there, as well as to many older, in-between, & newer ballparks over the past 25 years. They tore down half or more of the '96 Olympic Stadium to turn it into Turner Field. . . . Freeway access isn't great -- certainly confusing at best, to be sure, and "inconvenient" is a fair & honest assessment -- and it's nestled into a sort of odd area, to boot. Lease terms vs. ownership and that kind of stuff can make a big difference. That's part of what made the Vikings clamor so long for a new stadium up here to replace the Metrodome -- horrible lease terms & and a serious lack of team-friendly revenue streams. As a side note, I started thinking of the ballparks I've been to justify my basis for comparison. It's a respectable list: MIL - County Stadium & Miller Park; MN - Metrodome & Target Field; CHI - Wrigley, old Comiskey, & new Comiskey (or whatever its current corporate name is); CLE - Municipal Stadium & Jacobs Field; DET - Comerica; KC - Royals Stadium; STL - Old Busch; TEX - The Ballpark; TOR - Skydome; NY - old Yankee; BOS - Fenway; BAL - Camden Yards; PIT - Three Rivers; CIN - Riverfront; PHI - The Vet; ATL - Turner; TB - Tropicana Field (saw a Lightning game there once, too); COL - Coors; LA - Dodger; SEA - Safeco; (plus ST games at Chandler & HoHoKam). Incidentally, I was in MTL during the Expos' last season there and quite possibly could've attended a game -- had the Expos not been on the road at the time. . . . I've seen the Brewers play in 10 of those parks, although 4 of the 10 are the both MIN & MIL parks.

It's in the answers to questions like that where Melvin has shown he's sometimes quite good at pulling a rabbit out of his hat. This year, we'd know a live bunny rabbit would have a decent chance of out-hitting last year's fill-in 1B's.

Loney has had one good full season in his career (last year). He doesn't project well and will likely be looking for multiple years. Doesn't that make him like a better version of Ishikawa? If a Hart deal doesn't work out, even a career-average Loney year -- while nothing special -- would still be quite an overall improvement over last year's 1B offensive black hole. I'm not suggesting we go for Loney right away. I still wonder if potential trade scenarios end up netting a better return -- though no idea what those scenarios might be (this, again, under the pretense that Corey Hart signs elsewhere either due to lukewarm MIL interest or a price tag that doesn't work in MIL's favor).

That's a potentially confusing statement. Are you suggesting they go young and, theoretically, improve their odds of a very poor season? (I don't think that's an automatic correlation given the other talent on the roster even though that talent's not top-10). I ask the question because your wording could be taken as a suggestion that they trade players for draft picks, which I still don't think can be done (international signing slots, but not draft picks) -- not that that's what you intended to say, just that it could be taken that way on a quick read.

Hopefully only competition for Jeff Bianchi and nothing more.

In terms of reasonable short-term investments for the bullpen, I think LaTroy's still got it (undoing a past wrong, though not because of that, only b/c he's still good) and I still like J.P. Howell. Joe Nathan, too, but the price tag there could still be most unfavorable. K-Rod seems to have a comfort zone and reasonable expectations in MIL, factors which haven't been aligning so well for him elsewhere. Hawk & K-Rod & perhaps Howell may not be the best FA 'pen options available, but my gut says price wouldn't be absurd, esp. not on Hawk. On the absolute flip side, would Balfour be a single major solidifying move? I still believe the majority of the '14 bullpen will be guys currently on the roster or in the system. Esp. if Badenhop's not brought back, I could see the perceived need for adding a guy or two still reasonably capable of good results. I like the Tim Hudson idea -- I like to think big -- but I think, short of a Lohse-esque deal falling in their laps, the rotation's not the place they most likely could afford to add if their budget for additions is as limited as most of us tend to think it is given the need at 1B and other dilemmas/weaknesses.

I hear you (& djoctagone). And ultimately, I don't think Prince will get picked. But I can certainly see a rebuilding or rebuilding-ish club taking the chance, after anyone with future upside is gone, of getting a utilityman on the cheap for the next 3-6 seasons. Actually I would think that a playoff contending team would maybe want a superutility player more than a rebuilding team. The playoff team may have a couple of single-role (PH, PR) guys on the bench and a Prince could cover more positions. Whereas a rebuilding team is looking to find the needle in the haystack high-upside type of guys that may be good player a year or two down the road - which I don't believe anyone is saying that Prince is that. From everything we've seen, Josh Prince is an AAA utility player at best, worse with the bat than Alex Gonzalez or Yuni B. Based on his AAA numbers in '13 reverting to career-norm-type levels -- which aren't anything remotely resembling respectable -- his AFL production last year would seem to be nothing more than a well-timed hot streak. Whether a playoff-contending team or a non-contender could better want or use a super-utility player, based on his career to date, Josh Prince isn't remotely near the caliber of player that MLB teams would seek for that role regardless of how true a super-UT guy he is. There's a world of difference from a Ben Zobrist or even a Nick Punto down to a .235-ish-hitting AAA player like Josh Prince.