MNBrew

I still wouldn't be surprised if a few more moves were to happen. Olmsted strikes me as a potential goner. Manzanillo was downright lousy -- WHIP over 2.00 in AA including more BB than K there & at high-A. Ditto one or two of the late-season pickups -- easy come, easy go. And I don't see any reason why DLS has any place on our 40-man when he couldn't get his visa stuff (or was it his actual age or identity?) worked out all year long, so that'd be another spot not re-taken. The wiggle room seems to be with the pitching staff and maybe (please!!!!) Francisco. There are only 6 OFs on the 40-man, all of whom saw decent MLB time this year, only 2 Cs, and not exactly a surplus of IFs once the FAs are gone (esp. considering Gennett & Halton are the only "minor league" IFs on the roster, and they both got decent MLB time last year).

Two trades: K-Rod to BAL for Nicky Delmonico (top-10 prospect) Axford to StL for Michael Blazek (wasn't he also a top-10 prospect?) Not shabby, all things considered. Other than Michael Gonzalez, who stunk his way out of every trade conversation, most any other "substantial" trade "hopeful" in BF.net-land (thinking primarily of Ramirez, Weeks, Hart) was eventually injured enough to be untradeable.

Huh? A 4.50 ERA pitcher? Since his 1st 3 years w/ appearances in MLB (2008-2010) entail 31.1 IP, looking at the past 3 years would seem to tell a more accurate tale: 2011: 4-8 record, 4.08 ERA, 92.2 IP, 83 H, 29 BB, 88K, 1.21 WHIP 2012: 5-7 record, 3.64 ERA, 138.1 IP, 129 H, 29 BB, 143 K, 1.14 WHIP 2013: 7-4 record, 3.87 ERA, 128 IP, 109 H, 29 BB, 118 K, 1.08 WHIP 3-year avg: 5.3 wins - 6.6 losses, 3.84 ERA, 119.2 IP, 107 H, 29 BB, 116.3 K, 1.14 WHIP The only 2 obvious negatives (beyond avoiding the DL in '12 & '13) are an unspectacular W-L record and a slightly increasing HR rate (one every 7.48 IP over the past 3 years; 11, 18, & 19 are the respective individual totals, '11-'13). He's 30 and not one of the prospects, but he's affordable, generally successful, and doesn't have crazy mileage on that arm, which amounts to his being a GREAT asset I don't think you move until there's an in-house surplus of proven SPs and a strong offers knocking down Melvin's door. You can never have too much pitching, as this year again showed. Why would you trade him, let alone for a moderate prospect?

I totally agree with your overall point, but Gomez wasn't posing and he wasn't showboating. Watch the video (just watch it, don't waste time listening to much of the announcers' commentary) & read the story. He was making a point to Maholm (and has been quoted about what he said) that he got retribution for what he felt was an intentional beaning in May which, I believe I heard, had followed a HR.

I think the hate for Roenicke on this site tends to spiral out of control. He's not perfect, quite obviously, but I like him as the Brewers manager and I'm quite glad he & his staff are returning. I'm not a Kranitz fan, but I'm not convinced he's the problem re: the pitching. The rotation that was bad in the first half & especially putrid in May also was largely quite solid the entire 2nd half. In the end, it's a boring result and mostly non-news to my thinking. There were many obvious issues with the Brewers in 2013, but I think a good 90-95% of the problem lies in injuries and players failing to execute what they've been well-taught (including a certain someone and his banned-substance episode).

Reality's been skewed in so many folks' perceptions very quickly (not so much here but definitely in media commentary across the country): Gomez didn't STOP or STAND to admire his HR against Maholm AT ALL. He moved reasonably by average standards although kind of slow by GoGo standards, but he was in FORWARD MOTION THE WHOLE TIME. He walks for his first 6 steps after contact -- the first two of which most no one sprints on on a blast like that -- but then gets jogging at a perfectly normal/acceptable pace. Check it out again starting at 2:26 (of the video that's 5:57 long -- I'd rather listen to our announcers than Atlanta's): http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_09_25_milmlb_atlmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=atl#gid=2013_09_25_milmlb_atlmlb_1&mode=video

When the starting 1B is a much-loathed, many-year veteran batting 8th on a team having a dreadful, it makes me wonder if part of the point is . . . . to improve the odds, however slightly, of better draft position. We owe Yuni nothing. He hasn't earned PT since April. Sean Halton deserves chances and, gee whiz, seems to help us win games lately. Of course the opponent being the Cardinals already tilts the table away from us as it is. Yuni starting at 1B reinforces the tilt. That's one possible explanation, anyway.

Not exactly, at least not in 2012. The Brewers were the most pathetic anomaly against the worst team in MLB. The Brewers were only 9-8 against Houston in 2012. Houston's 8 wins against the Brewers were more than double their average # of wins they had against every other opponent (55 wins on the season, 8 vs. MIL, leaves 47 wins against the other 14 teams = avg. of 3.36 wins/opponent). . . . Anyway, not much stat-padding in a season series that's all but a draw. On topic... If Hart's salary number is remotely reasonable, I think the move is a no-brainer b/c the salary won't break the team and an injury doesn't put a huge salary on the DL again. I'd also think that if he doesn't re-sign w/ MIL, one or more of Gamel, Green, Halton, & Morris still makes for a major upgrade over the rotten cast of characters we've seen this year. (And I'm still for either non-tendering Francisco or trading him to an AL team to DH.)

I've liked what I've been hearing about Gindl for a few years now and I like envisioning scenarios where he's in the lineup having regular success. However, as one of my buddies puts it when I get optimistic about rookies who fare well in September when the team's out of contention.... This often is the MLB equivalent of "garbage time" in the NBA (witness last year's young starting pitchers -- Fiers & Rogers in particular). In some cases the numbers are legit. In others, September doesn't prove a true test of their big-league-worthiness. ST & the start of next year usually are a more accurate indicator.

Maldonado was so good with the bat in '12, relatively speaking, that it can be easy to forget that there was very good reason that he was NOT considered to be much of a hitter for most of his time in the minors. I think there are a good lot of 1B options for 2014. I don't think Lucroy should be one of them. And I sure hope Francisco doesn't remain one. Moving Lucroy to 1B also majorly weakens the catching depth, and as of now, without scrutinizing every roster, I'd guess the Brewers are probably only one of a handful of teams who can be truly happy with their catching tandem at the big-league level.

Taking half a step back, I think you can justify adding one FA SP over last winter & this coming winter -- one over the two years, NOT one per year -- to plug a major gap in quality and/or proven depth. And that's what the Lohse signing was. But if part of the point is to develop young assets, then there's no evident need to acquire yet another veteran SP without a factor of major debilitating injuries -- which at the moment simply aren't a factor -- unless one of the current rotation arms is traded (Lohse, Gallardo, Estrada, Peralta, Thornburg, etc.). But to my thinking, to sign an FA SP just to say you signed him to a good deal isn't enough to justify the move unless it's a MAJOR talent upgrade, which likely isn't going to happen at a remotely reasonable $$ figure. . . . . Lohse was a major talent upgrade over the net-effect "dregs" (in terms of production, not necessarily talent -- Fiers, Narveson, Rogers -- though don't get me wrong b/c I did like all of that group for the rotation going into ST except Narveson) that were the rotation candidates over ST.

TC07, I agree with many of your points, but as you'll re-read my opening disclaimer, you'll realize all I'm saying it that I think the veteran leadership factor fits into the picture of Lohse's value somewhere -- I'm suggesting neither where nor with what weight, only that I think that notion isn't meaningless or worthless. The Lohse signing is hardly catastrophic IF it's not followed by yet more of the same. Obviously there is oft-documented skepticism due to this regime's history that that will be the case. It furthers the problem if, for instance, Hart or eventually Weeks or Ramirez are replaced by other big-buck signings, whether at their positions or others' . . . and especially if such signings prove to compromise the Brewers' ability to effectively develop or otherwise obtain more high-end young assets, especially starting pitching.

I don't know where this fits into the Lohse equation, but I believe it's neither inconsequential nor irrelevant: You can't quantify veteran leadership. Young pitchers learning from the experience of veterans. Even if your team's losing, and losing a lot, there are many valuable things young guys can learn in spite of the losing that pay off over time. Without eventually some experienced leadership of your young players, you're much more likely to end up in endless rebuilding cycles in spite of plenty of good young talent (see: KC, for instance). I also totally get the viewpoints that that leadership and a few wins may well not be worth a lost (and very needed) 1st round pick and $11M/yr. over 3 seasons. ... However, that $33M/yr over 3 years spent on Lohse doesn't mean that payroll figure took away from other needed resources. Without full, open access to the Brewers' books and Melvin's & Attanasio's thinking, all we can assert "for certain" is the current/conventional thinking that you should shrink your payroll as much as you can if you're losing. Otherwise, that the $33M was poor/fruitless/unnecessary/detrimental spending is purely conjecture. One more point, more on topic: No one on that list in the opening post excites me a whole lot. The pitching staff just plain needs more talent. But how much some of those FA guys would add at a reasonable cost and for team-friendly term may well not outweigh the net gains of the Thornburgs, Peraltas, Hellwegs or Nelsons getting more meaningful MLB development/experience.

I'm confused. Some on this board blame Melvin for relying too much on young pitchers who either were grossly ineffective (Fiers), who obviously weren't MLB-ready (Thornburg & Hellweg initially), or were injured (Rogers). Then there are comments like logan82's above that signing Lohse interferes with the Brewers' plan or ability to develop young pitching. Lohse had nothing to do with not any decision NOT to develop our own pitching. If Lohse were the pitching equivalent of Yuni B., I could understand Logan's assertion. But Lohse has been their most reliable SP -- not bad even considering April & May effectively were his Feb. & March. Don't forget how shaky Gallardo was through July, how lousy Peralta was before the All-Star break, and that only since his DL stint finally ended has Estrada looked like the SP he showed glimpses of what finally earned him his first Opening Day rotation spot going into this year. As spring training went on, and pitchers who proved they couldn't keep themselves in the MLB picture kept eliminating themselves from any realistic consideration for the Opening Day rotation, what was Melvin supposed to do? Just keep throwing young guys on the mound as they kept getting brutalized by opposing hitters? Lohse and Peralta have been the only really non-injured SPs the Brewers have had this year (Gallardo, Estrada, Narveson, Burgos, Fiers, Rogers, & Gorzelanny have all been injured at one time or another for MIL or Nashville). At some point you HAVE TO HAVE enough proven depth to survive the injuries and ups/downs that go with utilizing so many young pitchers. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Brewers have to have a pipeline of reliable, high-ceiling SPs at all times because they can't usually afford a headline-making trade or FA signing. I'd rather not keep relying on rotations that resemble the fairly constant disasters the Twins have been trolling out to the mound for the past few years. Without Lohse, I think "Twins Territory" is exactly where the Brewers' rotation would've been. And that's NOT a good place. But why? What about a better draft pick? Thanks to Michael Gonzalez (the Mike Gonzalez version of him was much better, btw), the Cardinals, an imposing (if not ugly) September schedule, and the net of really only one healthy traditional 3-4-5 hitter over the year, I'm afraid the draft pick's already going to keep getting higher over these last 3 (potentially unwatchable) weeks. But young players/pitchers also benefit from the leadership & examples of a steadying, established/proven successful veteran (think Axford under Hoffman, for instance). As such, I believe Lohse fills a role with the young guys that would otherwise be an uglier, more glaring void on the roster & in the clubhouse if he weren't here.

Not that you're suggesting Narveson is a rotation candidate, but if he's anywhere near a candidate for the 2014 rotation, it's a bad sign. He was a #5 starter before he was hurt, a borderline #4 at best. He missed all of last year and hasn't pitched terribly well this year (5.14 ERA in AAA) after a couple months on the big-league DL with a sprained finger (I think that's what I'm remembering the injury was, anyway -- seems he missed a lot of time for a seemingly simple injury). I think Narveson's chances for future contributions became slim-to-none between last year's surgery & this year's injury. I like what our 2014 rotation has the potential to be, although it would take some planets lining up for everyone to stay healthy and productive: Gallardo Lohse Peralta Estrada Thornburg (or anyone else like Hellweg or Nelson, possibly someone like Burgos if he's healthy again) An SP acquisition obviously changes the dynamics, but any specifics are like predicting the weather this far ahead of mid-winter.

The way he's looked since coming off the DL confirms to me that the "old" Gallardo's still around or at least not totally gone. That being true and at his relative "deal" of a salary, I wouldn't want to see him traded. This type of pitching is why we locked him in. I'd also been wondering if he just needed a bit of a break to help him find his old form (though I don't expect quite the same for Weeks when he returns).

He's a good LF. Not, I don't mean that sarcastically.

Thanks, LouisEly! I've been saying for years that the outrage generated mostly by the media re: steroids in general, HOF & award eligibility, etc., is sanctimonious, short-sighted, & foolish. To those who've said it's a different era, different society, etc., so different standards are in play, that's certainly convenient logic but ultimately nonsense. Cheating is cheating. The HOF is full of guys who did it. Many HOFers won't stand on the dais behind McGwire/et al. if the were to be voted in, but they sure had no problem standing behind Gaylord Perry, for example, whose career-long spitballing (greaseballing, etc.) was not only stuff of lore but also constant jesting! The players' numbers are what they are. There doubtlessly are plenty of cheaters, druggies, drunks, criminals, definitely quite dirty players (Ty Cobb jumps to mind), possibly even some wife-beaters, etc. If the "character clause" cannot be applied consistently over time, it doesn't belong. I don't believe the HOF is rescinding any players' inductions/memberships, nor is the HOF mandating a public confessional and apology for anyone in question to maintain their current status. I wonder just how ridiculous this era & some individuals' sagas will look 50 or 100 years from now. Certainly attitude & antics of a contentious & dirty player like Ty Cobb never could've withstood the media scrutiny of today -- lucky for him or he'd be on the "out" list, too! Consider this scenario, too: Tony LaRussa well may be inducted someday. Last winter, only months after his retirement, he admitted outright that he ordered his pitcher to bean Braun after Pujols was inadvertently hit just before that in a late-season series. Yet in the couple days following the actual incident, LaRussa LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH about it, not only denying he did it when it seemed obvious to everyone watching, but also went on and on defending himself and being quite angry and self-righteous about it. . . . . In a very basic & similar way, LaRussa broke the rules of the game, making willful choices that blatantly could've injured a player (and a star player, at that!) AND compromised the outcome of the game, and went out of his way to mislead the media & the public by LYING about it. [sarcasm]Worse yet, LaRussa made those choices WITHOUT the influence of chemicals/drugs/PEDs!!! The guy was just breathing pure air! Talk about soiled character![/sarcasm]. . . . . But will there ever be even a peep in the press about LaRussa confessing his wrong and publicly apologizing to Braun, the Brewers, the Milwaukee & national media, and the fans? Will LaRussa ever be expected to conduct clinics for major-league, minor-league, and recently drafted players about the potential harms (physical to the player, as well as to the game's integrity) and the moral wrong of beaning an opposing hitter? The double-standards at play re: steroids & PEDs vs. everything else are for the birds!

This is exactly why I said that some of TH's questions seemed to be digging at unnecessary details. Many didn't, but at least a few did. It's quite evident that the media's version of total transparency certainly is not necessarily aligned with whatever the ultimate integrity of the situation is -- steps/actions aligned toward both honesty and constructive progress in the direction of "moving forward" -- which I think is what BruisedCrew was getting at. The "picking at scabs" analogy is most apropos. I'm not suggesting avoiding all the tough questions is necessarily right or excusable. Rather, more what BruisedCrew said (I added the boldface) above. At least a few of TH's questions, Ryan Braun has absolutely no need or business answering.

Some insist that Tom Haudricourt is a Braun apologist and generally isn't good at asking the tough questions. I think his Sunday column would suggest otherwise: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/braun-still-has-plenty-to-explain-b9982152z1-220965651.html Much of it is a reasonably well-articulated and justified request for more or better answers, but thankfully it's not couched in the angry "I'm entitled to know because I want to know" mentality we're hearing some of in all the commentary that's going on out there. A couple points strike me as digging at unnecessary details because they seem aimed at getting Braun to answer to every accusation & inuendo that's out there, which may be more than is necessary or appropriate. But TH's bottom line is that anything short of transparency is going to seriously hinder any chance Braun has of fully making amends and healing the wounds he unfortunately but now clearly has caused.

Of the guys in the bullpen, Kintzler's good & cheap, so I think he's someone you don't look at trading. Prince joining Bianchi on the bench? Why? 2 reserve middle IFs? We certainly don't need him as an OF reserve with Schafer, Gindl, Khris Davis, & maybe also Kentrail Davis & D'Vontrey Richardson also in the pipeline as true OFs with better overall skill sets. . . . Other than the AFL last year, Prince has never hit terribly well and is NOT having a good year with the bat in AAA, so I don't get why he'd be on the MLB bench next year. Bianchi is solid enough as a middle IF reserve. You need a corner IF option or two, esp. if Hart's gone & Gamel's starting (remember that Gamel, if healthy, should have a roster spot since he has no options left), and Taylor Green should be in line well ahead of Prince, too. If Francisco's still on the team next year (I hope not), he's also earned more PT than Prince coming into next year. To me, Josh Prince, for all his darkhorse/underdog qualities, is a guy whose place on the 40-man going forward is hardly guaranteed. Whereas Prince is a depth guy at best, a guy like Khris Davis at the very least is pushing for regular playing time and at the very least would seem to be a far greater roster priority than Prince.

^^This, esp. the 2nd paragraph, 2nd & 3rd sentences. I'm guessing that's why it was a written statement. I'm about 10 times more effective expressing myself accurately & concisely in writing than via spoken word. Especially given that that stuff has to be difficult for Braun to own up to, and knowing he'll eventually still get grilled by the media & fans, I could see why it'd be so much easier to get the first word out in the most effective & efficient way possible rather than facing that much more directly the risk of potentially even greater vulnerability, awkwardness, and hostility of a press conference. As much skepticism as is out there now about him, keep in mind that Braun's been thoroughly and publicly shamed, discredited, & humiliated -- to use TH's verbiage the day after the suspension was announced, "annihilated." Braun will still face incredible heat -- and probably justly so. But this gives the media & populace something to chew on -- perhaps taking a wee bit of the edge off -- instead of chewing directly on Braun himself, so to speak, all over again right away. I think his letter to Brewers fans (a la Mark A.'s letters) was also a very wise move.

Well, that seemed like a pretty reasonable mea culpa, at least in terms of admitting guilt and taking responsibility. Some will feel that was sufficient. There are others who won't be happy until he's confessed every single detail, the date & time & reason of every pill and/or lozenge and their chemical contents, and even then they'll doubt if he's being completely truthful. He'll never please everyone. And some will want to continue to believe every other assertion or inuendo that's floated out there, true or not. I'm inclined to take his statement at face value. I hope he's said the whole truth. Any further dishonesty or deceit will justifiably dig an absurdly deep hole even deeper. The one other thing I wish he'd said was something acknowledging that for some people, he knows his words alone won't be sufficient -- basically acknowledging the skeptics (but not their viewpoints and not using words to attempt to convince them) -- but that by his actions over time he will show he's worthy of fans' & teammates' support & trust. . . . . In other words, words are only words but actions usually tell a greater degree of the truth.

I was hoping the same thing. Gorzo seems to have hit a wall his last couple starts. Maybe Gorzo's best in a spot-starting role & very flexible/multiple-role reliever, not as a rotation regular.

Do you genuinely believe that they will be contenders next season? If not, I don't see what would be gained from sticking with Aramis. If the team isn't contending & they could get a decent prospect in return, that makes sense to me -- not to mention moving (some or all of) his salary. $16M ($20M, including the $4M buyout of his 2015 mutual option) is no pedestrian sum for a club like the Brewers, and frankly I'd find it pretty negligent of management to keep that kind of salary for an older player on the books for a non-contending club. ~30 IP of K-Rod brought back a legit prospect, & I'm confident a full season of Ramírez would at least equal that return. I think they're a 2014 team that, if many things go very well and few if any things go horribly bad, they do have a legit chance. Would I take it to the bank that they're contenders? Of course not -- way too many variables. But I don't think it's impossible. Much depends on the pitching, specifically the rotation. TLB, your premise seems based on the assumption that they can get something worthwhile in return AND put someone capable at 3B. That combination's not a given, though starting a healthy Taylor Green is still very intriguing to me. Ramirez's 2014 salary is extremely justified IF his production is in line with his career norms. I disagree with your position that the team automatically needs to move his contract if they're not contending. They don't have to shed Ramirez's contract. Melvin's proven to be pretty shrewd in my book -- he'll listen, and if the right move is there, he'll make it. However, like (though obviously not the same as) Prince Fielder after 2010, any trade HAS to be a good "baseball" trade for the Brewers or they're usually better off not making it.