MNBrew

Capuano may be more of a #3 or #4 but the guy still has stretches where he pitches more like a #2 . . . just like Gallardo's more of a #1/1.5/2 but still has games where he pitches like an AAA pitcher. Capuano's not in the first wave of guys I go after at all. But he's pretty durable over most of his career when Tommy John surgery's not involved. And the guy flat-out knows how to pitch (it's just a matter of how often the results prove he was successful at doing so).

I'm chronically optimistic, but Olmsted & Jeffress as main cogs? Only once they prove themselves worthy of that status. Olmsted's never pitched above AA & Jeffress couldn't pitch well enough in AAA to earn callups to lousy KC when there were ample opportunities. I'd be all for re-signing Jeffress and I'm quite positively intrigued by Olmsted. But relying on them as main cogs seems to be putting the cart more than a few steps ahead of the horse.

Am I the only one who didn't find him impressive in that video? Hard to tell.... I find myself wondering, though, if he doesn't become a potential Kameron Loe-type (thinking serious height = the pronounced downhill plane they like so much) but younger, cheaper, more gas on his FB, bigger waistline, & a Melvin-esque cookie duster.

Just because Manny Parra's still here doesn't mean he'll be on the roster next year. They still have a good while before they have to decide whether or not to tender Parra a 2013 contract. There's no hurry to make a move unless they're in a rush to clear more space on the 40-man. I wonder if they're hoping for the possibility of Parra being someone who can add some value to the Brewers' end of a trade package. Parra has plenty of warts, but he also has some value. Back on-topic, I think I like the Olmsted signing. But there's also a ton of time left before ST and a whole lot of things could happen that could affect whether or not Olmsted -- or a number of others -- remains on the 40-man all the way to ST.

Veras fits a similar description for me as Manny Parra does: He had some really good moments/games, but for many reasons, he could've & really probably should've been a whole lot better than he actually was an awful lot of the time. When a guy like that costs too much, it's time to move on.

What is the scenario where the old team can't sign their "ex"-players until May/June? Former scenario... I think it was this: Regular FA's who declined arbitration and didn't sign with another team then couldn't re-sign with their previous team until May 1st.

Everything out there these days that's new seems to come from MLB's marketing dept., which is definitely committee work.

Blasphemy! The greatest NFL team ever wears orange and blue!! Da Bears?

With TB, it depends on the pitcher we're targeting.... - If we're talkin' Shields, I think you go w/ Gomez, Gamel, & Rogers. Or Hart + maybe Rogers. - If we're talkin' Niemann or Hellickson, then Gomez & Rogers. I just don't think you need to do a beyond-Greinke type of package for an SP who's Greinke level or less. In other words, I don't think they have to include Maldonado at all. (I'm also not crazy about trading Rogers, but he's the most logical "sell high" type -- not just w/ regards to potential/performance combo, but definitely including his health in that equation.)

Signing Hamilton could be completely independent of the pitching situation and could actually stand to be helpful, esp. if moving a different bat or two could help net some high-end pitching along w/ some solid BP help. Signing Hamilton would be a huge move. But the bigger question is if it's really even necessary.

I know I've said this often over multiple other threads, but Liriano is NOT a pitcher the Brewers should aim for. Incredible stuff, yes. But zero "ace" mentality. I've watched him throughout his entire career in MN. He can deliver a few brilliant starts, but the vast majority of the time he's anywhere from not great to putrid. He's basically a more advanced version of Manny Parra -- million dollar stuff, 50-cent confidence -- which is the whole reason we need to be moving on from Manny Parra. Baker's also highly likely to re-sign with the Twins, and while Marcum's usually good when healthy, his health isn't fully reliable. My gut says it's worth the efforts to land one of Tampa Bay's good SP, which they have in abundance. And we do have (arguably) replaceable bats to pull off such a move.

I've always been of the opinion that I don't care much for orange and especially don't care for it w/ blues, greens, or purples. When my kids were younger, some stores (Gymboree especially) had clothes w/ orange paired with reds, greens, pinks, & browns -- often ALL of those together, esp. in stripes -- and I about threw up every time I'd go in there -- well-made clothes but nauseating color schemes at the time (for my tastes, anyway). The red in their current (about to be former) uniforms wasn't awful, but the logic behind it was: it was incorporated because it tied into the brick color of then-Enron Field. As if that nonsense was actually good thinking, the Brewers for a while (maybe still do?) called "brick" one of their official colors for the same reasoning even though the only place it's ever been part of the color/branding is in the laces of the ball in the circular logo that has "Brewers" or "Milwaukee" overlaying across it. I didn't care for the rainbow unis of the Astros, but the modified/muted ones of the late '80s/early '90s I thought were pretty good (and weren't those pretty much the continuance of the road version of the late '70s/early-mid '80s rainbow ones?). The blue was a navy, which actually worked nicely, esp. as the sole cap color with the orange star/white H logo on it. . . . Having not seen the leaks unis/branding yet other than the logo, I'm wondering if we're headed toward some version of those uniforms...

The Twins' declining his option was completely expected, but they want him back at a reduced rate & he may be looking to return, too. Late evening update: Baker indeed also hopes to return. Link: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/10/twins-baker-working-on-new-contract.html

Boring. But there's still a great shot at redemption if the uniforms are done well. The Blue Jays really did it right. With the Astros, though, I can't help but have my doubts. I'd love to be proven wrong.

In Monty's scenarios, I'd most hope for C because of the plethora of non-star-but-still-good position players in the system. Something rooted in Hart-for-Niemann would be solid. Hart/plus-for-Niemann/plus might be better. I'm hardly sold on the idea of trading Hart, but 1) there are several viable replacement options in-house, though granted none fully replace what Hart is at the moment, and 2) it might take someone of Hart's caliber to pry away a decent SP from Tampa.

If Estrada continues to pitch as he has the past 2 years, $2M-ish is still, relatively speaking, both very affordable and very cost-effective, which are exactly why I think there's practically zero chance he's traded. He's the 2nd-most experienced/healthy starter on the team, and about everyone after him has major asterisks in terms of youth/experience (Fiers, Thornburg, Peralta, Rogers) &/or injury (Narveson, Rogers, Peralta). The Brewers' more "tradeable" depth lies in guys like Hart, Gomez, & Weeks in terms of proven &/or appealing players who, by trading them, also would realize a meaningful cost savings to allow for one or more bigger-buck acquisitions . . . and whose losses could be filled by young but very possibly competent other players, therefore NOT blowing major holes in the roster (Weeks' replacement being the least certain amongst those players). Point: I don't know that trades of any of those guys are likely, even with a potential Hamilton signing, but I'd see a bigger-contract guy or Gomez far more likely to be moved than Estrada.

I agree about Weeks (for $$ reasons) & Gomez (for PT & "sell high" reasons), but Estrada's pitched very well as a starter & won't be very expensive yet, which means he'd hardly be much of a payroll burden. Of course, Hart could be in the trade picture, too, but IF Hamilton were to happen, ultimately who gets traded would also be predicated largely on what the return would be for any players in question. For example: If you get peanuts offered for Weeks but a decent AA pitcher with a live arm & respectable control offered for Gomez, or a huge return offered for Hart + maybe a young live arm . . . you make a whole different set of moves than if you're offered peanuts for Hart, peanuts for Gomez, and so forth . . .

Two more thoughts: - Given his circumstances, Hamilton's indeed a bit unique and, atypically, perhaps a better fit than might otherwise seem . . . maybe in a similar way that Greinke turned out to be. I'm not sure it makes any difference in terms of the Brewers' actual needs, but I think it's still a point that will give the rumors extended life. - I'm convinced that the fact that St. Louis doesn't appear to have an open position for Hamilton means absolutely nothing. They have a history of going out & getting "big fish" guys when they weren't seen as being in the running for 'em.

A couple thoughts: Sidetrack points, thought #1: As a pretty thorough reader here, while I'm not debating at all the depth of thought behind the suggestions, it's not off the mark at all to generalize that there were abundant posts on BF.net around the trade deadline suggesting that the Brewers would've been best served trading off some-to-most-to-all proven/productive/expensive "non-Braun/Weeks/Lucroy-type" assets for young prospects. Sidetrack points, thought #2: On your last point, I believe that the Brewers doing well in September actually did accomplish something very positive, which was allowing the Brewers to see how many of their young players could cut it when getting regular MLB playing time. The fact that overall they did so well served to help justify counting on more of those young guys as regular 2013 contributors with some depth of performance behind that confidence (though of course there remain several uncertainties since Fiers slumped, Rogers was shut down, & Peralta got a little hurt at the end.) That had to happen at some point. While it may have cost them top-10-pick status, it also represented significant steps toward clarifying what their needs more truly are this off-season, which should lead to more selective or "refined" investing and quite possibly fewer SPs acquired than might've been the case without all that September PT for the young guys. On-topic thought #1: I still agree that there is plenty that's intriguing about the prospect of Josh Hamilton as a Brewer, and there would be plenty of ways to make Hamilton-to-MIL a reality without likely crippling the 2013 team. However, my prevailing thought at this point is that the offense is generally in pretty good shape but the need for better pitching is quite glaring, most especially the bullpen, so that has to be the top priority. Managing to make wise pitching moves this winter without breaking the bank will then leave Melvin & Co. the flexibility to make more moves as needed later. On-topic thought #1a: TC07 makes good points about the performance/value factors and the right ingredients, so to speak, to enable long-term organizational success: Balance the right long-term "core player" investments with a deep & steady stream of high-quality prospects. Do it right and you can sustain long-term competitiveness (see: Detroit Red Wings, past 20 years & Atlanta Braves, 19991-2004). I believe Melvin understands that perfectly -- and he gets it far better than many of us want to give him credit for. He just sees the balance of competitiveness and with the investment-vs.-organizational depth at a different point than many here do. . . . And I'd also posit that the nature of this beast is such that if he did things exactly the way many on here have been calling for him to, he'd still be criticized soundly by countless posters any time things weren't going well on the field . . . in other words, the "glass is half-empty" view many have of Melvin would still be the same.

I'm not sure where I stand on this Hamilton thing that keeps floating out there, but... ...if signing Hamilton necessitated realizing a cost savings somewhere other than the rotation to ensure payroll flexibility, or ...if they had the money to sign Hamilton but would then need to move from other positions of strength either to have budgetary room to acquire a #1/#2 starter OR to use in trade for a #1/#2 starter, then there are legit/viable "in-house" options: - w/ Logan Schafer in the fold, they could easily trade Gomez or Aoki (depth is good but they don't need 3 MLB CFs at this point w/ Gindl also CF-capable waiting in the AAA wings) - perhaps not as ideal, but w/ at least 2 of Gamel/Green/Ishikawa around, there would be ample 1B options if they chose to save $$ at 1B by trading Hart - similarly, w/ Green & Bianchi around (preferably Green, though), Weeks would likely fetch a decent return (either alone or as part of a large deal) and save good $$ at 2B Again, just some thoughts. There are pros & cons to every angle or option. But at least theoretically, there would be a nice variety of legit/viable options.

I've never been much of an Ozzie Guillen fan going back to his rookie year when -- probably largely due to hype & playing in the huge Chicago market -- he beat out a more deserving Earnest Riles for AL ROY. As a manager, he's done plenty of good things. But he's also proven seemingly far more often that his judgement &, on enough levels, his character more than outweigh the positives of him as a MLB manager. To me, there's a great deal to be said for treating people well and conducting oneself in a classy way, and over time I just haven't seen enough of those qualities in him as a manager to believe he deserves another chance to manage. The Marlins ownership &/or FO may be lousy in terms of baseball operations, but this still seems like the smart & obvious move. Too bad for Ozzie, but good for the Marlins. (... and now if they could just make a solid improvement on those uniforms!)

I'd have to agree w/ you, Mass, on your first 5 listed, plus maybe possibly Josh Prince as someone with the potential to be another version of Bianchi. But esp. w/ the BP situation in Milwaukee, I could also see rationale for any of Wooten, Hand, Meadows, Heckathorn, & maybe even Arnett (though how likely he'd be to be drafted is questionable), as well as Halton. I could see 40-man spots possibly being opened from these guys: FAs: K-Rod, Marcum, Gonzalez (possibly re-signed, but he'd still be an FA first) non-tendered: Parra, Loe, Morgan (personally, I'd keep Veras) outrighted/demoted or released (& poss. brought back on a NRI deal): Miguel De Los Santos, Stinson

I'd have to agree w/ you, Mass, on your first 5 listed, plus maybe possibly Josh Prince as someone with the potential to be another version of Bianchi. But esp. w/ the BP situation in Milwaukee, I could also see rationale for any of Wooten, Hand, Meadows, Heckathorn, & maybe even Arnett (though how likely he'd be to be drafted is questionable), as well as Halton. I could see 40-man spots possibly being opened from these guys: FAs: K-Rod, Marcum, Gonzalez (possibly re-signed, but he'd still be an FA first) non-tendered: Parra, Loe, Morgan (personally, I'd keep Veras) outrighted/demoted or released (& poss. brought back on a NRI deal): Miguel De Los Santos, Stinson

While I think the Rogers/Morris-for-Shields thing makes some sense, I'm not necessarily saying I think we should trade Rogers. And anyway, on a deal like that, it takes 2 teams to tango. However, . . . While Rogers has started proving he's been worth the investment in terms of recovering from lots of injuries & time away from the diamond, the fact of his injury-heavy past is perhaps a worthy reason to consider trading him. If he breaks down again, it wouldn't then be the Brewers left holding the bag. . . . My thinking is similar to those who say Melvin doesn't often "sell high" on players. By the same logic, Rogers has persevered, fought his way back, and proved he can pitch in the bigs. Just maybe (which of course means also maybe not, but for the sake of this discussion, just maybe) this is the time to trade that asset as part of a deal for the right "bigger fish." The risk, as many often point out in the performance/value "sell high" discussions, is that holding onto a previously oft-injured player too long may mean you're the team stuck with him when he's out for a long period again. Again, I'm not sure at all that trading Rogers would be the right thing to do. But compared to many of the other young pitchers, there are some reasons there with Rogers that make it a thought worth considering.

You're right, of course that's the case, but it doesn't mean the right deal can't be struck if another team sees sufficient value in what's proposed.