MNBrew

There's no downside to the pickup, but as someone who's never seen AAA, the odds of him making it to MIL this year would seem both very long and predicated by multiple position-specific injuries.

The Brewers wouldn't get any return, but if K-Rod gets $12M in arbitration (for simple math purposes), the Brewers can still cut him by a certain date and only owe him 1/6 of that, or $2M. That would save $10M which could then be turned around toward re-signing Prince. If you have to eat most of a $12M salary to get someone maybe only moderately serviceable or a B prospect in return, I think it's better to just walk away from that type of deal and do the 1/6 payoff IF doing so makes signing Prince "affordable," meaning at least to the extent that Attanasio would be willing to stretch the payroll that much more to bring him back. . . . It would also seem to cinch the idea that after 2012, only Greinke OR Marcum gets extended, Wolf's option doesn't get picked up, and Hart may well get traded anytime between July & the start of the 2013 season. A 2012 lineup like this would seem to make the Brewers VERY strong contenders: IF: Ramirez, Gonzalez, Weeks, Fielder OF: Braun, Morgan/Gomez, Hart C: Lucroy Rotation: Gallardo, Greinke, Marcum, Wolf, & Narveson Reserves: Kottaras (if not traded) or Maldonado; Izturis & Gamel, & a 5th OF tba Bullpen: Axford, Braddock, Estrada, Loe, Perez, 2 of Dillard/DeLaCruz/McClendon/Kintzler/Fiers/Peralta/etc.

As Topper keeps saying, when these guys were so productive, steroids weren't a violation of baseball's rules. That's NOT cheating, then. Perry's spitter & ball-doctoring was. My point, again, is that if everyone's going to look the other way on Perry AND anyone who used greenies, amphetamines, or any other stimulant-category substance (legal or illegal -- they were the steroid-equivalent PEDs of their day!!!), then this anti-steroid sentiment is PIOUS HYPOCRISY -- dis-credible foolishness! On a related note, Pete Rose, while arguably still highly arrogant and perhaps questionably repentant at best, did serve time in the government's license plate factory for his crimes. Doesn't that put him on legally if not somewhat morally higher "redemptive" ground (speaking in very relative terms) than others who never paid a price for their "crimes" against the game? (edited for better clarity & word choice)

I looked at Luke Scott's b-ref page today and saw that he went to the same HS I would've if we hadn't moved while I was in 9th grade. Interesting.

Are you unwilling to recognize the difference between a guy doctoring up a ball and another guy doctoring up himself? One results in an altered ball, while another results in an altered body, without knowledge or regard to how that body will respond years later. Lyle Alzado's died as a result of using steroids. Nobody died because of a shine ball. Plus, Perry's crimes were done in full stadiums, in front of opposing players, managers & coaches, in front of umpires, fans, tv cameras & spectators. Through sleight of hand, he fooled everyone. McGwire's crimes were done in the private locker room bathroom stall with Canseco on the other end of the syringe. There's a difference between the two. Guys who cork bats don't do it in the on deck circle. That's why people applaud Penn & Teller, while Bernie Madoff is in prison. So the view from pulpit of morality is simply & ultimately determined by where things occurred? Creatively cheating in front of people is less wrong than cheating out of public view? Bah! One of the biggest media catch-phrases when the steroid stuff was going on was that PEDs, theoretically anyway, gave players an unfair competitive advantage. That's EXACTLY the same reason Perry threw the spitter: It gave him an unfair competitive advantage. Period. If the issue is right vs. wrong, then location's immaterial. Clancy captured my sentiments in two words: PIOUS HYPOCRISY. This whole steroids business, the whole political grandstanding in front of Congress, the constant media-generated suspicion? Media-generated pious hypocrisy. Disgusting. Perry joked about the spitter all the time but ended up dancing around it and ultimately always officially denied it -- until he couldn't deny it because he was caught in the act. What Perry did was in direct violation of the rules of the game. At the time those guilty among the '90s sluggers were allegedly taking whatever they were taking, they weren't violating the rules of the game. If you then argue the legality issue, so you must then also argue against the HOF elligibility of those who used illegal drugs & uppers. Again, if the issue ultimately is right vs. wrong, then a large number of HOFers should have been denied induction. But they weren't. So let us judge the HOF-worthiness of these men by what they did on the field: McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, all those guys should be in. Raines & Lee Smith, too, even though "clean" & non-controversial is rather boring by comparison -- they're HOFers in my book. Trammell? I just don't think so. Morris was good but not anywhere as good a pitcher as Blyleven over the course of his career, but his HOF case is borderline at best. That said, short of seeing the Brewers win a World Series in my lifetime, I hold being in the 7th row of the Metrodome's LF upper deck for Game 7 in 1991 as the most memorable non-Brewers baseball event I've ever witnessed.

I think Raines & Lee Smith keep getting unjustly screwed largely because the numbers or ways in which they dominated their respective eras don't fit today's standards (though Smith as a closer was just this side of Gossage-Sutter-Eck-Fingers but really pretty much on a similar level for an amazingly long time). I honestly don't get how folks view Larkin as a HOF SS and yet Raines wasn't a HOF OF. To those suggesting McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, & possibly Palmeiro don't deserve being let into the HOF due to their connection to the steroid era . . . then, by the same token, A-Rod sure had better not be let in. . . . Gaylord Perry -- CAUGHT red-handed doctoring the ball -- had better get thrown out (I don't get why this is NEVER brought up!) . . . . and Molitor (cocaine's generally considered a stimulant, certiainly not a depressant) and all the other guys who took various forms of greenies, amphetamines, and other "uppers" -- arguably the PED equivalents of their day because they, like steroids, simply enabled the body to recover faster or just never let down in the first place -- had sure better get thrown out, too! Actually I don't want any of those latter things to happen. Way too many things could be brought into question with WAY too many current & potentially future HOFers. The standards of morality & character being applied seem largely convenient & ultimately arbitrary (outside of directly cheating in the game itself). McGwire & those guys DIDN'T break the laws of baseball at the time and therefore deserve HOF induction. You could claim issues of character, but that's a slippery slope, too. Eckersley, then, shouldn't be let in because he essentially "stole" teammate Rick Manning's wife out from under him . . . or is that layer of morality & character somehow fundamentally different? Trammell was good, but in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think he was HOF good.

It's the 2nd generation of PC, DHonks. Everyone's supposed to be offended by everything, and there's no acceptable point of view except to be offended. . . . Thinking critically has been replaced by thinking the way we're trained to think. . . . We're only supposed to read anything at face value, nothing can ever be just figurative, and Heaven forbid we EVER see the forest for the trees! Oh, the next 20 years of overreacting is upon us! But that's completely fraught with flaws and double-standards. To wit: To comment that someone's black, not African-American, is almost consistently seen as insensitive or offensive.However, it's always okay just to call me white. Really? Shouldn't I really be offended because I'm not referred to as a Norwegian-American, which is my heritage? Come on!!! To note the color of skin is simply fact, not judgement. Of course, it's also a slightly incorrect generalization because "black" actually represents shades of brown, not literally black, and "white" is, well, I'm not sure what it is except that it's not actually any form of white at all -- maybe more the color of Silly Putty. About 15 years ago, when the Cleveland Indians' logo was a hot topic and the A.I.M. (American Indian Movement) was getting lots of "airtime" for its role in that discussion, and the North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" nickname was becoming a comparable target in these parts, the genuinely nice guy driving my bus of band students to a parade one June Saturday brought some of this up in a way I thought very wise and noble. This fellow, who himself was Native American (which I only knew because he said so), mentioned a couple of the names of main guys in that organization who'd spent major time in prison and, this guy felt, didn't represent his race very well at all and seemed to be into this sports team-name debate as much or more for the notoriety than for the cause. I'll never forget when this guy stated his own opinion: "Those guys don't speak for all of us. We have another name for them, for the A.I.M.: _ _ _holes In Moccasins." . . . . His point was that for all the media hype surrounding this issue, only one of MYRIAD views of the Native American peoples was being considered by the media in the discussion (and THAT's what offended him!). But the way the thing was being largely & self-righteously portrayed by the media was that ALL Native Americans were offended by these team-name issues, and anyone else with any sense should be, too. . . . . My point is that there are layers, always layers. To assume everything regarding an issue is always just one way is anywhere from overgeneralizing to downright blind. Somewhere we've lost the idea that there can be & usually is a gray area, a middle ground. (Quoth Obi-Wan, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" or something about like that.) Callous & malicious insensitivity is wrong. Racism is wrong. But somewhere this side of those things, somewhere along the way, it's both sad and ridiculous just how much common sense has gone out the window! Ignoring the seemingly obvious facts that Luke Scott & Felix Pie are good friends just goofing around and having safely-accepted fun at each others' expense and that that was made possible by a clear foundation of friendship & trust is just the way of the world these days -- judge the situation by reading into it your own judgements rather than by looking at the big picture and gaining an accurate understanding what's behind it. I don't want Luke Scott on the Brewers, but it has nothing to do with his politics because I don't care about his politics, whatever they may be. It's entirely based on my belief that Mat Gamel deserves his chance to play everyday in the bigs after 4 generally strong years in AAA before the Brewers miss any further on the golden opportunity to capitalize on his talent -- and that other young guys like the Schafers and Gindls in the system are nearing the point of deserving a similar chance. (And the only reason I can think of that I'd look at it differently would be in the unlikely event that Prince Fielder would call up Doug Melvin & Mark A. to suggest terms of a do-able 1- or 2-year deal.)

If Brooks Conrad makes our team, that's a very bad sign for Taylor Green unless another player is injured. I like the move for depth purposes, but I sure want to see Taylor Green make the team over Conrad.

I'd like to see Aoki signed b/c that would mean Melvin & Co. see him as that strong of an asset. But he doesn't workout until this weekend, and any negotiations would come thereafter. I just won't count my Aoki chickens 'til they've signed on the dotted line.

I think that's why we signed Ishikawa to a minor-league deal. Damon's probably not the right fit, circumstance-wise, for reasons noted. But that'd be the type of production it'd be worth paying a bit more to get. If Damon plays the first 50 games in LF, then play 1-2x/wk in the OF and 1-2x/wk at 1B before you account for potential injuries, that would be worth paying for IF he'd come to MIL under those circumstances. It does bear noting that at different times, Morgan, Gomez, Braun, & Hart all missed some time for injuries, with all but Braun spending time on the DL (Gomez & Morgan twice each, IIRC). ... Of course that would screw Logan Schaefer or Gindl, but Damon is at the stage of only 1-year deals anyway.... And if someone gets desperate for a closer and gives us a good return for K-Rod, Damon's salary wouldn't be an issue of concern. All that said, I know Damon's not a realistic target unless he decides he'd be interested in playing for MIL. But my point is that there is a case to be made for signing a player like him -- far more so than a Mark Kotsay type -- a 4th starter rather than just a veteran bench guy/spot starter.

There's still a decent power/speed guy out there in Johnny Damon. Granted, he's older, he's a Boras client, he's a LH batter, and he may rather stay in the AL to be able to DH. But his combination of still-decent production & "veteran presence," not to mention that he pretty much fits the "proven winner" billing, would be just the right combination of factors our bench (theoretically) could use. So you don't have to look it up: 150 GP, 647 PAs, .261 BA, .326 OBP, .418 SLG, .743 OPS, 29 2Bs, 7 3Bs, 16 HR & 73 RBI, 19/6 SB/CS -- and just turned 38 in November. He may be the best available LF option if Braun's indeed suspended, & then either a Morgan/Gomez trade or a VERY deep OF is the result when Braun returns. Plus, then, there's still proven-starter coverage if one of the starting OFs goes down with injury (why does Hart come to mind? . . . anyway, meaning yes, finally, the Brewers would have a regular 4th starting-quality OF they haven't had in some time).

Ditto that, although Green might also be in a position to earn PT, which he could get on an everyday basis if Gamel blows it badly & Ramirez were moved to 1B. I'd rather see that happen before blowing another $12M/yr. for multiple years on an overly old 1B when we have a rotation that needs to be sustained far more urgently than we need to be looking at bringing more overpaid power hitters. But going back to your original premise, IF there's enough failing production that HAS TO BE patched up somehow but the Brewers are still in a position to make a serious World Series push, I'd say all bets are off and you do what you need to do to put the team over the top. As long as it doesn't cripple the team in the long run, I'd think they'd have to consider options. I'd just hope other "in house" options would prove more viable & successful first.

There was no guarantee in the first half of the '90s that Atlanta's Top 3 were 3 going to become HOF'ers. But all 3 were clearly ace-caliber starters and nearly annually All-Stars (Glavine & Maddux the most, Smoltz about half the time in that time period). How they were acquired didn't matter with respect to how good they were. Smoltz was acquired by trade (w/ Det. for Doyle Alexander), Maddux was a FA signing, and Glavine was drafted by Atlanta. Do you discredit Philly's rotation, for instance, because only Cole Hamels is "homegrown"? I strongly disagree that Greinke is "replaceable." By whom? And just what bevy of prospects do we have available to surrender for someone we'd hope to land who's just as good or better? And heck, is he any less of a pitcher because we gave up 4 of our best prospects to get him? Is Roger Clemens any less of a pitcher because he was only traded for 3 players, and 2 of them were Graeme Lloyd & Homer Bush (David Wells being the 3rd guy)? Could Greinke improve from his 2011 performance? Yes, though mainly only on the road (and of course in the playoffs if we get there). Now the guy's pitched a full year in the NL, and he likely won't break a rib at the outset of spring training again, so he'll be available for all 6 months of the season and with a full & normal spring training under his belt. Frankly, I'd expect him to be better in 2012. If, by chance, he proves he's not getting better or is regressing, then I may be more open than I am now to changing my about moving him or locking him into an extension. But most of the time, you knew last year that when Greinke was on the mound, it had the potential to be something outstanding . . . and it most often still amounted to a Brewers win. And there are clear & simple factors that could well lead to that being the case all over again in 2012 if not even more so. Back to the point, the Atlanta model worked so well for them (and to varying degrees for those who've come close to replicating it) because of the Top 3 and mostly making the right moves around their cornerstone position players. Keep in mind that for every good Steve Avery, Kevin Millwood, & Denny Neagle year the Braves had out of their #4 & #5 starters, they still had years or parts of years with a Pete Smith, Terrell Wade, a lousy Avery or Kevin Millwood, Mike Bielecki, and up-and-down Kent Mercker, etc., rounding out their rotation. But the big guys at the top carried them. . . . .What the Brewers have proven is that without a Sheets/Sabathia, Gallardo, Greinke, etc., let alone multiple ace-type pitchers, they really have to hit on all cylinders to even have an outside shot at best at making the playoffs. To just dismiss Greinke & Marcum as replaceable (even Wolf, for that matter) and say "they traded for those guys before and could get guys just like 'em again" seems a ridiculous oversimplification.

No. Sometimes the player needs to listen to what he is told and make every effort to put that plan into action. Gomez, until recently, was trying to hit home runs.You're both right. - The Mets brought Gomez up to the bigs when he needed to be honing his game in the minors. The Twins felt at least some pressure to play him everyday because he was the biggest talent in the return they got for repeat Cy Young winner Johan Santana. The Brewers, well, I'm not totally sure how they blew it, but they're by far the least of the offenders in this equation. - However, Gomez is at least equally guilty if not more so because he's insisted on the same knuckleheaded approach at the plate until the 2nd half of 2011, when he finally heeded Dale Sveum's teachings (just put a good swing on the ball & drive it, and DON'T swing for the fences) and had some at least limited success with the results. With Gomez, talent has NEVER been the issue, only his head (in other words, being willing to make the adjustments necessary to be a successful hitter in the bigs). Until recently, any willingness essentially only proved to be temporary.

I totally agree. You need 2 ace-types and a very strong Top 3 starters. Call it the Atlanta Braves model, 1991-2004: 3 Rotation studs & your cornerstone position players, with the other spots gradually evolving as the years go by. With Gallardo & Greinke, there are your 2 ace-types. Braun & Weeks & Ramirez (for better or for worse, in the case of the latter) are your proven All-Star position players.

M Skjellyfetti, who's your avatar? Back on topic, I keep going both ways on Hart. It often seems he could be better, especially playing 25-30 lbs. lighter. But there also seem to be lots of ways -- some more overt than others -- that he makes the Brewers a better team than they'd be without him. I'd be up for trading him if he's playing great & the team's on a contention-decimating skid. Then you move a few fringe-of-the-core guys at positions where you do have depth (such as the OF: Gindl, Schafer, and a few other younger guys like Haydel, Richardson, Davis, Davis, and the A-ball & lower guys whose names don't come to mind) for promising younger players and let the guys coming up in your system get their MLB-legs under them with the PT they need to start delivering (or, of course, prove that they can't).

Breaking this portion of your post in two parts... 1. I'd also go all in for Greinke. However, if his 2012 shows his mid-Sept. onward was an aberration, I'd strongly consider extending Marcum, too. Then, assuming Wolf wouldn't be here in 2013 and if Narveson continues to improve & some of our young guys continue developing & step up as we're hoping, then Marcum is still a very tradeable asset that would net us something good in return that letting him walk as a FA wouldn't. . . . On the other hand, if Wolf continues to pitch as he has as a Brewers except for May & June 2010, and/or if Marcum falters, then, if we're out of contention, you trade Marcum while you can and get something in return, or you let him walk. Then you'd have 3 well-proven starters plus Narveson & young guys. . . . . No matter how you slice it, somehow the Brewers have to retain two ace-types and have a dominant Top 3 starters to have any real chance of playoff & World Series contention. 2. I'm not sure I agree with your second point. That's largely why they didn't trade any prospects in deals this winter. I didn't think so beforehand but I do agree in hindsight that they needed another proven middle-of-the-order bat to protect Braun, and that leaving both corner IF positions to rookies could've been just too chancy. As it stands, they've got a nice set of 6 IFs (Gamel-Weeks-Gonzalez-Ramirez, plus Green & Izturis off the bench). . . . I do think it's worth noting that of all the 14 young players surrendered in various trades (Linebrink: Inman, Thatcher, & Garrison; Sabathia: LaPorta, Brantley, Bryson, & Jackson; Marcum: Lawrie; & Greinke: Escobar, Cain, Jeffress, & Odorizzi; K-Rod: Rosario & Herrera), judging on what they've done since they've been traded, only Thatcher (very serviceable LOOGY), Lawrie, & Escobar (defensively) have amounted to anything so far, and Odorizzi is the only one still showing star-type promise among the others. Cain & Jeffress could still pan out to tip the scales a bit more away from the Brewers, but at this point one could reasonably assert that only 1 of every 3 prospects they've traded has amounted to a meaningful loss. . . . They're substantive losses nonetheless, but A) the alleged "gutting" of the farm system hasn't been nearly to the extreme that's been suggested, and B) what the Brewers got out of Sabathia in '08 and Marcum, Greinke, & K-Rod thus far has been VERY worth what they gave up in Thatcher, Lawrie, & (defensively) Escobar, with the potential of Odorizzi still being only just that for now. . . . And the key moving forward continues to be finding that right balance of big-buck contracts for stud players & emerging young talent -- just as it's been all along, only now we actually have star players to go with those large contracts (as opposed to the Suppans & Halls & Hammondses of the past). (The multiple edits were for spelling.)

I like the idea of Aoki but there's no guarantee he even signs. Suggesting he's a lock for a roster spot as some are wont to do seems a bit premature. Again, I do hope it works out. That would leave the Brewers in a position to deal from strength to shore up other areas of need or just keep stocking up young talent . . . or just give them greater depth of coverage in case of injury to another OF.

Now our wealth of LH bats are in big trouble against the Reds. If I'm the LH-heavy Twins, I'm worried. For the Brewers, I'm not.

I like this. You need a backup SS with whom, ideally, you'd also be very comfortable as your everyday starting SS. Not much of a bat, but you wouldn't expect your backup SS to bat much better than .250. If he can do that with his standard stellar D, this is a very, very good move.

Wandy would merit much more in return than Wolf. Houston's already had Wolf once. They need high-ceiling talent and some solid, experienced players to go along with them. Wolf doesn't seem to represent anything in a package that would appeal to Houston -- esp. now that Ed Wade's no longer their GM.

First, I don't want anything to do with Carlos Pena. We don't need his hole-y bat or the highly inflated salary it would apparently command (the latter totally astounds me). Mat Gamel needs to play. Now onto my more prevalent thoughts at the moment: I'm normally on a wavelength similar to Briggs, but this time I'm not. FA salaries are stupid all over again, esp. considering how few are actually All-Star caliber players. I think we're better off trying to re-sign Greinke or Marcum (assuming Marcum regains his usual form, not his mid-Sept-onward form) than taking our chances that we can land other pitchers as good or better for less money. This approach reeks of the "Let Sabathia go; rather than paying him so ridiculously much we're better off w/ two top picks" mantra so many were spouting 3 years ago: Nothing was a given, we lost Sabathia, we only got a sandwich pick & a 2nd rounder, and all in all we seriously lost out. The only difference from then to now is that we have some young starters who give us reason to think they could be good. But those young guys haven't proven a single MLB thing yet, and I wouldn't want to put all our eggs into their baskets yet when the there's no guarantee they'll amount to being plus-contributors to the rotation. Randy Wolf isn't just above average, he's rather good. We'd be doing quite well if Fiers, Peralta, & Rogers/Estrada (and eventually Thornburg, Heckathorn, Jungmann, & Bradley) developed into pitchers as good as Randy Wolf. But you don't have great odds of winning a World Series even with a rotation of Randy Wolfs. You need great starters to go along with your Randy Wolfs. I think Greinke is an elite talent and a proven ace. We need guys like that and we've already got Greinke. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I could see if the young pitchers are busting through that perhaps you trade either Wolf (if you extend Marcum) or Marcum (possibly exercising Wolf's 2013 option) to keep reloading the pipeline of young talent, but even that approach has its drawbacks. With Gallardo, Greinke, & Marcum, our Top 3 starters were as good as most any rotation's Top 3 in MLB. Add Wolf and our Top 4 were as good as anyone's. After one year where those guys did well but all arguably could've done better, I don't think you find ways to rationalize dismantling those parts of your team that finally made you good enough to get within 2 games of the World Series (and if they'd kept pitching that way they did all year, we probably could've not only gotten there but won it) for the ONLY time in nearly 30 years. That kind of approach starts seeming to me like a current parallel of rationalizing that you're just as well or even better off if you trade Gorman Thomas for Rick Manning & Rick Waits, but in reality, making such a move signals the beginning of a faster route to the end of being an elite team. To me, as DHonks noted, you've got a well-paid RF and two CFs who may well be able to replaced by equally talented but cheaper young players. . . . Maybe you do trade 1 starter, but only if a young guy's busting down the door. There are other practical, efficient, & positively long-term-minded ways to go before trading high-end starters. I keep thinking of Atlanta. During their run of 14 or 15 straight years of playoff appearances, they always had a Big 3 Starters plus a couple cornerstone position players. The rest of the roster turned over routinely over the years, and they consistently dealt from a position of strength. However that worked, though, that essential core of key players remained quite constant. I think, as much as possible, you keep the talent & production level of your rotation as high as absolutely possible. (Multiple edits were only minor word-smithing for increased clarity.)

Saito didn't come down with that Macha-related affliction, so I don't see why Veras would. Firing Macha apparently was the cure and now that number has immunity to said malady. Note: Brewers.com updated the numbers of all 40-man & NRI guys, and in doing so they ended up changing Veras back to his Pirate # of 43, which continues to be listed right below him also as the # for Randy Wolf. I'm guessing the webmaster was typing, saw the #40, has an episode of Macha-number-induced narcolepsy, then woke up & accidentally typed Veras as his old #43.

Since Nick Punto signed with Boston, Vizquel's a guy I've been thinking about a lot. I'm less concerned about his age than his ability to deliver as a member of the team. If he can still start at SS in stretches and have a BA in the Kotsay range, that would seem to be a plus move.

Punto is excellent at SS. The problem is that he just signed with Boston: http://www.mlbtraderumors...to-sign-nick-punto-.html C - Kottaras IF - Green & ____ (experienced Hairston/Punto type who can cover the middle IF well) OF - Gomez & _____ (I like Schafer & Gindl plenty but wonder if a vet will be brought in such as Nady)