MNBrew

Counsell's not the hitter he was 2 years ago, when his change in stance made a huge difference in his BA. Overall his hitting seems to be showing his age (tonight's 3-for-3 notwithstanding). However, unlike Betancourt & Gomez, who don't do much of anything if they don't get a hit, Counsell's backing his .220-.230s BA with .345 OBP. Granted, it's in fewer than 100 PAs, but it's still right in line with where his OBP has been over 2008-2010, which would indicate a solid success rate for getting on base, especially for an old bench guy. I'm not a huge Counsell backer. But he still makes some decent contributions compared to other very easy "targets" of this thread (Nieves, especially). I'll still agree with some of the root point of the thread, that our bench isn't terribly strong. I'd always like to see a 4th OF and a 5th IF on the roster with whom we'd almost surely get nearly a regular starter's contribution if they became a regular for a 2-3 month stretch. The Brewers' current bench doesn't really have guys who would routinely be pushing a starting OF or IF for playing time. Instead, the Brewers just have a batch of role players who aren't anything more than clear-cut backups.

Mike Warren, who for years I kept wanting to think was part of the Moose Haas trade for some reason.

I'm no Josh Wilson apologist, but a comparison to Picciolo in '82 seems quite a swipe. Picciolo was like Enrique Cruz the 2nd half of his year in MIL or the 3rd quarterback who practically never suits up: the Brewers got Picciolo from Oakland in mid-May. From then 'til the end of the season, he played in 22 games and got 21 ABs with 7 hits & 1 RBI. Wilson is 5-18 so far (.278) but has 2 HRs & 3 RBIs. . . . Total production is similar, but it's taken Wilson a couple weeks to do this so far compared to 4.5 months for Picciolo, the most invisible & anonymous member of the '82 Brewers.

Katin's .239 BA, .314 OBP, and 41 K's in 109 AB's probably are doing plenty to help Melvin pass him over. 11 HRs and 25 RBIs at this point will only get him so far when his bat's so full of holes.

Money & Howell pretty much platooned full-time in the DH role, so they weren't backups any more than John Lowenstein & Gary Roenicke were for the Orioles at the same time when they were the regular LF platoon. Money was solid enough even at his age in '82. Howell was a FA bust and generally didn't add what he was expected to do when the signed him. Without delving into stats, functionally speaking Mark Brouhard was a younger RH-hitting Mark Kotsay with less of a track record of MLB success and probably less defensive skill. Marshall Edwards, Ned Yost, Rob Picciolo, & maybe to a lesser extent Ed Romero, were kinda the '82 roster's equivalents of Gomez, Nieves, Almonte (sort of), and Counsell, respectively -- and not one of those four '82 guys ever struck fear in the hearts of an opposing pitcher. . . . . I'd think Kottaras in the mix over Nieves would at least improve the overall outlook of our bench situation. Wilson's not a detriment and has been useful so far -- far more so than Almonte. Kotsay is nothing special anymore but other than not hitting for power, he's not yet to the point of terrible (or at least he offers more hope than Gomez & Betancourt when he has the bat in his hands, not that that's saying much).

After watching Hardy's last 2 years in MIL and his year in MIN up-close last year, I'm not sold that he's anywhere near the player he once was. And I've been very opposed to all the previous suggestions about getting him back, dismissing them usually b/c the poster was showing what I thought was way too much belief that Hardy was still the Hardy of '07 & '08 when clearly he wasn't. But if he's only the player his present BAL stats suggest, this actually strikes me as a deal worth making. The only sticky thing is that his salary's quite ridiculous for what he produces. But we'd only be paying half of it, which wouldn't sting so badly. I feared Betancourt's D far more than his O based on the rap he was getting. If he can avoid the dunderheaded plays at SS he's starting to make more of, he's solid enough defensively and can obviously make plenty of plus-plays. But the guy's offense is approaching Carlos Gomez levels of scariness at times, which can't be good for anyone and most especially not the Brewers.

Wil Nieves isn't good and never was. Yeah, he's been around, but that's probably about the only good thing you can say about him baseball-wise. Lucroy isn't a defensive nightmare, and Nieves isn't that much of an improvement if at all. But Nieves is a black hole at the plate, and I've come to the realization that the quality of your depth comes into play that much more when your part-timers can produce in multiple facets of the game -- at the plate AND in other areas. Kottaras caught Wolf when Wolf was really going well last year. And Kottaras, even if he's not hitting great, at least has a chance of making something happen when the bat's in his hands. If Roenicke thought a veteran catcher was that important, they should've gone out & made a serious push for Bengie Molina because he has experience, serious credibility, serious catching & even respectable offensive skills that should be at-worst average now at his age -- the guy actually has legit credentials and can still legitimately produce. Molina might not have signed. But that's the type of profile worth going after, not Wil Nieves, who's been a career backup at his best and more realistically a career fringe-MLB player. I also don't really even see what Nieves brings that Mike Rivera didn't -- point being that, IMO, Rivera's a better 1st-C-up-from-AAA option than Nieves, so dumping Nieves altogether seems like quite the no-lose way to go.

I'm far more interested to see what Josh Wilson might add (today's GW HR was nice) than I am in seeing what Bill Hall can't do all over again. Sorry, folks, but I firmly believe Bill Hall just isn't good.

While I hardly view McGehee or Betancourt as total disasters (pardon me, but while that seems to amount to a contrarian point of view on this board, that's just how I feel about it), there's still really no doubt that Wright & Reyes would be strong upgrades. I'm not totally opposed to this idea. But being realistic, I'm not sure the Brewers have the pieces they'd be willing to part with to make it happen.

Shortly after the HR itself, when Uecker basically re-capped the event right after it happened (radio commentary in lieu of instant video replay, before the next batter hit), he did correct himself and clarify that the score was 6-5, not 6-4. I was listening live while running errands. Love that station out of River Falls.

I'm not necessarily for or against Gomez, Betancourt, or Hardy. But in the grand scheme of things, trying to argue which of them is better/more valuable/the better value is sounding a lot like trying to argue about which stale piece of bread you should use in your sandwich.

If both of them fail, there's also Loe & proven former closer Hawkins once he's healthy.

I just wonder how much Melvin might play coy about when Lucroy's ready to return from the DL on the chance that Kottaras might garner them something of a bit of value on the trade market. I'd think if Kottaras hits at all, and quite possibly even if he doesn't, I seriously doubt he'd make it through waivers down to Nashville.

On Fox Sports Radio or something or other tonight (KFAN, Mpls/St. Paul, AM-1130) at around 10:45, Rob Dibble was talking about this game & pointed out a noteworthy flaw in Axford's approach (if indeed he's correct): His point was that any decent Latino player can hammer a fastball. The way he brought it up made me a bit uncomfortable at first, but he could be right, and if he is, then the problem was that Axford pitched right into one of Hernandez's strengths. He went on to say how he pitched in the Dominican for 3 winters and everyone down there can clobber the fastball regardless of the age of the player or the oomph on the fastball, so his context made more sense and it didn't sound so much like a purely race-based statement -- probably not much different than saying that Canadians or Swedes or Finns know how to play good hockey from the moment they're born -- a little hyperbolic either way, obviously not universally true, but still a significant enough trend to likely have a decent factual basis.

Seems to me Hernandez routinely kills the Brewers. Not that he's bad otherwise. But he's sure extremely good against the Brewers. (Didn't help that Axford pitched poorly.) Well, that gets the undefeated season question out of the way early. On to 161-1.

Morgan's now in the game. Uniform number yet, anyone? I'm guessing he takes over Joe Inglett's former #2.... I'd also suspect Almonte & Reed end up w/ "real" rather than NRI uniform numbers for opening day.

I don't think there will ever [/u]be a time where the Brewers go "far enough" in the eyes of some posters. And that's my point. We have put together perhaps the best lineup/rotation combination since the days of Yount/Molitor. I think obsessing over the fact that Reed will be on the team for a week or two (until Hart gets back), or the fact that the last guy on our bench is Almonte is making mountains out of very small molehills. That is just my glass half full perspective, I guess I'm just sick of people repeating the small negatives over and over again ad nauseum in post after post while not adding anything new to the discussion. I agree, Straw. The Almonte & Reed carping on here, the assumptions they're major difference makers, using your quite-relevant '82 Brewers reference point, is the parallel to asserting that Rob Picciolo & Marshall Edwards made a huge difference by their presence on the team vs., say, a Bob Skube or someone else. Picciolo & Edwards made little difference at all. Edwards, despite his speed & defense, was a bit-part player at best. Picciolo was the only regular roster guy not to homer that year and really hardly ever played -- kinda the '82 version of Enrique Cruz from whatever year that was or of Mike Rivera this spring: not enough playing time to matter, no matter how you slice it. Edit/addendum: I'm not debating the difference in the level of access to information now vs. '82. We know why folks are able to get into these discussions/debates. I'm just saying that in '82, Picciolo & Edwards really didn't make any difference. It's quite possible that the same may be true for Reed & Almonte (though I happen to like both those guys). . . . . And at least this is better than a few years ago where the debates were all across the diamond but for our starters rather than the 6th IF & 5th OF.

For anyone who may know, what's Mitre's uniform number?

1. Counsell played very solid SS and respectably at 3B & 2B, both last year & the couple years prior. I've seen a lot of remarks stating that if Cruz didn't make the team, we'd in essence have basically no backup middle IF. Counsell's a solid PH option, but it's hardly like he was only re-signed for his bat. He's still surprisingly solid in all facets of his game. Sure, at age 41, those skills will go at some point not too far down the road. But they haven't yet, so I think it's a bit crazy to look at the situation as if they already have. 2. Almonte's not only a backup 1B but also a respectable backup 3B. I don't get some of the talk going on in this thread & elsewhere that both he & Kotsay can really only backup 1B & the corner OF spots. . . . . Note that I'm not suggesting Almonte's even a Craig Counsell at 3B, only that he can play there at least reasonably competently at least in spurts and possibly longer.

I wrote about this issue several times over the winter. I've been somewhat intrigued all along by Dickerson &, though much less so, Boggs. But prior to the Kotsay signing, our IF/OF bench looked to be Counsell & a bunch of guys each w/ less than a year of MLB PAs (Dickerson, Boggs, & either Gamel or Cruz). With the Duffy/Nelson experience too fresh in my mind, I was leery of a repeat of that nightmare. Now the bench has a lot more experience. Should any of these guys be completely terrible, there will be several intriguing & much younger options at Nashville ready to be brought up. I still don't get all the Reed bashing. The guy was a very hot prospect w/ Seattle before injuries totally derailed his (potential) ascent. He was talked about as having far more promise than Dickerson or Boggs ever was. I'm not saying Reed would've been an All-Star or an offensive stud. But there's ability there that hopefully we see . . . . Of course, Hart's healthy soon & Reed's Brewers tenure could be rather short. But I still like having some quality depth w/ MLB experience waiting in AAA to go along with the Boggses, Schafers, & Gindls of the world (assuming Boggs makes it through waivers down to Nashville).

You do realize this means that there is no back up plan if Carlos Gomez continues being Carlos Gomez? - Brandon Boggs - Jeremy Reed - Mark Kotsay - Caleb Gindl - Logan Schafer - Eric Komatsu - Dickerson gave this list more depth, but if he was that great, it would've been Gomez coming off the bench, not Dickerson. - I liked the spring Dickerson was having, too. But all offseason I've carped about the lack of SP depth. Mitre may only be the swing-man pitching version of Dickerson, but we didn't have that pitching equivalent until this trade. - On account of that lack of proven SP depth, I reiterate my 8-month-long mantra that Capuano should've been signed as the guaranteed #5 instead of them handing it to Narveson. Then they could've had Cappy PLUS the control over Narveson's contract, plus a good swingman & rotation insurance. Instead, Cappy's a Met & we've got Mitre. But above all.... While there are still ample reasons to be skeptical, there are more reasons than ever to have some hope that Gomez may finally be making meaningful progress at the plate. The guy has the ability, and he was seriously humbled last year, which means the message finally sunk in & he therefore has more reality-based motivation than ever to become the better player that he can be. That doesn't guarantee anything. But it does given more reason for hope than there's been in the past. The fact that he keeps hitting it up the middle & toward the 2B means the message has stuck well past the batting cage. Now if he can keep doing that well past Opening Day, then maybe he'll be vindicated & we won't be worrying so much about the loss of Dickerson. p.s. It was only a few years ago Jeremy Reed was a serious can't-miss top prospect in Seattle. Injuries totally set him back. I'm not suggesting he'll be the next Podsednik, Brady Clark, Kapler, Edmonds, or Willie Mays. But if Reed can live up to some of those expectations of him from a few years ago, it'll amount to more successful Melvin nugget-mining and the Brewers will be the beneficiaries. I'm not sold that he'll do that. But in the long run he's certainly a worthy low-risk investment.

Casey McGehee's solid but not exactly Ryan Braun. I can see getting the next 2-4 years squared away, but I highly doubt you'd see something going 5 or more, which is what it'd take to start buying out FA years.

I really like the current color scheme, font for numbers & names, the precise versions of navy & gold used, and most everything else. I think they're clean & classy -- and very "classic" while still being "now." There's a retro-ish character to WTP's first link that he likes so much, but that doesn't mean it's good. To me, that version & look has all the charm and appeal to me of the boring Cleveland Cavaliers new old-school look -- yuck -- or the bland MN Gophers football uniforms! (Edit: Just a quick clarification that I'm not critiquing WTP's tastes, just that retro-ish character, which is definitely becoming more visible lately. I meant to say that just because it's becoming more visible doesn't mean it's necessarily good.)

Buffalo is pretty rabid about the Sabres, but the NBA team in Buffalo only lasted about 10 years, and there has been talk of the Bills moving to Toronto for several years. I live in upstate NY, in the Bills TV area, and in a typical season about half the Bills home games aren't televised because they are not sold out. I think you are right about the baseball stadium being built for potential expansion, and it's a relatively nice AAA stadium, but I don't think there would be enough interest/fan money to support an MLB team there. I take your points & projections with all due respect and can see why Buffalo may not be the optimal market for MLB that it was once viewed as. My only point in response is that the NBA's Buffalo Braves of 30+ years ago don't really provide a reasonably valid comparison to MLB of today for myriad reasons (cultural phenomenon sports now is in our country, media exposure & proliferation & accessibility, fan interest & attendance, merchandising, etc., etc., etc.).

3 points: 1. MLB has historically avoided Las Vegas like the plague due to the gambling element. I don't see that changing. If it does & LV were to get an MLB team -- that is, if MLB were to lower its standards that far -- you'd almost have to induct Pete Rose into the HOF in the same year without even bothering with a BBWAA vote. (I say that with only minimal sarcasm.) 2. Seriously, I remember 25 years ago, there was much talk about Buffalo as a potential future MLB site. The ballpark there was built in a way that it, like Portland's, which I think was built later, could expand into an MLB-size-&-standards ballpark. Much of the thinking at that time was that Denver & Buffalo were the 2 most likely MLB expansion targets. Then Wayne Huizenga's money showed up behind the Marlins and Buffalo's pretty much been cast adrift ever since -- so much so that it was never really in the mix when Tampa's & Arizona's franchises were awarded. Too bad. Buffalo may still be a great MLB site. I hope, if expansion ever comes around again, that Buffalo gets some serious consideration. Buffalo has no problem supporting its NFL Bills & NHL Sabres. While the Marlins have had 2 WS winners, they've had mostly lousy teams and shaky fan support (as evidenced by their chronically low attendance). But MLB got Huizenga's money, which was all that really mattered. 3. The problem w/ the Rays' situation is grossly exacerbated by the Trop's location. Tampa's a huge & happening place. St. Pete is much quieter, largely older, and QUITE dormant -- much farther from "the action." Worse yet, there's virtually NOTHING around the area of the Trop. If they'd gotten the Trop built in Tampa, or can somehow get a new place built in Tampa, I think this becomes a whole different deal. . . . I grew up in Central Florida & still visit close family there every year. My brother went to USF in Tampa, played soccer in Tampa professionally (thus was quite plugged into the sports scene), and lived in Tampa for over 15 years. I've spent a lot of time in Tampa over the years with my brother. . . .I add that just to explain that this isn't just a "remote" or "tourist" or "media- or hearsay-based" perspective.