MNBrew

Defensively, yes, hands down. Offensively, yes & no. OBP? Clearly yes. BA, SLG, & OPS? No, it's not exactly close by those criteria. What it seems you're getting at is that you'd've preferred Punto over YB, whatever the rationale. Having watched tons of Punto over his Twins years, I'd wholeheartedly agree. He just wouldn't have signed here to be the 6th IF unless that was the best possible offer he could've gotten.

14 years but only 99 PA's. Small sample size. The fact that those 99 pa's cover 14 years may make them even LESS relevant that if they had all happened recently. You can wish all you want that people wouldn't bring sample size up; but its the #1 problem with your position. It isn't "deep stats" thinking, its simple math. I stand corrected & that's fine. I never should've brought the sample size point up because it simply wasn't apropos in this case. It's at least a fair assumption that he'll get more PH opportunities this year since he'll be in the NL signed to be a veteran bat off the bench, whereas for most of the past 7-8 years he's played in the AL. He may not do much. But hopefully he does & therefore is successful in the role they ask him to play. It'd be a bit harder to complain if that were so.

A defensive whiz, Punto only had 2 good offensive years in MN, hitting .280-.290 in '06 & '08 WITH OBP'S IN THE .350 RANGE. Punto was Gomez-level bad or worse offensively in '07 (BA & OBP) & nearly so again in both '09 & '10 (JUST AS LOUSY BA, SOMEWHAT BETTER OBP). Punto wasn't coming to Milwaukee because he wouldn't have signed here to be the 6th infielder. Counsell was already signed to be the 5th IF. The Brewers don't need another weak-hitting middle IF. Punto would've taken the spot likely to be filled by Cruz or Gamel, not Boggs or Dickerson. Prince's track record for playing time & durability strongly suggests that, barring a Prince injury, the vast majority of Kotsay's defensive time will be in the OF. Positionally speaking, comparing Punto & Kotsay is questionable at best and clearly not apples to apples. (Edits in CAPS to indicate I'm not only looking at BA.)

I've wondered the same thing. There's minimal risk in most of these signings, but there do seem to be other more appealing options available, and at non-budget-busting price levels.

A patronizing response wasn't necessary, but anyway... 1. That wasn't random. I misspoke, but I wasn't making that number up: .315 wasn't Kotsay's PH BA in 2010 -- it's his career PH BA, per TH's blog. 2. To be clearer, I should've phrased that, "I get the logic behind small sample sizes." Assuming I'd get lectured again for the 2nd time in this thread about small sample sizes since I thought I remembered that the .315 was a 1-year figure, not a career figure, I was simply trying to stave that off. Turns out, in light of #1 above, the .315 PH BA figure isn't a small sample size, at least per se, because it spans Kotsay's whole 14-year career. 2a. To answer your 2nd question, regarding small sample size, "statistically siginificant" & "relevant" aren't mutually exclusive -- that's why. Not everyone here's a "deep stats" person. I'm certainly not. So not everyone deals w/ the same information or values all perspectives the same way, but it doesn't make anyone's viewpoint inherently or automatically wrong. . . . For 30 years I've intensely & attentively following the Brewers. I followed Lavell Freeman's .400 year at El Paso avidly through the minor league team stats pages in The Sporting News in the mid-'80s. I remember why it was a potentially good thing to know who Tim Pyznarski was and why it was fairly unique for Tom Tellmann to have the success he did as a rather "old" rookie in 1983. I subscribed to "What's Brewing?" in high school when most kids didn't consider it cool to pay that much attention to the Brewers. I listened to my radio as the Brewers got down by a huge margin to either Cleveland or Detroit early (8-0 after the 1st inning?), then clawed back and eventually won it on a grand slam (Ted Simmons, I think) -- the very first time I remember hearing Uecker's "Get up. Get up. Get outta here. Gone!" home run call, which became his signature in the weeks, months, & years that followed. I wish Sid Roberson & Chris Saenz had stayed healthy and I still think the Brewers should have always hung onto Mark Loretta & Jeff Cirillo. You get the idea.... And I still listen to the Brewers games on the sometimes-coming-in-poorly River Falls radio station every chance I get. There's room here for all perspectives & degrees of knowledge & interest.

Really, who would the Brewers be likely to lose? Kottaras or Nieves, possibly, but not 'til later, so it won't be one of them. Mercedes? Not likely he'd be claimed elsewhere. Maldonado? Ditto Mercedes comment. Boggs or Dickerson? Any team already could've had either of those guys but chose not to, so it's not exactly like the depth guys we already have are highly coveted. Other points: - Realistically, at most we'd stand to lose one guy depth-wise, and not necessarily even anyone who is much-coveted elsewhere or who would be making a major difference at the major league level. - I'm not sold that Kotsay's going to be any good. But I just can't see this as terrible. - You need some decent experience in your depth, and all the Brewers really had before this move was Counsell -- Yikes!!! - I think I'm right that Kotsay hit like .315 or so last year as a PH. Maybe he doesn't have good career numbers, but you can't realistically assert that he's completely inept at pinch hitting (and please don't start the whole small sample rant again -- I get it). - With one-year deals, you can release a guy before the season starts and pay him only 1/6 of his salary. So if Kotsay's truly bad and his attempt to make the roster goes about like Trot Nixon's, it's not like releasing him would throw the Brewers' whole payroll situation down the tubes. Sure, there are other guys I'd rather have seen get signed. But I'm just going to take the wait-and-see approach here. (On a related note, you'd have to wonder if Hinske might've been a little more eager to accept the Brewers' comparable offer were Marcum & Greinke already Brewers at the time Hinske was making his decision. Had we gotten Hinske, surely none of this Kotsay stuff would've become a reality.)

I don't get the flabbergastedness of many about this Kotsay move. Look, it's a depth thing. If he stinks, he won't be kept around. There may or may not be any "reward" to this, but it's at least pretty much a no-risk thing. Before the Kotsay signing, beyond Counsell, the Brewers' bench experience was EXTREMELY limited: Boggs, Dickerson, Gamel, & Cruz all have less than ONE full year's worth of MLB plate appearances. Only Counsell has substantial experience. Now there's a 2nd very-experienced MLB bat & character in the mix. Think about the possibilities should Braun or Hart miss a month or more. Or who you might hope to have pinch-hitting for the pitcher in a clutch late-game AB. If Dickerson's starting because Gomez is lost at the plate again & Counsell's already a late-inning replacement for YB, do we really want to pin all our clutch hitting hopes on Gomez or Brandon Boggs or Luis Cruz (or Randy Wolf or Chris Narveson or Yo)? (Note: I'm omitting from this post whomever the backup C is on account of the current convention of most managers not to use their backup C as a pinch-hitter for anyone other than the starting C.) With Kotsay, the Brewers would now have one veteran reserve and one younger reserve both for the IF (Counsell & Cruz/Gamel) and for the OF (Kotsay & Dickerson/Boggs). That seems like a decent strategy for assembling a roster.

I think you want catching depth, period. As long as it's in the organization, it doesn't matter if it's on the 40-man. Look at 2010: Zaun & Kottaras start the year on the team. Salome (also on the 40-man) goes AWOL, only to return thinking he's an OF & eventually is outrighted to Brevard County -- no longer on 40-man. Zaun gets hurt, is out for the year, & gets put on 60-day DL when roster space is needed -- no longer on 40-man. Lucroy is brought up to replace Zaun & is added to the 40-man. Once Zaun was hurt, we spent the whole rest of the year w/ only 2 catchers on the 40-man. No big deal. Roster manueverings are part of the deal and there's almost always a way to make sure you don't lose someone who you really want to keep around.

I wonder if Mark Kotsay might be a possible good move.

Nieves or Kottaras off the 40-man? More likely to be Maldonado, whose skill isn't much different than several NRI catchers, which, combined with his acumen as the camp barber, still hardly warrants a 40-man spot. Assuming it's what happens, I don't think outrighting Maldonado off the 40-man's going to alter his status in the organization at all.

Jody Reed was pretty much the starting 2B and played respectably (108 GP, 465 PA, .271 BA, .362 OBP), so I'd bunch him w/ those who panned out pretty well. I'm not sure how being the starting 2B qualifies him as a role player.

Good move for Bush since this gives him a chance to work under Maddux's tutelage again. I wonder if that'll help him become someone whose performance can once again justifiably be looked at as half-full rather than half-empty. I also wonder if other MLB teams were in serious pursuit, but Bush picked Texas because of Maddux.

Nieves, Rivera, & Kottaras all hit .100 or less in ST. Brewers sign Bengie Molina. Nieves disappears as if he never arrived in the first place (think: Todd Ritchie). Kottaras, as suggested earlier in the thread, gets traded for the next A-baller Josh Butler type.

The MLB directive isn't new news. It's the same in every ballpark, and it's been the case as long as there have been video scoreboards. I remember knowing about this back in the '80s.

Tom Flaherty?

Hold on. Briggs said was that YB drove in the runner from 3rd ~68% of the time compared to Cameron's doing so ~48% of the time in the same game circumstances (runner on 3rd, < 2 outs). There were no assertions that the walk was a negative, only that it usually didn't drive in the run at that moment. Statistically significant or not, however limited the sample size, given those two success rates, I'd rather rely on YB to get the run across in those circumstances compared to Cameron. Isn't that the point? The walk can be successful, too, but it's not as successful as getting the run across. I can't disagree with your last two sentences above: Getting on base is good, and walks are good. I didn't read Briggs as implying that a walk is a failure in an RBI situation, but rather that it was at least something of a positive, as contrasted by Cameron's higher strikeouts, which are an example of the 2nd-purest failure in that circumstance (#1 being hitting into a multiple-out play that ends the inning w/o scoring any runs).

I'll hop back to Logan's point, kind of, about having a decent stock of OF options, however low-experience- & low-pay-heavy that stock is. Ultimately, I'm not sure there's a great need for the type of OF bench production Kotsay's had in recent years (except his good PH BA). But I would like to see a little more experienced depth in the IF. I'd tend to agree that Counsell & probably Gamel will end up the IF reserves. But I also just noticed the MLBtraderumors.com note about several teams interested in Aaron Miles. However the roster ends up, I'd really hope to see a nice collection of productive bats available off the bench. Miles' power factors are typical of a middle IF, but the guy hits at a career .280-ish clip (did last year, too, in a mostly-reserve role), and the more guys who can do that, the better.

Trolling or near-trolling? Wow. That seems both harsh and absurd. Briggs discusses solid ideas, usually w/ good thought behind them. Just because his responses or perspectives don't align with how you'd approach the topic/issue hardly makes his points invalid, irrelevant, or inflammatory. Two years is a solid sample size even given the relative infrequency of certain circumstances (like runner on 3rd, <2 outs) compared to others (PAs in a season or ABs vs. RH SPs). What Briggs cited were about as relevant as the circumstances could be, and he had legit figures to back them up. Because those aren't the types of instances w/ 500 or 2,500 occurrences over a couple-year span hardly renders his argument invalid. If someone can't cite those stats, are they simply not allowed to disagree?

I don't completely understand the hysterical reaction to Betancourt -- I get some of it, but the "worst starting player in the bigs" or similar sorts of things seem a bit much. Mike Cameron wasn't that different a hitter -- worse BA, & worse K rate for sure -- but was a good defender. But man, for those defensive qualities, so many around here thought he was practically deserving of knighthood. Anyway, I digress... We don't have a hole at SS. We don't have a SS most folks trust, but we have a starting SS and I can deal with having Betancourt -- and having to pay Betancourt -- at least for a while as part of the price for acquiring Greinke. Why? Because if YB's half-decent, then we're fine. And if he's not, and if a decent replacement can be had (whether from the minors or by acquisition), Melvin's release of Suppan & that HUGE money last year would seem a strong indicator that if Betancourt's truly terrible and there are better options, he won't be kept around or at least not in the starting lineup for long. ...Back on topic, Kotsay has a chance to be this year's Kapler or Edmonds. If he doesn't make the cut, then he proves to be this year's Brant Brown or Trot Nixon (NRIs who get cut in ST & become organizational footnotes). Nice low-risk possibility here. But I still would prefer seeing Scotty Po come back instead. Maybe the only real noteworthy advantages for Kotsay over Pods are his solid PH track record (and perhaps OBP, however post-peak Kotsay's may be) and the fact that Kotsay's become quite used to being a bench player. However, maybe those are what the front office deems we need most. For all Gomez's faults, it's still sure nice not to be pinning our hopes on the Chad Greens and David Krynzels of the world. Maybe we won't have to pin hopes on Gomez that much longer, either.

Game 5, 1982 ALCS, all the way up 'til Coop's hit fell in. '08 game #162, too.

As I recall, this guy had some injuries but was seen prior to them as a very strong Mariners prospect. Good low-risk find!

This may well be true, but if both Pods & Gomez have an '11 offensive year like their '10s, I believe Podsednik's much better offense will have a much more positive impact than Gomez's much better defense. I also believe Podsednik's shoddy fielding is still somewhat relative, though I can't cite stats to back that up. He's an accomplished major league outfielder with good speed. His bad routes can be partially offset by the speed with which he'll still get to some of those balls. He'll never be confused with Mike Cameron, to be sure. But he's far from Izzy Alcantara-type bad, too. Plus, if Podsednik's the 4th OF, more of his impact will be off the bench, where the amount of his negative defensive impact should be far less than his positive impact on offense. (end of my pro-Scotty Po rant).... - I believe any team's 4th OF has to be of the caliber to be an everyday starting OF since at some point he's going to be put in that role even if only short-term. We haven't seen that out of Dickerson yet (the potential's there, but his Milwaukee showing was rather weak for reasons already well-hashed by now), but we have seen that out of Podsednik. - My thinking these days is that sorta-capable bats will be able to be acquired more easily than capable arms (considering options/experience not already on the AAA roster). So any further stockpiling of arms would still help, whether starters or relievers. I like Rivas & Rogers as potential rotation fill-ins. Parra can do it, too, though that's not worked out well the past 2 years. I'd still like to see a SP signed w/ some substantive major league experience -- someone like Capuano (an injury-recovery bargain) though of course Cappy himself is no longer an option. - Is Bengie Molina still out there? I'd much rather see him mentor Lucroy and start 40-60 games rather than Nieves, Kottaras, or Rivera. Plus, he's got some history with Roenicke.

Pods would also be a better 4th OF than Dickerson and a better 3rd OF than Gomez.

That Gomez point is a very interesting one. It's not a perfect comparison, but after his 1st 2 years in MN, NO ONE expected Delmon Young to have the year he did last year. Many astute Twins fans knew of the potential but only saw middle-of-the-road success. But seemingly out of nowhere, Delmon became the most consistent producer on the Twins all of last year. (Just don't get anyone going about his defense....) It sure would be cool if Gomez finally started "putting it all together" and living up to his potential (or at least somewhere appreciably closer to it). I wouldn't bet on it, but it'd sure be nice and would sure help a lot.

I also don't see McGehee as merely "serviceable," but instead as "maybe not great but at least pretty darn good." Maybe you meant it that way and I just didn't read it as that. Gamel needs the playing time, but I think Gamel needs to get up into the bigs and stay, learning to play under the best coaches and with top-caliber teammates. If ego and/or work ethic are issues (as has been suggested before, such as his "I'm not so crazy about playing first base" thing last fall, benign though his intentions behind that remark itself may have been), the fastest & best way a proper perspective is going to get into his head is for him NOT to have regular PT, but having to earn it any way/place/position he possibly can since the players in front of him at each potential position are clearly either flat-out better than him or at least have earned their starting spots through major-league quality hard work and production. I still wish we'd signed Hinske because he & Counsell together would make for two bench guys w/ many years of MLB experience. Gamel does make sense for the bench. But Gamel, Dickerson, & Boggs all have less than a full year of MLB plate appearances, and whoever the backup catcher is will likely have only 50% of his game that's MLB quality (either bat or catching/defensive skills). . . . Maybe, just maybe, that doesn't prove to be an issue. But it'd seem easier to have more confidence in the depth if there were more experience.