MNBrew

I love the current M/barley/state secondary logo a TON, and TONS & TONS better than the M/state logo of the early '70s. But I'd also like to see the ball/glove logo come back in today's colors as a permanent right sleeve patch. I think I'd also like to see the retro alternates go and to see the Brewers come up w/ a different alternate that blends strong/unique points of the past (like the MB ball/glove logo and even something like the thick & multiple-row end-of-sleeve stripes of the Pilots' road & 1970 Brewers unis) and the present (current colors, especially). This is what I was really hoping for when they unveiled the retros 4 or 5 years back. I found that full-blown retro decision and the resulting uniforms EXTREMELY disappointing. (FWIW, I "woke up" to baseball at age 10 in the dawn of the Harry Dalton era, so I lived through the "classic era" with its ugly powder blues the first time 'round and DON'T want to see those monstrocities ever return -- OR the cartoon-esque, softball-style large "Milwaukee" of the ball/glove era road uniforms. Yuck.)

Boggs sure sounds like a spare-part type of guy. I like the suggestion of Podsednik a lot and hoped they would've gone after him at the trade deadline last year -- not that he would've saved the season, only that he would've saved us from more Gomez. I do think it'd be poetically wonderful if Podsednik could come along and steal CF from not one but two of the fastest & most talented but hard-headed CFers in all of Brewers' history. (Alex Sanchez is the other, for those with short memories.)

The '90s colors essentially are today's colors with a tweak to the gold and with green as a 3rd color. I liked the addition of the green and I'm 100% of the mind that it's a better 3rd-color option than the "brick" that's now an official color. (The only place that's even in the logo is the seams of the baseball -- DUMB!!! and, not to mention, the most boring and unoriginal idea EVER). I hated losing the ball/glove MB logo at the time beyond all belief, but I thought the new '94 unis & colors represented a nice modern update. At the time they were pretty fresh & cool. Only Oakland had green as a color, so it was a very new-ish thought. The overlapping M & B could've been done a bit differently to look less like "Motre Bame," as SI noted in their preview issue that year. But I thought (and still think) Navy & Gold were a MUCH stronger color combination & team representation than royal blue & yellow -- blah! I kind of miss that green, but I think the classy look of the current uniforms may well work better without a 3rd color.

I seriously doubt they're just going to throw away $4M in salary. As much as Betancourt has some bad numbers to live down and out-play, he's still a .270+ career hitter who hit 16 HRs and drove in 78 runs last year. If he did that as a Brewers player last year, half this board would be talking about his value as a run producer outweighing his sometimes-lousy defense. I'm not apologizing Betancourt's shortcomings. But it's also not like he's the 2nd coming of Enrique Cruz, Kiki Diaz, Willie Lozado, Brian Giles (the SS, not the OF), and '82-vintage Rob Picciolo all rolled into one. p.s. I like the Counsell re-signing and had hoped for it since long before the season was over.

The $2M is basically to pay for buying out Betancourt's 2012 option. That's been mentioned in many places. When the salaries in a deal like this are so lopsided, including cash to buy out the lousy guy's option is not an uncommon practice. I like Cameron, but he's usually good for 1.5 to 2 months of "hot" and 4+ months of "not." I can see Melvin & Co. waiting a while before making such a move to see a) what we've got going in '11 in real life, and b) what other options may become available on the trade market.

Career 4.5-ish ERA and only one year w/ an ERA under 4? No thanks. A few other stats look solid, but others are hardly a serious upgrade worth giving up much for.

Current SP prospects frequently mentioned around here: Rogers, Rivas, Peralta, Heckathorn Losing Odorizzi would hurt, but we're not without some other good talent coming up.

I think the Orlando Cabrera idea is a much better alternative than Betancourt. Not a world-beater move, but it'd fill a hole quite well. He's still solid enough and has a mild version of the Hinske-esque mojo going since he's made it to the playoffs the past 4 years (Angels in '07, White Sox in '08, Twins in '09, Reds in '10).

I go back & forth on the 3 years thing w/ Pavano. And while there are multiple possibilities out there for beefing up our rotation, none of them are certain.... You know, at some point, the best teams often are the ones who go for it and aren't afraid to make risky moves. It's natural and also somewhat funny how often fear and statistically-justified sensibility become one in the same. But sooner or later, you need to go for it. Who could argue that the 2 deals that really put the '81 & '82 Brewers over the top were the Simmons-Vuckovich-Fingers trade in the '80-'81 offseason (Sixto, Sorenson, Davids Green & LaPoint) and the Sutton trade in late '82 (for Kevin Bass, Frank DiPino, & Mike Madden, all of whom also had good big-league careers) -- 7 current or eventual productive big leaguers for 4 top-caliber guys? Part of the key on those deals was timing, but part of it was having good assets & being willing to take risks in the first place. For all that's risky about possibly giving Pavano a 3-year deal, he proved last year that he's still a very solid pitcher and he'd represent a significant upgrade to the 2011 Brewers rotation. Signing Pavano, even if it's for 3 years, would seem less risky than giving up 3-5 solid young players/prospects to land a Greinke or Garza. And signing Pavano PLUS keeping all those prospects still leaves the Brewers in a decent position to make other deals as needs arise. Sure, a Pavano 3-year deal could backfire. So could trading for young players. And any proven guy could still get hurt (sure-thing always-healthy multiple Cy Young guy Johan Santana being a prime example). You can always talk down ANY possible option. But at some point, you have to commit to go for it. The alternative is standing pat & hoping you get lucky by everything coming fully together. Personally, I'd rather see the Brewers do what it takes to put the most talent on the roster AND keep their stash of prospects as strong as possible. Pavano would make all that occur. After watching him pitch up here in MN last year, I don't think signing him is crazy at all. (note: edits for clarity & punctuation)

Small detail, but Gomez's would be an arby figure & McGehee has another year before he's arby-eligible.

And generally, I don't get the logic, either. I'm on record as having said multiple times that it's ridiculous. But the market for Fielder has proved to be pretty much nothing. I came to this idea mainly b/c TB needs a 1B since Pena's gone and it's a way Fielder could still turn into an SP. TB obviously hasn't gone for anything the Brewers may have discussed with them up to now, so I just tried looking at it differently. I would far prefer the Option #1 I mentioned earlier: Jeffress, Parra, Scarpetta, & Gomez. Throw in a little something more if need be. I was trying to stay away from Odorizzi, Heckathorn, Rivas, & Peralta. Scarpetta's not exactly chopped liver or roster filler at this point. Jeffress is a monster arm & talent. Parra was that and was quite solid as a reliever, and TB needs bullpen help seriously. Gomez is, um, well, um, . . . uh, he was the centerpiece of the Johan Santana trade (and still talented, to be sure, but the secret's kinda out there).

No it's not, not any more than saying the Brewers were paying the scrub we got from Seattle the $8M or so left on Bill Hall's contract. And you'll note that I put Gomez into that trade, who's hardly a prospect. Between the 2 options I proposed, I'd prefer the first one, not the Fielder one. 15-10, 3.91 ERA, 32 starts, 204.2 IP, 193 hits, 63 BB, 150K . . . . Is that really a somewhat poor season? I wouldn't say so. But you could make the same argument about paying Fielder $15M for a season when everything but his BB & OBP dropped significantly from the previous season. My point was, they're spending about that much anyway, but quite arguably they need another good SP that badly that it MAY BE worth patching the hole that way. The bottom line is that the Brewers need another good SP. You don't have to think my ideas were a good one, but it was an attempt to solve the problem.

You'll note that I proposed the Brewers taking on 2/3 of Prince's salary. Besides the long odds that it might occur, here's why it could work: - TB's side: 1/3 of Fielder's salary (TB's obligation in my trade idea) is roughly what Garza may earn in arby. They fill a major hole w/ a premier power hitter @ no more net cost than was already on their roster. Eventual trade return or 2 picks means they still gain solid return for Garza. - MIL's side: 2/3 of Fielder's salary + Garza's = roughly what they would've been paying Prince, but the rotation is set for the next couple years and they have multiple options for 1B already on the roster. The Brewers are already budgeting for Prince's est. $15M. Just maybe they get Overbay on a 1-year deal if they lack sufficient confidence in Gamel, & that cost likely isn't absurd. In both cases (excluding an Overbay move), the payrolls remain roughly constant re: these two guys, but both teams get holes filled & have replacements on the roster for the guys they moved. Make no mistake, I'm not predicting this is what will happen. There are a million reasons this may never occur, but I'm not dwelling on those angles. Whether TB would go for them or not, these ideas holds up well to basic logic. A week ago we never thought we'd trade Brett Lawrie for Shaun Marcum. Things can happen....

Right, but 2 of those 4 are the past 2 seasons. He's returned to good health and all in all had a very solid season for MN last year. The 7 CG stand out to me as well, pitching outdoors in weather similar to Milwaukee's. I'd still prefer Garza, but Pavano still only costs money rather than prospects.

Reading up again on this thread & the Greinke thread, I wonder if either of these might get a Garza deal done (noting that while Greinke may be a better pitcher, the difference may not be that great, and the price for Garza & the remaining team control time both tilt the scales toward Garza, too)..... Trade Offer #1: Jeffress, Scarpetta, Parra, & Gomez Rationale: immediate high-cailber talent for TB's 'pen (Jeffress & Parra), a strong prospect (Scarpetta) w/ limited remaining options (takes that potentially tricky situation off our plate, & less blockage above him w/ TB's emptied pen), & talented speedy defensive OF with chance to earn some PT Trade Offer #2: Fielder (+ cash for about 2/3 of his salary), & 2 of Jeffress/Scarpetta/Gomez; (TB possibly adds a B-level prospect if all 3 go to TB) Rationale: stud hitter fills roster need at 1B plus includes the built-in salary relief & who can turn into 2 draft picks next winter (Prince), hot-prospect reliever (Jeffress), high-upside prospect pitcher (Scarpetta), & Gomez Note: You could substitute a Gindl-type or Lee Haydel for Gomez if it helped the deal go through. As someone said elsewhere, without enough pitching, we're still not going anywhere. Neither of my proposed offers guts the depth of our system. Scarpetta might intrigue because of his potential and because they'd need to get him ML-ready before he's out of options -- though it seems his talent may eventually have him to that point in time, anyway. But Tampa may have more of a pressing need for someone like him by that point than we would.

No, Twins just freeing up $$$$ to try to keep payroll from putting them in the red (that is, keeping payroll manageable).

Weaver's also represented by Scott Boras. Swapping him for Fielder doesn't solve any issues beyond the end of each guy's 6th year of organizational control.

I'd take Ellsbury over Cain, please, and especially now that Boston's signed Crawford, they may be a little more inclined to save the money of Ellsbury's salary.

Giving up 3-4 of our best prospects -- who've already risen to the top of the team's prospect lists -- for Garza is something I could see Melvin & Co. acknowledging as too steep of a price. Sure, Garza's a more appealing SP. But if the price is way too steep in a Garza trade, then the 3rd year isn't the worst price to pay for Pavano, regardless of how several around here are sure it's the ultimate sign of impending doom. I sure see this as Melvin & Co. choosing the alternative of possibly of signing the 2nd-best FA SP for the 2nd year in a row. That's not all bad, esp. considering we have the room to make the move in both cases. Sure, Wolf was no John Lackey and Pavano is no Lee. But signing both would only have cost us a single prospect -- our 2nd round pick in '11 -- that's not the worst price to pay compared to the 3 or so prospects it'd take to get Garza. The other alternative is keeping all our prospects (by not overpaying for Garza in trade assets), not signing Pavano, and having no 2nd new SP that we so greatly need. Fear the Pavano signing all you want, but having watched the guy up here all last year, I believe the Brewers would be worse off if they didn't get him & didn't have another new solid arm for the rotation. And IF (big "if") Pavano pitches like he did last year, he's a #2 or at worst a #3, not a #4.

Pavano didn't miss a start the past 2 years. Yes, Pavano was much-injured in New York. But while none of us has a crystal ball, saying Pavano is sure to miss lots of starts due to his previous injury history while ignoring his past 2 years is like saying Paul Molitor was sure to miss lots of games any season in the 2nd half of his career based on the fact that he missed so much time in the 1st half of his career. . . . . It's convenient logic, but hardly sure to be correct.

Toronto is pitching-deep, and Overbay's a FA, so while it'd be hard to know the likelihood of Toronto's interest, they at least profile as a reasonable match. Tampa Bay does, too, except for their reported uber-tight budget limitations. Shoot, they've got 5-7 major league starting pitchers. Garza? (just not Sonnanstine....) The Mariners have plenty of pitching but not doing much at the major league level beyond King Felix. I'm not sure what their prospect situation looks like. The Mets could try to assemble something and might actually be dumb enough to be lulled into a good deal for the Brewers (Ike Davis & a solid young starter -- if they have a solid starter -- or maybe something better???).

Several people have said that -- or at minimum something very similar to and clearly implying that "We should take whatever we can get for him and move on." I don't have the time or concern to dig up the quotes, but I've definitely read it. . . . I'm not saying you said it, Logan, but some folks have said it. And I agree with RoCo. We've got one of the best young hitters in the game. At worst, take the picks even though they're a crapshoot, too. But don't give him away just to make the move. That would be the wrong approach. And one other thing: Just because Melvin may not end up bringing in the pitching we know the team needs DOESN'T mean it should cost him his job. We're outsiders and we only know a) what we read, and b) the result of Melvin's work. It takes someone willing to give up that pitching. It takes two to tango, whether that means a FA pitcher & his agent, or an opposing GM. You can't make someone do something they don't want to do. And I don't think many of us would advocate, for instance, giving up "whatever it takes" to land a Greinke -- for example, if KC told DM if the Brewers would give KC all of their top 5 prospects, then they'd have a deal -- would that price TRULY be worth it? Melvin & Attanasio & most everyone on this board probably wouldn't dare make that trade unless that would be the final difference-making straw, guaranteeing a trip to the World Series (and even then, if that could be guaranteed, I'd bet half this Board would be saying how DM killed the team's future just to make a WS appearance).

Injury prone? In his Yankees days, without question. Between Cleveland & MN the past 2 years, not at all. Pavano didn't miss a start this year or last -- 33 starts both years, and put up these 2010 numbers: 7 CGs, 2 SHOs, & 220+ IP, 17-11 record, 3.75 ERA, 3.2 to 1 K:BB ratio. I'd be careful of the contract I'd give him, but if he's the best that can be had and he's open to coming here, he's no worse than the #3 or #4 type we need. Of course, we could still really use that #1 or #2 as well.

Liked that interview a lot. Thanks for posting it. In my Brewers-deprived market, interviews like this are great. Other than hearing the names of a few strong young prospect pitchers come out of Melvin's mouth, there's not one thing surprising or revealing in what Melvin said. But it was all still great to get to hear. That's my first time hearing anything from Ken Sanders. That was cool. I only ever know of him directly through my Topps team sets from his era.

Using "foreign substances" to alter one's body to potentially gain a competitive advantage is more of an infraction than using "foreign substances" directly on the baseball explicitly to better deceive hitters, and thus gain a competitive advantage? Hardly. It's fundamentally the exact same issue. The PED question has just gotten all the PR the past 5 years, and "spitballers" and other "cheating" pitchers just aren't the vogue issue of the day. But that doesn't change that it's the exact same issue. I believe character matters. But for Perry to be embraced without question by his fellow HOFers while many of those same HOFers speak of the disgrace it would be if McGwire were inducted is a complete double standard that's been WAY escalated by the media based on the coverage the steroid stuff has gotten and the sensationalistic approach the media takes to anything that might be remotely controversial. That kind of "holier than thou" nonsense is absurd and completely for the birds. McGwire deserves to be in just as much as Gaylord Perry if not a whole lot more because he was one of the games absolute best HR hitters, period. Do you go back and un-induct all those guys who used "greenies" and other amphetamines in the '60s and '70s and '80s? Those were all about accelerating recovery just like steriods were. That'd knock Molitor and several of our other beloved out on their ears.