Fatter than Joey

There have been a bunch of no-no's that resulted in a loss --I know Matt Young, had one where he walked like 6 dudes. They changed the definition of a no-hitter a couple of years ago to disqualify pitchers that lost, or pitchers that had 9 innings of no-no and then had it broken up in extras. I think Matt Young had the ugliest no-hit effort of all time.

What gets old is the consistent defending of Melvin on that trade and the same lame argument that we got two picks in return, no? While I think DM made a bad deal here -- I do not think that defending the 2 comp. picks as a "lame argument" -- I don't agree with it, but I think it is an absolutely debatable and reasonable position to take. I have seen Inman projected as a #2 starter all the way down to a BP pitcher like Heath Bell -- neither are/were scrubs.

I agree with Ned on his quote. The manager shouldn't care whether a run is earned or unearned. I generally agree, this is a case of stealing from Peter (Prince) to pay Paul (Mota), Mota's ERA goes down, but Prince gets an error. I think though Ned could have said something less crusty though, perhaps "that's good for Mota, he's been battling, etc..."

Then quit using "the people say quote". Here is what Stevo said: "People say they'd like Braun's OBP to be higher" People actually have said this -- it is fair game to debate. No one on this board claims that "Braun sucks" or "Inman is a scrub". You have created those positions (strawman!) to make your position look stronger. It is incredibly irritating and unfair.

And if you're looking at the trade so far (instead of "2030"), what have Inman, Garrison and Thatcher done to make the deal a fleecing? The question I would ask, is do you honestly think SD would "trade back", i.e., would they trade Inman, Garrison & Thatcher for those picks? I don't think they would. I think it clearly gives SD organizational depth with pitching, which may allow them to make trades this year. Sorry for the rant, but the continuing to long for Inman and Garrison just really bugs the heck out of me. The trade was made last year. I think it is natural for Brewer fans to want to follow former farmhands, the thing that continues to bother me about the trade, is our lack of pitching depth in our system. There is no use crying over spilled milk, but I think continual analysis of these trades gives us a better idea of how good/bad our FO is at evaluating talent.

Why can't you just address what people are actually saying rather than twisting others' words to make your stance look correct? Thank you.

I bet Prince doesn't think this was bueno.

Scott Podsednik has more career steals than Babe Ruth Scott's wife, also much hotter than Ruth's.

So was Ozzie Smith, but Ozzie was a complete hack at the plate. False. Ozzie never demonstrated a ton of power, but he was a very competent offensive player. Ozzie BB'd about 2x as much as he K'd over his career, and had a couple of seasons where he was top ten in OBP in the NL. Ozzie could get on base. Again, Ozzie never hit a lot of HRs -- but he contributed to the offense, and the notion that he was "a complete hack" is patently false. Your point? My point, is that you are comparing Braun's OBP to players that played SS. You should be comparing it to guys who played 1b, or corner OF spots. Also, you can't compare 1982 to 2007 without some sort of normalization. Braun had moved from a number of positions so far is his career and already had put up better offensive hitting numbers than Yount could ever dream of. Again, False. Yount won 2 MVPs -- In 1989 he had an OPS+ of 152, in 1982 he had an OPS+ of 166. -- In 1982 Yount led the AL in Hits, SLG, TB, OPS, RC, and the list goes on. Yount was the best offensive player in the AL in 1982. Braun had an amazing 2007. Yount had a better 1982, and did so playing arguably the hardest position on the field. Getting that sort of production out of your SS position in 1982 was a huge advantage the Brewers exploited.

Yount was a GGer at a premium position. Braun was a hack at 3b.

Let's face it, Jack Z has bombed on several high rounders. He has -- and I don't intend to be critical of Jack Z. - the draft is a crap shoot, all GMs are going to have their hits & busts. My problem with that trade is that I felt Inman and Garrison could have netted more than a three month rental of a middling middle reliever which is ultimately what this trade needs to be judged on. Agreed 100% -- If we make that trade for a better pitcher than Linebrink, I am all ears. To get someone better than Linebrink would've cost a lot more. Sure -- but we would have been better off to let Thatcher pitch, as SD did. Nothing that Linebrink was doing in SD indicated he was a solid pitcher. Overall, Melvin did a good job in a no-win situation. He could have traded Inman for a better pitcher.

That 'jack' was a whopping 6.5 million over three years. I don't know how a contract can be a trainwreck for that amount of money in today's baseball. It wasn't the money as much as it was being committed to a trainwreck of a pitcher for 2006-2008. If the team finishes 86-76 and are in the playoff race for the rest of the year, this thread is completely moot. I disagree -- 86 wins is not going to get you into the playoffs in most years --- unless you are in a weak division -- if a better GM could get 90 wins, the Brewers would be stupid to not look at upgrading the GM spot.

You need to wait and see how a guy pans out before judging the trade one way or the other. I disagree..... I have to imagine as DM was pitching this deal to his superiors he identified 2 objectives to making the Linebrink deal. 1.) DM wanted to bolster the Brewers BP for the 2007 playoff run. 2.) Receive a couple of draft picks to restock the minors. ***** 1.) The Brewers did not give up any MLB players to get Linebrink -- It was not a trade that "stole from Peter to pay Paul" -- that is to say, we were adding Linebrink w/o creating a hole at another spot on the field. So far so good. Speaking only to the 2007 playoff race -- Linebrink just had to be better than the pitchers he was replacing for the Brewers to satisfy this objective for DM. Unfortunately Linebrink did not do this. According to BP.com, Linebrink at best was a league replacement pitcher, or worse. Furthermore, he was not pitching well with SD before the trade, I am not sure why DM was thinking Linebrink could help the Brewers playoff chances in 2007. I am convinced that DM FAILED to achieve objective 1. 2.) Objective #2 is pretty cut and dry for me. The Brewers received 2 draft picks. DM SUCCEEDED on this front. Where I depart from most of BF.net, is the idea that we have "to wait and see" how these drafted players pan out to determine the value of the trade. To me, the resultant of the draft is largely a function of luck. For Example, if DM would have traded for the 62nd round pick, we would have been up in arms -- if that 62nd rd pick would have turned out to be Mike Piazza (as it was for the 1988 Dodgers) we would have been ecstatic -- but that would have been pure luck. The way I view making transactions to net draft picks -- is like trading players for a chance to spin some imaginary wheel of luck. If you get a 1st rd. pick -- your "wheel of luck" is more likely to pay off for you, if you get a sandwich pick, your "wheel of luck" is less likely to score than the 1st rd wheel, but better than the second. So basically we traded Inman & Garrison for a chance to spin the "sandwich wheel" and the "2nd round wheel" -- Would I trade Inman and Garrison straight up to make those spins? -- Probably not, but I don't think DM was necessarily stupid for taking that chance -- Especially if DM thought Linebrink could help the 2007 Brewers playoff run -- but that is precisely where I think DM erred. I have no idea why he thought Linebrink would help our team. If DM would have done this deal for a different pitcher -- I'd feel a lot different about this deal. So for me, DM failed overall in this trade, and I don't need to see what the draft picks pan out to be. If they turn out well, I think that is a function of luck in a large part.

Are you inferring that the poor Rocky Fellers are entertaining Beelzebub these days? It's possible.... Though, I thought this one would be really tough, but I messed up and failed to black out the record label. I am a dipwad. I've never heard of these guys, but I'd assume the one in the middle is the dad and the other four are his sons? Right -- the old man plays the bass and dances oddly -- the boys/sons do the singing -- they had one major hit in "Killer Joe" which can be found on a lot of K-tel type novelty collections from the 60s. They tend to blame the British Invasion for their lack of future success -- however I suspect the general public found them cute, then quickly irritating.

We will be there.... probably. Sans pants?

Ooops. One hit wonders from the Philippines... The Rocky Fellers

http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/2ab15f9970fce01018dd82439466331f8abfa04.jpg Who are we?

Getting Maddux is the kind of move I like over a CC trade. I agree --- TGJ is largely useless to the Brewers, and a TGJ for Maddux deal adds to our pitching arsenal, while not creating a big hole, (like trading Prince would do). A couple of things to consider -- Maddux chewing up some of Parra's innings, so Parra could pitch in Sep./Oct. would have value. If I am DM, on one hand I am patting McClung on the back as I am wondering when the McClung trolley is due to come off the track. McClung has been awesome, but I don't think you but all your eggs in that basket. If Riske/Gagne never come back, Bush and/or McClung could go back to the pen to pitch quality innings. I would love this trade. It almost makes too much sense to happen.

Weeks had a value of .5, so he was essentially an average player last year. Right on. This is what I have always concluded with Weeks. His offense NEEDS to be well above average to be an overall average 2b. The player who I think will take a big hit will be Prince in 2008. Of course his numbers are not as good, and I think his D has gotten much worse. Moving Braun to LF should get him above 30, where he should be as an elite offensive player.

So what does this mean for the 2 Million they gave him? Does he forfeit it? Well -- He earned roughly half of it -- I suspect he will get his salary, I think a lot will depend on what HOU does -- If they trade him, I would have to think he gets his paycheck.

Maybe this isn't the right place for this discussion but when it comes to relievers, especially lefties, I'm less interested in on base as I am slugging %. The problem with this line of thinking is that a RP often inherits a runner, where a BB or single could be just as detrimental as a 2b or HR.

As a platoon nickname, Counselnino will be difficult to top. Better than Menchkins?

Definitely agree. Double in the gap ends the game, and if Jones steals second, a bloop single wins it. Hated that move. Yeah -- Especially with how Torres was struggling...

(Antonio Perez was also involved, so it wasn't quite as straightforward as Tanner for Sanguillen.) Thanks! I think the "official" transaction is Perez for Winn, -- but of course Pinella factored into the deal. My guess is that the union/labor agreement has rules in place that prevent a player for manager trade -- in a straightforward manner.

it means he wasn't signed to a major league contract yet he's discussed in the major league forum. Oh, thanks for the clarification -- I think an update on Graffy's progress is appropriate in the ML forum.