Fatter than Joey

Some teams dump salary and then retool, some teams just dump salary

Would it shock anybody if we spent the $14 million we saved on Washburn and Davis? I am thinking Sheets+Davis

My favorite? Nov. 6th 2009 -- Weathers option declined. Second favorite -- I was at a Brewers game some years ago, and some dude either was wearing or had a Weathers jersey, -- and Weathers was on the visiting team, and I think signed this guys jersey - the whole things seemed pretty funny to me. I think Weathers teammates thought it was funny some Brewer fan was still wearing his gear

That is because Brewer fans over value Hardy way way way to much Brewer fans probably overvalue all of their players. That said, would you have traded JJ Hardy for Gomez at any point in 2007 or 2008? Probably not. We sold low on Hardy. I think Melvin played JJ Hardy rather poorly from start to finish

Again, Gomez is the best defensive CF in baseball. I think people are just casually saying this -- I have no doubts he is good, maybe better than Cameron -- I do(EDIT: I Don't) believe he is an elite CF though.

This is making me think more and more that they either make a very aggressive play for John Lackey I don't. I don't think the $$ involved in this deal gets us significantly closer to getting Lackey

By keeping Hardy in the minors exactly 20 days, the Brewers pushed back his free agency until after the 2011 season, making him more palatable in a trade. I think we can put to rest the concept that demoting JJ helped his trade value. Carlos brings to our club great speed, athleticism and energy at a position that we needed to fill," said Melvin. "His defense will serve as a key component to us improving our pitching I doubt Gomez will be a huge improvement to our pitching over what Cameron was doing. We need to find the malicious alien being who laid eggs in Melvin's brain and kill him. Or just fire Melvin, I don't think the Brewers insurance plan covers egg extraction. It frees up a lot of cash. That has to be considered the underlying point of the deal. Hopefully this is the case, and there is no doubt that so far we are saving money -- I have an icky feeling though that the Brewers may be punting on 2010, trying to reload for a later date, and there is no reason pay guys like Cam and JJ if we are punting.

My son is going as Chuck Norris. Cracks me up.

What ever happened to "Right Said Fred?" The lead singer hosts/has hosted TV shows, the other guy who I think is his brother, probably just mooches off of him.

Here is some interesting reading material from Dr. Mike Marshall -- Do a "find" in your browser for Rick Peterson -- If you are at all interested in pitching injury "pre-hab" -- This website is a must read.

I hope Ned Yost gets the job with Houston. It would be great to see one of our division rivals hire an incompetent manager who is completely clueless. I'd love to see Ned hired in Houston -- not only because Ned is a buffoon, but because that team is ran so bizarrely already.

I liked Kevin's line to Oscar about "Really Really liking prison"

Pam: Well Nobody's Perfect Pam's Grandma: I wouldn't care to live, if I actually thought that.

Zombies.

But your initial argument was that Capellan was acquired as his value was on the way down... so which is it? You are tripping up/obsessing on "value" -- I have always claimed that the Braves gave up on Capellan as a starter. Some publication, called Capellan their "top pitching prospect" -- obviously that isn't going to hurt his ability to be marketable. Similarly, McGehee could feasibly win ROY -- which is also a subjective award/designation -- I don't think it makes him any closer to being a MLB starting 3b, -- however, it certainly would probably be the best time to trade him. It sure sounds like you were making a claim/argument without checking the accuracy first, got called on it False. I said this. This was after ~20 starts and the Futures game. Sounds like the Braves sold him at the right time. Capellan made 20 or so starts and pitched good in a exhibition game, and then some publications rated him as a "top prospect" -- I think that Braves moved Capellan at an optimal time -- I think that they knew even at that point that Capellan would very unlikely not be a starter at the MLB level. and now are grasping at straws to try and cover your mistake. The only mistake I have made is getting into a tiresome argument over terminology -- but, I certainly could have been clearer, and for that I apologize. I have been consistent with the following: 1.) I think the Braves gave up on Capellan as a MLB starter. 2.) I think the Braves moved Capellan at a time that benefited them. 3.) Top Prospect Lists are entirely subjective, and if DM is using them to make trade decisions, he is an idiot. 4.) I think DM realized Kolb was over-rated and overvalued and took advantage of it. 5.) Even though, I think Capellan was unlikely to be a starter, I think he had value as a young BP arm project, I certainly would value a SP prospect higher than a BP prospect -- but I never thought Capellan was w/o value. Obviously we disagree on DM's motives -- you think that DM made a move to get Capellan - one of the Braves top starting pitching prospects -- based on some publication's assessment. I would hope DM would not be taking that publication's information that seriously. I am not sure why we can't disagree without the prickish use of "grasping at straws" -- If my argument lacks merit, I am quite fine with people pointing out the flaws in it -- I am not sure why you feel the need to be hostile.

so would not likely have been on anyone's top 100 list in the 2004 offseason. OK -- I see what PF was driving at. Thanks for clearing that up. The 2004 season was his big breakout, and that summer he put on the show at the Futures game...then he was very highly rated. This was after ~20 starts and the Futures game. Sounds like the Braves sold him at the right time. It's just not true to say that being highly rated in the Braves system didn't mean you were considered a good prospect. I never said this -- only that: 1.) It is subjective. 2.) Someone has to be the "top pitching prospect" in every system for every time period. Stating something like that needs depth, otherwise it is rather meaningless.

Because the Braves historically have struggled with developing their pitching? Absolutely the Braves have historically struggled with developing their pitching. They have had some good times like in the mid-late 80s., and some bad times like the mid 70s. I am sure that they have their ups and downs, just like every other team. Just because someone is a team's "top pitching prospect" at a given point in time doesn't mean necessarily what one intended for it to mean when one uses that verbiage. Of course if you had put up the Baseball Prospectus list for 2005 I just grabbed the first two I googled in "2004 top pitching prospects" -- I did not have the time or inclination to do a comprehensive study -- I would have certainly listed the 2005 BP list had I seen it -- as it shows that these lists are really quite subjective and should be treated as such. to compare apples to apples I am comparing "prospect lists" to "prospect lists", I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here. -- all I am doing is trying to show the problem when declaring someone a "top prospect" definitively.

Reading more on Capellan, he was the Braves top pitching prospect . Someone has to be the Braves top pitching prospect -- It doesn't mean they are necessarily good. Here is a list from 2004, Capellan (or any Braves pitcher for that matter) is missing: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2594 Here is another: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/16/725034/top-50-pitching-prospects I really have nothing more to say, than these prospect lists are really subjective, and probably not reliable as data points.

Has anyone's DTV HD feed gone out?

Bottom line is that you are claiming that nobody in their right mind thought Capellan would be a starter. No. I think initially ATL had every reason to believe that Capellan would be a starter -- I think they punted on him. You claim two starts (which I'm sure you watched?) were plenty to know he'd never have an off speed pitch and forever exile him to the pen...really? You really only need one start to know Joe Winklesas sucks -- and I am not comparing the 2 pitchers, but it doesn't take a lot of starts to see that a young pitcher does not have multiple MLB pitches. as in the case of delaRosa or Edwin Jackson, it might take a few years and a couple of organizations before a talented young pitcher turns into an average or better major league contributor. Certainly, and I would have though Capellan could have been a solid pitcher somewhere in a BP or rotation by now. I have never said Capellan didn't have value, and I think Kolb was overvalued, However when we traded for Capellan, I think that he was expected to produce on the MLB level, shortly after we got him. I think a lot of this may be in one's definition of "high-ceiling" and really semantics. I understand that there was a value to Capellan, but I do not think that the Brewers should have expected him to be a contributor to their rotation anytime soon after we acquired him.

He may not be worth a lot more, but he is worth more. Again, --Please let me know what you think that extra year is worth... in a more tangible manner, than hand-waving. I am not doubting you are correct, I just wish to know what people think that we will end up with keeping JJ under control for that extra year.

Arizona cashed in a vet with an expiring contract in a season going nowhere...I didn't hear any stories suggesting they hated the guy. There have been posts in other threads from AZ blogs and messageboards, that indicate that the D-backs couldn't get rid of Lopez fast enough. I don't think AZ will be in line to sign him. Did Lopez burn bridges in StL? I am not sure -- they didn't offer him Arby's I really did not word my other post well at all. I think Lopez's "warts" will reduce his potential suitors.

He had all of two major league starts with Atlanta, but had gone something like 14-5 at three minor league stops. I think 2 starts were sufficient to see he hadn't developed a 2nd pitch for MLB. The very offseason he was traded, he was ranked the 25th best prospect in all of baseball by Baseball America. So what. People and publications rank players every year -- they are often wrong, and I suspect you have no idea the methodology that BA used to rank Capellan over whoever was #26, yet somehow it is supposed to be accepted as evidence? Unless FTJ knew something that the folks at BA were unaware of, It is certainly possible -- but really irrelevant -- What I would hope is that DM isn't making trades based on what publications are ranking players at. I would certainly hope that DM knew a lot more about Jose Capellan than the good folks at BA before he traded for him -- but perhaps DM waits for his annual previews before considering trades, I really don't know.

The extra year of team control is a plus because it gives JJ slightly more trade value than a .230 hitting, limited range, SS. People keep saying this, as it is an obvious given -- I do not see it as such..... Could someone tell me what they think we could get for: 1.) Hardy with 1 year of control 2.) Hardy with 2 years of control It is sufficient to say "I think we could get a player like X" -- don't worry about the trade making sense for both teams... I really question that there is a lot of difference between the 2.

I think Lopez has played well enough to secure a multiyear deal, draft picks notwithstanding, but the guy does have some issues, and there's still some uncertainty as to how the economy will affect payrolls. ...and I think he has burned some bridges with former employers -- which could drive up his demand.