Raw Biz

Brewers already have an agreement with Saito they won't offer arby but they'll probably resign him anyway.

I would concentrate on Greinke first. Then I'd extend Marcum but for no more than something like 3/33 (might up it if Greinke isn't extended). I don't think Axford should be extended at all, as we have him for another 4 years I believe and closers are often overpaid. We also have had good success finding guys to step in and close, even if they don't last longer than a year and a half (DeJean, Kolb, Turnbow, Leskanic, Torres).

People have been expecting Randy Wolf to regress every year he's been here. Other than 2 putrid months in the 1st half of 2010 (plus one bullpen-saving outing he endured for the team), overall he's been rather solid and hardly a detriment. As an aside, if you look through enough of the threads on this site and the multitude of glass-is-half-empty mindsets, I think you'll find evidence that pretty much everyone on the Brewers is expected (by one or more posters) to regress next year, and that we should trade about everyone but Braun, Gallardo, Axford, & maybe Lucroy before their value declines. I never suggested trading him just to trade him. However, if his value is high and we can get a good return, I wouldn't hesitate. I actually like Wolf but he allows a lot of baserunners without striking out many and those pitchers scare me. Some pitchers are able to have success like that (Doug Davis was one) but they can also fall off a cliff rather suddenly. I just think we should put more consideration in trading older players when their value is high. Again, don't trade for the sake of trading but also don't be afraid to pull the trigger if something good comes along.

I think it would probably be hard to replace what Wolf did last year and maybe even what he did in 2010. However, that shouldn't be the question. Rather the question should be can we replace what he's expected to produce this year. He will turn 35 next season and has always given up a lot of baserunners. I think he could regress significantly so if we can trade him for something of value, I think we should.

I don't understand why people are so against interleague. I like it. You get a chance to see teams that you normally never would. AL teams might have an advantage at home with the DH but they also could lose that bat on the road (unless they want to sacrifice defense). I get that there's a historical argument but sometimes things need to change.

I agree 100% with locking Greinke up, especially that he might come at a little bit of a bargain coming off a down season. If you'd go 5/85, might as well go 6/90, right? I would go 6/90 if I had an idea of how much Greinke wanted (I'd offer like 4/60). Then I'd flip Hart and Wolf for cheap, young corner OF/1B (put Gamel at 1B/RF depending who you get) and a young pitcher. Ideally Hart to Braves for Beachy/Minor but probably wouldn't happen. Obviously all of this is easier said than done.

As much as I would like Reyes, I don't think the Brewers can afford to tie up that much money for that long in someone who hasn't been able to stay healthy. I think 5/85 would be my limit and I think they'd have to seriously consider trading Hart/Wolf. And this isn't even taking into account the fact that I think Greinke should be locked up.

I don't think that is quite the plan. I think what I recall seeing is that they are planning to keep the number of interleague games about the same as now (15-18) and that they would do that by playing the 5 teams in one division of the other league, plus 3 against the "natural rival". So the Brewers would play each division once every 3 years and the Twins every year. I think it may have been that in the years that they play the AL Central they would play 6 against the Twins, instead of 3. From Jayson Stark: If this labor deal ever gets done, the schedule is about to undergo a dramatic change. We'll be heading for 15 teams in each league, five teams in each of the six divisions and an interleague game every day. But the biggest change could be nearly TWICE as many interleague games, because every team in a division would play exactly the same schedule. Here's the new format we've heard is on the drawing board: Eighteen games against each of the other four teams in your division; six games against each of the other 10 teams in your league; three interleague games against each of the five teams in the corresponding division in the other league (i.e., AL East versus NL East); three more interleague games against each team in one of the other two divisions (i.e., AL East versus NL Central one year, NL West the next). Three interleague games against two divisions in the other league. Add that up and you get 72 intra-division games, 60 more intra-league games and 30 interleague games a year -- up from the current 15 to 18 interleague games a year. The other net result of that change: Only three "rivalry" games (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, etc.) every season instead of six.

This is an interesting idea KegStand. I like the idea that they would create a more balanced schedule, and you would get to see AL teams come through town on a more regular and predictable basis. For example, I live in New York and this was the first year that the Brewers came to play at Yankee Stadium since Interleague began in 1997. I don't get how it works out that way. Seems like the scheduling of interleague is just totally random and they need to change that. I also don't like how the Brewers can play the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays one year while the Cards could play the Blue Jays, Orioles, and Rays. It's not really fair Also the whole rivalry thing, where you play one designated rival twice, is kind of silly apart from a few matchups across the league. However, in my opinion your proposal includes too many interleague games. We would be jumping from 18 to 45 interleague games in one year. That would have a pretty big impact on the amount of times we play NL games in and out of division. How about this for an alternative idea: Every year we play one three game series against all teams from two of the three AL divisions. It would rotate every year. So in 2013 the Brewers would play the AL East & Central. In 2014 they'd play the AL Central & West. In 2015 the AL West & East. You would play every team two times in three years, once at home and once away. The scheduling breakout could go as follows:30 Interleague games 60 NL non-division games (one home & away three game series against each AL East/West team.)72 NL division games (18 games against each divisional rival) Every team in the division would have the exact same schedule, the only difference is there would some variation in home/away vs AL teams and possibly home/away vs certain teams within the division too (based on a need to schedule 4 game series'). I don't think they'd ever do something like this (balance the schedule) because a few of the interleague series (Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, Angels/Dodgers) probably generate a good deal of revenue that they wouldn't want to take away. I'm pretty sure this is what they are discussing, except every division would play its counterpart every year. So the NL Central would play every team in the AL Central once every year and then they would rotate against the AL East/West every other year.

This is my main reason I hate them too. I don't care if it's a stupid romance story, that part doesn't bother me. What gets me mad is that they are called vampires, yet they are able to walk around in sunlight. That's like calling someone a hobbit who's 7 feet tall. If they weren't called vampires, I wouldn't care.To be fair, in the original mythology vampires could walk around in daylight just fine, and even in Bram Stoker's novel they could walk around in sunlight.They could walk around but it greatly reduced their powers. It doesn't affect them at all in twilight except makes them sparkle.

This is my main reason I hate them too. I don't care if it's a stupid romance story, that part doesn't bother me. What gets me mad is that they are called vampires, yet they are able to walk around in sunlight. That's like calling someone a hobbit who's 7 feet tall. If they weren't called vampires, I wouldn't care.

This. I guess I was resigned to Furcal going back to STL. What would it take 12M over 2 years? This would be ideal versus overpaying for an injury prone SS and regretting it over the second half of his contract.Furcal hasn't exactly been the healthiest either. That being said, I'd much rather have Furcal on shorter contract than Reyes on a massive one. He made $13 mil this past year and obviously won't get that but I would think it will take at least 7-8 per year.

Even if Prince is "worth" what it will take to sign him (I have my doubts), the Brewers shouldn't do it. For years they have been all hitting and no pitching. They need to turn their focus to pitching and defense and let Prince go.

I don't think Kottaras will net anything significant. I believe he was available at some point last year and nobody grabbed him.

Don't you think that means that money isn't as important to him? If money was important he would've just done the trade. But he wanted to play for a winner and saw he had a better chance here. I wouldn't pay him $100 million if that's what it's going to take. But I don't think it will. I think he could be had for 15/yr. I don't understand why that's such a crazy statement. His numbers have fallen off a bit in the past couple of years, he wants to play for a winner, and he probably wants to play somewhere he's comfortable (i.e. probably not a NY, BOS, or CHI).

That's not a problem it's a blessing. If Greinke took what he was worth based on the past 2 seasons, he'd get something like $45-50 million over 4. But his asking price is going to be more in line with what he did in 2009, and the Brewers wouldn't be wise to do that. I don't necessarily think so. I don't think Greinke is all about the money (at least not as much as the average athlete) and playing for a winner and playing somewhere he's comfortable is much more important. I think he could be extended for something like 60/4, which isn't too bad.

Just because someone has never done something in their career doesn't mean they can't do it. Everyone has never done something until they actually do it. The arm comment actually makes sense and I don't know why you didn't just use that in the first place. On the other hand, Morgan played quite a bit in RF this year and he has a noodle. I'm not saying I want Prado or even that I'd like to see Hart gone but given the choice between Reyes and someone else in RF or Hart and someone else at SS, I'd take Reyes. All of this is assuming a reasonable contract of course.I don't know who the "someone else" is, but I'd be hesitant to trade a 4 win player making $9 M to sign a 5-6 win player who will make $17 M+. There is too much uncertainty here - what are we getting back for Hart? Who would we sign in RF (I see no one valuable on the market)? Who would we sign in SS if we traded him (Barmes would be a great sign IMO)? That said, looking at Hart as anything but a part of the Brewers core is silly. The only reason you trade him is if you get a GREAT deal for him. First, they would have to actually sign Reyes. They wouldn't trade Hart before they signed him. Second, they wouldn't necessarily have to trade Hart. The whole time I've been talking, I've said a reasonable salary for Reyes so $17 mil is probably the limit. I think they could still keep Hart for a year along with Reyes and then explore trading Hart next year if they wanted. I still think a guy like Hart is more replaceable than finding a SS like Reyes. I'm not saying it's easy just easier than finding a Reyes-type. Like I said earlier, you're not stuck with just RF. You can look at LF and 1B and move Braun/Gamel to RF. I also don't think Hart should be part of the core because he's entering his age 30 season. I just think he's going to start declining rapidly because of his size. Maybe not next year or even 2013 but when it happens, I think it will be huge, not gradual. So if you can get something of value for him (and I totally think you can), you go ahead and do it. I never said Prado was the answer (I think we could get more) but he is a good player.I just don't think Corey Hart should be considered part of the future and if you can trade him for something of value (while also signing Reyes), then there shouldn't be any hesitation.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I thought Rogers to the pen was a foregone conclusion after his recent injuries this year and there wasn't any debate about it. I didn't realize there was still a plan to keep him as a starter.

No Martin Prado is incapable of playing RF because he's never done it in his career and he doesn't have the arm.Just because someone has never done something in their career doesn't mean they can't do it. Everyone has never done something until they actually do it. The arm comment actually makes sense and I don't know why you didn't just use that in the first place. On the other hand, Morgan played quite a bit in RF this year and he has a noodle. I'm not saying I want Prado or even that I'd like to see Hart gone but given the choice between Reyes and someone else in RF or Hart and someone else at SS, I'd take Reyes. All of this is assuming a reasonable contract of course.

I think there's a big difference between 1 PA a game compared to 4 PA, especially for a 23 year old. Regardless, some guys will struggle when they first get called up. That's why you also take into account their minor league numbers. Guys like Gamel should be given a little bit longer of a leash because of what he's done in the minors for the past 7 years.

But there really aren't any SS with those OPS numbers. Reyes has been top 5/6 in OPS among SS almost every year he's played, including 3 top 3 appearances. I wouldn't give him 20/yr but I would be tempted to offer 15-17/yr, depending on length.

It's not simply replacing Hart. It's a combo of SS and RF. I think Reyes and whatever option in RF is better than Hart and whatever option at SS. The dropoff between Reyes and the other SS is greater than Hart and other OFs. I also think Hart's numbers will start to decline quicker than the average player, due to his body frame, specifically his height. And there's also the fact that he's said he's uncomfortable hitting 5th, which is where he should be at next year (I don't know what the numbers show but he did seem to hit better at leadoff this year).

Obviously we don't know if Reyes will stay healthy. However, assuming he plays about 130 games/yr, would you rather have Reyes at SS and replace Hart or Hart at RF and try to upgrade SS. I think Reyes is the clear choice. When it comes to replacing Hart, there are many options available. You could find another RF, you could move to Braun to right and find a LF, or you could move Gamel to RF and find a 1B. It's much harder to find a player like Reyes at SS.

I would say at least 200 PAs of consistent time. This means starting at least 4-5 times a week. I think the key with Gamel is the consistency part. Even when he was up in 09, I think his PT was sporadic.

From May 18, 2006 to July 15, 2006 Prince accumulated 209 PA in 51 games. He OPSed .691 in those games. See, I can do it too. Prince was 22 that season and in his first full season as a starter, after appearing in 39 games the year before. Gamel was 23 in the season you posted, with 2 games the year before. Obviously Prince turned out alright. The point is, all players go through stretches like that and they mean absolutely nothing. Gamel has not been given a real chance no matter what anyone says. This is a fact. I don't understand how anyone can argue that less than 200 PAs over 3 years is a real shot. My fear is they let Gamel go and he turns into another Nelson Cruz.