JJHardy7

well then why was green bay able to attract players after they signed White. So what Reggie White in the NBA is coming to Milwaukee? Also, if your a Packer you only have to live in Green Bay until December or January. The NBA you'll live there through April...so you pretty much take on October through April in Milwaukee...that's not exactly the best time of the year.

Why are we looking at such few at-bats? I'll give him at least another week before I look at it as a negative. I'm sure his confidence is done a bit, but remember you can't just magically start some games in a row and all the timing is back. That's why he should've never been on the bench anywhere to begin with.

The Hurricane has played 70+ games in the OF, so I would think he could become part of the OF solution. Yea, but that's a tiny portion of his career games. I agree he'd be in the mix, but when Kremblas was the manager everyone pretty much took some time in the outfield. Calling up Katin would require someone to be released from the 40 man. May not be that big of a deal as some probably won't make it to next year anyway. That's a good point. I forgot Vargas was the 40th spot.

Either Adam or TH noted that this basically is to replace Gillespie. I posted the same thing in this thread, but I think yuku ate it or something since I notice it's not here. It makes sense as long as he's in AAA. Who gets the call up if we need another OF? Let's say Hall, Cat, or Gerut gets hurt (I don't want to think about the other two) and we need another OF. Does Katin get the call?

This is interesting too. The problem I see with McGehee is that I don't think he's as good as he's been this year. He has a .353 BABIP, I doubt he can sustain that. He would probably be the first one I'd trade since I don't think Weeks would have much value due to the injury and lack of track record (although McGehee doesn't have much of a track record either), I'm not sure McGehee could play the outfield and if he did, could he play RF, would you have to move Braun to RF and play McGehee in LF? I'm not sold on McGehee either in terms of how good he'll be going forward. I also don't know if he can play the OF or not...if he can't than it really becomes much more of an issue especially if they bring Lopez back. I guess it wouldn't hurt to have him on the bench, but if Macha is back his role could be very, very limited or he'll be starting. Macha just doesn't seem to be able get his bench guys enough opportunities to keep up with their timing. In terms of Weeks, I know a lot of people here were thrilled with him (he was playing well no doubt) and I've never been his biggest fan. I think if a team looks at what he did this year and not his injuries or inconsistent play...maybe he'd have some value? I really don't know, but it might be worth considering. I wonder how much Rickie will make on the open market when he's a free agent relatively soon? I just feel that McGehee is replaceable with Heether and he probably should be dealt if we get a good offer. I agree. I've wanted Heether up for awhile. He can play anywhere. I do get the feeling though that he's not in the Brewers plans. He's a free agent after this year, correct?

I would platoon Gamel and McGehee I guess I don't get why Gamel should be platooned...he has hit lefties better than righties...there's no need to platoon him if his defense is capable IMO. I do agree though it would be interesting to follow. I really like Mat and think he will be successful in the majors, but Casey looks solid now and Weeks is coming back. I don't think it's a bad problem to have, but I do think the right choice needs to be made. I wonder how much value Weeks would have on the market now? I also think if Casey can play the OF he'd be perfect to keep on the team. If you rest Mat, Rickie, and OF a few days a week...Casey will get somewhat regular at bats. Let's also remember injuries will also happen.

He chose to go here because we were offering the most money. Same thing goes for most free agents. They go where the money is. And Hammond shouldn't preach financial flexibility when he does a half-assed job of achieving financial flexibility. And don't whine when you say you don't have financial flexibility when you had oppurtunities to get it. I don't see how a one-year deal hurts that though? I also think he's done a good job with it in a certain way. He hasn't timed some trades right and that's a negative on him. I just don't see how a one-year deal hurts anything especially when this team needs to try and restore a fan base. If you put a bunch of young players out on the court as opposed to a bunch of mediocre veterans and both win the same amount of games, who do you think people are going to watch? Also, don't you think it would help to trim the payroll to the $45 million range instead of keeping it in the $70 million range saving Kohl $25 million? There's no way that attendance makes up for any of that. So how has Hammond spent $25 million this season? He's barely 'added' anything payroll and actually shed a few million I believe. Let's not get carried too far away from the facts. Also if you count shedding RJ's contract beyond this year he's 'saved' the Bucks a ton of payroll. Does that not count for some reason? What about shedding Mo Williams last year? Not count? It's easy to cherry pick arguments, but I think you're wrong. He hasn't timed the return and all that...I'd agree with that, but to sit and say Hammond is adding all this payroll is blatantly ignoring the facts. Who said they did? Isn't that the definition of the lottery? I do know that winning while trying to rebuild has never worked and never will work. That's what we've been doing through Kohl's ownership. I think those results speak volumes about that strategy. You did with your so and so say 'hi' garbage. All those teams benefited big time from 'tanking' or sucking. The Celtics ended up getting lottery picks, but ask them how tanking to get the best chance of getting Tim Duncan worked... I still disagree with you on what the Bucks are trying to do. If you want to completely rebuild, that's fine. It just won't be the Milwaukee Bucks and the NBA draft is such a crap shoot there's usually not a huge difference in draft picks unless there's a Duncan, LeBron, etc. type in the draft. That's just my opinion though. One thing the Bucks did do for awhile was trade their 1st rounders...that was dumb. Who cares? If we draft them, there's nothing they can do about it. He's ours for at least five years if he's any good and likely longer since most players sign extensions at the end of their rookie contracts for financial security. Nothing they can do about it? I don't know if I agree with that. So your strategy is to just suck until the ping pong balls work out and hopefully you land a LeBron type? That's fine and all...but that's not realistic. Timing is everything. I would say John Wall and Derrick Favors could change a franchise pretty quick. There's no way they have the impact you're looking for. If the Bucks draft Wall, I will stop following him. That guy has bad news written all over him...oh and he can't shoot either. Well Robinson brought us our best team under Kohl's ownership, as did Ray. Bogut was a bad pick in comparison to Paul and Williams. Look at the three contending Bucks teams over their history. Kareem, Moncrief/Johnson and Robinson/Allen were all drafted high in the lottery. Bogut was the right pick...he was. It's just another example of why tanking won't always work. How is Redd all that different from the 'Big Dog'? You can't stand Redd, but you'll defend the 'Big Dog'? That's cherry picking...Redd is a better player than Glenn...that's pretty clear IMO....and Redd was also a 2nd round pick who was drafted WHEN the team was winning. I could go on and on about your posts, but its clear you hate the Bucks and everything they do...that's fine. Some folks just have that opinion and will cherry pick arguments so it 'makes sense'. Hammond has gotten rid of a ton of payroll. That's a fact. I know it might be the 'cool' thing to do at realgm to just rip the team and everything they do, but that doesn't make it a fact...far from it. Your false statements get old...the Bucks will have close to $20 million extra next off-season (obviously they'll have to replace some guys) and two expiring contracts to dangle. Do the Bucks have issues? Sure, but it's not like they locked up 3 guys long-term this off-season. They have 2 guaranteed contracts for the 2011/2012 season. I think that'd be the definition of flexibility given the mess Hammond had when he took over...but I'm sure some will pile on because it's the cool thing to do.

Then I'd rather have them be gone. Much better not having a team to follow than having an awful team that just keeps spinning its wheels to follow. Now I see where you get all your negative opinions... I think you also need to remember most NBA players probably wish Milwaukee didn't have a basketball team either...that's why I have a hard time knocking on Warrick's one-year deal. At least somebody chose to go there... Orlando, Cleveland, San Antonio, Boston and several other teams say hi. What's with this saying 'hi' garbage? Tanking for a team that barely has a fan base is not smart. The ping pong balls don't guarantee anything either. Is there a LeBron type guy that was born and raised in Wisconsin and would just love being close to home? Next year's draft doesn't look like it has anybody that could change a franchise as quick as you think...you bring up extreme examples to make a 'point'. We've had the number 1 pick twice in the past 15 years or so...what did that get us? Why should we get upset about Jake Voskuhl's contract? It's small, who cares? Same goes for Lue, Elson and Allen. The problem with it is these contracts add up over the years. Don't preach financial flexibility and then add the fifth tweener forward to your already full roster. So what would you have done with the $3 million besides using it to tank somehow? It's not something I'm concerned about and injuries can happen...as the Bucks found out last year. One-year contracts give financial flexibility and also roster flexibility...expiring contracts still have value, right? The only way they are going to build a fan base is a consistent 50 game winner. People aren't going to show up to see a .500 team win one game in a playoff series only to be ousted by a much better team. I don't think you need to win 50 games every year...you need to be competitive and make the playoffs more than you didn't...the team that went to the conference finals last year created some crazy electricity in Milwaukee. Milwaukee is probably sick of all the dumb roster moves over the years. I do like Redd and Bogut, but besides those two there has been next to zero consistency, the coaching carousels, and the GM changes. The city and the team need some consistency. Firing Terry Porter still has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen a GM do in a long, long, long time. The Bucks lost a ton of credibility in that fiasco IMO. The best way to build a team is exactly what the Bucks are doing...they ARE giving themselves financial flexibility and are slowly selecting guys that they want part of their future. This off-season had some nice moves, but I think the Bucks are positioning themselves for next summer. I don't think the Bucks will get a huge free agent because hardly anybody wants to be a Buck. I do think though that teams will blow a ton of money on the 'main' guys and with the cap projecting to go down next year there should be some talent available for a decent price.

Yes. This team is bad. Hakim Warrick isn't going to make a difference. Until this team gets a star player, they're going nowhere. So get the high picks, get your star and then you might actually go somewhere. We usually don't agree on the Bucks and we don't here...so you expect a team that is struggling big-time to fill seats to just tank before the season starts? Hello your Las Vegas Bucks! They simply can't give the impression they're doing that and need to at least compete. While your logic might make basketball sense in your mind, tanking in basketball is a terrible idea IMO for two reasons. If the Bucks keep stinking and even admit to tanking, they're gone. They're on shaky ground the way it is and I still believe they'll be gone within 5 years if something doesn't change. The second reason is tanking doesn't get you anywhere. We could tank, lose the lottery, and get screwed. I don't know how you and the guys at realgm get so upset about Warrick. It's a small contract...who cares? He has talent and he isn't old...he's in his prime. I get the feeling that some Bucks 'fans' will complain just to complain. Saying the team should tank is one quick way for the team to move out of Milwaukee...the Bucks desperately need to put a team together that can compete and build the fan base. I want them to tank until we get a legitimate star to build around. Whether that takes one year, five years or 20 years. The team won't be in Milwaukee with your idea. I also think they have their guy in Jennings. If BJ can step up his first year and Amir can play to his potential (I know that's a huge if), this team could surprise. More likely though this team competes every night, but still finds itself late in the lottery. There's nothing wrong with that given that some major pieces are still fairly young and expiring contracts are coming closer and closer. I also feel Redd is going to have a career year if 100% healthy and that should make him very tradeable come the deadline. I know that makes you excited about trading him since you know that Redd is a top 20 player in the league http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I agree with homer. If they were doing everything they could to make a 'run' to the playoffs this year, they would've kept RJ. There's nothing wrong with adding some decent pieces and spending money. It's not like Warrick just signed a 5-year deal. I think he's a pretty good role player and I have no complaints with the price. I also wouldn't look back at last year's off-season and complain about Lue, Allen, and Elson...you need to give a new GM some time to be able to do what he wants. The Bucks didn't have a lot of options to do that last year...they will in the future. What's the big deal if the Bucks do make the playoffs with Jennings at the point? Most of their core will be signed a for a few years...I don't see that as a bad thing. I also don't think it's a slam dunk to make it...a lot of things would have to go right. I think the '10 - '11 Bucks team will be pretty good, but this year will be more of learning process for Jennings, etc.

Mark A. is a genius and the team's attendance is good. I believe we probably have the finances to make some kind of trade. Lastly, he said we did not have the talent to make a trade! WHAT? Hello Mat Gamel, Alcides Escobar, Brett Lawrie, etc... That may have been the dumbest thing a MLB analyst could say. So you call a guy an idiot because we 'probably' have the finances? I guess I don't get that...I also don't get why a national analyst would just make that up. Do you really expect attendance to keep growing? I'd imagine it's a reality check that attendance will be going down next year if we miss the playoffs and one guy might not be the answer. In regard to the talent, we didn't have it. Melvin has stated that the Brewers didn't have the pitching depth that teams were looking for. That's 100% true and it's a huge reason why a deal wasn't made. We don't have many if any pitchers at AA or AAA that could be a centerpiece of a trade for a guy like Lee. Teams were wanting young pitching prospects in return.

Any chance Inman is getting called up?

Any chance Inman is getting called up?

Well, no I wouldn't want to trade Gamel or Escobar for Washburn or anything other than a stud pitcher that would be around next year as well (weren't there some of those available?). But it's just kind of amusing to me that the guy doing all the drafting for the Brewers the last however many years couldn't come up with a satisfying package for Washburn that DIDN'T include Gamel or Escobar? That's telling to me. You need to clarify what you'd give up Gamel or Escobar for. Your previous post made it seem like you'd give them up for a Washburn type in a way. I really like both guys and if we were one guy away I'd be fine with it...I just think we're not one guy away. That's why it makes little sense to trade either one. The Brewers so far have just gotten screwed with the timing of Hardy having a bad year. He really needs to turn it on really, really quick so we can trade him in the off-season for a decent haul. I know there are some here that wouldn't trade JJ for Bucholz straight up...is that still true? I'd do that in a heartbeat and I think some here are putting a ton of value in JJ. I obviously like JJ, but it's not like we can trade him straight up for a young #1 or #2 MLB ready starter.

I think you meant called up Angel. As in Angel Salome, who would help the staff out with his bat, but I'm not sure enough to compensate with his glove. No...I meant Jesus. He's in Nashville.

Yeah, but aren't there guys in the minors that are comparable to Vargas? Or better? Why does it matter? I love the minors/prospects as much as anyone, but Vinny had no future in this organization. Would you care if just signed him to a minimum deal? I don't see how people are upset about this specific trade at all. We didn't give up much...if anything at all. I can understand that this move doesn't make you think we're going for it or we're going to try and sell. I guess that is where the frustration comes...not from the specific move, but the general vibe it gives off. I understand that and I feel the same way. I just keep thinking that the Brewers internally are over valued the pitching going into this year and that was a pretty big mistake to make...Vargas doesn't fix that. I personally would've rather called up Jesus from AAA to be our savior (pun intended)...but honestly I'd rather have called him up, but either way it wouldn't make a huge impact.

3. Dave Bush has been in 14 games and has started in 13 of them. Typically you are satisfied if a pitcher can give you 30 starts a year. Therefore, what we have here is legitimately half of a season, hardly a "few starts". Satisfied with 30 starts a year? I think thrilled would be the better word...

CV didn't do all that bad before his pitch count got high, but again he shouldn't have started IMO without being stretched out. I hope we at least leave him in the rotation for a few starts and let his arm build up a bit. I will be pretty upset if he's moved to the pen now so Dillard or someone else from AAA starts. The way the pitching is going I don't see any harm in letting him get a few more starts. I'm not a huge CV fan as a starter, but it's not really fair to him or the Brewers for that matter to put him in the situation he was in last night especially if he's one and done.

Well the good news is that Dillard is better then Suppan, but the bad news is his tRA+ is still 77 (Or 77% of ML Average Pitcher). It's 10 points higher then Suppans and 11 points higher then Looper. I know it's not your stat, but I find it hard to say Dillard is anything as a MLB starter without actually having that much time in the bigs. Again, I do like Dillard in the pen, but we really don't know what he's capable of until he gets a chance.

I wouldn't be surprised if Macha doesn't return for next year. I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets an extension. Changing managers for next year isn't going to make us better, just like it more than likely didn't make us better for this year. I agree with the fact that it won't make a huge difference. I would though want to see the right manager for this team so that over time it allows players the chance to develop. Macha's quotes are almost Yost like...CV starts because he has starting experience, etc. That type of reasoning just isn't logical. I also worry about a guy like Escobar on the team when Macha said something along the lines that he had a lot to learn or something like that. What is he going to do next year if he's on the team? Not play him?

I think sending CV to AAA could have been considered an overreaction too. His peripherals have been fine. On Dillard in the AAA rotation, I'd have to agree that it has a lot to do with the AAA rotation being bad, but its also possible that pushing him a little further could make him a more effective reliever. Last season he pitched about as well as could be expected of him out of the pen, so is there any more room for improvement? Or would we need to give him a more challenging assignment (i.e. AAA starting rotation or MLB bullpen) in order for him to get better? I would send him to AAA to get stretched out...that'd be the only reason. Not that he's struggling or anything else like that. I still don't understand how having him pitch double the innings this year compared to last year helps Milwaukee at all this year. I do feel Milwaukee was trying to make him a starter. I don't think it had anything to do with Nashville's rotation. You could easily sign a veteran type guy to fill that role and hope for the best. Look at RA Dickey this year...he was in Nashville as a veteran type without much expected. Sometimes it works. I should have stated that better. I meant quality starters at both the majors and AAA were in short supply so they used Dillard as a starter to cover mroe bases (no pun intended). I don't know if innings accumulated as a starter count the same, injury/fatigue wise as they do as a reliever. I will let that to someone smarter than I. I suspect the toll is more taxing as a reliever than a starter because of the inconsistency of appearances. But that is just speculation on my part. That makes more sense. I get what you're saying about starting. I just don't know if it's a good idea to use him as a starter for so many innings and then switch him. I'd rather have a fresh Dillard than one that has probably changed his approach since he's been starting and could possibly not be as effective. His season as a RP was pretty darn good IMO and he should've never been switched, but I've had a problem with how the Brewers 'develop' relievers for awhile. Dillard should've been in the bullpen in Milwaukee to start the year IMO. This way you don't waste money on a guy like Julio.

Does anyone know how hard he's been throwing this year? I haven't seen him this year, but saw him a few times last year when he was struggling a bit.

I mentioned this in the other thread discussing the topic, but I think its because this probably isn't going to be a one-off spot start. If we'd be better off long-term with a stretched out Villanueva in the rotation, we need to get him to that point ASAP. The way CV's pitched out of the pen lately they could've sent him to AAA to get stretched out. To me, it screams that this was not well thought out/planned right at all. They did so because of how weak the AAA rotation was. AAA starters can relieve in the majors easier than AAA relievers can start. When it comes to players like Dillard I don't think it matters what his role in AAA is if all the organization sees him as is a reliever. In fact since he is stretched out he can go more innings per appearance because he was a starter in the minors. That makes him more useful as a reliever in the majors while maximizing their rotation options. I don't think this is true. Dillard was moved to a starting role because how weak the MLB rotation could potentially be...at least that's been the story down here. He just hasn't had the numbers to go along with the plan the Brewers had. He's worked on his secondary pitches, but so far he still looks like a reliever. Dillard was a multiple inning guy last year out of the pen...he's never been just a one inning guy. Why even waste all the innings on Dillard's arm this year? He's already pitched almost double the innings last year than this year. This again doesn't indicate that this was well thought out. I'd much rather call up Dillard in a relief role when he doesn't have the huge potential to be gassed like he does now. When the Brewers make moves solely on the AAA rotation, we better be a perennial playoff team.

3. Dillard just isn't very good. He walks too many, doesn't strike out enough, and thats just at AAA. He's been a starter most of his career, but he was much more effective as a reliever. Villanueva OTOH hasn't been nearly as bad as his ERA suggests. I'm 100% behind Macha on this one. CV isn't stretched out though...Dillard is. I'm not saying Dillard is or will ever be a MLB starter, but the Brewers put him in that role this year. Why do it if they're not going to give him a shot? It seems like another Melvin vs. Macha deal. Dillard's ERA is solid, but his peripherials aren't all that wonderful. He's coming off a one-hitter...he should be starting. CV goes from the doghouse to starting. Another decision by Macha that makes little sense given what he's said about him lately. I still don't get why Macha has guys seemingly in the doghouse/couldn't find playing time (Gamel, Gerut, Nelson, Dillard, Rivera, etc) and others he likes. He's made his fair share of questionable moves and it's not working with this team. Unless this team goes out and trades or signs more guys that Macha likes, we need a new manager next year. We'll most likely be younger and whoever is the manager will have to be able to get these guys playing time and be in their corner. Macha isn't that guy. Yost at times was good with the young guys and we need a manager that can do that (obviously Yost had plenty of warts so I'm not saying we need Yost...I don't want FTJ to have a heart attack). To me, starting CV is another example of Macha making a questionable move.

I'm not a fan of CV starting in general...especially when he's not stretched out. I really, really like Dillard as a bullpen guy, but he is stretched out. I know he's most likely not a long-term starter in the bigs, but it's shocking to move a bullpen guy in the rotation at this critical juncture IMO. I'm not a fan of Macha's 'ideas'. It just doesn't make any sense. Have Dillard start like he has been all year and then put CV in later. If CV gets crushed in the first or second inning, we're screwed.