JJHardy7

I have the feeling that management said we're paying you $10 million and we'll let you know when you're not the closer...or Gagne has some serious mentality issues as a closer -- which he has never displayed before. This makes Gagne look bad in my mind -- he was accountable a few days ago, but now despite how poor he's pitched he's ready again. Just doesn't make sense to me...

I believe he "only" threw 86 pitches because he was getting lit up by Los Vegas. But I don't check the Minors, so I could be wrong. He didn't have a great game, but at the end of the day his pitch count wasn't 110 or 120. I don't know why he was removed was it a pitch limit, he struggled, or he had a pitch limit and struggled. He did indeed struggle though.

I disagree -- I think that they should keep from "naming a starter" as long as possible, or until something becomes very obvious. I think Stetter is young, and does not need to inherit the mess left by Turnbow and Gagne. Stetter is bound to get lit up one of these days, and I would hate for the "First Turnbow, then Gagne, and now this guy..." crap to fall on Stetter. That's fair enough. I would rather name a closer -- if there is one available because I think not naming one could take its toll on the bullpen because of Yost -- but that is for another topic. Stetter does have a little bit of experience in save situations in the minors (15 saves) and to me he has that closer personality. I don't see him as a guy who would struggle mentally in the role. It would be a risk to make him the closer, but even before naming him the closer it'd be nice to see him get a shot at it with the current rotation of "closers" we are likely to see.

This is what I would want them to do --- I do not think this will happen: --Call up Weaver and DiFelice -- We all know we'll lose Weaver if he's not in the bigs so we can give him a shot and I think a little less known fact is that DiFelice may have similar language in his contract so we may lose him in June. --Send down CV and Parra. They're struggling and I think some may have hyped them up a bit. They're still young and a confidence boost in Nashville would be a good thing. If all goes well with Weaver and DiFelice (big if) we can then make a decision to put CV and Bush in the bullpen and get CV some relief work in AAA before calling him up. --Call up Branyan. Regardless of the love/hate he gets here he's flat out raking in AAA and Hall is stinking against righties. It doesn't have to be a platoon per say, but I'd like to see Branyan get 2 starts at 3b or so a week and 1 start or so in the outfield to get OFers rest as needed. --Send down/trade Gwynn. He doesn't really have a role on the roster that I see as a huge need at this point. Regardless of the debate of how good he is or isn't sending him to Nashville gets him regular work and keeps him fresh should we have an injury. I think these are moves that could potentially improve the club without making trades at this point. Our starters just aren't flat out going deep enough into games and the bullpen is going to get over worked. This would allow CV and/or Parra to come back up as needed should an injury or a "fresh" arm be needed -- assuming they aren't overworked in Nashville. My final bold thought is that the Brewers should name Stetter the closer. I don't know if he's a long-term closer, but hitters haven't seen him and haven't yet figured him out. He might be a guy that could do well in that role and the way he is constantly changes his arm angles (even in the same at-bat) makes it difficult for hitters to figure him out.

My initial reaction is that Weaver would be starting on Thursday, but he pitched for Nashville on Sunday so he wouldn't have 4 days rest. I wonder if they'll pitch him on 3 days? He did only throw 86 pitches.

Frank Thomas was cut this year, he will make $8 million. It doesn't happen often, but it wouldn't be unprecedented. Are there more? I can't think of any, but Thomas is a pretty close example. I wonder what the highest contract value was of a player DFA'd in his first month and a half with a new team or even first half of the season? I would have to believe Gagne would set the record. You actually said should. Simply go back to what you quoted me at "could cost jobs". I didn't say should. Timing is irrelevant. If the team determines that Gagne has no value to the team, they shouldn't wait, they should cut bait. The money at this point is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what value he has to the Brewers. I think this is more opinion related. In your opinion (if I'm understanding this right) you don't think Gagne has any value. That is fine, but I would really hope that Melvin and Co. would have scouted Gagne a little better than have signed the third highest paid player on the team only to release him a month and a half into the season. That would be a major failure both on the field and in terms of an investment. This is from your previous post, but I don't understand why you feel there should be a difference. You keep bringing up New York and Boston, and saying that the Brewers can't cut somebody with a huge contract. It is true that a long term mistake would cripple the Brewers far more than it would affect bigger market teams, but this is a one year deal. If the Brewers focus on his salary instead of whatever value he has, that would have a much bigger effect on this team than the money that is already committed. The Brewers obviously can cut any contract they want. The point is because we are talking about Milwaukee and not L.A., Chicago, or New York there comes a point and time where spending more money by the Brewers won't bring in additional revenue. The Brewers simply cannot DFA Gagne and then use that money somewhere else via trade. Their pockets aren't that deep.

Why do you think this, and why do you think Attansio thinks this? It only cost the team money, and it only committed them for one year. You think Mevlin should be fired for that? Do you have any evidence that Attansio believes that? I said "could". Look at it this way -- if the team doesn't perform where the owner thinks they should and they cost him $10 million extra I'd imagine that wouldn't sit well for Melvin or Yost. That's just my logic. If the team makes the playoffs, it probably doesn't matter. Look at the past deals with free agents Melvin has made -- besides Suppan I believe this is the most per year. It had risk, but Mark didn't go looking for Gagne -- Melvin did. This doesn't make any sense at all. There's zero reason to dismiss the concept of a sunk cost, because it is something the Brewers have to consider. A sunk cost in baseball can occur any time from spring training to the end of the season. The fact that it is May has no relevance. I think I should also point out that I haven't said that Gagne is a sunk cost. It's just something the Brewers have to consider. You brought up "sunk cost" and such so you really did imply Gagne is or would be a "sunk cost" I think there is reason to dismiss it -- it's May. At list point last year on that logic the Brewers would be worth more than gold. And a "sunk cost" in the business world and baseball are night and day. I'd like to know the last time a $10 million dollar player got DFA'd and how frequent it is. "Sunk cost" doesn't exist there -- jobs lost because of bad signings do exist. Again, I might be wrong, but I don't recall too many players in that money category being DFA'd. Finding what value Gagne has to the team, and ignoring how much he is being paid, will help this team for the rest of the year. I'd like to agree, but I think where the Brewers are now it's just too hard to do. I'm talking in terms of Melvin -- if this is his second biggest signing per year and the guy is doing mop up this month that's not good. If you were his boss what would you think? I've enjoy this little conversation so I hope I'm not coming across as rude or anything, but my opinion this deal might cost Melvin his job. The Brewers haven't signed too many $10 million/year guys and it comes down to a few things: 1. Gagne gets back on track -- all is well 2. Gagne struggles -- Melvin is on the hot seat more than he would be without Gagne 3. Gagne gets released -- Melvin wasted $10 million of the owner's money -- this could cost him his job if the team doesn't perform A signing like this does have an investment risk. Mark didn't buy the Yankees or Red Sox that have revenue despite this signing. The Brewers have revenue in part because of the success and hope they've given fans the past year. A bad year and a few bad contracts make Melvin a man who may be on the hot seat -- and a "sunk cost" in May doesn't help that at all.

I'm going to throw out a Tim Dillard option here. Remember, he was #11 on the Power 50 a year ago. Had a mediocre 2007, but has done very well in a long relief/piggyback role this year. His career numbers look similar to 2005 Dave Bush, which I think most would be fine with. DiFelice would probably be my first choice, but Dillard is worth a look too. He's not doing bad this year by any means, but it looks like his future with the Brewers is as a relief pitcher. I really don't think at this piont he has enough pitches to be a starter. I'd also like to point out he hasn't been a long relief/piggyback for most of what I've seen. They're trying to use him for an inning or two (sometimes more) so it looks like they see him as a relief guy a la Torres, Riske, Mota, etc. A guy that can pitch multiple innings and not a guy like McClung at this point. I do believe Dillard does have some value in that role and he's done quite well so far in it.

Why? This is the tough thing about recognizing a sunk cost. There is an emotional attachment to the money spent. The Brewers don't have to try to get anything from Gagne if he doesn't have anything to give. If Gagne was a bad investment, the Brewers don't gain anything by giving him innings to try to save face. There isn't an emotional attachment. My point is that it may not be a sunk cost -- it's May. You can say it's only 12% of the payroll, but having 1 player make that number up and not contribute is not good. Based on a 25-man roster it should be 3 players. Gagne is one of the most highest paid players and my point isn't at the owner. He invested in Gagne. He signed off on it. My point is though that in terms of Melvin and Yost it is in their benefit to get something out of Gagne. This isn't the Yankees, the Red Sox, or any other team with deep pockets. The decision to sign Gagne could cost jobs. That's my point and you can take this high level investor view at it or in my mind take the Milwaukee view. If at the end of the year Melvin and Yost don't get the team to .500 and Gagne (and others) who the Brewers acquired didn't work out chances are that's not going to help keep them around. There's no reason to put the quotes around sunk costs. It's a real thing that people have to deal with. Poor financial management is throwing resources at a bad investment to try to make it look good. Throwing good money after bad. If you have a sunk cost, it helps you to realize it early, so that you can mitigate the damage that it will cost you. There absolutely is a reason to put quotes around it in my mind. If you think the costs for Gagne can't be recovered at all that's your opinion. I'm of the opinion that it is only May and the costs aren't useless at this stage. It's in Yost and Melvin's benefit to find a way to get him to be of value to the organization. Your using the term "sunk cost" reflects that the cost can't be recovered and Gagne is of no use. I'm just not of that opinion at this point. I honestly don't think "sunk cost" applies to anything in May. If you want to use that type of financial terminology, the Brewers would've easily made the playoffs and done well because in May last year they were 24 - 10. Of course he wouldn't be fine with paying $10 million without receiving any results, unless there were more important factors. The overriding factor is the $80 million spent on this seasons team. Mark wants this team to succeed, and if the best chance for that to occur is to have Gagne DFAd, I doubt Gagne's salary would delay him one second in approving that. I guess I just disagree with you. I believe Gagne's salary would dealy him from approving that. The money is guaranteed and to DFA $10 million in May means Melvin should be gone today. It's that simple. Again it's not a 10/80 equation. It's that one of the highest paid players on them this year (I believe he is the 3rd highest paid, but I may be wrong) isn't working out and there will be a signficant price to pay by DFAing him. Again, this isn't really on Mark at all...it's on Melvin and how Gagne is dealt with in the next few months could go a long way in determining Melvin's future or at least the confidence Mark will have in dealing with free agents. And for your "sunk cost" I'll throw out the "opportunity cost" factor. The Brewers look like they could've used that $10 million a lot better somewhere else...but again it's only May and hopefully Gagne turns it around and this becomes a moot point.

This isn't the first time this publicly came out. I believe Mayo and another player (can't remember who it was) were given tickets to a Nuggets came from Carmelo Anthony. I believe Tim Floyd took the fall for it. I know this looks bad for USC, but I tend to have the feeling this happens at a lot of big programs. USC just happened to get caught. I think if we've gone to major schools or have friends or family who have gone we all have heard stories of players receiving money, cars, and/or grades that flew under the radar.

This is a guess on my part, but I imagine Attanasio cares more about winning games than whether one employee hire works out. If Yost wants to make his boss look good, he should try to win as many games as possible this season, and not focus on the results of one player. I'm sure winning as many games as you can makes your boss look good. I didn't say it wasn't. I am saying that winning as many games as you possibly can might only get the Brewers to .500, under, or over. We don't know at this point, but having a failed $10 million investment in May isn't good and how Gagne is used might be what makes or breaks the future career with guys like Melvin and Yost. Having him in mop up roles on a team that underperforms isn't going to look good -- if that is what happens. An investor that recognizes a sunk cost realizes that a risk was taken and it failed, and then he moves on, putting the bad investment out of his mind, because he can't do anything about it anymore. Gagne is going to get his salary no matter if he pitches another inning, or what inning he pitches in. The team should try to objectively determine what value Gagne has for this team going forward, and ignore that 12 % of the payroll is involved in the decision. How can he not do anything with it? How Gagne is managed is the key to this part of the investment? If you simply write him off in May, there are huge issues with the front office. This also isn't the Yankees and you simply can't cut your losses and move on. The Brewers have to try and figure out a way to get something back from Gagne. This could be the biggest financial blunder the Brewers have made under this management. How it's handled could very well go a long way in determining the future with some within the organization. I also have a feeling the Cameron signing could possibly go this way also. It's May and we're talking about "sunk costs"? That's not even an investment -- that's poor financial management. And I think you're using the term "investor" in the wrong term. It wasn't Melvin's money, but it very well could be his job. I don't personally think Mark makes any decisions in relation to who plays and when. He lets his staff do that. Melvin isn't any different than anyone else that works -- making a big mistake with someone else's money is not a good think. If Mark looks past the "sunk cost" and realizes it was a risk, that's fine. I just don't think he'd be fine paying $10 million without receiving any results. I believe Mark A values $10 million by saying that.

I do think it'll be Weaver and I'm not opposed to a Weaver and DiFelice call up, but I don't think that's likely. Yost has stated that Parra's spot is safe in the rotation for now so it boils down to CV and Bush. My guess is whoever pitchers "better" stays for now and the other heads back down to Nashville and Weaver takes their spot.

I would guess that Attanasio cares more about the $80 million he's spending on the Brewers than the $10 million he's paying Gagne. The owner is an investor, he knows that not all moves work out, and that it is important to recognize a sunk cost. The $10 million though is 1/8th of the payroll. That is the problem. Not all moves do work out, but for a small market team that hopes to make the playoffs and continue to increase payroll there isn't a large room for error. My point is that moving Gagne out of the closer role has more to it than just some of the results he's had. It makes Melvin look bad and Yost doesn't want to make his boss look bad. There's more dynamics than Gagne's results so far. This move would be the biggest move in terms of dollars that don't work out (at least based on a per year basis) and I have to imagine that the investor is aware of that. I really don't buy Gagne's claim that it's mental. I think it's more his injury cost him some talent or HGH helped his arm recover and stay a little more fresh. How can you win a Cy Young and have the numbers he has and then mentally struggle in Milwaukee? It doesn't add up.

Not a chance if we don't make a major move or others in our division go through injury issues.

Some of the points brought up so far make sense in a way, but at the same time don't. Gagne is struggling. Less than a week ago there were plenty of posts around here stating that he is pitching well, but he's just having some bad luck or getting squeezed. Now after a week or so we're running the guy out of town and out of baseball. I thought he was struggling a week ago and he still is. There is one fine point that I think some are missing as to why Gagne is and should be the closer: He's making $10 million this year. Moving Gagne in May to a mop up role isn't going to look good in the eyes of Melvin's boss. The decision to sign Gagne I'm sure will be a high on Melvin's review this year. We aren't the Yankees or Red Sox and for better or worse we can't afford to pay a guy $10 million to not be a key piece to this Brewers team. What is Melvin going to think if Yost (who is getting bashed for reacting slow here, but I think there's more to it this time) takes out his one of his key additions if not the key addition to the 2008 Brewers team. I wouldn't want to be going to the owner and trying to explain a $10 million mop up role. I know we need to win now, but the Brewers don't have the resources to allow a guy making that much money not pan out in May. If it gets to July and the Brewers are out of it, then put Gagne at mop up and know that your job is most likely in jeopardy for the "dead" money of Vargas, Turnbow (paying a guy that much in AAA is not good), and Gagne. A small market team can't make almost $15 million of mistakes in a given year. As far as Pena goes, he's rebounded a bit for Nashville, but I believe his ERA is 6.57 with a WHIP at 1.86 -- he doesn't appear to be ready. Again, I'm not supporting Melvin, Yost, or Gagne here. I'm saying that this is a business and making a huge mistake like Gagne and admitting it in May could be a bad move career wise. Melvin, Yost, and Gagne are probably going to sink or swim together to a certain degree. I'm sorry Mr. Gagne, but signing that $10 million deal makes you the closer. It's nice that you can come out in public and say someone else should close, but since you're not giving that money back your bosses probably expect to get more than a mop up role from you -- or all three may be in the employment line before the end of the season or after the season.

I wouldn't point at any innings spent on those tampa bay teams as proving anything though, every pitcher for those teams was miserable because the offense and defense were both miserable. That's fair enough. I'm just a little anxious to see how he pitches with more work and hopefully that's out of the bullpen. I know I've stated this on this site a few times, but the 2nd half of last year McClung was starting to feel healthy for the first time since the tommy john surgery. It's not always the physical part, but also the fact that you're one pitch away from having to go through the rehab part. There's a ton of mental issues involved in it too. Some guys make it back from that and some don't.

In Arizona he had the two best SP in the game, not to mention a pretty darn good roster beyond that when they won the WS on a couple/few fluky basehits. Brenly destroyed Kim's career. He's not a very good manager I guess I don't understand some of this logic. Is Yost that bad that he's holding us back from a playoff team and Brenly was bad, but just lucked out? To me those kind of contradict each other (with the logic I laid out and not the posters). To me it's saying the manager can do a lot in Milwaukee, but in other places a bad manager can win. I personally think changing the manager at this point and time will do next to nothing because most likely it would be a hire from within (within being a current Brewers coach). There should be an official bfan.net list of good managers. Yost isn't telling Weeks to be bad, Fielder to regress offensively and defensively, Hardy to not hit with any power, Hall to strike out, or CV and Parra to give up runs in bunches. If there's a change at this point, it's a change in personality and not a change in "developing" these players.

He Ks a lot of guys, but unfortunately he offsets a lot of that value by BBing a ton of guys too. I should've probably clarified my post. In terms of the added innings I'm thinking continuing his current role and increasing the sample size. I personally don't want to see him as a starter since I think if he gets a role for the entire year in the bigs I could get a better idea of his true talent level. I know he's finally starting to feel 100% healthly (he had tommy john surgery 2003 and missed most of 2004).

I think it's a safer bet to look at his career work, instead of one or two or three games/IP. I don't disagree with you there. I'm not saying McClung is anything or will ever be more than an average pitcher. I do think though that Tampa moving him around from a starter to relief to closer didn't work out for Seth. I am all for giving him a consistent role and I'd imagine he'd perform the best where he's at right now. He has pitched better in his role with the Brewers than he previously did with the Rays, but we don't know how much of that is due to a small sample size. I'm especially intrigued by his Ks/9 and seeing how that plays out with more innings.

If by success you mean his 6.32 BB/9 is meaningless because it comes in games already decided, sure! Can you be any more condescending? If you look back at previous posts about McClung, there were quite a few people that had their doubts about him and those that didn't want any part of him being on the Brewers. I think he's shown he's at least servicable and contrary to your condescending post McClung has pitched in games that were not decided and pitched well in those spots. Has McClung struggled with his control in his career? Yes, but I'm not going to totally discount what he's done by looking at some stat and then declaring his games were all decided that he pitched in.

I don't see how McClung could go more than 4 innings. He goes pretty deep in counts and hasn't pitched long outings in what, a couple of years McClung was a starter in the minors for parts of last year. I personally would leave him where he is since he's having a certain level of success. I think a lot of his struggles in the majors have been because he's been tossed around in so many roles...now that he has one that works for him it might get switched?

"Politically" I don't think the Brewers could easily justify promoting Kremblas until the Sounds are at .500 at least. Take a look at the tear the Sounds have been on -- they've won 8 out of their last 10. I also don't think Kremblas would be hired based on what he's done this year, but based on what he's done in prior years in terms of working with a lot of the players that are currently on the Brewers roster. I think it would be very unique to "call up" the AAA manager during the year. I think Frank would succeed, but it's hard to tell because managing in the minors is different than the bigs (ie developing players, rehab stints, etc).

Wouldn't it be out of the norm to get some of these veteran managers to come in mid-season? Isn't it more likely than not that the replacement would be an internal candidate? I don't think Yost has done much this year to deserve being canned, but at some point someone has to take the fall and try to turn it around if this continues. I'd guess that Simmons would replace Ned and the manager position would be evaluated at the end of the year and at that time we may possibly bring in some of the veteran managers mentioned for interviews.

Some of it might a bit far fetched in terms of overreacting, but I think one of the main reasons I'm not thrilled about our chances is that there most likely isn't a big impact player sitting in AAA to either help the offense or the starting pitching significantly enough. I hope I'm wrong, but that is one of the main reasons and the other is that Yovani is out for the year. I think that's a huge blow and possibly even a bigger blow than losing Sheets because I think most around here don't expect Sheets to pitch an entire season without a trip to the DL at some point. Yovani didn't have that worry going into this season for the most part.

Mark Difelice has been outstanding for awhile now, and is far more deserving of an oppurtunity than Weaver. I agree about DiFelice, but he's not on the 40-man roster. I'd imagine they'd look at Weaver first. I don't want to highjack this thread, but does anyone know if DiFelice has an option to be released if he's not on the MLB roster by a certain point? I've heard some rumors in Nashville that he has a deal similar to Weaver.