TheCrew07

This is exactly how I feel as well. edit. I don't mean to suggest Dempster is elite by any stretch I was speaking more to my general team builing philosophy.... pitching > hitting > relievers.

He does, but your best 5 pitchers should be in the rotation. If a guy doesn't cut it as a starter many times his stuff will "play up" and he'll be better out of the bullpen, like a Gagne. I'm never in favor taking a starter and turning him into a reliever purely because of a perceived need. Starters are simply more valuable than any reliever and to that point I feel closers are the most overrated commodity in baseball. Let pitchers fail as starters then move them to pen. Since I feel that way I'd like Rogers/Peralta/Thornburg and every other starting pitcher who scouts/talent evaluators feel projects as a reliever to be developed as starters anyway. They get more pitches in game to work on their craft over the course of their minor league career and they also get much more bullpen time with a coach to work on mechanics between starts. If they never develop a 3rd pitch or enough control to be a starter then fine, ship em to the pen...

I agreed with most of your analysis but this part I quoted. Why would TB have any interest in any FA pitcher when they are loaded with young, cheap, and talented impact starting pitching from their farm system? They literally have 4 internal options to replace Shields and/or Niemann in house in Odorizzi, Cobb, Archer, and Colome not to mention I bet Montogomery figures it out as well. They are also loaded behind those guys with Guerrieri tearing it up in his debut and a couple of nice LH starting pitchers in the pipeline.

Gallardo can pitch 200 innings. A FA pitcher (which I'm agains) could pitch 200 innings. Peralta pitched 175.2 innings last season, he can easily bump to 200, in fact it would be prudent to do so. Fiers pitched 182.2 innings last season, he can also easily bump to 200 innings if he remains a starter. Based purely on last years' totals the only 2 question marks are Estrada and Rogers from a 200 inning perspective. I'm not sure where this "200 innings" thing came from unless people were sloppy and forgot about minor league innings? Rogers is going to be in the rotation because the organization doesn't have a choice to do otherwise, he pitched 134 innings last season, I could see him getting bumped to 160-170. He's not young anymore, they have to push him a little to see if he can hold up. Estrada's career high for IP was 160 in 2008, he'll be 29 next season and I'd be surprised if he unable to go 180+ if he's in the rotation. Basically I think the inning situation has been totally overblown by those pushing for a FA pitcher to be signed. If/when Rogers and or Estrada would get shut down tire we'll have whomever is in the bullpen out of Estrada/Fiers to cover a spot and plenty of depth in AAA to pickup the last 30 innings or so of that #5 spot. Chances are someone gets hurt with something and we'll have to dip into our internal depth regardless. Heck even Narveson went 167.2 innings in 2010, if he's back he could cover some starts. I don't see any issue with innings unless we start talking 210+ and if Peralta is effective enough that he starts pushing that inning limit, what exactly are we worried about? 33 starts averaging exactly 6 innings is 198 innings for the season. For reference Gallardo only pitched 204 innings last season. "Innings" should be mostly a non issue because of what happened at the end of last season.

Again, it's not just as simple as the player vs player production in a single season, there are other risks and factors to take into consideration. For me it comes down to this, is the difference in production between Hart and any performing prospect worth the extra $9.5 per season for 1 more year? Is it worth the extra $30 million over the course of a 3 year deal? I would submit to you that the answer is no. I'll use baseball reference because I'm at work and want to make this quick. Hart's 2012 WAR = 1.8, basically a league average 1B. I think that's low, my gut is that he's worth closer to fangraphs' 2.9 Wolf 2012 WAR = -1.2 Net 2012 = .6 or 1.4 wins below average. Using Hart's fangraphs number 1.7. Either way you slice it the 2 players combined were below league average, so if you're really looking to improve the team and Hart can land you a young, talented, cheap, but inexperienced pitcher who can at least pitch to league average as a rookie then you are already 3.2 wins better... -1.2 to 2.0. Lets say the drop off from Hart to Gamel or Morris would be 1 win, from 2.9 (using his best WAR) down to 1.9 for the replacement. Pitcher + Replacement 1B Net WAR = 3.9 Wolf + Hart Net WAR = 1.7 Difference = 2.2 wins with replacement players. And that's just the first year, as the replacements approach their prime their numbers will improve while Hart's numbers will continue to slide, he get's more expensive, and becomes more likely to miss playing time due to injury. In the above scenario not only are you getting more production on the field, you've cut costs and freed up revenue for any number of uses, including plugging holes elsewhere. True flexibility is not payroll flexibility, it's flexibility of talent... having enough different options available to make the best possible use of the assets on hand. Honestly it doesn't matter if the replacement 1B is ever as good Hart if the pitcher is that good and becomes a solid #2, the team would be still better off without Hart. Not only on the field but in the pocket book as well... 1 win at 1 position is never worth $9 mil, that's just throwing money away, you're paying almost double the AVE cost of a win in years past. This is the exact same argument I was making prior to Hardy's last full season when Escobar was ready for MLB, it was never Hardy vs Escobar, the idea was Hardy + a crappy pitcher (Looper, Suppan, Bush) vs Escobar + a young MLB guy like Buccholz or Niemann. Which group was going to give you more total WAR and more flexbility in the future? Melvin is basically playing checkers, he's repeatedly said that he can't see trading one guy to fill a hole elsewhere because all you've done is create another hole by trading the player. That's an extremely linear view of roster management, and it's also why he's just been continually patching the roster each year since 2006. I want him to play chess and make roster moves in combination setting up for the future, have a long-term vision, a long-term plan to acquire as much talent as possible for the organization through as many different avenues as possible. If there's a tremendous buy at a position of need in FA, take it. You have an aging/expensive/short contract duration player then flip him. Look for solutions that the team can control for greater than 2 years and buy as many wins as possible as far below market value as possible. Roster management shouldn't be about rental players, deadline deals, or marquee FA signings, it should be about having enough talent stockpiled to sustain your organization. If you can't compete $ for $ with the large markets then you have to be smarter and more efficient than they are and unfortunately we haven't been. There's nothing sexy about the way Friedman manages talent in TB, he's rarely making headlines or being talked about by ESPN, but look at the impact talent they've developed and cycled back through the organization. If you want to beat the big boys you simply can't play the roster management game they way they do, because in the end they will always outspend you. If they want to make a "win now" trade then happily take 3-4 of their best assets in the minors and walk away knowing the odds are that at least 1 will pan out and that's all it really takes to sustain your franchise. If you're drafting and developing well then maybe you'll have surplus talent that you can flip for a greater position of need elsewhere. It's not about player vs player production, it's about aggregates... cost per win... it's about maximizing value at every opportunity. The truth is that keeping Hart around actually minimizes value because not only is he expensive, but so is a FA starting pitcher, and neither might be healthy enough to perform to their potential even though they are "proven". Truthfully there's no way to know if the 2 veterans would even outproduce the youngsters next season, let alone 2 or 3 years from now. To me this "veteran" issue is more about comfort than anything else, but we cant afford to have coaches, managers, or GMs that aren't comfortable teaching and developing young players because young players are the only way the Brewers can remain relevant over the long-term.

Actually it's been discussed many times between the various forums, but mostly on the minor league one. The answer is because he's one of those not so toolsy guys that consistently outplays his natural gifts. He's not fast, not all that graceful, not a super athlete, and he has a really weak arm, but Kris finds a way to hit everywhere he goes. He's just a solid and hardworking young man who's good at many things but not great at anything and has some physical limitations. Kris works hard enough that picking up 1B wouldn't be problem. Many of us suggested bumping Braun to RF to get Davis' bat in the line-up in LF given his limitations. However, apparently many posters think that since Braun is an MVP he shouldn't be asked to switch to RF regardless if it makes the team better or not and I could the Brewers taking that tact as well. If LF isn't an option, then he's not an OF so the only position that suits his physical skill set is 1B.

I think you're discounting what actually goes into making a player a full-time-regular. It isn't merely as simple as cycling another one into the position. I don't think he is at all, what he's saying is if a player complete tanks so bad he's hurting the team, we have options, in fact we have 4 legitimate options for 1B and 3 of them require a league minimum salary. Of course every player will have a unique learning curve but that's not the point, it's not as if a player has to be producing at his peak level to be productive and contribute in a meaningful way. I'm sorry, I don't understand how any of that is any different with Hart? With Hart we will actually have 4 MLB ready (or very near ready) 1B baseball between AAA and MLB. Halton, Morris, and Gamel don't have much trade value so it would make sense to flip the more valuable piece and get something valuable back in return. How does it make to sense to have to have so many 40 man roster positions used on 1 corner infield spot? Again that's not the idea, if a player totally flops we have additional options, we aren't totally reliant on 1 prospect to make or break a position. Take Gamel for example... if he hit .270 with a .350-360 OBP and SLG for around .470-.480 I'd take that. If he only hit .230, carried a sub .300 OBP through say mid August and wasn't hitting for any power then I'd be willing to look at the next guy. The prospect doesn't have to perform at a peak level, just demonstrate some aptitude for the game. I'm all for letting players grow into their roles but if a player is terrible through 2/3 of a season or more what do you lose by giving the next guy a shot? Especially if they all project similarily? Actually, it is exactly that simple, just take the players in the order they come. I talked about this on the Major League forum and in literally hundreds of posts in the past but look at what Tampa has done with their pitching. Sonnanstine (BP) and Jackson out, Niemann and Price in. Kazmir out, Davis in. Davis to the BP, Hellickson in. Garza out, Moore in. Shields out, Cobb in... not to mention picking up Montgomery and Odorizzi. Tampa won't have a starting pitcher over 27 years old in the rotation to start next year if Niemann isn't ready for the opener, and he might not be in the rotation regardless. He'll be 30 next season and is right at the point TB has jettisoned pitchers in the past. There are many very logical reasons to trade Hart and/or continually cycle talent which have been covered in an avalanche of posts from various people, but I've yet to see a legitimate counter argument that takes all of the variables from the equation into consideration. The argument to keep/resign players like Hart largely hinges solely on "next year's production" while ignoring all of the other risk factors that should also be taken into consideration.

The bottom line from where I'm sitting is Pitching > Hitting as such good pitching more closely correlates with success than does hitting. I think even the most basic statistical research will bear that out. There is no such thing as "good enough" pitching when it comes to winning a championship.

Obviously not being a fan of "win now" trades I don't like this deal for the Royals, it makes no sense from a talent standpoint, unless they are sure Montgomery will be no better than Wade Davis. I've liked Shields for a long time and loved the originality in his contract when it was signed, but he's only under control for 2 years. Davis is probably a league average starting pitcher, he's good enough to be in plenty of rotations around baseball, but both of Montgomery and Odorizzi profile to be better than Davis and Montgomery has all the tools to be a #1 if he can straighten out whatever was wrong in his head last season. I cannot fathom the reason for giving up Myers though, my goodness, Odorizzi and Montgomery should have been enough from a talent standpoint. Luckily for me I'm very fond of the Rays and this deal adds 2 more high upside arms and an impact bat to their organization for an aging finesse starter and a reliever. Friedman has been/is doing a heck of job cycling impact pitching through that organization.

Tampa has introduced young pitching year after year, it's not like A's are the only team... Most of our young pitchers already have their feet wet to varying degrees of success, it's not like they are completely unknown and/or are stepping into the fray for the first time. While their collective production is still in doubt at least they won't be true rookies. I'm good with all of Fiers, Peralta, and Rogers starting the year in the rotation. That still leaves room for Estrada or Narveson, in fact Narveson might be the LH bullpen arm people are looking for. Fiers isn't a rookie anymore, there's really not a good reason for Peralta to repeat AAA, and Rogers is out of options, it's time to see what our higher upside arms will do. At some point we need to give every young/inexperienced player a chance to perform, there's no such thing as a finished product in baseball, ultimately they all need to learn and perform at MLB. If any of those guys ultimately end up in the bullpen that's fine (I actually hope Fiers ends up there being pushed out of the rotation by better pitchers), but I'd rather it not be an arbitrary decision based solely on some random veteran based quality like "playoff/big game experience", "known quantity", or "proven MLB pitcher". Those phrases are meaningless to me, relative talent wins games over a 162 season and that's plenty enough experience for the playoffs. After all Yo outpitched the rest of the staff when he was rookie in his first playoff experience without the benefit of a full season. Experience is nice and all but that shouldn't be the overriding factor in determining how best to field a rotation, it should go much deeper and consider the various risk factors as well. We'll never get on top of our pitching issues as an organization if we keep settling for expensive and/or short term solutions. Pitching is too valuable to approach on a year by year basis, there's too much market demand, and the costs of acquiring are too great if you don't have it. I would love to be in a position where Tampa has been where we can introduce 1 new young starting pitcher to the rotation every year. That should be the goal, a talented roster but yet extremely well rounded roster from cost\experience standpoint. I'd like our average age to be somewhere in the 26-27 range every year, veterans will certainly have their place, but I'd rather it was niche role instead of the main focus. We should be counting on 1-3 rookies playing a significant role every year as Milwaukee doesn't have the resources to support a largely veteran team. It would be nice if we could develop players like Hart, Weeks, and Hardy and then be able to retain them indefinitely, but that's not our reality as a MLB franchise.

His arm is a ticking time bomb and he'll be 34 next season, why even bother with the risk? He's already had 2 TJ surgeries, no one that I'm aware of has ever come back from 3. The odds against coming back from 2 were extremely long. Let players from the past stay there and let's move forward.

I got a good laugh out of this one, thank you sir.

I don't see Seattle making a move like that, their AA pitching staff to start the year was phenomenal from a talent standpoint and hitting tends to carries much more value dollar wise in FA. They would be better off holding onto their pitching and working to plug positional holes in FA. By the end of 2013 Seattle could have Felix, Hultzen, and Paxton in the mlb rotation. If Taijuan Walker progresses he could also be there but more likely 2014, I think he'd be up no later than 2015. That's a ton of fire power, 3 young pitchers who profile as 1/2s best case and 2 of them are left handed. Seattle had more impact LH pitching on their AA team last year than we had in our entire organization, if I were Jack Z I wouldn't move any of those guys. Paxton tops out at 98, Hultzen at 94, and Walker 97 with "electric life" as a 19 year old.

I think it's more likely that people are just going to have accept the idea that last year's payroll is about as good as it gets in Milwaukee, we are the smallest market in baseball. The Brewers will never land the type of local TV contracts that the top tier market teams can, our best hope is for more of a push towards a national TV contract like the NFL. I was hoping the new FSN deal would be around $30 mil per year after the renegotiation, but if it isn't I don't think it's fair to assume that Melvin would be playing coy or lying about it, and I'm not even a Melvin fan. If the truth would come out he'd get buried, it would be an epic PR disaster for the organization who's still getting public funds... We'll get a bump in revenue with the new national TV contract in 2014, but Mark A and his staff have already maximized attendance and all revenue streams available. There just doesn't appear to be much opportunity to expand revenue outside of TV contracts and we're already locked in to a local and a new national deal. The simple truth is that the revenue disparity in baseball continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Melvin's best quote ever.

False. His approach was the issue, he worked out of the zone too much to be effective given that he never had precise command of his FB. A straight FB isn't the problem if it's located properly, leaving the FB out of over the middle plate was the problem. Sheets had the same issue, he had a straight FB but when he left over of the plate it got smacked... If a pitcher is constantly behind the count and gets into predictable FB counts and then grooves a fastball, well we should expect him to get crunched. Manny had the same problem with a FB topping out at 96 when he first came up as he does now with a FB topping out in that 93-94 range. In fact Pitchf/x has his velocity holding fairly steady, injuries haven't really sapped his stuff at all. He get's into predictable counts and gets wailed on, it's that simple. If you aren't able to spot your stuff on the corners then you simply cannot constantly nibble out there and be effective, you need to come after people in different spots with different pitch selection. I've harped on this before but that's why so many pitchers go from 0-2 and 1-2 to full counts... waste a pitch in the dirt and then just miss off the corner and now your back to even or full. If the pattern is predictable then pitcher loses the advantage they have over the hitter. Sabathia said it best in one of those JSO articles back in the day, Manny would have been better off focusing on 3 pitches instead of messing around with 5-6 his whole career. Master 3, then add a 4th and so on. FB, splitter, slider, curve, change, etc... he didn't need all that, he just needed to move his FB around and be able to locate any 2 secondary pitches, preferrably 2 of the slider/change/curve combo. I personally always liked his slider the most, that down and in movement against righties is tough. Manny's problems aren't physical, he just won't get out of his own way.

Good bye to the most frustrating prospect I've ever closely followed and rooted for. Manny your career should have been much better to this point than it has been. I could have dealt with ineffectiveness due to injury given your history, but injuries weren't your primary problem. Someone with your raw stuff you should have been #2 in the rotation but in the end you aren't good enough to be a bullpen guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he figures it out and has a successful career, he'll get plenty of opportunity because he's a LHP with good stuff.

Not to open a can of worms about certain metrics again but obviously that's because Fangraphs had used the vastly overrated FIP family of derived calculations for it's WAR over the years. High K rate pitchers are going to have better FIPs and thus if they peform badly they were "unlucky vs expectations". I agree, just say no to Dempster, stop the aging midling FA pitcher madness now. There is no good reason beyond the 2013 season to have an aging FA starting pitcher signed, and I've previously made my argument against the perceived need for 2013 as well. We have plenty enough pitching depth all the way around in the short and long term. I for one am excited to see how the young pitching shakes out and which pitchers end up in which roles. I think this is an exciting time in regards to the future of the franchinse and personally I'm willing to be patient enough to see the season through with young players in important roles. There will be ups and downs, but it should be a fun ride.

I get your point about the screwed up economic system in baseball and of course the counter arguments will be made about parity being better than it's ever been in baseball. I also worry about the growing disparity in TV revenue between the haves and have nots, our bump in local TV revenue is nothing like what the large market teams are getting. Yes we'll have roughly $35 mil/per year more when the new agreemets kick in but that will not equate to greater buying power, in fact I think the opposite will be true. The Brewers won't be able to get to near the player for $10 mil in 2015 as they could have in 2010. I think the cyclic nature of having to continually draft and develop players is central to the success of just about every franchise in every sport, but especially for the Brewers. Personally I'm looking to control players we develop for 8-9 years in the majors if they are "impact" type "core" players. I'll happily pay them into their late 20s or very early 30s and then I'm ready to let them walk and move on to the next guy. If they aren't a core player I'm fine going year to year with arbitration and moving on when a guy hits FA. If we have a surplus of talent at one position like say starting pitching, I'm not in favor of holding any young player back in the minors for the sake of depth. If all things are equal from a talent standpoint I'd rather trade the established MLB player and cycle back fresh talent into the farm system. I think the organization needs to be continually rejunivated to stay relevant, winning and contending every year matters to me, I don't care much about making national headlines by trading for short term solutions. That's not being relevant from my perspective, it's playing into the hands of the system which I'm raging against. The best way for small market teams to compete both on the field and financially with the big clubs is two fold. 1, buying wins below the going market rate is a priority, as such locking up players early buying out FA years with maybe some option years on the back end is a must. Yes the team assumes all of the risk but the team also gain tremendous value on the dollar. 2, you need to be rich in talent in the correct places, Pitching is king in baseball so the more inexpensive impact pitching talent you have, the more powerful your organization is. Not only would you have multiple options for the rotation and bullpen, you also have the most valuable assets from a trading perspective which is impact pitching and such should allow you to fill positions of need elsewhere.

If I said that about the Royals I meant the Blue Jays, that trio in Lansing was fantastic. It's certainly possible as I've caught myself making that kind of error on proofreads in the past. I linked them once during the course of the season because there was some interesting talk about developing pitching in the article, but they were covered a ton by MiLB and occasionaly by BA. Here's the link to the team. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/team.cgi?id=3c6e7a9e Scroll down to pitching, click the GS column, and then look at the stats across each row for each player. Obviously Nicolino just got moved, but my goodness what a rotation for that level.

Yea well in continually amazes me how people think that veteran players are a sure thing despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They actually carry greater total risk than prospects, it's just a different kind of risk. Certainly some of the young pitching will fail, but some will also succeed. Building an organization isn't about any 1 player's prime, it's about having enough talent to keep the train moving forward. Unfortunately the pitching die was cast many years ago and we wasted the prime of most the first wave of position prospects that came up together without enough pitching. The Brewers are never going to be able to sustain a rotation through Melvin's patching philosophy, they don't have the disposable income to do so. As such the method hasn't worked for any length of time... just 2 seasons in 7. I've liked Edwin Jackson for a very long time because he had such a big arm and good stuff, but he's never been able to control it, he's the epitome of effectively wild. The other veteran pitchers... well it's the same story, how long can aging players with average stuff keep the train rolling? Personally I'm tired of dead money on the books every year for relatively expensive veteran players who fall off a cliff performance wise. I'd rather take the performance risk with younger players who will on average be healthier and will likely improve at a league minimum contract. We're talking a very marginal difference in peformance for any FA pitcher the Brewers would pick up vs a younger pitcher like Peralta if they perform.

KC has enough quality young hitting to compete for a while, but they have no starting pitching. They will desperately need both Montgomery and Odorizzi to come through for them next season to have a legit chance at a playoff run regardless of Guthrie. I've said this before but KC is in a similar position to we were in 2006... all these nice position prospects and but no starting pitching to go with. We signed Suppan, they are signing Guthrie. KC does have help further down the system, they have a young lefty who missed the year with TJ who will likely start in AA next season and be on track track for 2014/2015 debut if he continues to progress. Beyond him they have a couple of intriguing players lower in the system but they are very thin pitching wise at the top. I'm not keen on the signing, but Guthrie is familiar and he's also about all they can afford in FA until the new MLB TV agreement kicks in for 2014. If they aren't willing to trade any of their young hitting for young pitching then they'll be pitching deficient just like we were. If you aren't developing pitching and can't afford the impact pitchers in FA, all that's left is the trade market and middling FA pitchers. If you won't flip young players/prospects for similar players then all you have available to you is the middle to bottom of the FA pitching market... it's just the reality of the situation. I would advocate that KC make the same kind of trades prospect for prospect or young player for young player that I was suggesting the Brewers make back in the day.

I'm a bit surprised by Josh Prince's addition, but he certainly made the most of his AFL stint, and it's obvious the organization likes the young man.

I'm a bit surprised by Josh Prince's addition, but he certainly made the most of his AFL stint, and it's obvious the organization likes the young man.

I was liking the way Toronto had been trending over the last 3 seasons. They were making very solid organization building moves and their A ball team had the best pitching staff I've seen fielded at that level since I started following the minors closely. In fact off the top of my head the only rotation I can recall that was better at any level was the AA rotation Seattle put out this season. That being said, I don't like this deal for Toronto at all. What player in his prime did they acquire for any significant period of time? If they can resign Johnson then maybe this works out but that's a ton of salary to take on for a bunch of "name" players... 1 of whom is way the wrong side of 30, one who will be 30 next season, and 1 who's only signed for 1 more year and has injury problems. Granted their young pitching was a couple of years away, but since I kind of like Toronto I hope this trade doesn't backfire on them. I think best case they are the 3rd best team in the AL East which I don't think gets them in the playoffs.