TheCrew07

BLASPHEMY!

I agree, that was very well written and even handed piece, not much new information but it was a good read. I thought Macias was a bit of surprise at 3B, but we're so thin at that position it's hard to project any of the players as full-time MLB players so I didn't have a problem going with the best stat line. Macias reminded me a little of bit of Juan Sanchez in that every time I saw him play he did something well and at a couple of different positions. Taylor Wall was also a bit of a surprise, but then I looked at the organizational depth chart for LHP because the only names that came to mind were Wall, West, and Bradley... Bradley really needs to turn it around quick because we don't have a single guy with Manny Parra type stuff at this point. Will West could be interesting and who knows anything about Juan Santiago? As an aside, I had forgotten how bad the organization winning percentage was, I guess I managed to block that out as the teams I was covering with the exception of the DSL squad had decent halves when I was reporting.

I made my case pretty clearly, he doesn't have to be a HOF player to be valuable, you are completely ignoring the fact that he got injured and wasn't able to finish the season but went on to rake in the AFL. Then instead of playing all year last year in the minors TX called him up to be a bench bat. There are quite a few things to like about TX as an organization, but calling up a top propsect to ride the pine isn't one of them. His complete stats for the record: 21 A- 69 games .293/.390/.464/.864 (Spokane) 22 A+ 69 games .267/.387/.504/.891 (Myrtle Beach) 23 AA 95 games .288/.398/.579/.977 (Frisco, TX) As I pointed out previously he would have had a very realistic shot to be the Carolina League MVP in 2011 or a bump up to AA without the injury highlighted in the BA scouting report. You see a player who hit .267 and then raked in a hitter friendly league who's too old for his leagues. I see an ascending patient hitter who has produced solidly at every level but is still trying to figure out an agressive hitting approach, hence his low BA. Cripes, he put up an .891 OPS with that .267 BA you pointed out. As I said I'm slightly concerned about his hit tool as I am with most prospects, however I stand by my assertion that he'd be the best prospect in the system if we traded for him tomorrow regardless of the fact he's 23 and Segura is 22. This argument is as much about opportunity as it is about tools and production. Dismissing the fact that TX has no need for him at 3B at all but continually point out he'll 24 in AAA is a distortion of the truth and his career path thus far. I'm not saying everyone should want Olt over Segura or trade Ramirez for Olt like I would, these discussions are always too subjective for absolutes. In fact I would rather have Segura, Hellweg, and Pena than Olt. Now if TX would have kicked in Perez then that's a different discussion which I'd have to think about for a while, but my initial impression is that I'd still lean towards the LAA package. The pitching is the kicker... as much I as like another LHP with Perez' stuff (or any LHP with Perez' stuff in the system), I'm about 35/65 on him ever controlling his stuff enough to be a top of the rotation MLB pitcher, I actually think Hellweg has a better chance of being that guy. However I would ask that you don't misrepresent what a player is or isn't by cherry picking specific stats which make your point while ignoring the rest of the total picture. He's been an incredibly productive offensive player at every stop while being a plus defender in the field. What prospect of that level did we have anywhere between A-AAA before the Greinke trade? With Segura in the majors, where's another 4 tool player with the kind of all around production package that Olt represents? You picked college draftees which were taken in the top 5 overall picks who's teams had an immediate need at the position when said players were drafted and compared them to Mike who's in a completely dissimilar situation. How is that a remotely fair/valid comparison when Mike had no clear path to MLB like the other guys? In truth Olt has exceeded expectations and he did make his MLB debut at 23, even though it wasn't much of an opportunity.

JB12 why are you continually bagging on Olt's age? It's not his fault Texas had no immediate need for his services and has advanced 1 level at a time, he's performed at every level and could have been on a similar career path through the minors as Braun if management had deemed it so. Olt's career arc to MLB is entirely beyond his control, he has produced consistently since he was drafted which is all anyone could ask. Considering the state of 3B in the organization I would trade Ramirez for Olt straight up tomorrow if I could. He's one of the best hitting prospects in Minor League Baseball for a reason... In fact, we didn't have a single hitter anywhere in the system with Olt's combination of tools and approach last season, he'd be our best position prospect by a wide gulf and at a position of need. I understand relative age when discussing prospects, but in this case Olt could have easily started 2012 in AAA and played in the Majors if Texas had any kind of need and he wouldn't suffered an injury, which would have been the exact same path Braun took to the majors.... .5 in A+, .5 in AA to finish first full season, AAA to start the following year, and then the call to the bigs. I feel you've serioulsy overplayed in the age factor in this case. I like Segura quite a bit if he sticks at SS and regardless I like the Greinke trade, but as far as Olt is concerned there's literally nothing not to like from tools and statistical perspective. My only concern about him would be his hit tool, but there are very few players who I will project to hit for high average, I always worry about that tool the most. Here's BA's scouting report prior to the 2012 season when he was ranked as the #3 prospect in an incredibly loaded farm system. The fourth and final of Texas' selections in the 2010 draft, Olt was the lone college pick and viewed as a safer choice. Signed for $717,300, he quickly established himself as the best prospect of the bunch and might have won the high Class A Carolina League MVP award in his first full pro season if he hadn't broken his collarbone in a home-plate collision in June. He made up for lost time by hitting .349/.433/.764 in the Arizona Fall League. Olt offers the increasingly rare combination of plus righthanded power and plus defense at third base. Sturdy and physically mature, he has great bat speed and impressive raw thunder. He projects as an average hitter, as he occasionally gets out front and struggles with quality offspeed stuff. Despite his selective approach, he strikes out often, Initially a shortstop in college at Connecticut, Olt plays the hot corner with fluid actions and soft hands. He has a plus arm and while he's a below-average runner, he has good first-step quickness and average range. With Adrian Beltre signed through at least 2015, Olt likely won't break in with Texas at third base. He has the athleticism to play left field, and he could be used as a blue-chip trade commodity. He'll spend 2012 at Frisco, where he should post massive power numbers.

Ever since I've found Brewerfan the discussion has been how terrible the organization has been developing pitching. Now we finally have enough young pitching that we can legitimately field a homegrown rotation and not only that, but through numbers alone we should be able to field an excellent top of the rotation. Some prospects will fail, some will be exactly what we thought they would be, and some will overachieve, but we have enough young pitching we should have a good rotation with quality depth behind it for years, all it will require is some patience on our and the organization's part to let the players grow into their roles, whatever they may be. After struggling so hard to get to this point I still shocked even though I shouldn't be that people are suggesting flipping 6+ years of "unproven" players for short term solutions yet again. Did trading for Sabathia light a fire that's never going to go out? We got better last year after dumping Wolf and recycling Greinke, it should have been a nice lesson in "what's possible" if we're open to the possibility of using players that don't exist on fantsy baseball rosters. Winning isn't about "veteraness", it's about relative talent, and the Brewers need to keep as much talent stockpiled as possible. I'm certainly not opposed to trading young excess talent here and there but I'm fiercely opposed to trading for short term solutions of any kind, especially on the pitching front where it doesn't look like we'll be needing much help. There's a difference between plugging/fixing holes and patching them, and until recently all we've been doing as a franchise since this first wave arrived has been plugging holes in the dyke with our fingers. We have legitimate chance to get on top of the organization's pitching issues for the first time in my lifetime, we have enough assets to repair the wall and stop the leaks for an extended period of time. Let's have the patience to play this out with the assets we have on hand.

No, the DH is the devil.

I'd let JJ move on to his 3rd organization. He has a big arm but no control and only managed a 4.97 ERA pitching in the PCL for Omaha, I don't want him coming back. That SO/9 is going to come down and the BB/9 is going to go up and it's already high. He definitely has the talent but I don't think he's got any of the rest and I'd rather just stay away.

Not a guru but the Brewers have a bunch of #3's 4's and 5's which some have the ceilings of #1's or 2's if everything goes perfectly. Peralta is probably the only one who has a ceiling as a #1 type of a pitcher. Jungmann is close but he needs a third pitch and he needs to work on locating his pitches better. Ceiling for Jungmann is Cain if everything goes perfectly but will probably be more around someone like an Edwin Jackson. Most of the higher ceiling players are difficult to project because of their control, they could be relievers, backend guys, or studs. We won't know until they get a chance to pitch against MLB hitting. Also, SPs that don't run their FB into the upper 90s aren't projectable as #1s, which is why someone like Gallardo was always projected behind Lincecum on prospect lists. So only pitchers who can hit 97+ with their FB get the #1 projection even though they may ultimately have less success and slot behind someone who tops out around 95 and regularly pitches in that 91-93 range. Depending on the success of the guys ahead or behind them any of these pitchers are also legitimate bullpen candidates down the road. In this case ETA is their best possible MLB debut so obviously the playes who have already made their debut have that year as their ETA. Name - ETA - Safe Projection - Best Case Peralta - 2012 - 3 - 1/2 Rogers - 2010 - 4/5 - 1/2 Fiers - 2012 - 4/5 - 3 Burgos - 2013 - 4/5 - 3 Thornburg - 2012 - 3/4 - 2 Stinson - 2012 - 4/5 - 3 Jungmann - 2014 - 4/5 - 2/3 (contrary to what was posted above Jungmann doesn't have a quality 2nd pitch yet) Hellweg - 2013 - 4/5 - 1/2 Nelson - 2013 - 4/5 - 2/3 Scarpetta - 2014 - reliever - 3 Pena - 2014 - reliever - 2/3 Gagnon - 2014 - 4/5 - 3 Bucci - 2014 - 4/5 - 3 Bradley - ? - ? - ? (yes he was drafted high but after April didn't show anything, I wouldn't guess anything about his career path at this point) The rest of the guys are too away far or don't project well enough to disuss legitmately as MLB starting pitchers right now.

Cannon schmannon, with that much excellent material to build off of it would be foolish to disregard it. GL can say whatever he wants about his version of the Stars Wars universe, but he did authorize everything that was written post episode 6. Regardless he has no say now.

Everything after 4-6 is already written for the most part, I can't be the only one who has bought most of the book trilogies? Some of them were just awesome, like the Thrawn and X-Wing Trilogies... I haven't read any of them in a couple of years now but there are actually very few bad books, I probably have something like 30 of them, I never actually counted, but I currentlyhave a bookcase full of just Star Wars books. It would be pretty easy to start adapting good trilogies into movies. Wiki has the complete list, I didn't realize I had fallen so far behind in my reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_novels

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like beer, it's that I've been making an effort to get healthy and elmininate certain poor habits, so beer and soda had to go for the most part. I limit myself to social drinking on Wednesday nights at my brother's bar which also limits my selection to the seasonals they choose to provide. I'm no longer taking my "beer tour" for lack of a better term which started as 21 year old in MN who enjoyed the food, company, and spirits at Old Chicago a litle too much and has carried through for many years.

I just consider the source... I like fangraphs for quite a bit of information, but that's my absolute last stop when I'm looking for anything prospect orientated. It also depends on the player, it's much easier to find unbiased opinions from any number of sources for a player like Billy Hamilton than it is Hunter Morris. Most prospect gurus are going to see a guy Hamilton play in person, maybe multiple times, in additional to taking information from various scounts. Where as Morris is going to be a guy who everyone may not see, he's not enough a big enough name, in which case 1 or 2 scouting reports seem to get repeated everywhere. It happened with Caleb Gindl who had a 90 MPH FB as a highschool pitcher but suddenly there's a scouting report floating around which questions his arm strength? He may be a poorish defender and he's likely made some poor throws in his career but he also has 54 OF assists in his career... something just doesn't jive. Where's the truth? Even Baseball America seems to have quite a bit of any organization's own personal spin when it comes to their prospect rating and scouting reports. For example how unbiased can the reporting on the Brewers be when they tap TH and he sees very few if any minor leaguers play during the season? The team's beat writer with limited opportunities to watch prospects is an unbaised and credible source of prospect information? No, obviously his information is coming directly from the organization and then BA adds their own little tweaks. In general I'm advocate of reading everything you can find on a guy and then forming your own opinion, I think that's the best approach. There are certain prospect gurus who I don't hold in very high esteem because they just throw opinions into the void without any supporting evidence, but I still read what they have to say however off base I think it might be. This is why I made an effort to link all stories about divisional prospects that I came across this year... it's too much to link stories to every player featured every day, but I still read them. However I do think it's important that everyone have at least basic knowledge about the prospects and farm systems within our own division, and it's possible to get that by just reading the first few paraghraphs from each story linked if that's all someone has time for. I guess what I mean is that I feel it's important for everyone who reads this forum to know things like the Pirates have 4 players in the top 50 and who the top prospects are from the Cards, Cubs, and Reds, as well as the general state of their farm systems. Without the knowledge it's difficult to have any kind of discussion, let alone intelligent discussion, about where the Brewers system should rate, how the farm system is progressing, and so on. All of the dicussion is dependent upon and relative to what's happening elsewhere...

Santana, Montgomery (assuming any kind of rebound), and Odorizzi isn't a bad front 3... and there's help behind those guys. KC needs some good fortune on the pitching front from their prospects, as do most organizations. With any kind of pitching KC is team to be excited about, they have a really nice young core and will add another position player in Wil Myers who looks to be a stud and was BA's Minor League Player of the Year for 2012. I view the Royals kind of like the 2006 Brewers without Sheets... any kind of pitching and a bit more seasoning for some of their young position players and look out.

Yeah Melvin never does that. Well as long as you don't count Leskanic, Sexson, Young, Franklin, Kolb, Ginter, Overbay, Davis, Gross, and ,you know, Greinke. Say what? How are any of those deals outside of Sexson and Greinke remotely had the potential to be the kind of deal Monty is talking about? Most of those guys were simply simply being dumped, or moved for younger impact talent. Regardless, that trade history is hardly a ringing endorsement of Melvin's management strategy... trading midling scrubs for more midling fodder and/or players with higher floors and lower ceilings. The only high ceiling player in the Sexson trade was JDLR and he was being moved for the 2nd time because he wasn't improving and nearly out of options. Melvin did do quite well in the Greinke deal, I have high hopes that Segura and 1 of the 2 pitchers will prove valuable. Melvin did have a chance to make splash trading the vastly overrated Ginter for Nelson Cruz and Justin Lehr but then magically turned Cruz and Lee into Cordero, Cordero, Mench, and Nix... wonderful value, or something. A minor leaguer who couldn't throw strikes, a closer we didn't need, and 2 OFs we didn't particularily need and shouldn't have wanted. I always liked Villy, that was good trade as Franklin was just garbage, but Villy isn't a high ceiling player either. I've beat the Overbay trade to death but there wasn't a single high ceiling player in that deal. In fact, as I've pointed out many times Bush and Jackson were the worst of the young pitchers Toronto had to offer at the time. I can't believe you put Leskanic up there? A 35 year old reliever who couldn't stay healthy for Machado and Obermueller? Eric Young? Really? Traded for Greg Bruso? That's a winning move? Kolb for Cappellan was a winner? Seriously, comparing any of the deals you listed to the Greinke deal is a farce, there wasn't legitimate impact talent coming back any in of those deals. They were all trades for high floor/low ceiling types or garbage for garbage. Defend Melvin all you want, but at least stay true to the point the poster you quoted was trying to make. It simply isn't fair to lump all trades for a young players into one category, especially when the topic is cycling talent, because trading garbage for garbage isn't the idea. The idea is trading replacable talent to get young impact talent back of all the players moved prior to the Greinke trade the only 2 players with significant upside were Cruz and JDLR. There's no way Capellan would have been rated as high as he was today with realistic velocities and scouting reports out there. A 2 pitch pitcher without an out pitch, he might have been the most overated pitching prospect in a long time, probably because Atlanta had such an excellent pitching reputation. He never came close to the reported 100 MPH gun hits with the Brewers and I never saw or heard him throw a pitch over 95 even as a reliever. Regardless, Kolb was done and the Brewers knew it, Capellan was probably the best the Brewers could do, but that's nothing like spinning Greinke into Segura, Pena, and Hellweg. The Greinke trade is exacty the type of trade that I was hoping Melvin would have made more of. However, as has been pointed out literally hundreds of times he prefers to turn prospects with impact potential into short term solutions for the MLB team. I don't mind trading prospects, but I do mind trading any asset(s) for temporary solutions, give me 3 years or move on to another deal.

I'm glad that well thought out arguments about ultimate value by any number of posters gets reduced to "rebuild like they desperately wanted". Nobody, absolutely nobody, who's talked at length about young players, value, or the proper time to trade a player has been in favor of a rebuild. In fact, that's exactly what posters like me are trying to avoid. There may be some random posts here and there about a total rebuild, but that's not what the more vocal posters are discussing at all. The question you need to ask yourself is why a rebuild ever becomes necessary in the first place. When you see or get your mind around all of the different scenarios that can contribute to the point where the production on the field isn't worth the payroll in place, hence the need for a complete teardown of the roster, then maybe you'll understand where we are coming from. If posts from me or other posters like Monty are too long for you to read then do us the courtesy of not commenting on points of view you that you haven't taken the time to read, let alone understand. The points have been made and discussed from so many different angles that I have a hard time believing it's a matter of understanding, in truth it's probably just simple a lack of effort... skimming a post, inferring your own conclusion on what the post was trying to say, and posting back some circular taglines that have little or nothing to do with the actual topic of the post. In truth the gist of the "value" argument is simple ecomonics and good business sense. Hack some 0s off the money being discussed and if you were a small business owner what kind of talent would you be looking to acquire to build your organization? Instead of millions we're dealing in the tens of thousands... bringing it down to the level most of us are playing at. You might want to bring in some older expensive employees to fill certain niche roles to help develop your strategy and work force but what type person would your core employee be? Would you have an expectation of being able to retain your best employees if their salary demands outpace your ability to pay them? The value arguments are best described as treating the Brewers' money like you would your own. When you're playing in a rigged system you have to extract as much value out of every single dollar you spend as possible. There's no such thing as a "wash", there's money that brings back positive value and money that doesn't, each year is its own animal. Take Wolf, he was great for 2 years but he was still dead money this season, and the good years don't make up for the bad. 7 digits spent on negative WAR is money wasted, regardless of the contract, player, or position. It's 7 digits that could have been better spent elsewhere. It's much more prudent to take peformance risks on young minimum wage players than it is to continually bet 7-8 digit salaries on aging/declining players. Again, no FA contract longer than 2 years has worked out well in the end for Melvin. Hart hopefully will be the first, and he was a home grown guy, if Weeks rebounds a solid argument will be able to be made for him as well. FA pitching has been a disaster, every single contract he's signed has had dead money in it. Suppan, Looper, Riske, Davis, Gagne, Hoffman, Hawkins, K-Rod (his tender), Wolf... who was healthy and productive the entire length of their stay? It's no secret that I don't have much use for Melvin, but it's not that he's been unlucky, that's simply the way it goes with aging players. They aren't any less risky than "these damn kids who are being pushed on us", how do the kids ever get a chance to prove they belong if they aren't given an opportunity? I've been saying it for years, I'm very much a next man up believer in organization building. That means there will be a time a place for FA signings, like the Packers signing Pickett and Woodson, niche players that return great value, but that kind of value isn't sitting in the FA pool every single year. As a yearly tool FA should mostly be about short duration stopgaps, especially for the Brewers competing in a tilted market. FA isn't a means to end for Milwaukee, it's a means to mediocrity, because that's all the Brewers can really afford to buy on long-term deals. FA should be the last stop made when trying to fill a hole, not the first. In the case of Hamilton, a hole doesn't even exist so you'd better be getting some great value since you know over the course of 3 years he'll miss over 130 games, and over the course of a 4 year contract he'll miss an entire season's worth of games. If the years and the money are right, sure take a shot, but a 4 year deal worth $80 million essentially means we should lop $20 mil right off the top because he misses so many games per season. He's a fantastic talent, but he's lived hard and his body just doesn't hold up for even 140 games per season. Just say no and move on Doug. The team has enough SLG and offensive production to score runs the way it is.

What you really meant to say was just like about every team who works the area hard does? I've linked many BA articles on the draft forum about corruption in Latin America, the Pirates are hardly alone in having to play that game.

I'm not sure I understand why posters continually keep using the words "only" and "young" for players in their late 20s. Sure they are younger than I am, I'm 37, but in sports terms they aren't young and spry, their peak years have likely passed them by. Statistically speaking many of the age 29 players are already past their prime, why would we want to pay them for what they've done in the past? They will likely have productive years in the future, but to expect Lincecum to pitch like he did when he was 26 is setting the bar awfully high. Everyone's body will break down over time, and pitchers are especially risky, I see no good reason to move for Lincecum. People will like him because he's name and proven player, and he may bounce back next season, but is that worth whatever prospects it would take to get him and $22 mil for the season? That's an incredibly expensive bet for a single season, I wouldn't even do any deal for him for 2 years, and he's old enough I wouldn't want to commit to him for 3 given his size and performance this season. There are a handful of pitchers who were better on the backside of their careers, but is any player truly worth taking that risk on? The idea shouldn't be to target Name players all the time like this is a video game, for one they cost too much to acquire and secondly they are incredibly expensive to keep around. I have a hard time getting my mind around why Name players on the downside of their careers are continually suggested as trade targets on this forum, the idea should be to acquire name players before they are "proven" when you can extract the best value from their careers. I'm really struggling with why so many posters are willing to always be on the wrong side of the talent cycle. We should be buying young and selling old... like what Toronto did when they sold Marcum for Lawrie, not continually buying old and selling young. When you buy young players you continually cycle talent back into the organization and keep the train moving forward. However, when you continually buy old players you're constantly giving away depth for short duration solutions and eventually the talent pool dries up. People may not like it but there will come a time when trading Gallardo is a good idea and possibly even when trading Braun would be a good idea. Braun has had nagging injuries all through his 20s, what happens in his mid 30s when he's making all that money... is he suddenly going to find better health then or is he going to play less games than he is now? What's most realistic? Over the length of his contract it doesn't take but 1 significant injury mixed in with all his little nagging injuries and he could miss a total of a season worth of games if not more. 3 months here, a bunch of 15 day DL stints scattered throughout the remainder and it's pretty easy to lose an entire season's worth of production from him, and he's not getting any cheaper as time goes on. It won't be obvious, but I'd be willing to bet there will be a significant amount of dead money in Braun's contract extension. Just say no to any trades for random Name players or signing said random Name players to FA contracts into their mid 30s. Especially stay away from 2nd and 3rd tier FA pitching into their mid 30s, very few of those contracts ever end well. Sports is a young man's game, peak years happen when the mental side catches up to the physical ability side, and unfortunately most players peak in their mid to late 20s. After that then the ship has sailed... just stay away. No to Peavy, Lincecum, Hamilton, and whomever else will be suggested in the coming months and years. No. No. No... to infinity. Paying market value (which is set artificially high by the large markets) for wins is a terrible practice for a team of limited means, we will never be able to complete with the large market teams dollar for dollar in MLB's current financial system so we need to focus on getting the best value for the dollar that we can.

I haven't paid much attention to this thread and I'd be shocked if this company wasn't mentioned already, but over the years I became a huge fan of Great Lakes Brewing Company. Holy Moses White Ale is my all time favorite beer, but the rest of their collection (that I've gotten to sample) has been fantastic as well. I'm not that much of a beer drinker anymore, but after looking around some beer sites their Oktoberfest is rated higher than the Holy Moses.

It's an interesting concept in the minors from a development standpoint, but I'm not sure it's such a great idea for the major leagues. It's hard enough to find 5 good pitchers...

Manzanillo hasn't been right since the accident, so much for those assurances that his shoulder would be okay for spring training and he'd hit the ground running... Why not just shut him down and let him get back at it next season? Or maybe look again at the shoulder and see if surgery is actually necessary? His velocity has been down and he's pitched like garbage all year, it wouldn't surprise me if he's been playing with an injury all season... pitchers that young don't lose 5 MPH on the heater in a single off-season (unless performance enhancing drugs are a factor).

So you're acknowledging that every other year performance is about the best we can hope for from FA relievers? That was my point in the first place, relievers by their nature aren't consistent, you want multiple inexpensive options because it's too easy to end up with dead money when you're counting on those kind of players to consistently perform, it just doesn't happen for most players. There are a couple of very consistent relievers in every division, but by in large the majority of those guys are going to be interchangeable. We don't have to spend money to be revamp the pen, we have to develop a better mix of relievers in the first place. Right handed specialists are a waste of a roster spot, I don't even value LOOGYs at all considering they rarely pitch a full inning. Give me a pen full of relievers capable of going multiple innings so it's easier to even out the workload and ride the hot hand in any given game. Screw the notion of a 6th, 7th, and 8th inning guy. I'm not going to fight the closer battle because it's a waste of time since that's not going to change right now, but how does it make sense to pitch your best reliever the fewest innings in a season? Get a good mix of different kinds of pitchers who can go multiple innings and we'll be in good shape. I like having control/location guys with average velocity mixed in with fireballing 2 pitch type guys. Get younger players who tend to stay healthy, can pitch multiple innings, and variety of pitching styles for the pen and I'll be a happy camper. I'm not necessarily opposed to a gritty veteran in the pen if he's a Hawkins type who's going to go out of his way to coach up the younger guys. I firmly believe in chemistry and I'd be looking to be bring in the right type of guy, not so much worrying about how much he'll cost or what hand he throws with. I don't want any part of a guy who's good but doesn't genuinely want to help out his teammates. It hasn't been quantified by statisticians and probably never will be, but I believe players who genuinely enjoy each other are going to win more games than a bunch of individuals who are just playing for themselves or for their next contract. I've seen it play out too many times in all sports and at all level of sport not to believe in it... in baseball circles you'll see the term "random variance" thrown around quite a bit, but there's truly nothing random about baseball. For example where a batter hits the ball isn't random, it's the result of many variables from pitch location, to timing, to bat speed, and so on but in the end it's just a moderate physics problem: the ball's flight path depends on the angle of that bat at contact, where the ball strikes the barrel, and how quickly both objects are moving. It's not random... it's a series of choices and physical movements that we simply don't have enough information about to quantify so it's easier to measure the end result, and since games are won and lost on the outcome of a handful of ABs in that specific game every difference between an actual result and the expected result from a player to a team gets the "random variance" label. Many times a team which beats the "expected" result stays healthy and has good chemistry, but they weren't randomly lucky even though it's easy to say that from a distance. It's no different than working in the real world, the most fun I've had working was when I was a part time supervisor just out of college. All of use were tight, we hung out together outside of work, we worked hard for/with each other at work, and we obtained and then eventually far exceeded our goals. As I've gotten older that's much harder to find as you run into people who are just riding out the final years of their career, are selfish(the what about me? kind), stubborn, or jealous of their coworkers, and so on... predictably the results aren't anywhere near as good. Far too many people are too worried about their themselves and could care less about the larger picture or what's happening around them. It's sad in a way, that many people end with a different attitude or perspective than they started out with. There's simply more to life than physical or mental aptitude so when I look at the Brewers spending money I'm always going back to that player's ultimate value, which unfortunately isn't just as simple as how well they produce when they are healthy. Sports, life... nothing is that black and white. If he doesn't have a better than average chance to be healthy and productive every year of his contract why would I want him? Once he gets hurt and lands on the DL now that money is dead and I need to find a viable plan B. If he's not going to mentor and take an interest in his teammates why would I want him? Is it worth it having a guy like that around, someone like who K-Rod appeared to be? Ultimately couldn't we have done better for less money? That's the perspective/angle I take on this stuff... it's not just about the money... it's about age, health, production, health, longevity, and attitude for me. Generally I'm not a fan of "look at me" type of players or players who only seem to care about themselves... I can respect the value Morgan brought to the team in 2011 but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have rather replaced him with Schafer in July, he's just not my type of guy and never will be.

155...

For what it's worth and I forget where I read it, probably BA, but Hamilton is strictly an OF now and is being groomed to be a CF. Makes sense considering the SS position is pretty loaded in the Reds' organization.

1 year? What high price bullpen solution has worked out well for the Brewers? In fact, how many high priced bullpen solutions have worked out well historically all around baseball? The problem with the hasn't been that Melvin has gone cheap, the problem with the pen was and still is that bullpen arms by their very nature aren't very reliable. FA pitching has been a horrible market for the Brewers, it's not any kind of long-term solution regardless of who's the GM. If you want to fix the Brewers' pitching issues the answer is the same as it's always been, the farm system. If we aren't developing any quality starting pitching then we won't be developing any quality bullpen arms either. The 2 go hand in hand and that's the problem, the Brewers have historically been horrible at developing pitching. I haven't read anyone who said that bullpen arms aren't important, but those roles aren't nearly as important as the starting pitching or position players. The failure of this year's bullpen was evidence that this whole notion of "proven players" is quite suspect regardless of cost or experience. This is especially true in the bullpen where the pitchers don't have the same opportunity to work on mechanics or their pitches in side bullpen sessions like a starting pitcher would. 1 or 2 horrible months for a reliever and their season is basically sunk because they'll never pitch enough innings to even the stats back out. The failure of the bullpen proved the volative nature of that kind of player, not how important their contribution is or isn't to the team. The most important question is why relief pitchers end up in that role in the first place... in almost all cases it's because they weren't good enough to be starting pitchers. If they were consistent or had great stuff they'd still be starting, it's very difficult to find relievers who will be consistent performers from year to year. This is why the theory should be to minimize the number of innings the bullpen has to pitch in the first place.

Roster turnover is inevitable whether you like it or not, players will need to be replaced for any number of reasons including but not limited to age, cost, and injury. That's a simple reality of professional sports, either we can continually pay market value and bemoan the inherent disparities or we can adapt and look to exploit systems. It is entirely possible to trade a productive or to use your word "good" player and be a stronger team on the other side. I think it's funny that team turned things around as many young players made good on their opportunities and yet people are still clamoring for veteran SP acquisitions. There's a difference between a player like Gallardo and a player like Hart, in fact it's a wide gulf because of position, contract status, age, and cost relative to production. I wouldn't trade Gallardo today, but if he's replaceable going into his last option year I would consider it. The Rays have done this repeatedly with Jackson, Garza, Kazmir, and possibly Shields this coming off-season. If you're reasonably sure the next man up is going to be more productive than the player you have what's wrong with trading a player before his contract is up? In fact even if the replacement player would be slightly below the production of the player traded, but one of the players acquired makes you much better at a different position the trade is a very idea from a value standpoint. That's exactly what the team did by dumping Wolf and trading Greinke but picking up Segura, they became a better team. The Brewers were a better team after the trade because all of the young players who got subsequent opportunities held their own which will help propel us into 2013. Personally I would love to have enough impact pitching/players on hand to make those kind of moves every year. Out with the old, in with the new, and keep cycling fresh impact talent back into the farm system to keep train rolling. I think some people hold onto way too tight to the players that we have and I don't like that.