TheCrew07

Fair enough, but to whom are you referring?

LaPorta has power but he seems to lack the most important tool, the hit tool, at MLB. Maybe he'll figure it out eventually but he hasn't adjusted very well in almost 1000 MLB PAs now. His is a career .299 hitter in the minors, but those holes in his swing have certainly been exploited in the bigs. As I said in a thread in the MLB forum if you add 40 points of BA his entire line looks pretty respectable, he'd be an .800+ OPS first baseman. However I wasn't a huge fan of his when he was here and since he left he's done nothing to convince me he's worthy of trading anything to get him back. If you can get him on waivers and put him in AAA then sure, but why would we trade anything for him now? We already have Gamel who's a better hitter and defender. LaPorta might have more raw power, but I'd much rather have Gamel. LaPorta doesn't even appear to be a decent platoon option anywhere... I don't expect a Nelson Cruz like surge out of him, he's gotten over 350 PAs 2 years in a row, something just isn't clicking. He's certainly young enough he could turn it around, but I wouldn't give anything of value for him.

It's organizational spin in the same way that BA rates Cutter Dykstra as the organization's 7th best prospect. There isn't an unbiased chain of information... TH gets his information from the scouting department, takes it to BA who tweaks, and voila, the organization's top 30 prospects is complete. He didn't make your top 30, didn't make my list, wasn't higher than 16 on anyone's list, most people had him 19-23, Sickels had him at 19, and our own talent evaluators put him at 23 on the P50. I'd be curious to find out where someone like Law his him ranked, but his organizational top 10s are behind the pay wall and I don't care enough for his opinions enough to pay for them. If you look at our pitchers by results relative to age he's not a top prospect, if you look at them by projection he's not a top prospect, if you look our pitchers by results relative to league he's not a top prospect. I could get behind a break out candidate distinction, but he just hasn't performed worthy of that top prospect moniker in my opinion. I find it almost dubious that MLB/MiLB, BA, and Fangraphs have him rated so much higher than everyone else. Yes he's a high draft pick who hasn't flamed out, but he hasn't set the world on fire either, he's basically just holding his own. While that's fine for an 18 year old in A ball, maybe even expected, I feel quite differently about a 22 year old putting up that kind of season. Maybe he found something late in the season or maybe the legit prospects had already been promoted out of the league and that was the reason for his success. If he puts up strong numbers in A+ during the 2012 season I could maybe jump on the bandwagon but for perspective Rivas was significantly better being the same age at the same level while coming off an injury in 2008. I championed Rivas hard, but he was so uninspiring last season I dropped him all the way 23, and while they are definitely not the same kind of pitcher, I'm drawing the comparison based on age and results to add some perspective to the discussion. With his slider he could be a good short reliever but again, I have a hard time putting relievers into any top 10, regardless of the money they can save the big club, 60-70 IP just isn't anywhere near as valuable as 180, regardless of result. I also freely admit that I didn't like the pick at the time it was made, Colby took and X and I to task for our opinions in the draft forum, he just had very uninspiring college career by the numbers. The numbers didn't match up with the scouting reports close enough for me, and honestly the Suppan comparison didn't help at all. If that's a 2nd round pick's best case scenario, well then given the situation I want a different 2nd round pick. There is absolutely nothing wrong with drafting and developing mid to back of the rotation starters, but again given the situation and how thin we are at the top of the talent scale, I'm looking for more. There isn't one pitcher in the system above rookie ball whom I could honestly say would be a #1 best case, but I see tons of 2s and 3s. Rogers was about the only guy with good enough stuff and a big enough arm going into 2011, coming out of the season maybe a case can be made for Peralta if the velocity reports were true, but I've never been one to hang my hat on maybe, i see him as a solid #2.

I'm sure a certain percentage would be excited to see McGehee come back in a limited roll, people still want Branyan to come back... love the Ginter snipe.

Bah! The answer to that is obvious, EVERYONE wants more information and a profile of *trumpets blaring* Arcia! http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/wink.gif I know the rest of you slackers are just with holding your love and secretly covet him even though only Hotdog and I had him in the top 10. The rest of you who had him in the mid to late teens will come around soon enough! I still don't like the Nelson pick, rating him a "top prospect" when he's a 20ish guy in the system... well that's organizational spin in my opinion. Kentrail Davis I can see, but if he doesn't break out in AA in next season I'll personally be ready to write him off, at 24 years old it would be hard to keep making excuses for him. I agree that Jungmann's change could be a plus pitch but I dispute the video's notion that the curve is already a plus pitch. Over all I thought the majority of information in the videos was pretty honest and straightforward.

People really don't understand how good Davis was in his first stint with the Brewers. While he was FA when the Brewers acquired him, he was a waiver claim by Tornto then a non tender, not even close to the same concept I'm talking about. His 2004 salary was something like $450,000... not the $4.25 million we paid him in 2010 to finally implode when his results finally came crashing down to his peripherals, specifically that horrible BB rate he sported most of his career. Of course you knew exactly what I was referring to but chose to post anyway.

Age and injury history.

I'd debate that, the Ramirez contract and signing takes that distinction.

As far as Wolf goes, he's been fine, he's just not a #2. I originally said by the final of year of his deal he'd be our 4th or 5th best pitcher and be making that kind of money, which was the basis for my disdain. Obviously I didn't count on acquiring Greinke or Marcum, I was thinking that Hardy and Fielder would be traded for pitching and Parra would work, not to mention our minor league arms were shining much brighter then, but I'm still not thrilled about paying Wolf's contract to our 4th starter. Yes I get that it's a positive from a talent standpoint to have that deep of a rotation, but I would have rather the Brewers went about it a different way. I'm not one of these people who think the Brewers should be maxing out the payroll every year just because they can, I'm more concerned with how they spend money than if they actually spend it. This is why I bag on Melvin, because we have vastly different opinions of where the value lies in baseball and the best way to build a team, we are simply polar opposites. Even if Wolf falls flat on his face this season or gets injured the deal was one of Melvin's better moves in FA, which is probably a net positive even from my perspective. Wolf has certainly been a step up from Suppan, Davis, Looper, Gagne, Hoffman, Hawkins, and Riske deals where guys only performed for half their contract, if that. I'm not willing to call it a step in the right direction because I'm fiercely opposed to signing FA pitching, but the move certainly hasn't weighed the team down at all.

I have a ton of confidence in Mat's natural athletic ability, what I don't like is the way the Brewers have wasted his service time, nor do I like the way this is setting up. I said what I had to say about the 1B situation in the Hart to 1B thread, but I'm concerned that if Mat struggles early he'll start pressing and I don't like where it will go from there. He'll get benched, press when he gets back in the line-up, and he'll experience a season like Escobar's 2010 where he's never allowed to play through anything and become the whipping boy. Confidence is such a fragile thing for most people, it's almost easier for me to root for ultra confident guys like Braun and Lawrie. I worry(ied) more about those guys putting their tools together than I did them going into a mental funk, for most of the rest of young players, even Prince when he came up and in his first full season, I find myself hoping for the best and fearing the worst. Part of that I'm sure is that I want so badly for our home grown players to succeed that I struggle balancing my enthusiasm and homerism after following them for years in the minors against the reality that on average a certain percentage of prospects will fail. I just want the failures to be other teams' prospects. If Mat is given a chance to settle in he will hit (I like the 300 ABs number thrown out earlier), in that I have no doubt. I think his natural fielding ability and range will surprise people, I'm curious how well he'll do digging balls and around the bag. Someone in a different thread pegged his WAR for this season at something like 1.5, (maybe it was .5?), whatever it was I think Mat could have been an average MLB 1B in 2008, if he plays to his potential there's no reason he couldn't be a 3 WAR or better player this season. He's always walked, hit for average, and hit for power, other than his body language in 2009 and the rigged competition that saw McGehee take the 3B job, there aren't many flaws to complain about other than an improving K rate and the fact that he's not going to hit HRs like Fielder did. Personally I'd feel quite a bit better about the situation if Gamel had been given an equal opportunity to beat out McGehee in 2009 and was moving to 1B because of defensive deficiencies instead of having languished in the minors waiting for opportunity to open up in 2012. I'm not looking to get into another circular debate about that situation, I just honestly believe that given an equal opportunity he beats out McGehee rather easily, even with his spring training "issues" (I use that term loosely, I think most of that was overblown) that season. However the fact that he didn't report early, overslept the first or second day, and then got hurt seemed to put him in Macha's doghouse and the rest is history. It's been my experience that today's youth is simply higher maintenance and you're going to have work through some issues that didn't happen much in the past, it's a different generation with a much different take on life. I think the situation was needlessly escalated by the coaching staff and the media. Now he's the guy breaking into the big leagues while following a legend, the organization already publicly announced a back up plan, and a significant portion of the fan base expects him to fail miserably. He's been backed into a corner with no margin for error and I sincerely hope Mat seizes the opportunity this time and comes out swinging. I believe he's got the talent to be a legit .850-.900 OPS hitter in the majors and I've never personally wanted a prospect to succeed as much as I do Gamel. Please Mat, please play well.

That's a bit of a stretch, he was viewed as a nice power prospect with some legit holes in his swing. BA ranked him pretty high, but the scouting reports on him weren't necessarily glowing as far as the hit tool was concerned. edit. I guess here's the thing, true can't miss prospects are few and far between. Out of our system I thought Braun, Fielder, and Gallardo were can't miss, that's it. I championed players like Hart, Gamel, Hardy, Escobar, Weeks, Braddock, Axford, Lucroy, and Parra, but there's a wide gulf between thinking a player is going to be good and being willing to bet or say definitively that a player is going to be a stud. I might like a guy, be really high on a guy, but few guys are "can't miss". Outside of our system those guys are like a Price, Longoria, Trout, Lincecum, and Stanton, playerss who I am positive will be perennial all-stars. I talk quite a bit about TB's system but outside of Price they haven't had a can't miss young pitcher. They have tons of guys I'm very high on, and Moore is pushing "can't miss" status, but I saw most of those guys as 2/3 type pitchers which are incredibly valuable, and I would have traded for any of them, but I wouldn't have been shocked if any had went Manny Parra either. I learned my lesson a long time ago with "can't miss". LaPorta is really only 2 tool player, maybe a 1 tool player... he didn't have a defensive position, didn't run well, I don't recall him having a strong throwing arm, there was plenty of talk about holes in his swing, but does have legit power. I wasn't sorry he was traded, I just wanted a different solution, and while I thought he'd manage to hit around .270, I'm not shocked that he's a .238 career hitter either. With a decent batting average, the rest of his line would be okay.

Interesting question, it had never occurred to me that there were actually rules how many coaches you could have. I know the Brewers basically have 3 roving instructors, catching, fielding, and pitching. I figured it was just baseball's way of being cheap with the minors, like the food allowances and terrible pay, as every organization is pretty much the same in that regard. If there are arbitrary MiLB coaching restrictions put in place by MLB that would explain quite a bit, it could be spun as competitive balance issue, the better off teams could afford to more coaches than the poorer teams, even though we're only talking about the value of a minimum MLB contract. As far development goes, an organization to keep an eye on is Texas, they've always been progressive tracking and analyzing injuries, but they've taken a much different tact than other teams with their pitching development. No one else is doing mandatory extreme long toss and having starting pitchers throw batting practice on their off days.

Well I think the coaching and philosophies can be much different from organization to organization. I tend to highlight organizations in my posts that I think are doing something unique developing pitchers. For example there is simply no way that all pitching coaches are equal, if that were true then Lee Tunnel wouldn't have had the impact he's had on the Brewer system. My problem with "development" in the minor leagues is that there isn't much time for development, there's not enough coaching and practice time available throughout the system, it's still largely a trial by fire type of system. In that type of system it's more important which athletes you choose than how you develop them because they are developing themselves. Look at football, most high schools have 6+ varsity coaches, colleges have exactly the same number of coaches as do the pro programs, plus the teams have at least 4 practices per week to work on development. In baseball the minor league teams have no where near the same number of coaches as big league club and their on field work is essentially limited to however long it takes to complete batting practice each day. Our MiLB teams have a 1 manager, 1 pitching coach, and 1 hitting coach, it's as barebones as it can get. With so few coaches for so many athletes and so little time, I think the quality of the coaching is extremely critical. If the players are basically making their own adjustments on the fly during games you need to have people that can motivate and communicate as concise as possible to get the point across and move on to the next young man while continually building confidence and raising the bar expectation wise. I'm not sure what else they can do from a fundamentals standpoint in so little time. I agree that the selection process is more important than the developmental process at this juncture, but it doesn't have to be that way. All it would take is one team to dedicate more coaching, the kids to have more success, and the system would probably change. I still think it makes more sense to spend more money on development, you only need to develop 1 extra averagish pitcher and you're saving yourself at least 8 million dollars per year instead of having to go out and sign a guy in FA. I don't understand why a smart small market team hasn't taken this tact, pumping more cash into their system in the hopes of saving significant money on the back end, 2 more coaches at every level could have a significant impact, that wouldn't even cost the team $500,000 dollars to make happen. But then again we're talking about system that doesn't even do the bare minimum to feed the athletes properly...

That's awfully best case scenario considering he'll be 34 next season and just had his lowest IP since he was 25. It might be a blip on the radar, or it might be the beginning of the end. He's no longer a power arm, more an above average arm, his average FB was 91.5 last season. I'm not sure how you can claim he's a bullpen saver, he averaged 6.04 IP per game last season, the season before he was 6.5, the season before that 6.03 IP per start. At this point in his career you're looking to get a solid 6-7 from him and go to the pen. I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare Oswalt against a #5 pitcher, but he's about 1 out per game better than Narveson on average. The biggest point you neglected to mention was how the team pays for him? The Brewers are already significantly over budget, around 10% so, even at an incredible steal like $6 million for next season could the Brewers even do it? Would Roy take a 1 year deal for that little money given his history? Oswalt was a very good pitcher, he's still pretty darn good, but he's also going to be 34 coming off his worst season. If you're going to commit multiple years which a pitcher of his caliber should demand, you'd better be sure he's going to maintain his current level of play over the course of his contract. I'm not one to project the best or worst case for a pitcher, but the assumptions you posted about Oswalt seem awfully best case from where I'm sittting.

Relievers maybe, but they aren't prospects anyway... Which Brewer starting pitching prospect can any of us recall who was injured because of the cold weather in Beloit or Appleton? I'd like to see some evidence of that before we even entertain it as a realistic concern. As a young baseball player in NE WI who pitched until his junior year, hitting was more of an issue, even with the aluminum bats, if you missed the sweet spot at all your hands stung for a couple of minutes. It was pretty difficult to put a good swing on the next pitch after having just fouled off a ball from the handle area of the bat. Where as throwing was never an issue, we normally warmed up with jackets on to get loose anyway, we were comfortable with a jacket on. Playing in Door County with the wind blowing off the lake was pretty brutal in April and May, we hated making those trips every year because of the hitting issues and the soft ground, especially as OFs. The soft ground killed ground balls not far into the OF grass which forced us all to play much more shallow and the ground would literally swallow a quarter of the baseball on any kind of fly ball that found green grass out there, making it extremely easy to over run the ball while trying to recover it. There are certainly plenty of issues associated with cold weather, I'm just not sold pitching injuries are one.

That was me, posted here. Hmm, so I guess if those prospects make it to MLB we shouldn't pitch them on the road in April/May or September/October? I'm not sure a good case can be made that players are hurt more by the cold weather in WI and the rest of the Midwest league to start the season more than they are all of the lost development due to rainouts and cancelled games from our SE affiliates over the last 2 seasons. Every 7 inning games costs our kids ABs or IP, every lost game even more. Count me in the camp that couldn't care less about cold weather games, which incidentally I've always felt favored the pitchers more than the hitters anyway.

Ennder's opinion is likely based almost entirely on FIP or xFIP, both of which are derivatives of his rate stats like BB rate, K rate, K:BB, and so on. I'm not a fan of derived statistics that don't into account the actual result, certainly the pitcher bears some responsibility for a ball in play: how hard it's hit, the type of hit, and to what location come immediately to mind. Which is why for the most part I have no use for advanced pitching metrics, ignoring the end result is simply hogwash in my opinion. It's like BABIP... originally they were trying to isolate luck and defense so HRs didn't count, as such non HR hitters always had "unsustainably" high BABIPs. Isn't a HR the ultimate ball in play? Shouldn't the pitcher be penalized and the batter be rewarded regardless if the defense had to make a play? Aren't runs still scoring? Essentially all BABIP does is tell us who's hot and who's not, that's about it, all the talk about regression either way is simply spin. The same is true of pitching metrics like FIP... for years people posted how Parra was unlucky because his FIP was a 4 something while his ERA was a 5 something. I REALLY like Manny, I throw left handed, I've gravitated towards every lefty in our system, and in reality LHPs that run gas in the mid 90s and have 3 quality secondary pitches should be dominant, but he's just never gotten there. Watching him implode in games I wasn't thinking about how unlucky he was, I was thinking about how much talent he was pissing away. FIP, xFIP, WAR... it doesn't matter metric we use, the metric isn't THE picture, it's just part of the overall view of that player. Greinke has elite stuff but he also throws more bad pitches in a game than any other Brewer pitcher, I was shocked at how many grooved fastballs and hanging sliders he left up over the middle of the plate when I watched him closely last season. He just gets away with so many bad pitches because he keeps hitters off balance, but when those pitches get crushed as they should, then he gets the "unlucky" moniker because his rate stats are so good. I never thought we were getting an "Ace", his career numbers don't support that notion, especially his IP. He's not a guy who's going to pitching into the 8th inning on a consistent basis, he's quite a bit like Gallardo in that you'll hopefully get a dominant 6 or 7 and go to the pen. There's nothing wrong with a dominant 6 or 7 other than the fact that every pitcher on the staff adds to the strain on the bullpen unlike a Sheets in his prime who we could count on to give the BP a rest a handful of times per season. We paid for him in talent like we were getting an ace though because of his CY season, and I fear that he'll command that type of money in FA as well. I'm not one to overpay for anyone, I don't care who they are, so my willingness to resign Greinke depends entirely on what it will take in years and dollars. At a premium price I want no part of him, anything approaching 20 mil, forget it. Mid teens would depend on the number of years. Obviously I despise how people continually spin events that transpire in a baseball game as "lucky" or "unlucky", and I tried not be one of those posters who made the sarcastic "unlucky HR" or "unlucky double" posts when Greinke wasn't pitching well, but I did get pissed enough that I dropped my share. However, I do believe that with the exception of 2-3 games, his results on the season were exactly what he deserved. I just don't think given Greinke's pitching style he'll ever dominate the better teams in baseball on a consistent basis, better hitters don't swing at all that junk off the plate and he looked pretty terrible on his AL east swing last season. Small sample size for sure, but it also highlighted that contrary to what Bill says on the broadcasts, you just can't bury pitches in the dirt off the plate and get MLB hitters out. If it doesn't look like a strike out of the pitcher's hand then the batter isn't going to swing. We've had our fair share of players who did, Jenkins late in his career and Hart early in his come to mind, but the top hitting teams don't help the pitchers out all that much. Certainly some hitters will get themselves out, but I never feel good about Greinke matching up against a team of patient OBP type players, I feel much better about him against the more free swinging teams.

Gamel doesn't have to be Fielder offensively to be extremely valuable, the 1 to 1 comparisons need to stop. If our expectation is to replace a HOF talent with another HOF talent, then our expectations are unrealistic and need to be adjusted downward.

First off, how does any position player play more than 130 games in the minor leagues when that's how long the seasons are? What's another month once they are used to the grind? In fact the travel schedule is actually better in MLB than it is in the minors. Second, the team has already wasted a full year of Mat's service time sitting him on the bench and paying him to rehab, even if it made sense there isn't time to break him in slowly. Third, most position players don't play a full MLB season their first year because they come up in late June to avoid Super 2 status, they do however play a full season from April through October. We've broken in every position player with the exception of Hart this way. Finally, I see people justifying a move that they like for any number of reasons from Hart is a bad RF to Gamel is unproven instead of being objective about the situation. If Mat performs, there's absolutely no reason to sit him. If he hits well against lefties there is no reason to sit him. In fact I would argue there is very little reason to sit him or any first time everyday player at all. I don't recall Melvin talking about a backup plan for any other young player who's come along? Sitting a player down can be a positive, however it can also be tremendously negative depending on the circumstance and the coaching that goes with it. This is all pretty basic sports psychology, but the most important aspect in sports is confidence, and if the organization and coaching staff aren't doing everything they can to instill and build confidence in their players, especially the inexperienced players, then they are doing the player an incredible disservice. Yes production matters but so does the learning curve and how can anyone say definitively in January what Gamel is going to need in June when he's never been given an everyday opportunity? Melvin's comments about Gamel read like he's grudgingly giving him a shot just because he's out of options, not because Mat has earned the opportunity to play. In the end I guess I don't care why he's getting a shot, I just hope he makes the most out of it. I've been a Gamel supporter for a very long time, maybe I'm even a Gamel apologist. I've just grown weary of the "lets sign random veterans A, B, and C to fill holes X, Y, and Z), the organization will not move forward if that tact is continually taken. In past years I've followed the minors very closely (though I didn't in 2011), I've coached varsity football for a long time, I have to break in my own inexperienced players every single year, I go to clinics, I read something meaningful which directly relates to athletic development almost everyday. I'm not coming from a place where I'm guessing about what a player will need, I'm coming from experience saying it's impossible to predict what a player will need because every young man takes their own path. There is no 10 step procedure to guarantee success, it's process that you need to feel your way through with every single player. Mat may fail, prospects will fail, just like FA acquisitions will fail, it's a part of sports, players flame out. However, the Brewers need some young players to be given a chance and actually succeed so we can start to balance the payroll. The majority wanted our young prospects to play when we stunk in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (there was a minority that wanted to trade Fielder, Weeks, etc for proven veterans, I don't think we'll ever get away from that concept) but since the team has started winning the opposite is true. There is a very fine line between being veteran and simply being old and every year the Brewers get older and more expensive, this is not a good trend for the organization. Certainly it will be spun in a positive light, the Brewers exceeded $100 mil in payroll, blah, blah, blah... but the truth is that sports are a young man's game and on average once you get past a player's peak you're paying him for what he's done rather than what he's going to do. Just because Wolf and Cameron performed well doesn't excuse or justify away any of the bad money spent on the FAs Melvin has acquired, it's not a recipe for success, not for Milwaukee. Hart shouldn't be in the organization's long term plans, it makes no sense to move him to 1B now, it's purely a reactionary idea based entirely on the idea that a young player will fail. If they want to move a guy, it should be Braun who struggles with nagging injuries, is signed forever, and who's physical skills will begin to decline as he ages. Maybe they would be able to save Braun a catastrophic injury or 2 over the course of his career by moving him out of the OF. Braun wasn't much better in the IF than Hart was, but at least it's a move to maximize a player's long term value.

Isn't that the same reasoning many fans used to resign Fielder, the good ole "attendance will go down" argument? I still firmly believe that good baseball puts fans in the seats, obviously good players help, but winning teams fill the stands. I was happy for Z when he got a chance to be a GM, but he seems to be pretty much a Melvin clone, looking to build around veterans. I'm not sure he has enough payroll to make it work. I thought he'd be a guy who built around young players given what a good scouting director he was, though I guess he was never very good with pitching.

Why are we suggesting rookies should only play 130 games? Where is this "needs a day off" coming from? I still firmly believe that Macha's regular benching of Escobar only made a difficult situation worse. Just because Hart sat behind a clearly inferior player in Mench doesn't justify sporadic playing time for a young player, quite the opposite. If we're talking young pitchers then yes, we should absolutely limit their innings and let them build into 200 innings at a reasonable pace, but why should position players sit? To me this is opening up an unnecessary can of worms; the assumption that Gamel needs to be platooned and needs time off only opens the door for more veteran mismanagement by the manager and GM. Why don't we let him play on a regular basis before definitively claiming what he needs? He hasn't exactly been a model of health the past 3 years, if he goes on the DL or struggles for an extended period of time the team will have to do something at 1B, and I can see an occasional day off, but why should he sit for 30 games? It's completely arbitrary, especially if he's productive, why would you want to sit him down? Furthermore why on earth would we be excited about an OF of Morgan, Gomez, and Aoki offensively while Braun is suspended? That's 2 slap hitters and a free swinger who would maybe hit double digit HRs if the team was silly enough to give him enough ABs? I'm all about defense, always have been, but we need to generate some power while Braun is out of the line-up as well. Those 3 players together might have the lowest combined OF OPS in the division in addition to losing the platoon advantage of playing Gomez and Morgan against favorable pitching match-ups by playing them both everyday. I realize a Braun suspension ties the organization's hands somewhat, but why make a bad situation worse offensively? I guess I'll put it this way, have we learned nothing from the Cubs whom must of us can't stand? How long did it take for them to go from veteran to old with a ton of bad contracts? I'll say 2 years only because of the denial factor, "it was a bad year, we'll be back next year", but it was more like a single season. I'm not into tearing it all apart and rebuilding from scratch, I don't understand the veteran obsession of the team and this board at times, we need young and productive players if for no other reason than to balance the payroll some. Hart hasn't played 1B since 2002 (before my time on bf.net) but his stats were similar to Hunter Morris who I wouldn't call a finished product defensively by any stretch. 1B is definitely the position that requires the least mobility, but it's not exactly an easy position to play. You have to know and execute all of the IF plays, you have field bunts bare-handed, throw accurately off of 1 leg, catch short hops, be good around the bag, etc. Fielder wasn't a bad athlete for his size but he was pretty poor defender at 1B on the whole, I think 1B gets a bad rap given the relative importance of the position, just about every IF play will finish there. The skill set requirement is just different at 1B than the rest of the IF positions, and those skills are hard to quantify mathematically when no one is really keep track of scoops and such. Gamel has all of the tools to be an excellent 3B, he just never reigned in his throwing issues, he could be a difference maker at 1B. Hart was a horrible 3B in every way, while he might be a decent stop gap for a game or 2 here and there at 1B, he hasn't played the position in 9 years and I'd rather leave well enough alone. Everything TH has written about Gamel may be true, and Mat may very well end up needing a platoon partner, but this whole Gamel situation rubs me the wrong way for quite a few reasons.

Well personally speaking I don't want anything to do with Corey beyond his current contract so I see no reason to move him for a season or 2 to 1B to further block Gamel. Sort of the same way I feel about Ramirez, though I simply didn't want him in the first place.

That's only partly true. It's only good value depending on the salaries involved and it's certainly not something you can do with every position on the field. It's a tool in which you need to pick your spots because it's no easy task to acquire 2 complimentary players. Usually one half of the platoon is woefully deficient at something like defense, which brings the overall value down. However in the case of Gomez and Morgan it works out wonderfully.

I still prefer BA's list (as flawed as it is), MiLB's is pretty informed as well and I'm always interested to see how the prospects rank, the rest don't mean much to me. Jungmann and Bradley haven't pitched in an A ball game yet, I don't see how either is a top 100 pitcher today. I'll be curious to see if\where BA ranks Peralta and Thornburg next month. Peralta didn't even make the list last year, I doubt he vaults into the top 50, and Thornburg saw some pretty significant regression in his ERA and BB rate moving up a level even though his Hit and K rates improved. The surface level ERA spike might have been enough for the, "he's just a reliever" crowd to win out, we'll see. As much as I like Green he doesn't belong on any top 100 list, I would have liked to see if he had the stuff to be an everyday MLB 3B but it wasn't meant to be in Milwaukee. Even after a bounce back year he's just not toolsy enough, he doesn't have enough upside to be rated that highly. Ramirez will have to suffer a pretty catastrophic injury for Green to get extended playing time at 3B. It's too bad Trout didn't last one more spot, lame Angels... reports are the Brewers were very high on him. Trout vs Arnett, what could have been... *sigh*

Prior to minorleaguesplits going down, Gamel didn't appear to be a platoon candidate. I hadn't looked at his splits for last season prior to the DSL stats going up, but I do remember how excited I was in 2008 when he took Price deep in a AA game. In fact, where are you getting his splits? The only site I know of that does splits for MiLB players anymore is MiLB.com. I know you can get the raw data and parse it yourself, but that's not a linkable source nor do I have the inclination to put in that much effort.