TheCrew07

I'm right there with you battlekow... this season these reports of defensive issues seem to come out of nowhere. I distinctly remember that if he was taller he would have been drafted as a pitcher because his fastball was 90+. In fact, had he been taller the Brewers wouldn't have been able to pick him up so low in draft. Somehow being short has become being slow with a bad arm. It just doesn't add up... You know the more I think about it, the more Gindl reminds me of Rivas. Rivas is lumped in with Anundsen way too often from those who should know better, he consistently works in the low 90s, reaches 95, and was rated as having the best Change in the FSL yet he has a limited upside similar to Anundsen? Hell if Anundsen could pull an Axford and get back 5mph of his lost velocity he'd be a very good prospect in his own right. I understand there are literally a ton of prospects to keep up with, I only keep with the players in the same leagues as our young men and NL central, though I do browse the leaderboards of the other leagues and top prospects of each organization to see who's out there. However I'm unsure how a young man with the arm to be drafted as a somewhat projectable pitcher ends up getting labeled similar to Gillespie in that he's a LF only because of limited range and arm strength. I often wonder if the pundits read each other's work and just repeat the same scouting reports, regardless of their accuracy, or if there is only one scout who will talk to these guys and they print whatever he says... I struggled rating Gindl myself, I didn't like where I put him in my top 20 as it seemed too low but everytime I made a list from scratch he ended up in the same spot. I hope he explodes in AA next season.

I think Invader's comments here pretty well sum up many similar themes so instead of quoting everyone and responding to individual quotes I'll simply respond here this. First off, it irks me when people don't consider an alternative point of view and just summarily dismiss the idea. I'm not saying anyone should agree with everything or anything that is posted, but I think we should read what is posted even if we don't agree and at least put some effort into understanding what was written. I'm well aware that I invite criticism by going my own way and forming controversial opinions, that's just how I roll... I take in all of the information I can find and then make my own conclusions. I haven't seen anyone in this thread post anything about Gamel being their guy so he should get the job, that's a pure fabrication. Many of us that follow the minors will have our guys, for example I'm pulling very hard for Rogers for Rivas, Hardy was one of my boys as is Parra. I've been very critical of Parra, in fact you'll find that I'm pretty consistent and transparent, I say exactly what I mean and what I think about every player, good or bad. I play with kid gloves on the minor league forum for the most part because friends and family do read the site, but I don't pull any punches on the MLB side. Using Para as an example, Parra is extremely talented, but he's running out of opportunities with this organization to find himself as a MLB pitcher. I'll root very hard for him but I'm also going to be realistic about the situation, and difference I think between Suppan/Bush vs Parra and Gamel vs McGehee is that Parra was given every opportunity to succeed while Gamel hasn't. I've said this literally dozens of times on this site, but I'll say it again. No one is saying that Gamel will be the better MLB player between the 2, but he's obviously the more talented player who has the greatest upside. Some around here mistake criticism of the way he was handled by the organization as favoritism on the poster's part. That's not what I read, what I read is many posts about wasting service time riding the bench and an equal opportunity to win a position. It's quite clear that many including Macha were bothered by how Gamel approached ST last year, TH has been more than happy to beat that drum. What I want and would ask for is that Gamel be given an equal opportunity to succeed, which he clearly wasn't last season. Mat has the potential to hit near Braun's level if he gets it.... his ceiling is far beyond Casey's. If Casey proves to be a better MLB player then so be it, Mat didn't make the most of his ability. I just have a hard time jumping on the bandwagon of players who possess limited ceilings and burst through with a big season at MLB. It has nothing to do with being a fan of Gamel, it has everything to do with the Brewers maximizing the talent at the MLB level. The other side of this argument is old, tired, and has been beat to death, and I'm surprised it keeps coming back around because it is really simple. There are some posts in the middle but generally speaking either people want to win right now or are concerned about the long term health of the organization as a whole. Those who care about the long term health of the organization aren't prospect mongers we simply don't want talent wasted on temporary solutions. It was never about Inman or LaPorta, it was about the realistic impact of the acquisition. We need to trade players in that there is no doubt, but I would question the return on many of the deals including Lopez last season. As many people said at the time, Lopez didn't make us a playoff team, and in that regard the move was a complete waste of assets. Forget about Gillespie and Mercedes, forget the names, wrap your mind around the value.... we gave away prospects for a 2B when the rotation was in shambles and the team wasn't going anywhere with or without the player we acquired. Was 2B the problem, or the rotation? Melvin's moves have been very predictable in nature, no one should be surprised by the pitching situation we found ourselves in. It was very simple, without acquiring a long term solution last season was going to completely hinge on Yo and Parra, and really nothing has changed going into this season. I am surprised by those who supported trading for Sabathia and keeping Hardy who have criticized the rotation at all, because we witnessed the end result of those moves. There is no having it both ways, we weren't going to be able to acquire rental players and make an off season move with more prospects, there just aren't enough prospects in the system for that now, and dumping prospects in unnecessary trades has had an impact on our depth at the upper levels of the system. I have no desire to revisit the Fielder debates in terms of weight and production, it doesn't take a very well trained eye to make judgments about weight, it's fairly easy to do. I think McGehee definitely looks heavier and I'm disappointed, in the same way I was disappointed when it looked like Sheets was getting heavier, or Fielder going into 2008. It may or may not effect production at the plate, but adding weight without adding muscle only slows an athlete down, and I don't care what sport you play, that's not a good thing, so I'm disappointed. Maybe it's unfair of me but I expect all professional players, but especially players of limited physical gifts to have a work ethic like Brady Clark, and if the baggy uniforms covered up his belly last year I would have expected McGehee to show up in better shape this year in order to prove his season wasn't a fluke, especially since he had to rehabilitate his knee. It seems like every year I deal with a young man who had moderate success at the varsity level and wants to coast because he thinks he's arrived, it's my pet peeve with young high school athletes, so I'm certainly going to be unhappy when professionals seem to exhibit the same behavior. McGehee had a fantastic break out season, the first of his career, and the Brewers desperately need resolution of the hole at 3B, but with Gamel's struggles at the end of the season last year and McGehee not looking very fit, I'm apprehensive about the situation at this time. Maybe it's nothing, but it could be something, it was just a statement regarding an observation I had made. If anyone has a problem with McGehee getting the most out of his talent then I have a problem with that, because all we can ask of any player is that they maximize their potential. In fact I personally view that as the best compliment that can be said about anyone... athlete or not, there is no greater accomplishment than maximizing your potential. He maximized his talent for 1 season, now the question becomes can repeat that level of success and make a career out of it. I like both players, but I think that McGehee will be given the job because he received the first opportunity and had success, not because he's the best possible option for the Brewers at that position. I have zero faith in Macha to let any young player grow into their role so my concern stretches beyond the Gamel situation, I'm also concerned about CF, C, and SS. Our team is going to have to be constantly adding young pieces as they mature, the Brewers will likely never be a veteran club year in and year out, and I have no faith in the current regime to do what best for the players, which in turn is what's best for the long term health of the organization, last season crushed my faith in that regard. So once again, it's not about prospects or favoring young players, it's about maximizing the talent possible for the MLB team. Gamel hasn't had that same opportunity to succeed that McGehee has had.... I'll concede that it's quite possibly mostly his own doing, maybe he was immature as TH suggested, I don't know. I'm not sure that I would make decisions on playing time based solely on maturity and I believe in open competition as I think it brings out the best in ahtletes... that's where I'm coming from.

Just to be clear, I'm no fan of Jeter, but somehow he's managed to play SS for the signature franchise in the game for over 14 years. I'm sure you're referring to UZR which has only been available since 2002, and Jeter didn't become "horrible" in the field until 2004 at age 30, which shouldn't surprise anyone as he's on the downside of his career. Yes I'm intentionally avoiding another debate about UZR. It has value, but limited value in my opinion. Of course you'd debate semantics instead of the true point I was making which was just because a player made a ton of errors in the minors doesn't mean a position move in his future. I chose Jeter because of the 50 error comment I quoted but there have literally been tons of good to great defenders at MLB who put horrible error totals in a single MiLB season with more than 30 errors. I think the mechanical issues can be worked through if a player has good instincts for the game, and Gamel appears to read batted balls very well off the bat, so there is hope. He's not Braun who doesn't read the ball off the bat any better in the OF than he did at 3B. I'm not suggest that Gamel won't end up in the OF or at 1B down the road, but I think Gamel has all of the necessary tools to become a good defender. He just has to be willing to put in the time as it takes 1000s of perfect repetitions to relearn a movement and create a new instinct, which is a significant hill to climb.

Really? Hmm... Jeter had 56 Errors in A ball as a SS in 1993, he's the most obvious case off the top of my head of someone who was horrible at a premium defensive position and turned out pretty good. Does it happen often? No, but it's not like if a player struggles in the minors he's a lost cause either. You're fond of these blanket statements and while I don't mind using fielding percentage as part of an argument, when it's your whole argument the argument is hollow at best. Gamel clearly has the physical tools to be an above average defender, he has a very good first step, a decent glove, and a very good arm... It's also obvious that he has many bad habits to overcome. He may never be a good infielder, but his fielding percentage isn't predictive of his future, it's descriptive of his past. I can take just as many shots at Casey McGehee... who was horrid in the field last year. He has much lower upside than Gamel and looks like he put on 15 pounds (I'm sure I'm not the only one given pause by McGehee in the photos from JSOnline?), and not in a good way. Even if it was just Casey's knee that caused all his problems, he's a scratch defender at best, he's been that his entire career, but after a knee injury and weight gain, how nimble is he going to be in the field? Gamel may be an immature young man who got bye solely on his talent until last year, I don't know enough about him on a personal level to offer an opinion so I'll concede the worst case as it would explain the lack of improvement until he began working with Money in AA... maybe TH has been absolutely correct about Gamel... no idea. That being said, just because that may be who Gamel was, doesn't mean that's all he'll ever be. I really struggle with people being so down on Gamel and suddenly anointing McGehee as the savior of the 3B situation. Gamel has the potential to be a plus player in every aspect of his game but speed.... He'll hit for plus power, plus average, he has a plus arm, and he has the potential to be a plus defender, along with a pretty decent BB rate.... McGehee might be able to hit for plus average, but that's about it. I like McGehee as a player, in the end he may turn out to be the better MLB player, I just don't get infatuation with a guy who's a 1 year wonder without a track record at this point and I'm extremely disappointed in his appearance at the start of camp.

Macha's quotes just always rub me the wrong way, they are just so... awkward? I'm not sure how to explain it other than they make me uncomfortable. I would love for Rivas to pitch in a televised game but I doubt that will happen, but I'll be paying attention to the daily lineups and maybe the radio crew will give some insights and confirm up his velocity and such. This is a such a big year for the young pitching in the organization.... I can hardly wait.

All I can say is WOW I LOVE OLYMPIC HOCKEY!

I guess it depends on what you believe in. Was Lee going to be anything more than a temporary solution? I don't think so... in that case would you have rather flipped him for Cordero or Verlander? The answer to this hypothetical is obvious to me, I'll always take a front line starter over a hitter or reliever because I believe in building from the pitching staff on up.

Exactly, he just didn't show up early... no excuses for him oversleeping though, that was bogus but was dealt with appropriately.

Now that it's been said a second time, Farris is not a + + runner... he's a + runner, just like Escobar, Hart, etc... he will not steal as many bases at AA this year, AAA next year, or MLB if he gets that far as he did in A+. He's just not fast enough and better catchers/pitchers will do a better job limiting his opportunities. I can see him being a 20+ SB guy in a single full season, but he's not going to be mistaken for Pierre or Henderson, not by any stretch. I'm not taking anything away from him, he seems to have a great mind for the game, he's a very solid all around player, but he doesn't have elite speed. I'll happily eat crow if I'm proven wrong, but I just don't see those stolen base totals translating to MLB. We aren't talking about a 19 year old kid stealing those bases, we're talking about a 23 year old young man stealing those bases, and Eric just doesn't have much projection left, his body is likely done maturing. I will say I am curious about the spike... why did he all of a sudden succeed at such a high rate in the FSL? The year before he got caught stealing 10 times in 42 attempts in WV... something doesn't add up... I'm not suggesting anything malicious on his part, I'm just curious about the why/how... did coaching make a difference, did they notice something in his first step? I'm just really curious to know what helped turn the light on for him.

1. Rogers 2. Rivas 3. Butler 4. Gamel 5. Salome.

Why would we want Salome for example to only be catching every other day? He didn't do anything to be demoted last season, he just couldn't stay healthy, so I don't see why the organization would limit the opportunities of 2 players just to push Lucroy up to AAA.. I realize Lucroy is the catcher on most people's radar but I really don't have a problem with him repeating AA at least to start the season. I don't mind the idea of Lucroy catching Rogers, Rivas, Bowman, etc at all, in fact it might be a positive in the long run. As long as they signed these stop gap catchers for the MLB level why not let both of the young players catch everyday? I say again it's not like AAA is some sort of proving/seasoning ground, it's mostly a storage area for MLB depth. If Angel explodes and ends up in Milwaukee at some point then Lucroy can get bumped to AAA. I'm not a fan of young players getting their ABs in as a DH when most of these guys have defensive work to do yet, and Lucroy isn't a finished product defensively yet either. I've been firmly against this idea of both young catchers in AAA from the start, and while it makes sense to want to promote Lucroy, it makes no sense to me to demote Salome to do so, or limit the catching opportunities of either player.

Yes Fielder rejected the offer, but it's not that simple, you have to take all of the variables into account. What incentive does Prince have to sign a deal when he's only 3 years from his big pay day? Timing is everything here, especially for a player like Prince who is a Boras client and likely not very motivated to do a team friendly deal. The time to try and sign Fielder was the year he put up his 50 HR season, he proved he could hit, he was in tax trouble, and he may have appreciated the offer and may have been willing to sign away a year or 2 of Free Agency. Signing him to a contract early wouldn't have increased his value and an extension wouldn't have hindered the club from trading him if they were determined to do so. It really doesn't matter what did or didn't happen with Fielder now, we're talking what's best to do going forward, and I believe in buying out years of FA at a discounted rate like the team did with Braun with our other young studs as they come along.

Shouldn't players have to play their way into big money instead of getting it up front? I think that's one of the bigger problems with the NFL draft... a Ryan Leaf type player can break the bank and never amount to anything, while players drafted lower who play 5-6 years may never make as much. I don't have any problem with players starting out at league minimum and having to play their way into more money at all, isn't that what most of us have done out in the world? The only change I would make from a Brewer standpoint is to do more Braun type deals for impact talent as I've said numerous times. The theory is actually fairly sound, it's just the practical application that sucks in this case. I think the way Arby is calculated certainly doesn't favor the teams, because all it takes is 1 really horrid overpay from a GM to set the market too high and it screws over everyone else.

How can you remove all context from the payroll by saying the market size is irrelevant? It's not the like the Brewers are spending 85 mil with the potential to move spending upwards as the situation improves. This is as good as it's going to get, 3 million fans showed up, the Brewers have a new TV deal, and new ownership has done a fantastic job finding new revenue streams. How is it going to get better than this payroll wise how much further can the team realistically go? Since it isn't going to better, the obvious answer here is that Melvin needs to spend the money he does have more efficiently. How does he do that? Well for 1 quit spending on relievers, for 2 lock up key talent early, both pitchers and position players. Yes the team assumes the risk, but the team always assumes the risk in baseball as all contracts are guaranteed and that's the only way the team can buy wins at a discount without requiring a psychic to predict production spikes from castoff players. Finally, the farm system must remain stocked as we'll need a constant yearly influx of cheap talent to balance out players that are in their final years of arbitration or approaching the end of their contracts. True flexibility isn't payroll flexibility, it's about having multiple options to fill hoes/replace players. I can see signing some FA hitters here and there as necessary, but the FA pitching market is the worst possible way to spend money, especially paying for limited contributions from bullpen type pitchers. Like I've said many times though, it would require a complete change in philosophy from Melvin, he's not into building, he's into maxing out the payroll with the best patches he can afford each year. However those players just aren't very talented or are past their prime which is why they are too expensive to the Brewers even though the Brewers can afford them, spending market value on limited WAR just limits the ceiling of the team. We can sign 3 Braun contracts for 1 Fielder FA contract.... I'd rather do the 3 Braun contracts and get good production from 3 positions, remove the year to year silliness that is arbitration from the mix for those players, and gain longevity in their service time to the organization. I have no desire to be the Twins or the Marlins, the Twins never assemble enough talent to make a legit run at a championship but are competitive each year, nor do I want to "go for it" then blow the team up and start over again like the Marlins have. Until recently the Twins really haven't paid anyone... I hope people can understand the difference to what I'm suggesting. Build the best rotation in the division, keep stockpiling pitching, buy wins at a discounted rate, and the situation will turn. An old saying but it still applies, "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Well Melvin hasn't learned, he keeps doing things the same way and he's just successful enough with it to think that it's working... it works great to turn around an organization, but his policies won't allow for that team to take the final step. I hate to keep repeating myself but there is a very realistic possibly that this first wave of talent will only accomplish a 1 and done in the playoffs for all of the quality hitting talent in this wave... I would think I'm not the only one that would be bothered by this.

Out of curiosity am I the only one that roots for both UW and MU unless they are playing each other? I always lean towards UW and always have for the in state match ups, but beyond head to heads I want to see all the teams in the state do well.

How is market size not important when that's the single most limiting factor payroll wise? Throw in reduced revenue sharing because of new stadiums and the Brewers have even less disposable income... I get that you think the NFL is dumb but that doesn't make MLB correct. Finally while the Brewers could technically afford Fielder, the flip side is that Melvin doesn't spend money efficiently enough to do so. I'm not talking about missing on an occasional player and having a dead money contract, that happens to everyone. I'm talking about paying significant amounts of money to players who don't generate enough WAR for the money to be efficiently spent. Even paying market value the Brewers aren't in a position where they can pay out 8 mil for a 2 WAR players like a FA pitcher and still sign a player like Fielder. They would also have to quit blowing money on the bullpen paying market value to players who rarely approach 2 WAR in a season. The Brewers need to "buy" wins at a greatly reduced rate to be better than average, something that hasn't happened outside of Braun's deal thus far. So yea, technically the Brewers could sign Fielder, but that would require a change in philosophy from Melvin, which means it is extremely unlikely.

I think you missed the point here... First, Melvin didn't draft any of the players you mentioned, Z did, and he's just as responsible for the pitching issues as Melvin is. Second, I've been very specific about who/when trade wise, and I've been very consistent on those points over the last 2 years. I was widely ridiculed for being against the Sabathia trade and the same goes for Hardy when I wanted him traded for pitching. I find the notion that Melvin didn't make any moves because the price was too high to be wishful thinking, he didn't make moves because he doesn't make those types of trades. My take on Overbay is revisionist in nature, but I was questioning that move by the middle of the next season. Initially I was like everyone else... "look at all the high draft picks we got for Overbay, sweet deal". Then I started to get into pitching, reading about it, listening to audio interviews about it, and then when I saw how uninspiring Bush and Jackson were on the mound I was in the "this is it?" camp. I do like Bush, I've said many times if we could put his head on Parra's body we'd have ourselves a Sabathia, but he's getting the most out of what he has. I guess the best way I can put it is that I thought we were getting pitchers like Sheets/Nuegy, with that sort of upside just because of where the guys were drafted, but instead we ended up with guys who were #3s as an absolute best case and more realistically back of the rotation starters. I don't have anything against either of those 2 pitchers or Gross, while they filled a need in that pitching is always a need, we already had a bunch of 3,4,5 starters hanging around at the time, we needed more than Bush's upside. Marcum was right there, similar MLB experience at the time, always threw harder and had more upside. Why not him? Why not make a run at McGowan who had true top of the rotation stuff? We gave up O and young pitcher in Taubenheim, at the time that would have been a very fair deal for either young Toronto pitcher that I mentioned. I'm not cherry picking moves, I'm simply pointing out that Melvin only needed to make 2 moves for good pitching in the last 6 years that worked out and we'd be much better off than we are today, but he didn't. I'd feel better if he had even made a single attempt, and no Capellan was not a top of the rotation starter, he never had that kind of potential, and there's no way ATL was going to be stupid enough to trade a top of the rotation starter for a struggling closer, they don't make those kind NYM mistakes. I'll never be in the "he did the best he could" camp because he's the one who created this mess in the first place. The system didn't have enough pitching, he wouldn't trade for quality pitching with any sort of longevity so he backed himself into the corner of FA pitching, and it's a terrible market for a team like Milwaukee. He could have done much better than Wolf, Davis, and Looper, and I expected him to do better given how the organization has talked about trading bats for pitching, it just never happened. We graduated a ton of hitting talent in a single wave, all were or have the potential to be all-star caliber players, 4 of those players already have been all-stars and Weeks could hit just below Braun's level if he finally puts it together... think about how fortunate we were with all those players... and there's a very realistic chance that all we'll get out of this first group is a single 1 and done in the playoffs because of the pitching. Honestly that realization over the winter crushed my spirit and enthusiasm for the MLB team and Melvin in general, that notion has been very deflating to me personally. There are other issues beyond just the pitching; money tied up in very old or underperforming players, year to year contracts with our young players, Macha as manger... I just don't see much to be excited about. The only real hope for the franchise is for this wave of pitching that will be between Huntsville and Wisconsin next season to work out perfectly, protecting Melvin from himself. If we can build an entire rotation and bullpen out of our own prospects maybe Melvin will get away from what he's always done and start looking to lock up young talent early, buying out years of FA, and spending the money on the most productive players instead of the least productive. At least I can continue to hope....

Excellent Q&A, I found this really encouraging as is most Mark Rogers news is these days.

That's no different than where the Brewers drafted, and the same could be said of Braun, Fielder, and Weeks. The difference here is one organization's focus on building an organization through pitching and the other organization patching the rotation with "safe" players in trades and FA signings. In 2008 when I started posting about this stuff TB had acquired 3 of it's starting pitchers through trades, and as I said at the time when Edwin Jackson is arguably your 5th best starter you have a hell of a rotation. The player I really wanted at that time was James Shields, I was willing to trade Fielder for him and move LaPorta back to 1B where he belongs, as Shields was probably their #3 pitcher talent wise and I love that contract. Knowing that TB had to make room for Price at some point I was still looking at them in the 2008-2009 off season as well, Neimann was out of options and seemed like a good trade target, and I thought Sonnanstine would be the odd man out of the rotation, but he really didn't interest me. People want to go to the revisionist history card on me, but if I was willing to trade Prince for Shields, I certainly would have traded Hart for Jackson, or Hardy for a unproven pitcher... we had enough offense, we needed/still need pitching.

I've been stewing on that quote for a while, especially the agility part, and honestly I think that's garbage. Was he the smoothest guy in the league turning 2? No, but I wouldn't expect him to be yet either. However his athleticism was evident and on display every time I saw him play last season. In fact in one of the videos I linked last year of a pitcher you can see him make a very athletic stab between the pitcher's mound and 2nd base. He's not a natural defensively, he didn't get to some balls I thought he should have, but he is toolsy enough that if he puts his work in like Weeks he could certainly play the position.

First I didn't ask a question, I made a statement. I don't want to debate the Buchholz/Hardy thing again as that appears what you're hung up on... I think a 4 WAR player that can be resigned is easily worth a prospect who was buried in AAA consecutive years, we'll have to agree to disagree. I also threw some other names out there as well, the list was quite a bit longer before the Sabathia trade but that couldn't be undone. It was just an example, I would have traded anything reasonable that TB wanted for Jackson. I think Neimann would have been attainable from TB as well, he also tops out in the 2/3 range best case, but he's young and there's still possibly some projection there. My point was that the Brewers were 2 reasonable moves from having a very young, very productive yet cost effective starting rotation as opposed to what we ended up with. The results may not have been better, but we would have had much more flexibility going forward. Marcum has a little over 3 years of service so far, Parra a little over 2, same for Yo, Jackson has a little over 4, Neimann a little over 1, and so on... We'd have longevity, and as Rivas, Rogers, and the other young pitchers mature Melvin would have been able to move expendable pitching for pieces elsewhere. Finally, I'd much rather pay Jackson his 6.25 mil this year than Wolf his 9.25, I'd rather not pay Suppan at all but that wasn't option coming into 2008, 9, and 10 which was the context of my post. Also, I'm the one that said we had too many Bush type pitchers, the high floor/low ceiling types, not BK. In fact I'm one of the few people around here willing to beat that drum on a consistent basis, for the Brewers to truly remedy the pitching situation Melvin needed to be more aggressive and assume more risk. He did neither, has always done neither, and will continue to do neither, because that's just how he operates going all the way back to Texas. I'm struggling to understand how so many people overlook the genius in what TB did and the new regime in Toronto is doing, I think it's obvious. Boston maxes out it's payroll to be a 90+ win team every year, we're maxing out our payroll on over the hill pitching just to be around average and I think it stinks. The time to strike for pitching was when everyone else was chasing HRs and SLG, not when it was obvious we needed pitching and not after the market swung back around towards pitching.

Boy I wish I would have that article before I posted because I posted some similar ideas but in no way do I want to be associated with that clown.

Yes, yes... the "Save TheCrew07 Foundation" is also in need of monetary assistance, your donations are tax deductible! I have no issues with stadium funding being done by the tax payers, without it Green Bay and Milwaukee both wouldn't be able compete in their respective sports. However, this is a spring training facility, not even where majority of the organization's players will play their games this upcoming season. It's simply a practice field and it should be privately financed... In fact, how about a stadium tax for the Chicago area so they can upgrade that dump they call Wrigley and the Spring Training facility?

I think statues historically speaking have been for the great players from a franchise and not the ownership. I don't have strong feelings either way about the statue itself, it just strikes me as odd. For whatever reason, I'm okay with broadcasters getting a statue more so than an owner, not just in baseball, but in any sport. Yes without them there wouldn't be a franchise, but most owners don't do any of the dirty work to make their franchise successful, and those that try more often than not just mess things up. Baseball is unique in that teams typically have a signature radio voice like we do with Uke. When I think of Yount and Molitor, I think about Uke's calls of their exploits, because that's all we when I in my youth... only 1 or 2 baseball games per week were on TV and it was never the Brewers. I think it's easier for fans to identify with the broadcasters and players more so than the owners. I like some of the other ideas that have been tossed around, like the statue being inside the park in that home plate area, or a couple of busts around the park at various entrances, the history buff in me also likes the idea of a historical marker. Like I said I don't have strong feelings either way, but it doesn't surprise me that there is some resistance to the statue being put out front with the franchise icons as us little people really don't indentify with an owner at all. I wonder if he wouldn't have put his daughter in charge of the franchise if people would feel differently, the ineptitude of the franchise under her watch reached epic porportions. At any rate, I've never stopped and looked at the statues outside the stadium on my way in, we'll always tailgate as long as possible are usually pressed for time when I'm with a group. If it's just a couple of us we normally go eat in Fridays and watch batting practice, and of course I want to get inside early to watch that as well so I can honestly say I've never looked at them.

There's a difference between pitching depth and top of the rotation quality pitching. Players like a Cody, Nieves, or Anundsen could make fine additions to the bullpen as guys who don't throw hard but can locate effectively. The organization has been full of those types of guys... but when I post about pitching on the MLB forum I'm talking about inserting 2s (a #1 type pitcher is too costly to acquire) at the top of the rotation because we have plenty of 3,4,5 depth from inside the organization. We didn't need to add more pitchers that struggle to go 6 innings, we needed to add quality pitching that reduces the number of the innings left for the bullpen. Basically, I don't agree with Melvin's "play it safe philosophy" over the years of picking up players with high floors but limited ceilings. Sometimes he needs to make a deal for quality over quantity... and what pissed me off the most is that he makes that type of deal for a position player in Gomez when we really needed pitching. I talked about trading Overbay for Marcum/McGowan instead of Jackson (high floor/low ceiling), Bush (I love the guy but he's another high floor/low ceiling type), and Gross (high floor/low ceiling) a couple of different times in past. Outside of the names I listed in multiple posts in transaction forum during 2008 I really wanted Hardy moved for a projectable pitcher like Buchholz. Assuming that Marcum (I think he would have been easier to get than McGowan) still needed TJ surgery I'd feel a ton better about a rotation of Yo, Buchholz/Neimann/Jackson, Marcum (coming off of surgery), Parra, and Suppan for 2010 than I do a rotation of Yo, Wolf, Davis, Parra/Narveson/Suppan/Bush. The first rotation is young, has room to grow, is cheap, and controllable for years bridging the gap to our younger starters in the minors.... the other rotation is expensive, old, declining, and lacks longevity. All it would have taken was a little bit of creativity, a couple of deals going different ways or actually being made, and 2008, 2009, 2010 could have been much different seasons, as I've said many times the dominos did not have to fall the way they did. That being said in my post in the other thread I was referring to someone who throws hard but is small in stature as it was reported the Brewers were looking to develop larger bodied pitchers. Maybe that was a Melvin quote? I don't remember exactly where I read it or who said it but it came out earlier this off season... I understand all of the benefits being tall gives a pitcher and they are considerable, but if a 6' tall, 180lb kid can run the ball up there in the mid 90s I say take a chance on the kid, even though the numbers are against him. I've never said I only wanted 1 type of pitcher at the expense of another... of course I prefer players who have projectable frames and throw in the upper 90s, but there aren't many of those guys around, nor did the Brewers have enough projectable pitching in the system in the past, they actually had too many soft tossers. I don't think that building an organization and fixing the MLB rotation are similar in nature... When you're building an organization you're looking at quality, depth, and dependability. When drafting the best pitcher available on the board you're going to end up with all different types of guys and rightly so as we need different types of pitchers to have a well rounded system. When we talk about addressing the current MLB rotation, we're talking about fixing what we don't have, and in that context I despise the trades that Melvin has made... The weakness of the MLB team has been quality pitching, it's been an organizational weakness, and we waste tradable assets on rental players and position players instead of addressing the 1 glaring weakness, a long term quality pitching solution. Rarely do I participate in discussions about RH vs LH hitters, debating the merits of various combinations of position players, trading for position players, signing players for the bullpen, trading for bullpen pitchers, and so on because I don't care. We have enough position and bullpen depth as a organization that those things are minor issues at worst. The root cause of the losses, the issues with the bullpen, is and has been the starting rotation. The only year the Brewers made the playoffs we had our best pitching, that should have been a wake up call. The Phillies had a great offense for years, making the playoffs and such, but they didn't win anything until their pitching caught up with their hitting. I believe that pitching > hitting, and I believe a great rotation is the best way to compete with the large market teams, because pitching is power. Everyone wants it and only a few organizations have it... I've said it multiple times this winter but I absolutely love what TB did and Toronto is doing, pitching has become the most valuable commodity in baseball.