TheCrew07

You might get an established pitcher for Gamel, Lawrie, +.... but there is just no way Gamel is bringing one back on his own, he doesn't have enough value. The market has swung in the last couple of years and power bats don't carry the same value vs pitching as they did in say 2004. I'd be impressed if Melvin could swing a prospect for prospect deal with Gamel, but there is no way Gamel as a centerpiece to the deal would be enough to pull an established #2. Would any of us trade Yo for Gamel? That's essentially what we're talking about here. We'd need to find a pitcher in a similar situation as Mat to get equal value and honestly no one around the minor leagues is coming to mind off the top of my head. It's pretty disappointing to be a situation where Hardy and Gamel had significantly less value coming out of the 2009 season then they had going in. I still believe the idea of trading for an established high ceiling pitcher is off the mark, they will cost too much to acquire in prospects at this time. The idea should be to find the next Edwin Jackson or Javier Vazquez before they blossom. High K rate pitchers with high BB rates make perfect sense. No one is dumb enough to trade us a #1 or #2 pitcher for a glorified rental in a Hardy (after 2009 potentially), Fielder (after 2010), Hart, or Gamel. I honestly believe way too many posters around want to hang onto players till their value is the lowest, which is when they are down to the final year of their deal. I truly hope that this coming wave of pitching talent works out beautifully because I've had my fill of the pitchability guys we've had rolling through the rotation for last 5-6 years.

I would absolutely love to add Damon for the right price. Especially if it means moving Hart for a pitcher.I really like that idea as well, but that's awfully creative compared to what Melvin has been willing to do in the past, he hasn't been one to trade a position player without a replacement already in the organization. If that would happen it would absolutely renew some of my lost faith in DM, I'd much prefer a trade for a pitcher that can regularly give the crew 7-8 IP and limit the workload of the pen, instead of a Garland/Davis/Washburn FA signing, regardless of the years involved. edit. Fixed shoddy quote.

Casey, you're the man.

While I definitely agree that the players have no one to blame for their performances but themselves, the circumstances surrounding Hardy and Hall exiting the franchise were hardly ideal, much like Gamel coming up and riding the pine for nothing last season and Parra's short stay at AAA. There just doesn't seem to be any sort of long term plan here, just a "fly by the seat of my pants" type of management. Regardless of how anyone feels about Hardy's play, the move was clearly about service time and not about getting Hardy "right" down the in minors, given he was down the bare minimum. I don't agree at all that Melvin did the correct thing and I always wanted Hardy traded, they hurt his career by bringing him up too soon, and they screwed him over last season using performance as an excuse. If I was a player in this organization I'm not sure how I'd feel about management at all, there certainly wouldn't be much trust.

I really like Windows 7 and I'm still running the RC, not the production release of it. It blows Vista away in my opinion. I do however agree with Casey, I haven't liked the control panel or the menu changes since Vista, and it still irks me that they took away my Start, Run option which I'm addicted to from so many years working on XP. Windows 7 is by far the most stable operating system from Microsoft I've ever encountered. I literally haven't had to shut down my computer in over a month and I haven't noticed any performance degradation at all. Initially I had some driver compatibility issues but those have gotten better over time and I consider that to be a non issue from my point of view now. I only browse in Firefox, I highly recommend it. All in all I give 7 a thumbs up.

Interesting day. I wonder how Miscik feels about this... is this just a temporary demotion as a coach on the rise gets bumped past (Guerrero seems to have quite a bit of helium) or is it something else? I thought Miscik did alright with what he had last season, injuries derailed the season of 2 players that would have been the foundation of that team with Lucroy n Cain and Green, and the Huntsville staff was in the bottom third of league in nearly every statistical category, yet they made the playoffs riding veteran minor league position players. Welch was arguably the best starting pitcher on that staff once Cody got the bump, and no offense intended to David or LouisEly, but he's not exactly projectable, he's a pitchability guy who's going to have earn it at every level.

Without going back and cheating at looking again at what people posted I'm going to say the top 3 is right in line with the P50... Escobar, Gamel, Lawrie... then I'll guess Lucroy and one of Arnett/Braddock

There is a strong possibility I'm going to shatter my keyboard at some point this off season. That is all.

Why does it always have to be "fall apart next year" with you poeple? I say again it's not about a player's production going south at all, it's about filling an organizational need and giving value to get value. I've suggested many times that I'd like to build around 2-3 young hitters, and 2-3 young pitchers, and keep the rest of the roster fluid. So to answer your question who I would trade for pitching, the answer is the same this season as it was last season, anyone but Braun or Fielder. Braun signed a longterm contract, he's a cornerstone player and Fielder doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'm still not sure what the best thing to do with Fielder is ultimately going to be... I'm leaning towards keeping him now, if he was going to be moved his peak value was clearly last off season as well as he was and still is a premium offensive player, but 3 years of relatively cheap cost controlled production would have been more valuable than next off season when he's essentially a glorified rental. However Texas managed to get quite a haul to for Teixeira, though Teixeira was a better all around player than Fielder is, so while I hope the Brewers will be able to manage that sort of return in the future, I doubt it will come to fruitition. If you look at the Brewer roster of the last say 4 years, what players were truly special? There are only 2, Braun and Fielder... Weeks has the potential to be, but his results have never caught up with his physical talent. I really like Hart and Hardy, I've said as much many times, they were/are my 2 favorite Brewers, but they were always relatively expendable, as was Hall once the organization chose Hardy, as it Weeks, McGehee, Gamel, Escobar. I think if someone like Gamel or Lawrie proves to be special you lock them right away. I would lock up the core players, the special talents, go year to year with the rest, and build from the rotation down. That means in total I'd like 4-6 players under long term contracts at any given time, I'm not into trading pitching today, but that may change in the future if we can finally get a surplus of arms. I believe in pitching, I believe the team gets better value for hitters than pitchers in FA, so any position players on the team outside of my 2 or 3 core players are fair game to fill holes in the rotation. Again, the point I tried to make about Hardy through the entire winter of 2008-2009 was that he was our most valuable and expendable player to move for pitching. I didn't expect him to tank, on a personal level I didn't want him to tank because he's one of my favorite Brewers ever. He was simply expendable because Escobar was behind him, just like Hardy made Hall expendable. It has nothing to with Hardy, Hart, or Hall tanking, and everything to do with building a rotation. I would have traded Hart for Edwin Jackson in a hear beat, Hardy for Buchholz, Hall for any projectable arm at the time.... again my focus is the rotation, not the 8 position players, not the bullpen, just rotation, and I don't allow myself to get too attached to even my favorite players.

Sheets had a pretty straight 95 MPH fastball too... Sheets only had 2 pitches, Parra has a much better arsenal to work with even though on average his FB is a tick or two slower. It's not Parra's fastball it's how and when he uses it. I'm sure you all have played baseball yes? As a hitter wasn't much it easier to hit a pitch you expected was coming? Is the notion that Parra is predictable really that far out there? There's nothing behind BABIP to prove "luck", his BABIP is so inflated above the norm that it's nearly impossible for him to be that unlucky. Is there some luck... of course, but this issue goes far beyond regression to the mean. Peterson was talking about Parra's batting average against being well above average in the lower part of the strike zone, in the very low .200s, so how predictable was he pitching that his pitches in the upper parts of the strike zone got hammered hard enough that his BABIP on the whole (I understand its not BAA, but this isn't a giant leap) is the worst in the league? How is it even reasonable to throw out BABIP by itself in such an extreme case and claim it was luck induced when he got hit historically hard in the upper part of the strike zone? There is more analysis that needs to be done rather than simple BABIP regression, luck and/or regression to the mean isn't the "why" in this case and most cases. That's like saying Braun was historically unlucky as a 3B... it just doesn't add up, he just played a crappy 3B. BABIP was basically meant to measure luck, which is why it doesn't include HRs (which of course are a batted ball in play but not in the field of play) and so on... so I admit I've always had a problem with the metric being used as lone measure of a player from the start as it clearly favors power hitters the way regression analysis is done. However as I argued about Escobar all last winter BABIP regression analysis alone isn't going give you a complete picture of any 1 player, and I honestly believe it's an incredibly shallow analysis of any given player. With pitchers personally I'm into raw ralent, trends, peripherals, and then results. Parra is trending the wrong way since coming up, his K/9 has gone down every year, his BB/9 has gone up every year, his K:BB ratio has obviously declined every year, his WHIP has gone up every year, his H/9 have gone up every year, so predictably his ERA, the end result has gotten worse every year. Now I realize that 2007 was a small sample, but 2008 and 2009 definitely were not... and last year in his short stint in AAA his numbers down there were by far the worst MiLB numbers of his minor league career, are we to believe his bad luck followed him to another team in a different league against inferior competition? There is clearly more going on here than just "bad luck".

It's only a joke to you because you clearly haven't taken the time to consider the other side of the argument at all. You seem to view all of this discussion as revisionist history and Melvin bashing. I'm literally unsure how else to explain the concepts as I've beat them into the ground the past 2 seasons... Claiming that we simply don't like Melvin is about as far from the truth as you can be, many of us just think if he doesn't adjust his tact this is all the Brewers are ever going to be. They will compete for a playoff spot but never really compete for a championship, like the Twins and As. So one more time as simply put as I can make it. It's not about dumping a player because he's going to tank, it's about giving value to get value, and trading from a position of strength to acquire a position of need. When you have payroll constraints to deal with it's not feasible to move expendable assets for a rental in Sabathia and then not move one of Hardy, Braun, or Fielder to fill the gaping void left in the rotation. As I've stated numerous times Braun wasn't going anywhere because of the contract he signed, Fielder didn't have a capable replacement waiting right behind him, which made Hardy the most valuable and expendable trading chip Melvin had. We don't need to sit on every position player who shows promise, Melvin proved last year that it doesn't matter how good your offense is as long as the starting pitching stinks. The idea is to move some valuable pieces to fill holes with talented players elsewhere, we simply don't need to keep every single position player on the roster to maintain an offense in the top half of the NL, it's doesn't matter whom... Hardy, Hart, Hall, McGehee, Gamel, whomever... we simply didn't need to keep them all then and don't need to keep themall now. Moving Hardy had nothing to do with him tanking and everything to do with trying give enough value to get what we needed back, I've never proposed a trade on this forum that I didn't think was fair for both sides. By holding onto him we ended up in the worst possible situation possible, Hardy tanked and Escobar proved his value, thus further reducing Hardy's trade value. They tried to move Hardy at the deadline anyway so would the team really have been that much worse off with Escobar playing short and a different quality pitcher in the rotation from the start of the season? I'd argue they would have been a significantly better baseball team, and that's been my point since the first time I posted the idea. Even if Hardy would have performed as well as I expected him to I would have made the deal, because I believe pitching > hitting. Instead of getting hung up on these player vs player comparison, compare the team vs team, as they are not the same thing. I tend to favor prospects over incumbents in general as they cheeper, and I'm honest about that... I wanted Hardy over Hall, Escobar over Hardy, and now I want Gamel over McGehee (not because Gamel is cheaper but I think he's going to be a much better player). I've wanted better pitching from the get go, and I'm sorry but I'm just not into signing Free Agents or trading for big name players like others on this forum for all of the reasons I've already posted. You're free to disagree if you wish but continually posting that "you don't get why" or "is a joke" doesn't add anything but your frustration to the conversation, and that's pretty much all you post when someone within the organization is criticized whom you happen to think highly of be it Braun, Melvin, etc. Finally, I grow weary of the "XYZ team was asking too much so Melvin must have walked away" defense every time he doesn't make a deal. I wouldn't have made this trade, because I don't think the Brewers are in the position as an organization where trading for rental players makes much sense. However, I can see where posters who believe our window closes when Fielder walks would have made the deal, I just don't agree. DM has already established a history in his tenure as a GM, and his history bears out that he doesn't trade for young pitching. I know for a fact he's admitted as much in an interview, but I just don't remember where I read, heard, or saw it as I've literally exposed myself to hundreds if not thousands of interviews/articles since finding this site. I spend way too much time every single day on baseball, especially in season. DM did a great job turning around the franchise, but that fact doesn't give him a free pass on a laughable starting rotation to go with a very good core of young position players. He can keep beating the injury drum all he wants, but from opening day last season our starting rotation didn't stack up against the post season competition. It's not like teams such a Philly didn't have their share of misfortune either, who other than those of us who worry about the workload of young pitchers would have predicted Hamels would fall off the way he did? It's an empty excuse, the organization has had no pitching depth since he became the GM and every organization has to deal with injuries to pitchers, both prospects and at the MLB level. Injuries to Jones and Rogers aren't anymore to blame for the organization's pitching issues than injuries to Suppan and Bush were the problem. The organization has stated many times they feel they can trade hitters (which they are good at developing) for pitching, but it's only been done once for a rental. Either DM addresses the organizational wide situation or he doesn't and thus far all he did was bandaid the situation with a rental player(regardless of the playoff appearance, viewing the situation as a whole), it shouldn't be difficult to understand where we are coming from even if you disagree.

I think the article missed the 2 or 3 biggest components of the game. Intended location vs actual location, the context of the pitch, and the mythical "what the hitter was looking for". I think you'd get a much more accurate representation looking at pitchf/x data for the pitches put in play in both kind of starts. The pitch, velocity, relative location, the count, and so on. The hitters only need to get 1 pitch when they are looking for it for something good to happen for them. I think it's pretty easy, especially on television to see where the catcher sets the target to where the ball actually ends up, and that's the first thing I look for when the game starts, which pitcher is hitting their spots. Of course every pitcher is going to miss a spot and sometimes hitters will swing through pitches they should mash... Prince has a classic stare at his bat when he does it that makes me chuckle every time. However what the data the author looked at actually supports rather than luck is that the mind game between pitcher and hitter is much more important than many statistically inclined people are willing to admit, which I guess can easily be dismissed as luck or random variance. Of course there is another side, if you're pitcher who knows a certain kind of pitch induces ground outs and pop ups X% of the time, then you just feature that pitch and don't worry about studying hitters and their tendancies any more. I forget where I read the article, I think it was a link out of this site or BCB and I forget who the pitcher was but he analyzed which pitch he threw was most like Webb's best pitch and started to feature that pitch more. If I wasn't at work I'd take the time to go find the exact article because it was a great read. At any rate I've always believe that it's not what you throw as much how you throw it and when you throw it, I think this quote below from the comments pretty much sums up my feelings. I believe that the data may support the following conclusion: When pitchers throw a predictable pitch (i.e. a fastball in a fastball count) in a hitter's count, they lose the huge advantage they have over hitters, and in turn, they are more prone to the vagaries of chance.

Wow out of baseball all together, good luck Andy!

I'm not confusing my opinion with anything, it's laughable to me that people believe doing simple math means they know more about the game than people actually playing it. Anyone who's played baseball knows that being in a slump is more than just luck, or being hot at the plate is more than just luck. The game is all about location, sure you're going to get hits making bad contact and have hits taken away, that's the nature of the beast when the odds are stacked against you. I get regression as it's a very simple concept, but how about instead of running to the luck card every time events are difficult to explain we take a deeper look? PitchF/X is where the focus should be, location, velocity differential between pitches, break on the pitch, etc.. If you're a pitcher getting lit up chances are you're leaving the ball up in the zone. it's that simple. That's not bad luck, it's bad pitching. Then the question should be "What's the problem?". Is the arm slot inconsistent? Is the stride too short? Is the pitcher aiming his pitches instead of throwing them? For example, Parra tops out around 96 MPH on his fastball, so when you see fastballs only hitting 88 on the gun after throwing 92-94 the previous inning either he's hurt or he's aiming his pitches. It's not rocket science by any stretch, and it's a problem that translates across just about any sport... when you aim a pitch, or a shot in basketball, or a throw in football, 99% of the time you're going to short arm it which results in a loss of velocity and accuracy. It's backwards but normally the harder you try be precise, the worse you do. You can say what you want about Parra based on paper, you can believe what you want, but I've been fortunate enough to know former professional athletes personally and I've been able to pick their brains about the games and sports in general. There is a happy middle ground here between talent, mechanics, statistics, and the mental side of sports, no one aspect holds all of the cards. Statistics just measure the end result, physical talent is very difficult to quantify unless you're sitting there in person, mechanics/fundamentals are a bit easier to dissect, but sometimes a mechanical issue is actually a mental issue like in the case of aiming a pitch. The mental side is probably the most difficult to quantify, but I firmly believe it's the most important aspect of any athlete's success at any level. That's how guys like a Brady Clark who don't have near the physical gifts of the players they are competing against can have success, but it's also why they tend to fade quickly, because it's very difficult to maintain your mental edge in a game where you're always going to fail more than you succeed. Once the edge is gone, the career is over. Outside of FIP which is probably weighted too heavily towards strike outs most every metric is going to tell you Parra stunk last year, but they aren't going to tell you why, and that's the most important question that needs to be answered. LHP that can run the ball up to the plate in the mid to upper 90s are a rare commodity, his physical talent isn't the issue. So what is the issue? I guess that depends on what you believe... I know Peterson believes that Parra pitches up in the zone too much because his BAA when pitching around the knees is better than the league average. That's kind of analysis I'm into and while I'm not sure how much difference his coaching will make, I really like his approach to the game, he carries a good mix of everything and tries to focus it all on location and pitch selection. However there are people that will tell you the effects of location and pitch selection are negligible because someone hasn't figured out to represent it mathematically yet, every pitcher is going to miss their spots, and pitch selection is an old dated concept like base stealing. I unable to prove it to be true, but I know it in my heart from having played the game, coached the game, and listened to people who have played and coached at much higher levels than me... pitching and by extension hitting is all about location and pitch selection. We can argue all we want about BABIP but if a MLB hitter isn't able to hit a belt high fastball right down the middle of the plate they wouldn't be there facing Manny to begin with, every MLB player can hit a grooved fastball, that's not luck, it's an easily defined/observed skill on the hitter's part.

I just lost a post about this so I'm going to quickly sum it up as i have other stuff to do tonight. I could live with your take on this situation if DM had ever demonstrated a willingness to wheel and deal for young pitching in the past. I don't want to hear about Capellan, we were essentially dumping Kolb, that was a very low risk move, and I still have a hard time understanding that trade given how bad Cappellan's stuff actually was. DM only makes low risk moves like his signature deal... What risk was there for him in the Sabathia trade? No long term contract, proven commodity of CY quality, prospects were blocked and expendable, he was "going for it" for the playoffs. Only people like me were going to criticize that move because of the rotation issues looming on the horizon, I believe the overwhelming majority of fans support that trade, and still would have supported that trade if the team didn't make the playoffs. I guess my point comes down to this, at what point in years, trades, whatever will people start to acknowledge that DM keeps letting opportunities pass him bye? How far along do we have to progress here for the obvious pattern he's established in Texas and Milwaukee to become clear for everyone? Sure he traded for Sabathia, but are we really to believe that he's passed on every other projectable pitcher traded in last 6 years because the cost was too high or no deal was offered? Other teams have acquired those pitchers, teams within our division as a matter of fact, but somehow they've been out of Milwaukee's reach? Morrow's BB rate is exactly why you target him, it's not a reason to avoid him. We don't have many expendable prospects left and we aren't going to get a "sure thing" without giving up 2 of those prospects, that's just the way the market is right now. You take a pitcher like Morrow and hope you can get him to stop nibbling and trust his stuff, because if he does he can turn a rotation around by himself (Manny Parra anyone?). It's not like Morrow's ultimate value was out of the Brewers price range prospect wise, we could have made that deal if DM had wanted, just like Jackson's price tag last year wasn't beyond what the Brewers could have offered. All I know is this, it's impossible toacquire the next Edwin Jackson, fluke or not, if you don't ever take a chance. If my choices are another FA pitcher or a Morrow type, given the Brewers financial situation I'm taking Morrow like player 9 times out of 10. People around here can keep making threads about FA and big name pitchers but there's simply not enough value there for me personally. Big name players cost too much to acquire or are too expensive to sign in FA. However those that like that approach win, DM is definitely on your side, this is a difference in philosophy more than anything else. He's seems to believe the old manta "there is no such thing as a pitching prospect" and would much rather take on players like Sabathia and Peavy rather than a player like Kazmir or a prospect pitcher. On the surface sure, who wouldn't want a CY pitcher, but it's not as simple as their production on the field for a team like Milwaukee. On the flip side I love what Toronto has done thus far, they've added more projectable pitching to a system that already had 5 of it's top 8 prospects as pitchers with decent to good upside. I don't envy TB or Toronto for the division they play in, but I do envy the approach they are taking to compete with the big boys.

Hopefully I don't have to pull this thread out next season when discussing Melvin's inability to put together a dominant starting rotation... however I had a bad feeling. Many posters keep saying that it looked like Melvin was going to make a trade for the other starting pitcher he wanted, I think we're looking at another averagish SP from the bargin bin on a multi year deal. Every year there are deals being made for pitchers of significant upside, when are we going to target an arm with some upside? Morrow was the exact type of player the Brewers should have been looking to acquire with their limited resources post Sabathia/Hardy. A pitcher with significant upside but shakey results thus far. The flip side of this is that Jack Z has now traded 2 of his more promising young arms in his first off season in Aumont and Morrow, meanwhile Toronto continues to stockpile young arms following TB's model. I'm not necessarily against what Z has done in Seattle thus far, but I hope for his sake he doesn't dig himself a hole. Then again, maybe he thinks he'll be able to fill the rotation through FA, or maybe he's like Melvin and prefers offense over pitching. It will be interesting to see how the dominos fall for him.

In regards to acquiring a Parra like player... yes I think given the circumstances that's the best Melvin would be able to do. People seem to want a polished "sure thing"... well outside of Fielder and Braun no trade is going to bring back a super prospect of that magnitude. I love David Price, always have, and I admit I'm partially to lefties being one myself, but even he was very up and down in his first year and TB traded Jackson to make room for him. As far as Parra's BABIP... it's not luck, and over a large sample BABIP isn't representative of luck, rather it represents performance. Manny nibbles way too much, get's down in the count, and then comes back with a meatball that I'd expect a good portion of the baseball players on this forum could at least make contact with. Even when Manny is up 0-2 or 1-2 he seems to end up in way too many full counts for my taste. I'd just rather he attack hitters like his stuff warrants. Salome and Escobar weren't lucky in 2008 anymore than Parra was unlucky in 2009, Manny gets way too much of the plate with balls that are up in the zone and until he stops putting pitches there, he's going to get hit hard. This notion of "luck" in regards to baseball performance and statistical analysis really gets in my craw, it's become an easy way to dismiss both the hot and cold player as both will "regress towards the mean".... that's a genius observation... how many players are capable of hitting over .400 for a season or under .200 for an entire season? Part of me misses the days when we could have an intelligent conversation about a hot or cold player without some of sort BABIP regression analysis being thrown into the mix, especially since I strongly disagree with the way BABIP is measured and used. There is a root cause other than luck or BABIP regression to be found, unfortunately many don't care to look past a statistical measure, such is the modern baseball way.

This off season is very puzzling to me. That is all.

I would much rather trade Prince today to Texas than to Boston. I've coveted Feliz for the better part of 2 years now, ever since I started researching him after the Teixeira trade. His secondary stuff needs work, but my goodness is he talented: http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090804&content_id=6233246&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex Sorry for the crappy link, you'll probably have to cut and paste it, I'm at work and WYSIWYG editor doesn't work for me here. I'd wet my pants for Smoak and Feliz. Smoak did get beat up a little bit in the PCL and he won't hit for Fielder's power, but he's a talented player. I really don't see a match with Boston if they are intent on upgrading the position this off season, let them trade with SD, as I'm not as high on Anderson as some are.

I'm really into Morrow's upside, but Peterson better be a hell of a coach because the season would largely depend on Morrow and Parra putting it together. I'm not a fan of trading Gamel at all, he has the potential to be a special hitter and I believe he gets a bum wrap around here from some. I'd probably make the deal though as the organization seems to favor McGehee for whatever reason, and no I don't really want to turn this into another Gamel vs McGehee debate, I was merely making an observation. It's too bad DM has put himself in this corner, everyone knows the Brewers need to deal for pitching which certainly doesn't strengthen his position in negotiations.

You're probably correct given that Melvin acquired Gomez, there's no reason to push Cain towards Mil or into CF with Schafer right there and Gomez in front. I just liked Cain's bat better in CF and that Nashville OF isn't exactly prospect laden. If Cain does end up back in AA I wouldn't mind seeing that OF move around giving Gindl, Schafer, and Cain all time at the various spots helping them all become more well rounded. The AA team should be fun to follow with or without Cain.

So let me this get this straight... A jump on the ball doesn't matter until it matters? So I guess Braun is a good fielder until he isn't or Soriano is good fielder until he isn't? How is that logic even defensible? Even if you get to a ball and catch it your feet may not be set as well as they otherwise could be if you had time to circle the ball thus allowing a runner to move up on a weak throw, maybe it adversely affects the accuracy of a throw, etc... it could affect any number of variables on given play other than catching the ball or not. This is one aspect of baseball and outfield play that's pretty black and white, either you get a good jump or you don't, and it certainly has an effect beyond just catching the ball or not. By the quoted logic you could say just about anything... it doesn't matter if you miss the cutoff man until a runner takes an extra base, it doesn't matter if you throw ahead of the lead runner until the runner behind him takes an extra base, it doesn't matter how you grip a ball until you airmail a throw, it doesn't matter if you get your glove down until a ball goes under, and so on. If you're a professional, someone who's paid to play the game, you'd better be able to execute the routine or you are opening yourself up to criticism, well deserved criticism in my opinion. There is absolutely some natural aptitude involved, some guys just have a knack for it, but that certainly doesn't excuse poor fundamentals on regular basis.

I don't think it's fair to qualify criticizing Melvin as "revisionist history". Clearly, he's reactionary and just follows the market instead of trying to exploit the market. I hate to keep going back to TB but again they are the perfect example, while the majority of GMs were chasing power hitters around they were quietly building a dominant pitching staff through trades. Now that Melvin finally seems to realize the team doesn't have enough pitching it's too late, the market has swung back towards pitching and defense, it's clear he missed his opportunities to exploit the market. I'm not one to constantly harp on Money Ball, but the one thing I took the from the book was the best thing a small market GM can do is try to exploit weaknesses in the market. The weakness in the organization has been clear to anyone who's followed the minor leagues since I came onboard this site in 2002, it's not like this situation just happened over night, it's been a long time coming. Now it seems like we've reached a point where Melvin is going to have to overpay to acquire pitching, it really does seem like he missed the boat. Again, Melvin doesn't strike me as someone who's going to work and think outside the box, he seems to be a reactionary GM who tends to favor offense. Personally I've been thinking about this for years, started posting about it 2 summers ago, and I've continued to beat the drum ever since. Anyone that reads the minor league forum knows that I tend to focus on the young pitching and spend most of my time talking about them in the Link Reports. It's not revisionist history, it's about philosophy, and I'm simply miles away from the tact that DM seems to prefer. He's good GM, but he's not a great GM, and I'm not sold that in doing things his way Milwaukee will ever get over the top as he's already extended the payroll out as far as he go and we still have a very average rotation. Until we quit spending money on the bullpen and back of the rotation starters I think we'll always be just good enough to compete for a playoff spot, but never good enough to truly compete for a championship. My only hope is that this next wave talent pans out wonderfully so that Melvin doesn't have to address pitching anymore, either in the rotation or the bullpen, so that he can focus on the offense which is an area he excels at. I'd rather he spend money on FA hitters anyway if he's going to plug holes through FA...

Coach, Did Angel end up making the trip? He hasn't appeared in a game yet, I've been waiting... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

If Brewer doesn't break out of BC next season he's pretty much done as a prospect. If Brewer is staying in A+ then I could see Farris sliding over to SS and getting some time there if they have any intention of utilizing him in a utility role down the road. He seems better suited that Wheeler, though Wheeler does surprise people with how well he can move around. I'm not sure Cain repeats AA either, he basically has a full season there now and 2 AFL stints in. The other big question mark for me is what happens with the catching. I think the scenario that Toby put down makes the most sense, I'm not into both players splitting time at AAA, they both need to play as much as possible. Angel already hit .360 at AA, there's no reason for him to go back. Lucroy was just OK with the bat most of the year but did heat up towards the end of the season, it would make more sense for him to repeat AA than it would to demote Salome or have them split time. The only other scenario that makes sense to me would be a trade of one of the prospects, which wouldn't surprise me either.