twobrewers

Not really sure if this is the place to put it, but this is a quote from todays JS article on Corey Hart... "I had a different view of life before (my kids)," he said. "There was more selfishness. Now I have them, and my whole career isn't necessarily what it would have been. I need security now. I have more desire because I have more people to feed than me." That, to me, sounds like a player who would be interested in signing a multi-year deal.

Good thinking. The only problem is that no team is going to give us a prospect worth very much. They are thinking the same thing. If they can give a minor prospect - Gross is an attractive option. If they have to give anything of value - they will just pay Lofton.

Well, the Yankees will likely have Wang, Hughes, Kennedy and Joba all with spots. Boston has Beckett, Dice K, Lester and Buchholtz. I am not saying those teams couldn't use him. But without a huge need, they aren't likely to go crazy. When you had a team like the Mets this year - who absolutely needed an ace, the price goes up. At least a few of the big market teams would be adding Ben as a #2/3 starter. But after looking at a few depth charts and thinking - I bet Houston would be mighty interested.

As I mentioned, lots of the big market teams are pretty well set with arms. Obviously, there will still be a need - but I don't see a bidding war breaking out. As to your point that he is too much of a risk even if he excels...If Ben excels this year, much of the risk is removed. While I am not in favor of signing him, if he pitches 220 innings that will speak volumes to his durability. Remember, his injury history isn't like Prior or Woods. He has had many unrelated injuries. So it isn't really a cumulative effect. In my mind, he is either past his nagging injuries...or never will be.

Man, you were in a pretty foul mood tonight. Honestly, if Sheets pitches well - I think we have a pretty good chance of resigning him. Mark A has really made it a priority to pay for quality players and performances. And given the young arms with the Red Sox, Dodgers, Yankees and Angels - I don't think any of those teams would jump in to drive up the price. If we lose him, I think the sticking point will be years - not the money.

You do realize that no one is advocating getting rid of either player right!?!? The point is merely that long term contracts carry risk. Going year by year - you eliminate much of that risk.

To be fair, I am including this administration. (Hall, Suppan and Sheets) I am merely pointing out that going year by year completely eliminates that risk.

Next year that might be true. But a LH OBP and Power Hitter off the bench is a pretty important role for him to fill. (Particularly in the National League)

All I am saying is this... Name that last long term contract that worked out well for the Brewers? (That may not be fair, because one situation has no bearing on another - but it explains why I prefer to go year by year when possible)

While dealing with Selig for the Brewers and Kohl for the Bucks... I honestly didn't know any owner could be this great. He is a really straight shooter. And while he is dedicated to winning, he has been 100% focused on providing a great product. (The marketing, game day promotions, and extra events like the arctic tail gate have been great) But he also is very nice. My brother saw him at spring training last year and he sat and talked to him for a few minutes. Definitely a man of the people.

I thought of that as well. It would certainly seem to detract from this theory a little. I am now 100% against this. Not because I think it should be dismissed and has no merit. But if the Brewers start the season with this, and promptly get swept by the Cubs - I don't want to spend hours explaining to people why a weird line up was not a bad idea. If Ned does try, and this fails....Just imagine how fast everyone will call for his head then.

I would think we aren't going to have a "setup man" per say this year. Turnbow was fantastic at many points last year. But he can't pitch back to back days very well. He also wore out overall. I have a feeling that Turnbow and Mota end up rotating as our set up man.

Exactly. That risk has a huge price. (And I would imagine they would take insurance out to cover any potential injury) Yes, Howards huge arbitration number hurts, but I would still rather pay Prince and Braun 10M when they hit arbitration then pay them 20M over 3 years when they blew out a knee and never play again.

I don't like the idea of Hall 2nd. My vote would be for Hardy. If we want to give Braun more chances to run, Hall has too many swings and misses for my taste. Hardy doesn't strike out as much. Has a decent OBP. Has some pop to drive in Braun. And would be able to execute a hit and run. (Cameron might be just as well, but I would prefer to start with Hardy since Cameron is going to miss the first 20 games. I don't want to have to "tinker" with the heart of the order to adjust for him)

Looks like the season ending series against the Cubs (which could very well equal a playoff series) is just about sold out. Looking for best seats available, all I could get was upper deck - way down the foul lines.

Yeah - I just looked up Nix's OBP. Pretty scary stuff. However, it isn't really fair to judge him on all of his PA - he was really young for most of them with Texas. I would hope/assume he had grown since then. I think has LH power hitters of the bench they might be close. But if you need someone to get on base - Gross wins in a landslide.

Just a question for everyone... Gross is not too likely to play that much. However, he will be a valuable LH hitter off the bench. Is Gross that much better than Nix? Both can play CF. Both are LH. Both have some pop. If we can get something of value for Gross - I wouldn't object to using Nix to replace him. (I don't like Gwynn replacing him because Gwynn is such a different player - no power)

Exactly. I think in a full season he could hit 20 HR. But since the only way he sees enough playing time would be replacing Hall, Hart or Braun because of injury - someone else would drop off. Dillon might get 300 AB - but I can't imagine that being enough to hit 20 HR for him.

That may be a fair point. And obviously, we have no proof either way. But at least, isn't it Harris' job to explain why signing Gadzuric for 6 years and 36 million was a bad idea? I mean, even if the "big shots" mandate that we sign him - Harris still could have explained that we would just wait until he got an offer and then matched it. My point is, everyone has bosses who interfere and oversee them to some extent. Part of his job is to convince Herb and whoever what course of action to take.

I've read a few people reference this as well. One of the ESPN guys wrote something about his velocity being down - so it was hard to believe that an injury wasn't playing some role.

I am not sure why I keep taking the bait... After 7 starts last year, Capuano was 5-0 with a 2.31 ERA. In 2006 he was an All-Star and lead the league in "Quality Starts". Calling him an "ace" might be a stretch - but honestly, that just depends on your definition of an "ace". I disagree. I think Villanueva doesn't have much room left for improvement. While I really like him - he is a two pitch pitcher. His change up is already a plus pitch. It isn't going to get better. And his fastball isn't going to get faster. Parra has a much better chance of showing improvements.

Actually, I believe TJ Ford prevented that. At the time we did have TJ, before his injury, and Mo. So we were stocked with two adaquate point guards. Of course, adding 1 great point gaurd would have ended up better. But it really is hard to blame them for passing on the point guards when we had no center and two point guards at the time.

I believe the point is that the stats don't point to Villanueva being better than Cappy/Bush/Vargas this year. Here is what I don't get... How can you be upset at the idea of Villanueva possibly starting the year in AAA - and not upset at the notion of Parra starting the year in AAA? Parra is probably the most talented of the lot - and has the most upside.

Here is the argument plain and simple... Do you believe that there is a significant different between Capuano/Bush and Villanueva? If someone has to go down, all things equal - you send the player with options & the least experience. I, personally, think that Capuano/Bush/Villanueva are all about the same talent level. I am pretty confident that the Brewers agree with me - hence they would consider this option. The bottom line is we have one oft injured #1 (Ben), a potential future #1 (YoGa), and then 4 pitchers of very equal talent in Suppan/Capuano/Bush/Villanueva. None of us have any idea which one of those four will perform the best this year. Play them in camp. See who looks good. Break a tie by sending the youngest with remaining options to the minor leagues if need by. I'm sorry - but how is that not the smart thing to do?

A few years back, Dan Gadzuric was a restricted free agent. The Bucks wanted to keep him. Being a restricted free agent means that he is free to negotiate with any teams - but that Milwaukee would have the right to match that offer. We had a similar situation with Charlie Bell this year. No one really wanted to "negotiate" with him, since they suspected the Bucks would just match the offer. In the end, Miami gave Bell a pretty decent offer - and the Bucks choose to match it. In essense, we got Charlie Bell for exactly market value. The problem is, that years ago when we had this situation with Gadzuric, Larry Harris offered him 6 years and 36 million dollars! We could have just waited and matched any offer. We had no risk of losing him. Instead Larry went way beyond market value and handicapped the Bucks with a horrible contract. That is why Larry Harris is a bad GM. Regarding the Zach Randolph trade. They were right to pass, in my opinion. Firing Larry now does no good. The same with Coach K. The entire thing needs to be blown up. You have to hire a new GM and a new coach after the year. (Take your time and hire quality this time) There is no reason to take on any more problems/cancers trying for a quick fix. At this point, I think the best case scenario for the Bucks is trading Redd, Simmons and Gadzuric for nothing in return just to clean the books. (Obviously, you have to throw in Redd to get someone to take Simmons and Gadzuric) Lastly, Bogut is a pretty good player. At the time the real choice was between him or Marvin Williams. I think Bogut has been better thus far. Of course, at the time I wanted Deron Williams.