Time to start looking at Melvin?

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

I think that Melvin has a had a couple of bad off-seasons in a row. I don't think that he should be fired. It is easy to second guess some of those decisions, but some of it comes because guys had their best years at contract time. I fault him for signing Suppan for so much money that it appears that we won't be able to compete for Sheets in the free-agent market. I guess that I would hate to lose Melvin because of so many years of watching the Bando-Taylor era of near ineptitude. We are still a small market team, which means we have to be perfect when spending money and nobody is. This is a difficult GM job. I think that we could fire Ned Yost and find someone better. I don't know if the same could be said for Melvin.

[PeaveyFury]

I think that Melvin has a had a couple of bad off-seasons in a row.

 

I don't know if that's fair to say. He's made some bad moves during the last couple of offseasons, but at this point while Gagne hasn't worked out, Mota, Torres, Kendall, Kapler, and Cameron have all been great acquisitions for the team to this point.

 

To the question at hand, I think if the team struggles this year, ownership will start considering their options at GM. If they let Melvin go, they had better be convinced that they have somebody better to do the job, because we saw first hand how letting a solid GM go that hadn't gotten the team to the playoffs in a while (Harry Dalton) can lead to ineptitude and disaster for over a decade if you hire the wrong replacements.

[kramnoj]

I fault him for signing Suppan for so much money that it appears that we won't be able to compete for Sheets in the free-agent market.

 

Why do you think this? We could almost sign Sheets by using money that is being spent this season on relievers: Gagne, Turnbow, Mota. Then there's other players that could be gone after this season, depending on how young Brewers improve: Cameron, Counsell, Kendall. There's no reason that the Brewers won't have enough money to spend on Sheets, it will just be a question of whether the price and the years make sense.

[twobrewers]

Any GM worth having on the team is going to downplay ERA and look at deeper stats first and know that ERA is just highly variable.

Ennder, I always feel bad for you when this argument comes up. Most people refuse to look at any peripheral stats - and end up over/under valueing players. But if someone is already ignoring peripheral stats - your chances of converting them aren't too good.

The best argument you can make is that you were 100% correct on Villanueva. I remember many people upset at the notion that Capuano was likely to earn a spot in the rotation over Villanueva. You and I spent a lot of time argueing that Capuano was just "unlucky" and Villanueava was "lucky". In the end, Villanueava just wasn't a very good pitcher. And now, Villanueava has a 6.46 ERA.

Funny how "luck" changes everything.

[Ennder]

The real problem with ERA is you need about 500-600 IP for it to really mean much and most people use it as a judgement over a 200 IP or smaller sample. If you want to know how good a pitcher someone is look at their last 3 seasons and average it out and you most likely have the reality. This obviously doesn't work well if there is an injury in there or they are young and improving or old and declining.

 

Looking at the peripherals is a much better starting point and Capuano's didn't really change very much from his career numbers.

[recte44]

All the replies in this thread have been solid, I'm not going to take issue with anyone's opinion here. I feel like the jury is still out on a bunch of his current decisions, however Melvin has some work to do this year and what he does with this club from here on out is going to be the determining factor on what his job performance is. If he chooses to sit on the current team that's not going to work for me.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"There is no reason to expect Bush and Capuano to be anything worse than #4 type starters going into this year. That has nothing to do with Melvin being a bad GM.

 

Sorry but I'm a stickler for statistics, Bush should be a mid to high 4 ERA type and Capuano should be a mid low to mid 4 ERA type given how they pitched last year. Any GM with a brain realizes this and projected them as such."

 

May I ask, without being confrontational, why there is NO reason to not agree with you and project Bush and Capuano that highly? That sounds so absolutist...as if any opposing viewpoint is downright impossible. "Any GM with a brain"? C'mon!

 

Capuano, DID have some success in 2005 & 2006 starting at the major league level (I go by full seasons, as most do). But Bush pitched decently up here for the occasional one-month stretch, followed by 2-3 bad months, then another return to temporary lucidity for, say, 2 weeks, followed by his usual cycle of crap.

 

Bush pitched decently (.299 OBP-against, and a solid 1.14 WHIP, offset to a large degree by an unimpressive 4.41 ERA) in 2006. But every other sampling as a Brewer has been awful for Bush. This suggests that 2006 was the statistical outlier. Point to 2006 all you like, but he just can't be trusted.

 

I see Cappy, with 2 solid years in a row, followed by all that losing in 2007, and I figured it's plausible to believe he had a chance to turn it around this season. But Bush wasn't capable of putting it all together in back-to-back seasons, and that tells me his one decent season may have been a fluke...and so far, that seems true.

 

Hell, as bad as he was in 2006 & '07, compared to sending Bush out there in place of YoGa, I'd at least give Jeff Weaver a try. Couldn't be any worse than Bush. And Weaver's experienced success in the majors. And if he's as bad? Well, at least we'll know, and he can go away.

[LouisEly]

1) I don't think it is Melvin's fault that most of the team is well off their 3-year average performance. On paper everyone was praising the offensive juggernaut that he had put together. He put together a team that has five potential 20/20 guys (Weeks, Braun, Hart, Cameron, Hall) and two others who combined for roughly 80 HRs last year (Fielder, Hardy). You have to look at the coaches and players there.

2) Of his off-season acquisitions, two were carrying the team for a while offensively (Kendall, Kapler) and the jury is still out on the other (Cameron); as for pitching he acquired, two have been very good (Torres, Mota) with the Mota for Estrada looking like a major fleecing so far, one the jury is still out on (Riske - but he has only given up one earned run in his last 8.1 IP so he is settling down), and one is looking like a bust (Gagne). So he hit on four, two are questionable, and only one was a bad acquisition. Everyone will focus on the one that the most money was given to, but most of his off-season acquisitions have been successes so far.

3) The only bad deal was the Suppan signing, IMO. Gagne was only a one-year deal without a lot of other options. The rest of the division hasn't made real good decisions on their closers either, as Isringhausen, Wood, and Valverde all have robust ERAs so far, and Cordero has given up a lot of walks that luckily so far haven't hurt him (10 BB in 14 IP).

4) Melvin's job is to acquire talent. It is the coaches jobs to develop it. Eveland was like Ron Bellylard - both came up in the organization and had poor work ethics and poor performances, so there was no reason to keep them. Sometimes players need a wake-up call by being dumped before they get their head straight. I've made my thoughts about Maddux known several times, and Eveland is not the only young pitcher who did not develop under Maddux.

5) The only criticism so far of Melvin is that other than the Inman/Garrison/Thatcher deal he has not been willing to part with even marginal prospects for talent. That deal was criticized heavily, but this year those players are not exactly lighting it up, and the draft pick they will get for Linebrink may turn out better than any of those three they gave up.

[Ennder]

May I ask, without being confrontational, why there is NO reason to not agree with you and project Bush and Capuano that highly? That sounds so absolutist...as if any opposing viewpoint is downright impossible. "Any GM with a brain"? C'mon

 

Mid to high 4 ERA would mean something around 4.50-4.90 for an ERA over a season for Bush. That is projecting him highly? He has a career ERA of 4.64 and one season where it was higher than that range. I guess I fail to see why you think my opinion is high on them. I stand by what I said, any GM with a brain would understand that one year of ERA spike does not undo everything else a pitcher has done for a pitcher in Bush/Capuano's age/experience level.

[Invader3K]

I still don't get how people can honestly say the Suppan signing was bad. Did they probably overpay a little bit? Yes. But what does Suppan do? He stays healthy, eats innings, and generally keeps the team in the game. It was a genuine need, and they went out and filled it, rather than hoping another AAA guy would come up and fill the role (and none of them that have come up really have, regardless). I think we're seeing this season how valuable that is.

[twobrewers]

I still don't get how people can honestly say the Suppan signing was bad.

At the time, it was pretty adequate. And Suppan has performed according to expectations.

 

But the thing is, most GMs are moving away from average pitchers - and are instead looking for more upside. No "average" pitchers got huge deals this off-season. For example, no one wanted Vargas for free. The truth is, a lot of average type pitchers can be replaced much cheaper with an AAA arm making the league minimum.

 

Point being, no one was interested in Lieber this year. Two years ago he would have gotten 4 years and $30 million.

Suppan is fine. So I can't say it was a "bad" signing. But has he really helped us win a lot? I mean, using Weaver instead of Suppan would cost us 2 or 3 games a year. In the meantime, we could invest Suppan's $8 million in another spot. (Such as extending Cordero, which would be worth more than 2 or 3 games)

But then, that is all picking at nits.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"Mid to high 4 ERA would mean something around 4.50-4.90 for an ERA over a season for Bush. That is projecting him highly? He has a career ERA of 4.64 and one season where it was higher than that range."

 

How 'bout this year? That would be 2.

 

OK, the 2008 season's not over (although it sure feels like it), but Bush is not even close to a "mid to high 4 ERA" guy these days.

 

This is where I have a problem with quoting career numbers. You say it's to get a larger sampling, but it's how they're pitching in the present, is what better determines how they'll pitch next time out.

 

Hideo Nomo's career ERA is 4.24, but that doesn't portray him accurately in 2008.

 

Jason Isringhausen, Barry Zito, Matt Morris, Eric Gagne, ...all have much better career numbers than this season, but all of them have been demoted because they can't be trusted right now....which is all that matters.

 

Hell, if you're going to use career numbers as your guide, then maybe we can replace Gallardo in the rotation with Mike Caldwell, who's coaching in the minors, and whose career we can resurrect as we did with Gabe Kapler!

[Ennder]

I didn't just use his career numbers but I'm not going to try to convince you of anything because I know it is futile.

[kramnoj]

But every other sampling as a Brewer has been awful for Bush.

 

What is your definition of awful? Bush's ERA+ in 2007 was about average for a #5 starter in the majors last year. Since Bush was able to start 31 games, give the Brewers 186 innings, and have a winning record, he was actually better than a #5 starter. I don't see how that is awful in any rational sense, especially at a cost of $450k.

[ILuvDaBush]

And Bush is just NOW entering his prime years, so his career averages would go a lot longer towards projection than Sandy Koufax's career numbers in projecting him to this year. As for the Suppan signing, it is hard to criticize it when everyone knew he would get the type of contract he got (He was NLCS MVP!), he brought a great clubhouse and community guy to Milwaukee, and he brought a stabilizer to the rotation. Oh, and just for good measure, he also lays down a very good bunt. The Clark contract was questionable, but the Turnbow contract was well-thought and served its purpose early. Unfortunately, his slider could never match his fastball in terms of his own confidence in the pitch. The Linebrink trade was a bit of an overpayment, but given the laws of supply and demand, it had to be done. Garrison and Thatcher were not in Milwaukee's plans (and I truly wondered if Stetter was until he got his cup o' java) and Inman, while always a good paper pitcher, doesn't have the stuff to match his line. I was a huge Inman fanatic, but when he was traded, it told me that Milwaukee valued others in the minors more, which would be a reflection of Reid Nichols more than the 'stache. In the end, you can lead a deer to water, but you can't force him to drink. When I saw our team on paper this year, I was genuinely excited. I'm still excited after seeing the Hammer crush a pair tonight after the Regal One killed one last night. Now let's hope what's left of our young pitching follows suit.

[ozzybourne]

 

I think if Capuano hadn't been hurt and Gallardo hadn't been hurt we'd have a pretty good rotation this year. Sheets, Gallardo, Capuano, Villanueva, Suppan with Bush/Parra to fill in for whoever struggles.

 

----yes , this should have worked out

 

 

 

The fact we lost 2 pitchers for the season by May 5th is what is making the rotation look bad, not Doug Melvin. Almost any team in baseball looks bad when you take out 2 starters, especially when one is the 2nd best starter on the team.

 

-----the angels and cardinals come to mind. other players need to step up for the brewers

 

 

[ozzybourne]

i think melvin has done a slightly above average job for landing talent.

 

---i do not like at all any way the gane signing. many closers emerge every year throughout MLB. total waste of money to be spent elsewhere.

---i think the brewers bench players are below average, and do not give any sense of urgency that a starter may lose his job. weak bench.

 

the minor league system is static right now, except for laporte. yes, a strong draft may be on the way, but immediate help to the bigs seems to be non-existent.

 

trading seem to be his strong suit, except for linebrink, but it was an attempt to help when needed

 

overall grade--C+, maybe B- with a big grading curve.

 

the thing is other franchises get better, win, then get torn apart, and rebuild again, and get better--oakland, cleveland, florida, come to mind--all mid type markets. this prolonged slump since 1992, or 1982 (take your pick for your starting point) is really getting tiring.

 

so i say, melvin is definately on the hotseat until this franchise wins...wins something, anything other than a sausage race. the brewers have to win at least as many games as last year or melvin is gone for sure.

[ILuvDaBush]

So if Prince tears his ACL and Braun contracts cholera on a trip to Israel over the ASB (because, thus far, it doesn't look like he'll have an invite), it is Melvin's fault? When you look at what he has done, also look at what he COULD have done. When we signed Jeff Weaver to a minor-league deal, a lot of my friends were quite critical, and rightfully so. But then you try to imagine what could have happened....NOTHING. Instead of sitting on his hands, he strengthened our pitching depth at AAA. Now, it looks like he or McClung (another Melvin reclamation product) will be taking over the fifth spot when Parra gets shipped to AAA or Bush/Villy get converted to long relief. Our bench that "doesn't push" our starters has performed well given their roles. Kapler became a folk hero in fantasy circles over the first 25 games, and Jr. Gwynny has been showing his one plus tool, his ability to put the ball in play. Neither was going to push Braun/Cameron/Hart out of their established places. Counsell has been a disappointment with the bat, but his defense and "grittiness" are second to none (and I say that last part with tongue firmly entrenched in cheek). If anything, I would think Melvin should be given more credit, as every position player has a clearly defined role, as opposed to our bullpen. If anything, that is my one place of criticism. No one knows their roles... Once you could have said McClung and Gagne had defined roles, but now Gagne is deposed and McClung is being inserted. Stetter is being used as a late-inning stopper. Shouse has fluctuated now from LOOGy to closer to reliever to closer (though I know he was only to face one guy today, how do you explain a one-hitter-per-appearance pitcher being used for a 3-inning save?). Mota/Riske/Torres are all as liable to see the fifth as they are to see the eighth. All this falls upon the chef (Yost), not the shopper. Again I say, you can lead the Yost to water, but you cannot make him drink.

[moofnelson]

When you look at what he has done, also look at what he COULD have done. When we signed Jeff Weaver to a minor-league deal, a lot of my friends were quite critical, and rightfully so. But then you try to imagine what could have happened....NOTHING. Instead of sitting on his hands, he strengthened our pitching depth at AAA.

Now he should concentrate on the pitching depth in Milwaukee.

[splitterpfj]

The vast majority here wanted to see Villanueva and Parra make the rotation to start the season, both moves seemed like the right moves, but neither guy has performed well. Is that on the GM, or the players?

 

Gallardo getting hurt is absolutely brutal, that's clearly not on Doug Melvin, it was just a freak play.

 

I think Doug had an excellent off-season, with the exception of the closer role. Overall, I think the bullpen is much better than it had been, with Turnbow out, and Stetter in, things are very solid - except for the closer spot. I'm not sure that it's Doug's fault that Cordero left town, but it's more than fair to wonder why he chose Gagne to fill the void.

 

Even so, I loved the decisions to bring in both Kendall and Cameron, I like the Riske signing, and the deal for Torres, while the deal for Mota was absolutely stealing, as the deal for Shouse had been.

 

We'll see, he's got to fill one major hole in the rotation, and the closer spot to figure out...and that's assuming the young starters start to look better.

 

The team developed the young core, and they're letting them play it out, it's a tough call, if they don't get it done, do you blame Doug, or do you start moving guys like Weeks, Hardy, Parra, etc?

 

I could envision a scenario where changes are made this winter, then some new GM comes in with most of the pieces in place, finds a closer, gets Yo back, and begins to look like a genius by this time next year.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Turnbow contract (waste of money)

What people don't understand about Doug Melvin and it's clearly showing in this thread is that as a GM for a small market team you have to take calculated risks. Turnbow was coming off of a 39 save season and in order to get cost certainty he gave Turnbow a whooping 3 milliions dollars. Big deal. What if they didn't sign him and he put in another 40 save season? Then he would have cost 10 million. You have to take risks as a small market team to try to lock in a cheap price. It's just like buying futures in the stock market. You try to lock in at a lower price knowing that it could damn well drop below the value you locked in for. It was a smart contract to sign and Doug Melvin is a fine GM for your Milwaukee Brewers.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

" I didn't just use his career numbers "

 

But if you didn't just use career numbers (which, again, don't tell how Bush is doing this year, this month, this week), and if you didn't use his current numbers, that leaves statistical cherry-picking, right?

 

"but I'm not going to try to convince you of anything because I know it is futile."

 

How come I can debate with Russ Luzinski, Al (Dad of Andrew), TooLiveBrew and a few others on the other side of the ideological aisle, and it never gets as heated as it always does with you? We engage in a thoughtful debate, we go up and back, and if we don't come to share the other's viewpoint, at least we respect it. Hell, I've even admitted I've learned a thing or 2 from them, so it's not like I'm digging in and readying for battle all the time.

 

If you're trying to convince us that Dave Bush is still a good pitcher whom we should trust out there, then yeah, I'll just keep believing my lying eyes. He starts, he puts us in a hole, we lose. The results reflect this.

 

I've already admitted Bush has value in the long-man role, so it's not an absolutist stance on my part. I see a post I disagree with, and I try to challenge it, without all the vitriol, but...

[Ennder]

No you generally pick one small part of the post out, crack a joke about it and move on while ignoring the meat of the argument. But like I said it is futile to try to discuss anything with you so I'm not getting into it again.

[rluzinski]

Melvin has made plenty of mistakes, just like every other GM. All I think you can do is look at the financial resources a GM has and see what he's done with it in the short and long term.

 

For around $84 mil, Melvin constructed a team that was expected to win around 85 games and contend for the playoffs this year. Obviously, things haven't started off as you might have suspected but I can't fault Melvin for most of the offense doing as bad as they have so far. this past performance suggested much better things. Long term, he still has a bunch of these guys for several years, so that's a nice foundation.

 

If average is a C, I'd give Melvin a B-. Above average but not dramatically so. I certainly wouldn't be calling for his head.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"No you generally pick one small part of the post out, crack a joke about it and move on while ignoring the meat of the argument."

 

The meat of the argument has been and will continue to be, whether Dave Bush is a good starting pitcher. I get that. Always have, never ignored it. And if he's bad, I'd prefer someone else start in place of Gallardo. You'd rather find ways to excuse Bush's bad performances, but that's up to you.

 

And by the way, what's healthier? Cracking a joke about a subject to lighten the mood, and moving on before it gets acrimonious, or entrenching for an aneurysm-inducing cage match pretty much every time?

 

"But like I said it is futile to try to discuss anything with you so I'm not getting into it again."

 

And like I said, I'm able to address opposing viewpoints with many others around here without all the anger I get from you. I've even received friendly PM's from my other debating opponents, so if it's not me, then that leaves one person...

 

As always, you're a delight!