Cameron's option picked up (see reply #128)

[DuWayne Steurer]

All things being equal, I think Cam is worth one year at $10M. But I am open to the possibility that if that option comes at the expense of other areas (namely pitching or not being able to afford Hardy, Hart, or Fielder) then perhaps it might not have been the best move.

Of course if a future move shows that this wasn't the best option, it's easy to say "well, we shouldnt' have done that". But Doug didn't have the luxury of looking into the future. The Cam decision had to be made this week. The known quantity of Cam at 10 mil vs. an unknown quantity of maybe Edmonds, or maybe Dave DeJesus or maybe someone else who might not WANT to come to Milwaukee is, in my opinion is a no brainer.

Hindsight is great, but at this time, we don't have the benefit of it.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Since Hart, Hardy, and Fielder are all entering their first year of arby, they will get big raises, but they won't be breaking the bank just yet - a 1 year option for Cameron makes sense for this roster, and his 10 Million can be used during the offseason of 2009 to offset the salary increases of the arby players. Plus, I don't see any way that all of the current players reaching arby stay with the Brewers - some of them will be traded to make room for guys coming through the minor leagues. For 2009, look at it as Cameron getting Gagne's 10 Million from the previous year.

 

I'd really like bringing in Edmonds to provide starts in center and right field, especially against righthanded pitching. He'd be a good lefty bat off the bench in a pinch-hit role, too.

[GAME05]

it's almost like DM's hands were tied for the short length of time he had to decide this. even with the idea of sliding Hart over to CF, you still end up with a hole on the team that you need a FA for--you're not guaranteed to get who you want, plus then you get the dude for another five years.

 

I don't think a trade for a guy like Giles would have been the best move, either. Lose more prospects and maybe you get stuck not being able to acquire a SP, which i think is a bigger need for the club.

[JohnBriggs12]

The dislike for Cameron from some posters on this board (and a lot of 'average' Brewer fans that I speak to) is just mind-boggling.

It's not so much dislike for Cameron but that he's not worth anything close to $10 million on a team full of free swinging right handed bats. I haven't even mentioned Gwynn as his replacement and I'm one of the biggest opponents of this move.

 

They have numerous options that don't include Gwynn:

 

1. They could bring back Kapler for a lot less and make him the regular CF. Sure, he's not likely to hit .300 playing everyday, and he's only adequate defensively but he'd be a lot cheaper and he's not quite the free swinger most of this roster is.

 

2. They could move Hall back to CF (his offense is similar to Cameron's and they have to pay him anyway), which opens up 3B for Gamel or another player in a deal.

 

3. They could deal for a guy like Coco Crisp to play CF.

 

4. They could move Hart or Weeks to CF, opening up a spot for a LH bat. True, this move has risks but so does paying $10 million to a guy who might strike out 180 times.

 

The fact that Cameron himself was surprised by the move tells me he thinks "Hey, I'm not worth it, but I'll take it." Maybe Cameron should be the GM. He makes more sense than Melvin does.

[Ennder]

It is rare that I find a post I disagree with so completely that I'm left speechless on this site JohnBriggs, we'll have to just agree to disagree. Cameron said that because he didn't think we'd have the money, not because he isn't worth it. He'd get more than that for the Yankees for sure. The extent of your dislike of strike outs is just mind boggling at times.

[DuWayne Steurer]

They could move Hart or Weeks to CF, opening up a spot for a LH bat. True, this move has risks but so does paying $10 million to a guy who might strike out 180 times.

 

I'd rather have the guy that strikes out 180 times and has 50+ extra base hits than the guy that is capable of grounding out to the 2nd baseman and occasionally moving a runner up a base.

[JohnBriggs12]

I'd rather have the guy that strikes out 180 times and has 50+ extra base hits than the guy that is capable of grounding out to the 2nd baseman and occasionally moving a runner up a base.

Who are you referring to RoCo? Counsell? Have you ever read my posts on Counsell? Who's suggesting Counsell at 2B? Not me that's for sure.

 

No, Weeks and Hart are the best athletes on the team. Where I learned baseball, the best athletes played SS and CF. It's not unreasonable to think one of them could handle CF.

 

So who would that leave to play 2B? Well there's even more options at 2B. Hardy with Escobar to 2B/, Hall, sign Durham to platoon with Hall, a FA like Grudzeilanek. As for RF, there's guys like Abreu and Ibanez on the open market and they'd have the $10 million saved on Cameron.

[paul253]

Although I dont think he's worth $10 million, my biggest concern is with what he brings to the table. Don't get me wrong, he's a solid player. But we have enough players than already do what he can do. Its just like in every other sport....in football, you cant just have speed receivers that run the deep rout every time, because who are you going to throw to on 3rd and 6? You need a big possession type guy that can go over the middle. In Hockey, you cant have 6 offenseive minded defensemen because when you're up 5-4 with a minute left, you dont need to score a goal, you need someone who can defend. In basketball....haha....well....look at the debacle that Team USA was up until this year. And in baseball, you cant stack a lineup with power hitting right handers who strikeout a lot. You need someone who can get on base ahead of those guys and someone who can draw some of the pitchers attention. What we had last year completely shut down and the season turned darn near embarrassing. We were lucky the Mets choked again otherwise we wouldnt have been in the playoffs. Although a trade is possible, I dont see them trading Fielder because he's right now the only lefty in the lineup, and you'd need a young firstbasemen in return. I dont see them trading Hart because outfield was weak enough for them to exercise Cameron, so they'd just create another outfield hole. Weeks is worthless in a trade, and Hardy is risky because you'd have to count on Escobar. I dont see that much offensive turnover, and i think its a mistake.

[And That]

1. They could bring back Kapler for a lot less and make him the regular CF. Sure, he's not likely to hit .300 playing everyday

He's also not likely to stay healthy everyday. He's not reached the 400 AB plateau since 2001. If you make Kapler the starting CF, you need to bring in another guy to back up Kapler when he gets hurt. I don't think you want Bill Hall being Kapler's backup after having played the position for one year, and not having played the position for a year.

 

2. They could move Hall back to CF (his offense is similar to Cameron's and they have to pay him anyway), which opens up 3B for Gamel or another player in a deal.

Bill Hall is probably a dramatic downgrade from Cameron in CF. He's also a likely downgrade offensively - they are similar players in that they strike out a lot and have some power, but otherwise they aren't very similar. For instance, Hall's career OBP is .315 and Cameron's career OBP is .340.

 

3. They could deal for a guy like Coco Crisp to play CF.

 

Crisp has nominally the same OBP as Cameron, and much less power. Defensively they are a wash if you're being generous to Coco. At most, you're saving under $4 mil by trading for Crisp, plus the cost of attaining him. He's a guy to go after if they didn't have Cameron, but since they already have Cameron...

 

4. They could move Hart or Weeks to CF, opening up a spot for a LH bat. True, this move has risks but so does paying $10 million to a guy who might strike out 180 times.

First, Cameron has never struck out 180 times in his career, and he's been over 160 exactly once. Second, it doesn't really matter. He's a productive offensive player by virtually any metric. Average to good OBP, above average slugging, above average walk rate, above average OPS. And he plays a good center field. Mike Cameron is not a weakness on this club.

 

And as an added bonus, we're probably going to get draft compensation for him next year.

[jjfanec]

There was talk about the Yankee's really wanting Cameron, is it a possibility he could still be traded to them? I would be up for trying to trade Cameron to the Yankee, even though I dont know what they have that we want. Then trading for Coco Crisp. He was a little better at getting on base last year, and he is a left-handed bat that could be our lead-off guy. We would save money and though we would have to give something up for him I doubt we would have to give up a ton. If it wasn't the Yankees and Red Sox it would be a good three way trade but no way they would be a part of a trade in my mind.

I just think Crisp fits this team better and the extra money would allow us more freedom to upgrade at 3B, SP, or RP. The extra 4 million can go a long way for a team like ours.

[trwi7]

The fact that Cameron himself was surprised by the move tells me he thinks "Hey, I'm not worth it, but I'll take it." Maybe Cameron should be the GM. He makes more sense than Melvin does.

Cameron was surprised but not because he didn't think he was worth $10 million. He just figured the Brewers would allocate the money to raises due their younger players, such as Prince Fielder and Corey Hart, who are arbitration eligible for the first time.

"I just thought they'd go in other areas," said Cameron. "From an economic standpoint, and with so many young guys getting pay raises, I didn't think my option would be picked up.

Link

 

Tell me where he said he doesn't think he's worth it?

[Ennder]

How about this JohnBriggs. If Cameron had the same OBP and SLG and was the same in the field but he hit .290 and only struck out like 80 times a year would you want to pick up the option? Because the difference between that and what he really does is miniscule but I get the feeling you'd be ok with it then.

[MessiahRp]

For the record, if my memory is correct, so far we have:

 

Against: Johnbriggs, Bucksman, AKA Pete

 

For: Everyone else.

I guess I'm okay with the signing mostly because there's really no alternatives out there but I still think his price tag seems a bit hefty. Either way I'm fine with him being our CF for next year. I just hope there's not a major regression or injury in store for him.

 

Now Russ, can you tell me what formula you came up with to determine that 100Ks equals only one negative run? I have a hard time believing that 100 outs would somehow equate to just one run. I would appreciate it if you expound upon this a bit for me (unless I might have missed it somewhere else in this thread).

 

Thanks.

[Ennder]

He means 100 Ks instead of 100 normal outs. Strike outs are bad but when you are just looking at a players numbers you are already seeing most of the effect of his strikeouts.

 

If one player puts up a line of .240/.345/.455 with 150 K and another puts up a line of .290/.345/.455 with 70 K the difference between those players is almost nonexistent, probably in the range of 1 or at most 2 runs over a full season.

 

The Brewers don't need to cut down on strike outs, they need to raise the team OBP. The two sometimes have something to do with each other but not always. If you graph teams year to year by strike out rates vs runs scored the graph comes out mostly random and if anything strike outs show a slight positive correlation to runs scored(I assume because strike outs come with improved SLG usually).

[DuWayne Steurer]

In Hockey, you cant have 6 offenseive minded defensemen because when you're up 5-4 with a minute left, you dont need to score a goal, you need someone who can defend. In basketball....haha....well....look at the debacle that Team USA was up until this year. And in baseball, you cant stack a lineup with power hitting right handers who strikeout a lot.

 

Baseball is nothing like those sports, where each play relies on intricate interaction with your teammates. Baseball is a series of 1 on 1 encounters.

 

The statistical truth, borne out by over a century of evidence is that OPS, OBP*1.6 + SLG%, or OxS (pick your favorite) tell you how many runs a team will score. Style points matter not at all, and a player with a .800 OPS and 160 k's will create more runs than a guy with a .740 OPS who "does the little things" and strikes out only 40 times. Cam's an above average offensive centerfielder, warts and all, who plays superior defense. He had a crappy September, but if you can find me a guy who doesn't have a bad month a year, I'll show you a hall of famer.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Good move for the Brewers. Cameron at 10 million in a critical position like CF is a bargain. For those of you who are against picking up his option, I guarantee your solution is either not feasible or just plain not as good of an option.

 

It's been a long time since the Brewers have had as quality of a CF as Mike Cameron.

[logan82]

Since Hart, Hardy, and Fielder are all entering their first year of arby

 

Hardy is in his second year of arbitration.

[ELCABALLO45]

1. They could bring back Kapler for a lot less and make him the regular CF. Sure, he's not likely to hit .300 playing everyday, and he's only adequate defensively but he'd be a lot cheaper and he's not quite the free swinger most of this roster is.

 

The last time Gabe Kapler played everyday. And played in more then 130 games was 2004 in Boston. He drew 15 walks that year. 15. This year he had 13 walks. Gabe Kapler is free swinger. During the stretch when he had to play everyday for Braun, he had 2 walks in 39PA.

[paul253]

The statistical truth, borne out by over a century of evidence is that OPS, OBP*1.6 + SLG%, or OxS (pick your favorite) tell you how many runs a team will score. Style points matter not at all, and a player with a .800 OPS and 160 k's will create more runs than a guy with a .740 OPS who "does the little things" and strikes out only 40 times. Cam's an above average offensive centerfielder, warts and all, who plays superior defense. He had a crappy September, but if you can find me a guy who doesn't have a bad month a year, I'll show you a hall of famer.

 

Like I said, the strikeout thing is not the only, or the main, issue. Last season I was completely against strikeout players. What I realized afterwards is that the strikeout itself doesnt bother me, its how and when they strikeout. If you swing and miss at a fastball right down the middle, so be it. But when you constantly, constantly strikeout by swinging at pitches a foot or two out of the strikezone that gets frustrating. That, however, is a problem i have with the team in general, not Cameron itself.

 

As far as 100 k's meaning one negative run, or whatever that stat is. I dont see how you can make that statistic. If you have a guy on third with one out, how can you possibly predict where the hitter would make an out if he didnt strikeout. How can you predict someone would groundout to the shortstop as opposed to the second basemen? Also, how can you assume that if put the ball in play 100 more times that a few of those wouldnt fall for a hit, or that an infielder wouldnt bobble the ball? And let's say instead of striking out with the bases empty and two outs, you get a hit. How can you predict what the rest of the team will do behind you and how many runs you'll score?

[1992casey]

As far as 100 k's meaning one negative run, or whatever that stat is. I don't see how you can make that statistic.

It's all strikeouts combined vs. all other outs combined. Individual game situations show noticeable variation, including situations where a K is more desirable than contact outs.

[DuWayne Steurer]

But when you constantly, constantly strikeout by swinging at pitches a foot or two out of the strikezone that gets frustrating.

 

Vlad Guerrero has some of the ugliest at bats you'll see. OPS doesn't take into account the aesthetical qualities of an at bat. If you swing and miss by a foot, or an inch, it's still ony one strike.

 

As for the predictive value of a ball in play, nobody here is comparing strike outs to hits. They're comparing them to outs. A guy with an .800 OPS and 150 K's will create as many runs as a guy with an .800 OPS and 70 K's. Again, over a century of statistical evidence supports it. Teams that strike out higher than an average amount don't score less than their expected totals based on just about every formula out there.

[homer]

Cameron was 6th in the national league in pitches per plate appearance at 4.21 which is an important stat, IMO. (Weeks was 10th) Granted, Markkkkk Reynolds was pretty good at seeing pitches too which didn't help his K rate but there is definite value in forcing a pitcher to throw more pitches - one, there's the obvious attrition rate on his arm which means he comes out of the game faster; two, the guys behind you get to see more pitches to get an idea of how he might work the count.

[valpocrewsader]

Anyone know what the number is for average pitches per strikeout? (ie, across the entire league for a season, plate appearances that resulted in a strikeout took X pitches on average.) Seems like it would be 4.5 or above. In that case, wouldn't the pitchers per plate appearance stat reward players for striking out?

[Ennder]

Anyone know what the number is for average pitches per strikeout? (ie, across the entire league for a season, plate appearances that resulted in a strikeout took X pitches on average.) Seems like it would be 4.5 or above. In that case, wouldn't the pitchers per plate appearance stat reward players for striking out?

 

I'm sure it would. A strikeout is about 4 times as useful as a first pitch groundout with nobody on though so that makes sense. The same reason you hear pitchers talk about pitching to contact, the idea is to get players out using fewer pitches so you can go deeper into games.

[valpocrewsader]

In that case, wouldn't the pitchers per plate appearance stat reward players for striking out?

I'm sure it would. A strikeout is about 4 times as useful as a first pitch groundout with nobody on though so that makes sense. The same reason you hear pitchers talk about pitching to contact, the idea is to get players out using fewer pitches so you can go deeper into games.

But what about the hitters who excel at hitting 2-0, get-me-over fastballs into the gap or out of the park? They're penalized. It just doesn't seem complete to ignore stuff like that or to assume that every first pitch ball in play is an out, or unproductive one. Seems like pretty massive analysis would be necessary could get the complete picture on what pitchers per PA really means.