Who could we get for Corey Hart?

[joepepsi]

I started a trade Corey Hart topic back in October. At the time he looked like their best combination of value and replaceable. Since then the market has changed considerably. Spring training is a couple days away. I think the the roster is set and this isn't a good time to trade Corey.

[Tbadder]

TLB SAID: At least you're not just making wild categorizations. Do you care to try & defend any of this?

 

Touche. It could turn out all right. Parra might be a stud, strong of body and strong of will. But up to this point his body has had to be babied because it breaks down regularly. And his willpower? I just don't see it. For me the incident last year proved that at least there's some doubt there. I know observation is not much cared for around here even though it is considered a primary source in science and history, but my observation is that he gets into trouble and he gets scared, becomes tentative and gives up on his talent instead of trusting it.

 

Endaround SAID: If only the Brewers traded Prince, then we could still have that playoff drought streak in tact!

 

I don't disagree at all. You're absolutely correct. But I also know that for an organization to succeed long term employees must want to be there first and foremost. Based solely on this I think you'll find that Hardy and Braun will both be better Brewers than Fielder, who so obviously wants out. Is anyone gonna be surprised here if Fielder starts to have health problems and his production creeps ever downward until our return on him is significantly less than if we had traded him when his value was at its height? We can't chant the sell high buy low mantra and then ignore it. The Milwaukee Brewers can lay claim with some good reason to being the least successful franchise in the history of baseball. Of course so can other teams like the St. Louis Browns, etc. But our long tradition of incompetence cannot be ignored. We turn out very little talent and when we do we get Ricky Bones in return.

 

If this is no longer true about the Brewers then I am overjoyed. Now prove it. Start cranking out the players like the Twins do. Otherwise, well...I really don't want to think about because I live it everyday as a Brewer fan.

[vannzee]

Corey Hart to Detroit for Armando Gallarraga?

[TooLiveBrew]

But up to this point his body has had to be babied because it breaks down regularly.

 

It has broken down in the past. This is a pet peeve of mine, sorry. Just like saying, 'Player X is a .325 hitter' because he's hit .325 through date Z of a season. Imho it's very important to keep the tense correct when talking about players. Parra eventually got fatigued last season, but only because he's never had a workload that big... not because he inherently wears down more or less than any other pitcher.

 

 

And his willpower? I just don't see it. For me the incident last year proved that at least there's some doubt there.

 

You mean the incident where a teammate with anger issues attacked him unprovoked? And that tells us something about Parra's willpower?

 

 

I know observation is not much cared for around here even though it is considered a primary source in science and history, but my observation is that he gets into trouble and he gets scared, becomes tentative and gives up on his talent instead of trusting it.

 

Yes, scientific observation is invaluable. However, watching baseball games with no access beyond that is nowhere near scientific.

 

 

Now prove it. Start cranking out the players like the Twins do.

 

I think there should already be more than enough MLB or near-MLB players to satisfy any critic at this point. I could list them, but you know who they are.

[nate82]

Corey Hart to Detroit for Armando Gallarraga?

That would be selling to low on Hart. I don't believe Melvin would trade Hart for anyone like Gallarraga.

[monty57]

The problem with trading Corey Hart is that his replacement is Tony Gwynn. He's the only other OF on the 40-man roster. Trot Nixon could be added if someone else is gotten rid of. If we're going to take that big of a hit offensively (Hart to Gwynn or Nixon), then we had better get a stud pitcher in return. That's not likely to happen. At this point, we should be looking to trade for a reserve OF, not looking to trade away one of the three OFs we have.

 

A year ago, I thought Hart would get a contract extension, and some still think it will come. Personally, I think we play Hart this season, and hope he puts up the numbers he's capable of. If we're out of it come trade deadline, trade him for the best deal you can get and bring up Gillespie. If we're making a playoff push, keep him through the season and trade him next offseason when we should have prospects ready to take his place.

[logan82]

I think Hart is going to end up being the one who doesn't want an extension and bolts as soon as he can. He also was unhappy with being renewed last year, but it went somewhat unnoticed because Fielder also was unhappy. People thought Fielder would be the one going to arbitration hearings and being somewhat disgruntled through his Brewers career, but I think that guy will be Hart.

[joepepsi]

I think it's likely Hart will bolt for free agency as soon as he can. Not because he's a bad guy or hates the Brewers, but it's fairly easy for the Brewers to replace him.

[paul253]

Well now that all the good FA outfielders have been signed, looks like it'll be Hart. I don't mind him out there, he is a solid outfielder and can be solid on offense. Let's hope he can put that dreadful second half behind him and learn how to lay off those low and away breaking balls. Hopefully he has a good spring and gets his confidence back. I'd consider signing him to a 2 year deal right now, to kind of buy low on him. In two years hopefully both Cain and Gillespie will be available to replace him if necessary.

[MJLiverock]

And his willpower? I just don't see it. For me the incident last year proved that at least there's some doubt there.

 

You mean the incident where a teammate with anger issues attacked him unprovoked? And that tells us something about Parra's willpower?

Manny's attitude was called into question a few times last year by both Yost and himself. He tended to pout and even admited it in a post game interview with Trenni in the clubhouse. I seem to remember some teammates getting on him about watching the game after he was pulled instead of sitting in the clubhouse by himself.

 

The incident with Fielder started because Manny whipped his towel in frustration and hit Fielder in the back of the head or side of the face as Fielder walked away which incited the Fielder attack. I remember this exact arguement with others when it happend that many thought Manny did nothig but if you watch the whole incident he does whip the towel and that spins Fielder around immediately. I think Fielder gave him a talkting too about his pouting and when Parra accidently hit him with the towel Fielder's anger shot up because he thought Parra purposely whipped him with the towel. They later cleared the air with each other and that was why we saw them act fine toward each other and even joke around a bit in the dugout.

 

I think Manny can be a good pitcher, he has some wicked stuff, but his attitude has been questioned and his mental approach is one area of improvement that he needs. Sort of the anti Gallardo, whose mound pressence and attitude is often cited as a strength for him.

[strawbossisevil]

How does his preference of where to spend his time after he gets pulled effect his pitching? I don't see anything there at all, sorry. If a pitcher needs peace and quiet to reflect on his start, he should have that. Reflecting on what worked and what didn't work is an important part of improving as a pitcher. I really think you are stretching for something that just isn't there.

 

I honestly could care less whether he does this reflection in the dugout or in the clubhouse. I have a far bigger problem with Fielder and his attitude than I do with Parra.

[Tbadder]

Look, the whole thing about Parra is conjecture. But it's honest and hopefully somewhat intelligent conjecture. I hope that Prince and Braun and Hart have all experienced just a bit of backsliding, and that all will be right with the world. But in the case of Hart and Fielder I don't believe it. If Fielder doesn't change his whole life he'll fade quickly. And Hart has a long swing with a tall man's holes, I doubt he's coming back either. Both are talented and both still have value to the Brewers, but I don't think either will bring us a return that in anyway compares to the return we would have got for them if we had traded them at the height of their powers.

 

TLB: I think that baseball is more akin to history than science, but I get your point. The numbers are are important in retrospect, and it may be that they have some value as a predictor, but they also cannot phantom the immense variables of any human activity. (otherwise we truly wouldn't have to "play 'em")

 

And yes, we've recently, after decades, finally started to produce players. That's a cold comfort if we don't continue to do so given our economic outlier status. And it's also a cold comfort if we have to watch the players we developed go into decline before they turn 28.

[TooLiveBrew]

What players are going into their decline by or before age 27?

 

 

Both are talented and both still have value to the Brewers, but I don't think either will bring us a return that in anyway compares to the return we would have got for them if we had traded them at the height of their powers.

 

2009 is Fielder's age-25 season & Hart's age-27. I'm really confused where to look to find the 'height of their powers' -- Fielder hit 50 HR, so we should have traded him? No way we make the playoffs in '08 without him. Hart had a bad half of 2008, and now he's kaput? I just can't get on board with that kind of pessimism (which imo is too extreme).

 

Pardon the crude estimations, but I think it's reasonable to think of Hart as a .340 OBP/.475 SLG talent which fits fine at RF. Fielder looks about a .380/.525 type of talent, which fits fine at 1B. I really don't understand how to feel like they're both in their declines.

 

 

I think that baseball is more akin to history than science, but I get your point. The numbers are are important in retrospect, and it may be that they have some value as a predictor, but they also cannot phantom the immense variables of any human activity. (otherwise we truly wouldn't have to "play 'em")

 

Oh I agree that projections & stats don't cover the whole story. But the point to me is that they aren't intended to. I think that's the disconnect between people that really enjoy examining stats/projections & those that don't. Personally, I enjoy getting an approximate level or production for players, since baseball stats fluctuate so much from year to year. On the other hand, I think some fans (not pointing at you) take more enjoyment out of projections being wrong for some reason. And of course they are wrong from time to time... just the nature of the beast.

 

There's most definitely a human element or elements to baseball. The problem is you can't display what impact they do or don't have. Guys like Eckstein get praised so heavily because they 'do the little things'. But that's what these things are -- little. And to be totally honest, most superstars do the little things too, but you can't really find anything outstanding to talk about someone like Eckstein, since he just isn't that outstanding.

[logan82]

TooLiveBrew wrote:

There's most definitely a human element or elements to baseball. The problem is you can't display what impact they do or don't have. Guys like Eckstein get praised so heavily because they 'do the little things'. But that's what these things are -- little. And to be totally honest, most superstars do the little things too, but you can't really find anything outstanding to talk about someone like Eckstein, since he just isn't that outstanding.

Sounds like referring to a guy as an "innings eater" just because you have nothing better to say about him.

[strawbossisevil]

I wouldn't go that far logan. Having a guy who can pitch a lot of innings is able to save the bullpen a lot of work over the course of a season. That definitely has an impact on a team over the course of a season.

[logan82]

So does a good pitcher. You never see anybody referred to as an "innings eater" if they are better than average.

[strawbossisevil]

McClung would not be an innings eater. Rich Harden is not an innings eater. However, it is true that most good pitchers generally pitch a lot of innings, mostly because good pitchers 1) know how to work their pitch count, and 2) generally pitch late into games because they aren't busy getting shellacked. It is much more expected out of the top pitchers in a team's rotation, if not mandatory for them to eat innings. Many back of the rotation pitchers are either 1) less experienced at working a pitch count, and therefore unable to eat a lot of innings (cf McClung last season), or 2) are so bad that they don't make it deep into games enough to pitch a significant amount of innings.

 

The point is, if the player is going to be bringing up the rear of the rotation, it is a sizable advantage for a team if said person can pitch late into games by understanding how to work a pitch count and keeping his team in games (or being able to stay in and mop up innings when things do go badly by having an economic pitch count in bad innings). I wouldn't dismiss it as meaningless, or next to meaningless. A pitcher who can cover 200 innings rather than 170 innings saves a bullpen 30 innings of work, over the course of a season this can be significant. Not many teams have a #5 pitcher with the experience and ability to do so.

 

I think comparing "being an innings eater" with David Eckstein's "intangibles" is comparing apples to oranges. The first is quantifiable, and does require some measure of skill to achieve. The second can not be defined and is not remotely tied to any known skill at all.

[logan82]

They talk about David Eckstien's intangibles because there is nothing better to say about him. They wouldn't talk about his intangibles if he was a good player. Much like good pitchers are almost never referred to as "inning eaters." Intangibles and inning eaters are things that get brought up because they are the most positive thing to say about a guy. Just because you can pitch a lot of innings doesn't make you valuable unless you pitch quality innings. A bad pitcher is a bad pitcher. Pitching more innings doesn't make you better.

[strawbossisevil]

If by pitching more innings it means saving the bullpen, then I disagree with your opinion completely. For example, if your #5 pitcher only throws 150 innings (vs. a guy who throws 200), your bullpen now has to pitch an additional 50 innings over the course of the season. This makes them less effective. When all else is equal, being able to go longer into games, is a skill and does make you better than your counterpart. It is why CC Sabathia is a better pitcher than Rich Harden. The two may put up exactly the same numbers, but CC is an innings eater, Harden is not. Would you not say that makes CC the better pitcher? Really?

 

And like I said in my previous post, Eckstein's "intangibles" are not able to be measured in any way. Pitchers being "innings eaters" or not is something that can be measured and assessed. Stop trying to make an apple into an orange.

[ILuvDaBush]

200IP of 4.00ERA baseball is very valuable. David Eckstein...not so much. He's just a headache for the team's equipment manager.

[logan82]

I honestly think you and I are talking about 2 different things. I am talking about the term innings eater and the term intangibles and how they don't get used unless a guy has no other good qualities. I know pitching innings and saving the bullpen is good.

[TooLiveBrew]

Maybe David Eckstein's intangibles help save bullpens & kittens

[strawbossisevil]

I would say that it is often used when a player's inning output exceeds what is expected from his place in the rotation. CC was an "innings eater" as he has pitched far beyond 200 innings every year. It is more often used in the discussion of bottom of the rotation guys, because most bottom of the rotation guys do not have the ability necessary to throw a high number of innings.

[rluzinski]

I think the point is, no one calls CC an innings eater, because he's good. I don't completely dismiss the value of a mediocre starting pitcher being able to go deeper into games. It's just that, you don't want most mediocre pitchers going deep into games because you probably have better alternatives in the pen by then.

[silversurferr]

Hart will have a good year. He will also be our best trade bait (combo of expendability and value) at the break. I would rather trade Hart than Escobar. I bet Dougie agrees.