Sportscenter: 3 up/3 down

[Jofis11ep]

I just was watching Sportscenter's Baseball Hot Stove segment and they had the three teams with the best off season as well as the three teams with the worst offseason.

 

Three Up:

 

Yankees - obviously, ESPN loves them. Mentioned the three signings of CC, Burnett, and Teixera.

Mets - all they talked about was because they revamped their bullpen (K-Rod and Putz)

Red Sox - This one I really disagreed with. The only three moves they talked about was Smoltz, Penny, and Saito. All of them are past their prime and I can't see them giving all that much.

 

Three Down:

 

LA Angels - For losing Teizera, K-Rod, and Garret Anderson, somewhat agree.

Mariners - Rebuliding after losing Putz and Raul Ibanez.....but they were already a 100 loss team....

He then had the Brewers - "We're a wonderful story, but will now have try to replace CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets..." He then talked about how they added Trevor Hoffman.

 

I don't agree with this at all.... This is ESPN showing that they are in love with New York and Boston and there is no way that the Brewers had one of the three worst off seasons this year. I just don't agree

[Dmiles23]

I laughed at his explanation for the Sox. Smoltz, Penney, and Saito? Come on!! I can see the Yankees, I can see the Mets, but the Red Sox? Wow!

 

But as for the Brewers having one of the three worst off seasons? I guess I can see that. I don't necessarily agree, but losing Sheets, Sabathia, and Torres are all huge. But obviously they didn't take into account us getting Yo back, or that CC only pitched for us the second half, or that Sheets was hurt the last month of the year. On paper, I think it looks much worse than it is. But "on paper" is about all the Brewers are worth to ESPN.

[Jofis11ep]

That is exactly what I was thinking, the New York teams did have outstanding offseason's but the Red Sox in that conversation? Come on!!

 

As far as the Brewers, I am in no way saying that they had a good off season, but in no way do I think they were in the bottom 3. They got some depth with Looper, Hoffman and Wright, not that you can compare them at all to Sabathia and Sheets. But you can argue that this rotation is equivalent if not better to the starting rotation of last year.

[pmg4]

Nice to be mentioned on ESPN, though. No such thing as bad press.

[crewcrazy]

Considering risk vs. reward, I think it's accurate to say that the Red Sox have had a pretty solid offseason. I don't know if it'd be Top 3, but in an offseason where it was basically only the Yankees spending money, it's hard to really say who would've been a better fit in that spot. The Brad Penny signing was one that I thought was very good considering the price, and they didn't really overspend on any of their offseason deals. They didn't sign any huge names, but they really didn't need to sign anyone to contend next year. Epstein's just taking affordable gambles that might end up paying off. If they don't pay off, he still has a playoff team.

 

I'm trying to think of who else could've gone in that #3 spot. Cleveland, maybe? They added Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa, but not much else. San Francisco added some pieces, but they're all old and mostly past their prime. The Braves did a nice job rebuilding their rotation, but that Derek Lowe contract could be a killer down the road. To me it almost looks like the Red Sox could have that #3 spot by default. Not everything is a blatant Boston/New York bias.

 

I'll disagree with the Brewers being named one of the bottom three, but at least people are interested in seeing how the team does without Sheets and Sabathia. Can't hurt to have a little national attention at the start of the year.

[MNBrew]

I love how geographic proximity and market size combine to make those teams constantly worthy of most of ESPN's attention.

 

The Yankees threw the most money at 3 of the top 4 free agents. But they're still the Yankees. I think it is funny they still had to outbid themselves in order to finally secure Sabathia's signature.

 

The Mets signed the highest-ceiling, currently best closer on the market. But they haven't signed a new starter or changed much other personnel from the team that choked up the division & Wild Card again.

 

The Red Sox signed 3 past-their-prime big-name players whose track record, credibility, & post-injury discounts stand to make Epstein & Co. look really shrewd if they pan out.

 

I'm guessing the Brewers ended up on that list not so much for losing CC & Sheets, but for losing them AND losing the draft picks they thought they'd get by the two aces signing elsewhere.

[Jofis11ep]

With the current economic times, you would think ESPN would take into account market size. The top 3 teams are the teams with the top 3 budgets. How can you say that the Brewers had the third worst off-season in there market when they added the all times save leader, a decent 4-5 starter, and a AAA pitcher that adds another pitcher, sure they lost Ben Sheets and CC Sabathia but in these conditions did anyone really think they would sign them?,

[chansen]

Like every off season, It does not matter until the games begin.

 

Yankees have had huge off season signing before, but the funny thing is, they have missed the playoffs.

[Yeti73]

I agree that this is hogwash, but it is nice to be mentioned in these bits. Teams like the Royals, Marlins, Rangers, Astros, D-Backs etc. don't even get mentioned because the average fan doesn't care about them. The Brewers put themselves on the radar with young, interesting players and now people think of us. I could be wrong and this could go away, but I'm happy we are in the conversation because at least we're relevant.

 

That said, I still think we're in the bottom three because of the loss of Jim Powell.

[CheezWizHed]

Yeah, isn't that a step up? We are concidered a MLB team instead of ignored like a MiLB team.... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Roderick]

Considering risk vs. reward, I think it's accurate to say that the Red Sox have had a pretty solid offseason. I don't know if it'd be Top 3, but in an offseason where it was basically only the Yankees spending money, it's hard to really say who would've been a better fit in that spot.

 

To me it almost looks like the Red Sox could have that #3 spot by default. Not everything is a blatant Boston/New York bias.

Agreed +1. No not all of the Red Sox past-their-prime signees will pan out, but if one or two do for the price they paid, they would have done well. I believe it is the Eastcoast Sports Programming Network for a reason, but in this case present another team to be in that top 3.

[JohnBriggs12]

Get used to it guys. The consensus perception nationally is that the Brewers have taken a big step backward this offseason.

[jjfanec]

Get used to it guys. The consensus perception nationally is that the Brewers have taken a big step backward this offseason.

I think this is true and I think we may have made a slight step backward but not nearly as major as people think. I think a lot of national sports people forget how good Gallardo was two years ago. To me he would be more of a question mark coming off an injury if he wouldnt have been able to come back and pitch in the playoffs. I think Yo will put up similar numbers to Sheets overall number from last year if he can stay healthy.

Obviously, the loss of CC hurts. However, comparing this team to last it must be remembered that it was only half a season with CC. So, essentially it is half a season of CC vs a full season of Looper. That is a step backwards.

We are stronger at closer with Hoffman over Torres and Gagne in the beginning of the year. Riske is coming back healthy so that should help as well.

We are virtually the same team everywhere else minus Brayan and Kapler. So our bench is not as good. However I just do not see those as major steps backwards.

[CheezWizHed]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with JB. We lose CC to the Yanks in a very high profile FA signing (not even to mention draft pick thing...), then recently lose Sheets to an injury (which we have to pay for) and don't get draft pick compensation for. Lose Torres and Shouse out of the BP. Lose Kapler and Durham off the bench.

 

Hoffman helped, but doesn't offset those losses. Signing Looper would have been too late for the segment (and low profile anyway). Counsell and Nixon probably don't even register on ESPN radar.

 

So I can see the point of an outsider thinking we had one of the worst offseasons. And I would imagine most of us see the offseason as a step back also. It certainly wasn't a good offseason...

[JoeHova]

If it's fair to say the Angels had a bad offseason because they lost Teixiera and K-Rod, why isn't it fair to say the Brewers had a bad one too? I think it's totally fair to say that. It doesn't necessarily mean the Brewers will be terrible next season or that they could have done anything to stop those guys leaving, getting hurt, or retiring, just that they lost a lot of talent and replaced it with two guys who aren't especially good and a random AAA scrub.

[Ennder]

I don't think Melvin did a bad job this offseason at all but I do think we had a weak one. We got very little back for the players we lost.

 

As for the top 3, I'd take the Rays offseason over the Red Sox.

[Tbadder]

Basically, only the Yankees had a good off season. Everyone else was kinda meh to okay to pretty good, Cleveland. I think the Brewers had the 2nd worst off season. Losing two #1 pitchers is a lot. If losing two #1s doesn't keep you outta the playoffs then there's something seriously wrong with the game itself.

[fleehaw]

The Red Sox did lock up Pedroia and Youklis to long term deals. Not to say that was taken into account, but overall, the Sox have had a solid offseason. Top 3, bottom 3, middle 3, it's all garbage.

[CportBadger]

I second the Rays. They added a very good DH in Burrell and the acquisition of Joyce is very underrated.

[SoCalBrewfan]

It's fair to say that the Brewers lost some talent and didn't get a lot of immediate return. Still, it's silly to get worked up about this. These are always completely superficial analyses, and frequently have little to do with the subsequent season. And we'll quickly forget once there's something more substantial to talk about. Remember when the Tigers were coming off a 88-win season and had added Cabrera and Willis in a megadeal, picked up J Jones from the Cubs, resigned key pitchers Rogers and T Jones, etc? Unstoppable!

 

The Brewers have a lot of young players in key roles...while some of them are established now, they are still at the age when most players improve. The offense could be a lot better, though the run prevention is likely to be worse. (Even if Sabathia returned, he would be hard-pressed to repeat that second half.) They've rebuilt the pitching depth, so could withstand the loss of some second-tier pitchers, but if one of their top starters goes down for a long period of time, or struggles for whatever reason, it could be ugly.

 

If you expanded the offseason transactions to include the firing of Ned Yost, we'd have to be top 5, though.

[patrickgpe]

if the criteria is players lost - players signed, then maybe the brewers do belong there. While I don't think the offseason was terrible and having a healthy yo will help us, we did loose 2 of the top FA starters and signed looper and hoffman and thats about it.

 

there are alot of teams that were bad last year and did nothing to give their fans any hope (pirates, cards, giants, royals, nats, padres, etc). I would put all their offseasons below that of the brewers.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the issue ESPN misses is that while critiquing offseason success/failure, they should take into consideration how competitive teams look to be on paper compared to others in their own division. Did the Brewers have a rough offseason? Any team that loses it's #1 and #2 starters from last year's playoff team would probably fall into the category of a bad offseason - but the Brewers don't have to play and beat a team like the Yankees to get into the playoffs this coming season. Compared to the rest of the teams in the NL Central, only the Cubs look superior on paper - and they will have alot of question marks, especially if/when injuries start exposing the lack of depth on their roster.

There's maybe 5 teams that can say they had a very productive, "good" offseason that drastically improved the look of their team on paper. The rest of the league's teams either lost depth, talent, or a combination of both, or were poor enough last season for nobody to care about them.

Right now I'd give the Brewers about as good a chance at getting into the playoffs in 09 as I would have given them making it at the start of last season. Last season proved that personnel moves to improve a team's postseason chances don't stop on opening day, and I think that the Brewers will have as good an opportunity to improve their team via trade as any other organization looking to do so.

[CheezWizHed]

I think most of us don't look too down on this season because we expected (for the most part) to lose CC and Sheets...

[MNBrew]

I think most of us don't look too down on this season because we expected (for the most part) to lose CC and Sheets...

When that's the baseline, losing the draft picks is a blow but signing Hoffman & Looper does bring things back up some.

 

Of course, it's really mostly just Hot Stove banter anyway to fill the time 'til Spring Training starts to turn things from talk into substance.

 

If the Brewers are looked at as having had a tough offseason, then if they do well they'll just get that many more props. And without Yost, there may not be quite so many 8-game losing streaks to endure that always seem to come along just as the Brewers' annual strong start begins really catching the national media's attention.

[naivin]

I would agree some bias is being shown here...just not sure ESPN is the guilty party (in this case) however.