Winter Meeting "Winners/Loser" and biased journalism

[stalton]

Link

 

According to this yahoo article, there were several winners and losers. Granted every single team isn't listed on here, but I find it interesting that the writer chose to include some teams he thought were TBD(Rangers and Cards) when in the beginning of the article he stated that the rest of the teams he didn't list were deemed TBD so why list them at all.

 

What also is interesting is the fact that the writer thought the Tigers and Astros were clear winners. IMO, Tigers got the wrong end of the blockbuster trade, and any time you use refreshingly excessive and penny-pinching to describe the situation, I start wondering what other contradictions there are. The 'Stros also were winners supposedly even though couldn't land Hawkins.

 

The lack of coverage about the Brewers is disappointing but not unexpected. The writer thought highly of Hawkins and LA were losers because primarily of losing Wolf due to the divorce so I'm guessing any thought he had of the Brewer's Winter Meeting was a success if anything. So BF'ers what do you think? Do you agree with the writer? Who would you put right now the winners and losers of the Winter Meetings? Where are the Brewers?

[RobertR]

I don't know where I'd exactly put the Brewers, but I'd call them "winners" with some caveats.

 

In my mind, there's no question that they've come out of the meetings with a better team. A couple of places basically project them at 84 wins or so because of their moves.

 

OTOH, there's no question that they paid a premium for those improvements. And to be true contenders they still have some work to do in the bargain shopping season.

 

Robert

[endaround]

I have no clue how anyone could call the Astros winners.

[brosto1]

The only good thing that occurred for the Astros was Valverede declining arbitration. They also helped themselves by signing Feliz to try and gobble up all the line drives pulled to the left side of the field from hitters sitting on Lindstrom's fastball.

[Oldcity]

They probably managed to win more than 70 games again, so they must be winners. Isn't that their goal every year?

[sargennm]

The guy who wrote this is a knucklehead, as endaround pointed out overpaying in a trade and in free agency for two overrated middle relievers surely makes them losers.

 

On another note, it always drives me crazy when people accuse a columnist of being a biased journalist. He's giving his opinion on what happened, not reporting new material. He's paid to reveal his biases.

[JoeHova]

With the signings of Wolf and Hawkins to replace Looper and McClung, the Brewers probably improved on last year's team by 4-5 wins. That's pretty significant, although a lot of that has to do with how execrable Looper and McClung were last year. I don't know if that's enough to call them winners but they did appear to improve (ignoring other factors such as whether those moves were the best possible use of their budget, etc.).

[patrickgpe]

the brewers were one of the more active teams, so not to include them is pretty silly. They also included teams that didn't make A move.

[Ennder]

With the signings of Wolf and Hawkins to replace Looper and McClung, the Brewers probably improved on last year's team by 4-5 wins. That's pretty significant, although a lot of that has to do with how execrable Looper and McClung were last year. I don't know if that's enough to call them winners but they did appear to improve (ignoring other factors such as whether those moves were the best possible use of their budget, etc.).

If you include Zaun replacing Kendall I could see it being 4 wins. We lost about 2-3 wins most likely by moving from Cameron to Gomez.

 

I'd call the Brewers winners overall because we filled some major holes, but I think we didn't get great value for our money so it is only a marginal win.

[JoeHova]

If you include Zaun replacing Kendall I could see it being 4 wins. We lost about 2-3 wins most likely by moving from Cameron to Gomez.

 

I'd call the Brewers winners overall because we filled some major holes, but I think we didn't get great value for our money so it is only a marginal win.

I agree. (When I said 4 wins, I was only talking about the 2 guys signed during the winter meetings and the 2 they replaced.)

[mletto157]

IMO, Tigers got the wrong end of the blockbuster trade

 

I completely disagree with this. The Tigers traded a guy while his value was the highest it'll ever be. Jackson's peripherals show he was no where near as good of a pitcher as his results were last year. I actually could see Scherzer out-pitching Jackson as early as next year, and he's still cheap for a few years. His only problem will be injuries... But IMO - the Tigers found the sucker at the poker table and took them for all they had.

[reillymcshane]

I thought Jon Heyman did better on his 'winnes and losers' article:

 

http://sportsillustrated....inners.losers/index.html

 

He puts the Crew as 'winners' - but like people said, with caveats. Ultimately, he said we're better and have a chance to contend, so despite the steep price.

[Invader3K]

Yes, and I think Heyman's article reflects that the national perception of the Brewers winter meeting moves has been more positive than that of the fans locally.

[ILuvDaBush]

The Tigers traded a guy while his value was the highest it'll ever be. Jackson's peripherals show he was no where near as good of a pitcher as his results were last year. I actually could see Scherzer out-pitching Jackson as early as next year, and he's still cheap for a few years. His only problem will be injuries... But IMO - the Tigers found the sucker at the poker table and took them for all they had.

 

Let's be honest here, E-Jax's pinnacle of value was his 21st birthday (doesn't it sound like he had some trust fund?).

 

Nevertheless, I think we have to be winners. We robbed the 'stros (a team in our division) of their fallback option for late-inning domination (whether he is still a dominator is yet to be determined) and we robbed the Dodgy Fellows (the early favorite for a division title, also in our leaue) of their steadiest pitcher of last year. Our pitching staff is improved on paper (who knows if they can survive without their bff, the cage fighter who calls the games). And speaking of which, and I cannot stress this enough, we did not sign Jason "I'm gonna punch you in the mouth if I don't see my name on the lineup card" Kendall.

 

We supplemented the loss of power from Cameron to Gomez with the uptick in power from Kendall to Zaun. We replaced the Pitching Machine with a Mr. Wolf (over/under on Pulp Fiction references next year: 56) and added a proven late-inning commodity in Hawkins (who has had a hatred of our border rivals since he arrived there-"I'll take your money and for this, I will hate you more. Love the guy for this!). My only regret is that we didn't try this approach last winter.

[Thurston Fluff]

We lost about 2-3 wins most likely by moving from Cameron to Gomez.

 

We lost a lot of offense but gained a little defense so yes it is a clear downgrade. That said if Hawkins and Wolf only upgrade us 4 wins over Looper and McClung I don't think Cameron to Gomez is 2-3 wins difference. Maybe I put too much emphasis of defense and this would be were we view Gomez's value differently. I see it as 50% of a player's worth. Gomez is worth more than projected if Wolf and Hawkins are worth that much more than Looper, McClung.

[The Heartbreak Yid]

I can pretty much assume that when the smoke clears, the Cubs will be the biggest losers of them all. The Rangers get 1 year of potential ace Rich Harden for what the Cubs pay for 2 years of run of the mill middle reliever John Grabow. Them hendry will probably turn around, trade Bradley for next to nothing and sign some pud like Marlon Byrd or Rick Ankiel.

[ILuvDaBush]

What type of contract could a FA Milton Bradley expect this offseason?

[HiAndTight]

What type of contract could a FA Milton Bradley expect this offseason?

 

I would think even coming off the year he had, roughly what Bobby Abreu signed for. 2 years 19 million or so. I really like Bradley(As a player).

 

If we were in different divisions, I'd gladly take Bradley from the Cubs, have them eat a big chunk of his salary or even straight up for a guy like Supe and plug him into the #2 hole in our lineup after shipping Corey Hart off for a young starter with upside or really whatever.

[Funketown]

We lost about 2-3 wins most likely by moving from Cameron to Gomez.

I was as disappointed with Cameron leaving as anyone, but I would think the loss is more 1-2 wins. Giving Cameron +5 on offense, +10 on defense (including positional adjustment), he looks like a 3.5 win player. Projecting Gomez as -15 on offense, +15 on defense (including positional adjustment), that's a 2 win player. Maybe I'm being too generous to Gomez on defense, but everything I've heard says he's phenomenal in the field.

[gobrew23]

I can pretty much assume that when the smoke clears, the Cubs will be the biggest losers of them all. The Rangers get 1 year of potential ace Rich Harden for what the Cubs pay for 2 years of run of the mill middle reliever John Grabow. Them hendry will probably turn around, trade Bradley for next to nothing and sign some pud like Marlon Byrd or Rick Ankiel.

Rumor is Bradley to Seattle for Silva... yeah, I think that would qualify as nothing.

[Postseason2006]

The Tigers were winners even losing Granderson. They gave up little to get Jackson and sold him at a high point. Melvin should've traded Hardy after last season at his high point for pitching.

[Ennder]

That is making quite the assumption that it was going to be Hardy's high point. Some people still think he is a 3+ WAR player who just had an off season and we traded him at his low point.

 

It won't surprise me even a little bit if Hardy ends up being the best SS in the AL this year.