anyone else seeing big changes ahead? Latest: Mark A says Melvin is going to be here a long time, Macha will not be fired Monday

[trwi7]

Do we blame Melvin that Hoffman has a 12 ERA? Who, if anyone, could have predicted that? Or that Davis had a 7 ERA? Or that Hawkins has a 9 ERA?

How can we fault our GM when these players all performed beyond anyone's worst expectations?

 

He brought in players who had a history of performing at much higher levels, and none of them have come even close to what should have been reasonably expected of them by anyone familiar with baseball.

Here's my problem. If you're not going to blame Melvin for this, you're really not going to blame him for anything. Okay, so you don't expect a 42 year old reliever to post a 12 ERA, a 37 year old reliever to post a 9 ERA or a 34 year old starter who throws about 86 on his best day to have a 7 ERA. The problem is are those guys good bets to be very good? Is it a good idea to give a 37 year old reliever a two year deal? Is it a good idea to give any reliever $8 million?

 

Can we blame Melvin for the team having a terrible defense? Can we blame Melvin for continuing to spend a ton of money on the bullpen? Can we blame Melvin for having a rotation of Gallardo and a bunch of soft tossers? Can we blame Melvin for hiring Macha, a manager who pretty clearly seems to favor vets over young players?

[MJLiverock]

Exactly whose expectations are players like Davis, Hoffman, Bush, Suppan, Hawkins, Weeks underperforming? Yours? That is fine and in your argument then yes the team is greatly underfperforming your model. Plenty of other posters were very skeptical of Davis, Hoffman, Bush, Suppan, Hawkins, etc. going into the season. There were posters with below 80 wins projected, why? because their model of expectations didn't believe some of these players were going to perform as well as hoped. I figured anywhere from 78 to like 83 wins for this team because I thought the pitching would be slightly better and the hitting would be a bit worse. Am I shocked at these pitching results- - not really. I expected Wolf to be bit better and Bush to not be this bad but really after the last 3 years am not shocked. I have never been a big Davis believer so his results don't surprise. Hart is playing better and I thought Weeks would have a tough time matching the production the team got from Lopez/McGehee/Counsell at 2B last year.

 

Hoped is all it really is when forecasting players results. They aren't robots or binary outcome models like a coin flip. There are so many variables in each player that saying some statistical model is going to predict when Trevor Hoffman will decline to the point of uselessness based on how other 42 year old pitchers declined that the model is completely useless. Same with Davis or Bush. Clinging to how they performed 3 or 4 years ago can show some ability measure but the more recent data and trend for each hasn't been good. Davis's ability to throw strikes has decliined for 6 seasons and he was playing with a thin margin to begin with. The error term on any model to predict one season of a player and or team is goning to be astronomically high. I've taken and done enough economic forecasting to know that I can build a model to generate any outcome I want and claim well my model based on statistics shows this will happen. It doesn't make the model right or the deviation from expected outcome to be wrong.

 

It drives me crazy when people just fall back to some nebulous statisitcal model as their basis that anyone who doesn't buy into player X putting up a 4.50 ERA or a team winning 85 games as being wrong or just not objective. No one bothers to show this magic statistical model and if they do are they willing to admit some of their model assumptions are wrong or need to be tweaked?

 

It always reminds me of the Long Term Capital blow up of the mid to late 90's. Basically a bunch of very smart math whizzes, PhD's, Nobel Laureates, built an investment model that was a money machine. They couldn't lose and made money hand over fist taunting the investment world that thier statistical model was so sound it accounted for everything. Well, until the day that it didn't and couldn't forsee a mix of things happening that made it useless while the company crashed and burned be being completely wrong and unwilling to adjust their model even as data came in showing them to be wrong. They just kept plowing money down the hole according to their model.

 

Another more recent example - - in the latest housing meltdown and banking crisis a number of the pooled investments of mortgages were constructed using very sophisticated models to predict defaults, late payments, refinance rates, early paydowns, etc. Some had a built in assumption that just because one house in the neighborhood or 2 houses in a neighborhood defaulted it didn't mean much to the whole neighborhood defaulting, in fact some assumed it made it less likely since only a few houses should default. Well it didn't realize that in fact many times these events were highly correlated in areas like Detroit where entire neighborhoods and towns were reliant on one employer who suddenly started letting people go quickly driving up the defaults and all were related and cascaded through the whole area. I am sure the mathematician who built the model was quite sure it was accurate and reliable right up until the point that it blew up in his face because his assumptions were wrong.

 

What does all this have to do with the Brewers? It is clear some people's "models" assumed pitchers would perform at a certain level, others assumed a faster decline because lets face it most of the staff is north of 30, the rate of decline is highly variable. It doesn't matter what 100 years of baseball says about how 10,000 different players declined past 30, the variance within that pool is huge so it should come as no surprise that in a small sampling of a dozen or so players they would vary greatly from the mean of how a 30+ year pitcher is going to decline. That is why I dont' give Melvin a pass - - I dont' care that some model out there said on paper this staff should be better, there is probably also a model out there saying this staff was terrible. Other teams had the opportunity to sign some fo the these guys and they either didn't offer or were not willing to pay as much - - maybe because their "model" told them to stay away. Melvin's job isn't to just plug a spreadsheet and throw his hands in the air and say not my fault if it turns out wrong. The model is only as good as the data and assumptions and being wrong on the assumptions is the fault of the model creator. No one knows for sure what the decline rate will be on an older pitcher but one thing everyone can agree on is that there will be a decline rate- - how fast or big makes a big difference in any forecast.

[strawbossisevil]

Do we blame Melvin that Hoffman has a 12 ERA? Who, if anyone, could have predicted that? Or that Davis had a 7 ERA? Or that Hawkins has a 9 ERA?

How can we fault our GM when these players all performed beyond anyone's worst expectations?

 

He brought in players who had a history of performing at much higher levels, and none of them have come even close to what should have been reasonably expected of them by anyone familiar with baseball.

Here's my problem. If you're not going to blame Melvin for this, you're really not going to blame him for anything. Okay, so you don't expect a 42 year old reliever to post a 12 ERA, a 37 year old reliever to post a 9 ERA or a 34 year old starter who throws about 86 on his best day to have a 7 ERA. The problem is are those guys good bets to be very good? Is it a good idea to give a 37 year old reliever a two year deal? Is it a good idea to give any reliever $8 million?

 

Can we blame Melvin for the team having a terrible defense? Can we blame Melvin for continuing to spend a ton of money on the bullpen? Can we blame Melvin for having a rotation of Gallardo and a bunch of soft tossers? Can we blame Melvin for hiring Macha, a manager who pretty clearly seems to favor vets over young players?

1) I think Melvin is somewhat responsible for the defense being below average, sure. It hasn't helped that Gomez has been injured and that Escobar hasn't lived up to his defensive potential to this point,. It also didn't help that Jack Z during his time as draft guru targeted players that were more offensively gifted than defensively gifted. But one does have to recognize that on the flip side of this point, the Brewers emphasis on offense over defense has given them an offense that is consistently near the top of the league. Some of the worst contributors on defense, are some of the most productive contributer on offense (Braun, Fielder, McGehee). Would we be a better team with more defensive oriented players?

2) I have not been a huge fan of Melvin's spending in the bullpen. I stated as much when he signed Hawkins. But I don't think it's fair to take the current statistics of those players and say that Melvin should have seen those type of results coming. Could (and should) he have expected some regression from Hoffman and Hawkins, yes. But to say that he should have had some gut sense that they would become the two worst pitchers in the league is ridiculous IMO.

3) In regards to the rotation. I think Melvin was put in a tough spot. Jack Z (despite his reputation of being a good draft guru) didn't emphasis starting pitching, and the prospect arms he did draft stalled because of injury and suspension (and took longer to develop as they were mostly HS arms). This left Melvin in a tough spot of having to fill multiple slots in the rotation, but having a tight budget for doing so. It's tough having to successfully fill up to four rotation spots from outside of the organization and do so with any success on a tight budget. Add to that fact that Milwaukee isn't a desirable FA local, and I think Melvin has been stuck with limited options especially if the team wanted a shot at competing. I really thought at the time that signing Wolf was a good move. I just feel like Melvin was left with little other choice but to have to go with the middle of the road FA starter route as he didn't have the financial capacity of bringing in a guy like Sabathia. The only signing I actually felt was truly a bad move at the time of the signing was Suppan. All of the rest of the signings I felt at least represented a reasonable chance of decently filling in a rotation slot, even if later results showed that they didn't live up to that billing. I feel some of this also came about as the Brewers have had poor luck when it has come to prospect arms we've gotten in trades. JDLR, Capellan, and Jackson all failed miserably at coming anywhere near what most baseball experts saw as their ceilings. I don't believe there is anyway of knowing what prospects will succeed and which will flame out until they get to the majors, and unfortunately for the Brewers all of the ones that Melvin tried to bring in flamed out.

4) I am not happy with Melvin's signing of Macha, and I hope that Melvin moves him along soon.

5) I think when it comes to pitching and defense, I don't think your average GM would have produced more favorable results. I don't think he's done particularly well in those areas, but I don't think the overwhelming majority of the GMs in the league would have done better if put into Melvin's shoes/situation.

6) Where I think Melvin does stand out from the crowd is in three areas. A) His ability to win trades. The overwhelming majority of the time our team has benefited from the trades made by Melvin. He has been above average in this regard. B) Pick up solid contributers off of the scrap heap. Few GMs in the league do it as well as Melvin. Without some of these pickups, our team would be in far worse shape over the past decade. These are the areas that set him apart as an above average GM because I don't think the average GM when put in his shoes would have done as well in those areas as he has. C) He has done an above average job in regard to payroll flexibility.

I don't think one can simply look at the record of a GM and say, well, so and so won only X percentage of games. Therefore he is good/bad. I think a lot of things have to be considered, especially the financial capacity of a team. The Brewers need a perfect storm of young players in order to compete because they can't bring in top level FA, and because they often can't hold on to their own top players without signing them to deals that pose significant long term risk to the organization. The Brewers have been an above average team the past few years despite being at a financial disadvantage. I think Melvin has set this team up to be have the potential to compete for a playoff spot every few years (with the next time, IMO, being in 2012). I think having that potential as a small market team is a fairly significant accomplishment. Clearly not all of you agree, but few of you have any realistic ideas of how the Brewers could have done it better without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

[RayKingsForemanGrill]

So....if the Brewers lose today and lose the series against the worst team in baseball at Home....does that require a revisit to idea of Something Must Change? I think so.

If, in said game, the manager has bases loaded with one out and pinch hits for a pitcher with another pitcher while actual hitters sit on the bench. Yes.

[strawbossisevil]

What does all this have to do with the Brewers? It is clear some people's "models" assumed pitchers would perform at a certain level, others assumed a faster decline because lets face it most of the staff is north of 30, the rate of decline is highly variable. It doesn't matter what 100 years of baseball says about how 10,000 different players declined past 30, the variance within that pool is huge so it should come as no surprise that in a small sampling of a dozen or so players they would vary greatly from the mean of how a 30+ year pitcher is going to decline.

Certainly there is room for variance, and in a small group the possibility for that variance to skew in a negative direction is a definite possibility. But the trouble is, I don't think there is any certifiable way of telling which players will fall on the far end of the bell curve. Seeing as how almost all FA are 30+ (and the ones who are younger are usually stud players), the Brewers had little choice but to fill their rotation with those type of players. One would anticipate that some of those pitchers would decline slower than expected, others faster, but most would decline at the normal rate. Trouble is, all of the Brewers pitchers ended up declining at a faster rate than can be historically expected.

 

I also don't know how anyone could have expected such a far drop from Hoffman. Last September he was unhittable, 6 months later he's sporting a 12 ERA. How can anyone predict such a drop off in a such a short period of time.

 

And while I know you may not have had a lot of optimism about some of these pitchers, I doubt if you had to guess their ERAs at the beginning of the year that you would have at all anticipated ERAs of 12, 9, 7 etc.

That is why I dont' give Melvin a pass - - I dont' care that some model out there said on paper this staff should be better, there is probably also a model out there saying this staff was terrible. Other teams had the opportunity to sign some fo the these guys and they either didn't offer or were not willing to pay as much - - maybe because their "model" told them to stay away. Melvin's job isn't to just plug a spreadsheet and throw his hands in the air and say not my fault if it turns out wrong. The model is only as good as the data and assumptions and being wrong on the assumptions is the fault of the model creator. No one knows for sure what the decline rate will be on an older pitcher but one thing everyone can agree on is that there will be a decline rate- - how fast or big makes a big difference in any forecast.

But this is just it. He can't not make moves on FA because he can't be sure of their rate of decline. With as many empty spots in the rotation and bullpen (remember Braddock was coming off of an injury so his star wasn't as bright as it is now) he had to make some moves. He made some moves. Some thought the moves would work out, some thought the pitchers would struggle. But no one anticipated (nor could they) the wheels completely coming off of these pitchers the way they did.

 

Once the farm system provides us some pitching, the days of having to sign FA over the age of 30 will be over. But in the meantime I fail to see what else Melvin could have done. And I think some of this criticism is brought to you by the benefit of hindsight. It's easy to bag on a guy saying he should have foreseen a huge collapse after the collapse has taken place.

[trwi7]

6) Where I think Melvin does stand out from the crowd is in three areas. A) His ability to win trades. The overwhelming majority of the time our team has benefited from the trades made by Melvin. He has been above average in this regard.

I don't see this. He won the Sexson trade, the Franklin for Villanueva trade, the future considerations for Branyan trade, the Podsednik for Lee trade, the Koskie trade, the Shouse trade and the Sabathia trade (although you could probably put this in the to be determined category depending on what LaPorta, Bryson, Brantley and our picks do) and the Torres trade.

 

He's lost the JDLR for Graffanino trade, the Lee/Cordero trade, the Davis/Estrada trade, the McClung/Balfour trade and the Lopez trade.

 

Still to be determined is the Linebrink trade (though I and many others didn't like that one). The David Weathers trade was kind of stupid. The Hardy/Gomez trade.

 

Everything else was basically crap for crap.

 

[strawbossisevil]

Let's put it another way:

 

Be honest. Going into the season would you have taken the over or the under on the following statistics.

 

Hoffman. Over or under 4.50 ERA

 

Hawkins. Over or under 4.50 ERA

 

Davis. Over or under 5.50 ERA

 

Wolf. Over or under 4.25 ERA

 

Bush. Over or under 5.50 ERA

 

I would have taken the under on every single one of those. And I think just about everyone, being honest, would have done the same going into the season. The fact that some of our pitchers have double the ERA that we took the under on, suggests just how surprising their fall has been. I don't think anyone could have anticipated that these players would fall so far. People with ERAs in the 2s, typically don't follow that up with having an ERA in the 9s or 12s, even when you account for age. Typically a player doesn't go from pitching like an MLB all star to not being good enough to pitch in Indy ball in a six month span, even if you account for age.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Not sure I agree with you trwi7 on the Lopez trade. He was effective last year and Gillespie is fairly pedestrian (although we could use pedestrian as a 6th OF this year).

 

I would declare the Linebrink trade a loser simply because Thatcher did what they wanted Linebrink to do that year. I guess the minor leaguers are TBD, but that was a failure in the year it was done.

[strawbossisevil]

6) Where I think Melvin does stand out from the crowd is in three areas. A) His ability to win trades. The overwhelming majority of the time our team has benefited from the trades made by Melvin. He has been above average in this regard.

I don't see this. He won the Sexson trade, the Franklin for Villanueva trade, the future considerations for Branyan trade, the Podsednik for Lee trade, the Koskie trade, the Shouse trade and the Sabathia trade (although you could probably put this in the to be determined category depending on what LaPorta, Bryson, Brantley and our picks do) and the Torres trade.

 

He's lost the JDLR for Graffanino trade, the Lee/Cordero trade, the Davis/Estrada trade, the McClung/Balfour trade and the Lopez trade.

He didn't lose the JDLR trade, as JDLR didn't become a solid pitcher until his time in Colorado years after the trade. That is a push IMO.

The Lee/Cordero trade wasn't a loss. We traded 6 months of Lee and got an allstar closer out of the deal. I suppose if you include Cruz it could be viewed as a loss, but it ignores the fact that Cruz didn't actually make an impact in Texas until after he was made it through waivers where all 29 teams, including the Brewers could have picked him up.

 

I'll agree that he lost the Davis/Estrada trade and the McClung/Balfour deals didn't work out. But they were relatively minor trades. As was the Lopez trade.

Still to be determined is the Linebrink trade (though I and many others didn't like that one). The David Weathers trade was kind of stupid. The Hardy/Gomez trade.

How soon can we chalk up the Hardy/Gomez trade as a win? Because it sure seems to be heading that way.

Everything else was basically crap for crap.

I think your post provides evidence that he has either broken even or been on the winning side of a greater percentage of his deals, especially in deals involving major players.

[trwi7]

He didn't lose the JDLR trade, as JDLR didn't become a solid pitcher until his time in Colorado years after the trade. That is a push IMO.

The Lee/Cordero trade wasn't a loss. We traded 6 months of Lee and got an allstar closer out of the deal. I suppose if you include Cruz it could be viewed as a loss, but it ignores the fact that Cruz didn't actually make an impact in Texas until after he was made it through waivers where all 29 teams, including the Brewers could have picked him up.

 

I'll agree that he lost the Davis/Estrada trade and the McClung/Balfour deals didn't work out. But they were relatively minor trades. As was the Lopez trade.

We had a solid pitcher in our organization and we traded him for an old utility infielder. How is that not a loss? If we trade Manny Parra to the D'Backs for Augie Ojeda but Parra breaks through with the Tigers instead of the D'Backs, does that make the trade any better? No, it was still a bad trade because you traded what turned out to be a productive, young, hard throwing pitcher for an old utility infielder.

 

Maybe it's just because I place almost no value in relievers at all that I don't like that trade. I mean he gave us 90 innings. Is that something we're going to celebrate? And the Cruz thing goes back to the DLR thing. So just because every other team (including the Brewers again) made a mistake by not claiming him, that somehow makes the trade better? No. We gave up an all-star outfielder as a throw-in to get a closer for 1.5 years (and thank goodness it was only for that long or we would be looking at another huge contract for a reliever) and two bad outfielders. Sorry, that's not a good deal.

 

 

 

 

[trwi7]

Be honest. Going into the season would you have taken the over or the under on the following statistics.

 

Hoffman. Over or under 4.50 ERA

 

Hawkins. Over or under 4.50 ERA

 

Davis. Over or under 5.50 ERA

 

Wolf. Over or under 4.25 ERA

 

Bush. Over or under 5.50 ERA

Under, though still not worth $8 million.

 

Around 4, but not worth a two year, $7.5 million deal.

 

Under, probably around 4.75.

 

Over. 4.3-4.5.

 

Slightly under to push.

 

 

[logan82]

Under, though still not worth $8 million.

 

Around 4, but not worth a two year, $7.5 million deal.

 

Under, probably around 4.75.

 

Over. 4.3-4.5.

 

Slightly under to push.

1) agree, they signed Hoffman for to much before the market for closers was set.

 

2)I don't think a 2 year deal for under $4M per is going to hamstring the franchise so bad it keeps us from getting a player if we need to

 

3)Agree under. Somewhere in the 4.50-5.00 ERA range

 

4)Agree

 

5) Under in the 4.25-5.00 range provided he is healthy.

[jeffy]

trwi7 wrote: And the Cruz thing goes back to the DLR thing. So just because every other team (including the Brewers again) made a mistake by not claiming him, that somehow makes the trade better? No. We gave up an all-star outfielder as a throw-in to get a closer for 1.5 years (and thank goodness it was only for that long or we would be looking at another huge contract for a reliever) and two bad outfielders. Sorry, that's not a good deal.

But that is kind of like complaining that the Brewers could have drafted Pujols and did not...well neither did any other team for 12 rounds. So every single team had a chance (12 chances) to take him but passed on the opportunity. Yeah, they were all wrong, but they all thought there were a whole lot of better options. In the same way every team passed on Cruz, every GM felt there were a lot of better options than picking him up essentially for nothing.

[trwi7]

jeffyscott]But that is kind of like complaining that the Brewers could have drafted Pujols and did not...well neither did any other team for 12 rounds. So every single team had a chance (12 chances) to take him but passed on the opportunity. Yeah, they were all wrong, but they all thought there were a whole lot of better options. In the same way every team passed on Cruz, every GM felt there were a lot of better options than picking him up essentially for nothing.

 

True, but then nobody can say "we had to throw in Cruz because we couldn't get a year and a half of Cordero for just a half year of Lee without adding something." That's one of the main arguments I've seen as to why that trade wasn't bad.

 

So the fact that the Rangers were willing to expose Cruz to waivers obviously means they didn't think too highly of him at the time meaning that we really didn't have to add Cruz. And we shouldn't have considering the numbers he put up without us even giving him a chance at the major league level.

 

And I still contend that trading Lee for a reliever wasn't a good deal no matter how you look at it. If that's the best you can get for Lee, just keep him and take the picks.

[PeaveyFury]

So the fact that the Rangers were willing to expose Cruz to waivers obviously means they didn't think too highly of him at the time meaning that we really didn't have to add Cruz.

 

Or that neither team put much value in adding Cruz to the deal.

[logan82]

Or that the Rangers liked him and gave him a chance in the majors but he completely failed at the MLB level. They had him for a whole year and gave him 333 PA in 2007 when he put up a line of .235/.287/.384/.671. Look how far Gamel's star has fallen over the last year and he put up much better numbers than that last year for us.

[RockCoCougars]

Ironically, stealing Cruz from the A's for Ginter may have been one of Melvin's best deals. Unfortunately he canceled that out because of his man-love for Shreck and/or Nix. I wish that we could bump the topic from when that trade happened. Many were apprehensive or flat out angry about including Cruz in the deal. If Cordero was truly the main piece in that deal, and Cruz was a throw in, why not just trade Lee for Cordero and a prospect? I'm sure the Rangers would have done that since Cordero had pitched his way out of the closer role down there.

[davego]

The Rangers said they would not do it at the time because Lee was going to be a FA at the end of the year. They wanted Cruz as insurance if they couldn't re-sign Carlos. Guess they were correct. I didn't mind the trade @ the time and still understand it. Would be nice to have Cruz, but at the time it would have been pretty hard to guess he would do what he is doing.

[endaround]

Cruz would not be with the Brewers if he wasn't traded to the Rangers, he would have been dumped for less or picked up by someone after he was DFA'd but before he stunk for a year in the majors. DeLaRosa wasn't going to make the team the next season.

[sheethead]

Unfortunately he canceled that out because of his man-love for Shreck

and/or Nix.

Cruz was put on waivers in 2008 to get him to AAA (out of options). Any team could have claimed him, so I think his MLB breakout has been a surprise, even for the Rangers (pleasant surprise obviously for them).

[RockCoCougars]

The Rangers said they would not do it at the time because Lee was going to be a FA at the end of the year. They wanted Cruz as insurance if they couldn't re-sign Carlos. Guess they were correct. I didn't mind the trade @ the time and still understand it. Would be nice to have Cruz, but at the time it would have been pretty hard to guess he would do what he is doing.

As I said, the trade could have been Cordero/'good' prospect for Lee. If not, Melvin should have told Texas to forget it and moved on. The Rangers could have kept Shrek as 'insurance' for Lee. With both Hart and Cruz waiting in the wings, there was absolutely no need for Shrek at the time the trade was made, but Melvin wanted him for whatever reason. Once again, as with the 'Suppan Signed', I wish that we could bump the 'Lee Traded' thread. This is not hindsight. There were lots of us who were upset when Cruz was included in the deal. The waivers issue is not really applicable, because the fact is that the Brewers didn't even give Cruz a chance.

[zzzmanwitz]

We traded for Cruz to Texas in 2006. In 2006 and 2007 with Texas in 470 PAs, he had a line of .231/.279/.384/.664 with an OPS+ of 72. In that same time period, Corey Hart in 822 PAs had a line of .291/.345/.516/.861 with and OPS+ of 118.

 

Do you guys really think he would have been a member of the Brewers today after putting up seasons like that? At best he would have been a 5th outfielder on the team.

[sheethead]

This is not hindsight.

 

Was that your same opinion after Cruz's MLB work through 2007 or even during 2008 when he was back toiling in AAA?

[RockCoCougars]

We traded for Cruz to Texas in 2006. In 2006 and 2007 with Texas in 470 PAs, he had a line of .231/.279/.384/.664 with an OPS+ of 72. In that same time period, Corey Hart in 822 PAs had a line of .291/.345/.516/.861 with and OPS+ of 118.

 

Do you guys really think he would have been a member of the Brewers today after putting up seasons like that? At best he would have been a 5th outfielder on the team.

The key word(s) there is 'with Texas'. Had he fell on his face with the Brewers, that is one thing, but he was never given a chance. Instead, they decided to waste a good 500 at bats or more on Shrek. I hated the trade when it was made, but I didn't think that Shrek would be as bad as he was. I will admit that I didn't like Cordero much either. Melvin is lucky that he put everything together again once he got to Milwaukee, because they had buried him in Texas. How many teams dealing a veteran have to sweeten a deadline deal with a prospect?

[sheethead]

Instead, they decided to waste a good 500 at bats or more on Shrek.

 

That's a good point. I tend to block out Mench being a Brewer.