Random MLB News And Discussion 2013

[jerichoholicninja]

Could be the most teams thought Lawrie was over-hyped and a probable bust. I would think that is more likely than Doug not shopping him around.

[trwi7]

http://brewersbeat.mlblogs.com/2010/12/06/some-execs-surprised-lawrie-was-available/

 

If that is the quote you are basing your statement off of that is a giant leap to make. A handful of anonymous executives being surprised Lawrie was on the market hardly means that Melvin didn't shop him around at all, which is the assertion you made. First, I doubt GM's call every single team before trading a player. Secondly, we have no idea what teams those executives represented. They could have very likely worked for teams that didn't match up personnel wise with what Doug was looking for. Not every team in the league had a Shaun Marcum type player on the market that off-season and even fewer might have had a need for someone to play second base.

 

How is that a leap? Executives likely means GM's and some didn't know Lawrie was available. It doesn't hurt to let every GM of every team know Lawrie is available. I think it's pretty clear that that didn't happen.

[torts]

marlins release David Aardsma from his MiLB contract

[burnzy24]

How is that a leap? Executives likely means GM's and some didn't know Lawrie was available. It doesn't hurt to let every GM of every team know Lawrie is available. I think it's pretty clear that that didn't happen.

 

The quote from your article says: The Shaun Marcum-Brett Lawrie was met with some surprise in the lobby of the Walt Disney World Swan & Dolphin resort by a handful of rival executives who didn’t know Lawrie was available.

 

You then said:

trwi7 said:

I'm pissed that we didn't even shop Lawrie around and settled for an injury prone pitcher two years away from free agency.

 

How you took the fact a few execs did not know Lawrie was on the market to mean that Doug did not shop Lawrie around at all is baffling. I'll say it again, Lawrie was only getting traded for an established starter to help the team win that season. Not every team had what Melvin was looking for in a starter as a return, so why would he waste his time to call them up and tell them Lawrie was available? The Pirates had garbage for starting pitching that year, do you really should Melvin have called them up? The same thing goes with the Mariners, outside of Felix who was basically untouchable. I'm sure if you look at the rosters of the teams that year you can find several other teams who either were in contention and therefore were not trading their starting pitching or had garbage that wasn't worth trading Lawrie for. So I am not surprised whatsoever that a few teams didn't know Lawrie was on the market. I'm sure not every executive knew Greinke was available either before we traded for him but that doesn't mean Kansas City didn't shop him around to a couple of teams they felt they matched up well with before selecting the Brewer's offer.

[MJLiverock]

 

It just bothers me the money that is thrown around to ARam/Lohse/Hart/Weeks that if that money is available how come it just wasn't used in the offseason 2010 to sign a FA SP rather than trade away a long term solution at a Corner Infield spot and then using money to fill the spot he would have filled a year later?

 

Because in 2010 they didn't have the money used to sign Aram or Lohse available. You can't claim money spent in 2012 and 2013 as money that should have been spent in 2010. The money for ARAM was available because they weren't paying Prince Fielder $10MM+ anymore and the money for Lohse was available because they weren't payinig Grienke, Marcum, and KRod money anymore.

 

If you are going to get mad about not signing FA pitchers I suggest naming which FA pitchers you wanted and how they would have fit realistically in the budget.

 

Drives me crazy when people lament not signing FA's or not trading for guys and then having no plausible deal they passed up or could have made, especially given the FA's are all known. Almost as bad as the rants on RR without offering up a better line up option with the given guys or some drastically better decision that isn't just splitting hairs or using hindsight.

[dlk9s]

The Brewers should have traded for Babe Ruth.

[TheCrew07]

How you took the fact a few execs did not know Lawrie was on the market to mean that Doug did not shop Lawrie around at all is baffling.

 

Why can't that be flipped around? How do you know he shopped Lawrie at all and didn't jump on the first offer because it was for "effective veteran" pitching?

 

We all know Melvin's trading MO, and the problem here goes beyond if Marcum was the best veteran pitching option available or not. I wanted Marcum bad prior to his 2008 injury and then I wanted no part of him, it was like bad joke to the use organization's best hitting prospect to acquire him for just 2 years after I repeatedly argued that either Marcum or McGowan should have been the targets of the Overbay trade. We historically had no pitching, we weren't developing pitching, so our best options were 2 injury plagued years from Marcum, 1.5 years of Grienke, and 4 months of Sabathia? How did those moves solve anything? Why would you limit yourself to expensive veteran players just to continually have to plug the same holes over and over?

 

The answer is simple, there's no long-term plan in place here, it's just whack-a-mole with empty roster spots filling them as best as Melvin can each year. I would have rather done a AA prospect swap than acquire Marcum post injury, that pitcher would have started in AAA and could been in Milwaukee for the second half of 2011 and would still be pitching for us now. It's disheartening that people think 2 playoff appearances and 1 win playoff series win mean Melvin's done even a good job as Milwaukee's GM over the last 6 years. Apparently it's very easy to forget that if the Mets don't completely collapse the Brewers don't make the playoffs at all in 2008, Sabathia or not. Would the excuse have been, "well at least he tried..."?

 

The idea that Marucm was the best solution for the team's pitching needs is the problem. I'm not a huge Lawrie fan, in fact I think he's a jerk, and it won't bother me if he goes the way of LaPorta before him. What I do mind is continually wasting assets for short-term solutions regardless of how good they were, I want to solve problems, not temporarily patch them.

 

How many rental player moves did Melvin make? What was the net effect? Why is it okay he never looked to build a young rotation to go with the young hitting he was gifted? Simple truth is that our pitching was terrible prior to his arrival, has continued to stink since he's been here, and I'm not certain the future is going to be any better. People continue to rationalize Melvin's trade history but the numbers don't lie, we've never had enough pitching to make a serious run at anything and we're back to the bottom of the barrel again this year.

 

Melvin has some fine qualities but identifying, trading for, and building around pitching is not even remotely one of his strengths as evidenced by the woeful pitching performances of both Texas and Milwaukee during his tenure. He'd be much better off in a large market where could just buy whatever he needs, in Milwaukee he's just squandered our limited resources year in and year out.

[SRB]

Random MLB Leaderboard:

 

1) Carlos Gomez, 2.8 fWAR

2) Evan Longoria, 2.5 fWAR

3) Jean Segura, 2.2 fWAR

 

 

Random NL Leaderboard:

 

1) Carlos Gomez, 2.8 fWAR

2) Jean Segura, 2.2 fWAR

[burnzy24]

Why can't that be flipped around? How do you know he shopped Lawrie at all and didn't jump on the first offer because it was for "effective veteran" pitching?

 

You absolutely correct, we don't know 100% that he did infact shop Lawrie around at all, but we also don't know that he didn't. I wasn't the one making that type of statement though. I initially asked if there was any proof to his claim that Melvin failed to shop Lawrie to any other teams and all I received back was some quote which proved nothing. We don't know much about the process at all outside of the fact that Lawrie was traded to Toronto and that a couple of GM's didn't know he was on the market. However, none of this proves anything which is why it was extremely foolish to bash Melvin about how he traded Lawrie without knowing more information.

[TooLiveBrew]

How you took the fact a few execs did not know Lawrie was on the market to mean that Doug did not shop Lawrie around at all is baffling.

What "a few execs" means, is that's who was in the lobby at the same time McCalvy was. I would definitely take them as a representative sample of the entire group of GMs, and not an isolated & unrelated group. If that group that McCalvy happened to run into didn't know, I think it's a very safe assumption that many more GMs didn't know either -- there are only 32 of them, and news has a way of traveling within that network.

 

I'll say it again, Lawrie was only getting traded for an established starter to help the team win that season. Not every team had what Melvin was looking for in a starter as a return, so why would he waste his time to call them up and tell them Lawrie was available?

This is the problem with many have with Melvin, and specifically on this deal. He should be looking around to see what the best available return on a player is, not pre-determining that he needs a Proven Veteran™.

[brewcrewdue80]

 

It just bothers me the money that is thrown around to ARam/Lohse/Hart/Weeks that if that money is available how come it just wasn't used in the offseason 2010 to sign a FA SP rather than trade away a long term solution at a Corner Infield spot and then using money to fill the spot he would have filled a year later?

 

Because in 2010 they didn't have the money used to sign Aram or Lohse available. You can't claim money spent in 2012 and 2013 as money that should have been spent in 2010. The money for ARAM was available because they weren't paying Prince Fielder $10MM+ anymore and the money for Lohse was available because they weren't payinig Grienke, Marcum, and KRod money anymore.

 

If you are going to get mad about not signing FA pitchers I suggest naming which FA pitchers you wanted and how they would have fit realistically in the budget.

 

Drives me crazy when people lament not signing FA's or not trading for guys and then having no plausible deal they passed up or could have made, especially given the FA's are all known. Almost as bad as the rants on RR without offering up a better line up option with the given guys or some drastically better decision that isn't just splitting hairs or using hindsight.

 

I have to look that up to know who was available and for what price. As for the money, I am talking about, if they have forward thinking, rather than sell a cheap asset like Lawrie for 2years of a mid cost SP and then letting them walk. Wait and spend the money on a FA next season. Or at least acquire a pitcher that isn't a 2year rental with what? #3 at best stuff? You say they weren't paying Fielder anymore, well, they could have taken that 10mil Extensions for Weeks or Hart off the books by trading them away to use money on a FA Pitcher if that is what they really wanted. It's just poor roster and money management. Weeks and Hart aren't "Braun" they aren't build your franchise around type guys and should have been expended when the time arose rather than extended for money that could have been used in a wiser fashion based upon the players they returned in trading away those two.

 

That money available for ARam isn't an argument on having the money available to sign him. It's the argument that by trading away Lawrie, the team left itself open to a Gaping hole at 3b and thus the need to sign ARam for that money. Having Lawrie then, the 3b is there and the money is used towards a 1b or SP. Again it's all based on the needs on what the other's moves acquired in return. For all the hate towards Lawrie above he is making 492k I believe I seen this season? Saying Grienke is gone so can sign Lohse. Aram would be gone instead and 36mil would be used these 3 years differently. Again, I would have to look long and hard back at what was available and for what cost.

I was pushing for Brandon McCarthy and Jeff Karstens in this offseason though for acquiring and combined they'd equal 1 Lohse in cost for 2 SPs. Yeah at this point it would look fairly bad with the output from McCarthy and Karstens on the DL but the team would still have their 17th pick and Younger Cheaper Pitchers under team control.

[MJLiverock]

 

The answer is simple, there's no long-term plan in place here, it's just whack-a-mole with empty roster spots filling them as best as Melvin can each year. I would have rather done a AA prospect swap than acquire Marcum post injury, that pitcher would have started in AAA and could been in Milwaukee for the second half of 2011 and would still be pitching for us now. It's disheartening that people think 2 playoff appearances and 1 win playoff series win mean Melvin's done even a good job as Milwaukee's GM over the last 6 years. Apparently it's very easy to forget that if the Mets don't completely collapse the Brewers don't make the playoffs at all in 2008, Sabathia or not. Would the excuse have been, "well at least he tried..."?

 

 

I don't disagree that building some prospects at times it the right way to go but there is no guarantee that a swap of AA prospects would have paid off any better, or that the guy would still be pitching for the Brewers for 6 years. There is a good chance the AA prospect would flame out as most of the top 100 prospects do. There is a list of the top 100 prospects each year but only a few ever make a difference at the ML level. I think it is a bit disingenuous to always assume every prospect that could be had would be great or make a difference for 6 years at the ML level.

 

Melvin had to look at the MLB roster and see about as much offensive talent as could be expected at the ML level for a club like Milwaukee. They aren't going to have hitters like Braun, Fielder, surrounded by Hardy, Weeks, Hart in their primes very often. At some point a team can't constantly be building for the future and has to recognize they have elite talent actually a the major league level and go for it. Especially after 20+ years of futility. I wouldn't trade the runs they made in 2008 and 2011 for a couple more prospects that may or may not pan out.

 

A team like Milwaukee isn't going to have the staying power to compete for a decade because no one hits on all their draft picks forever. They better take advantage of the window when they have elite talent at the ML level. I remember when the A's and Twins were the love of all that is prospect development, neither won a WS, the Twins have fallen off because the couldn't keep the hit rate up on drafting once they fell into the later picks. The A's seem to develop one hit wonder pitchers but play in a pitcher's park and haven't been brining up hitters, sort of the anti Brewers. They too haven't won anything. The Rays, the new darlings, spent a decade drafting in the top 10, and made one WS and haven't done anything more than Brewers other than that, even needing a miracle to make the playoffs one year just like the Brewers. Price is going to get expensive soon and they will have to pay him or trade him, Hellickson is struggling thus far this year. It is hard for small market team to keep the hit rate up on prospect after prospect and trading vets at just the right time, even if the Rays can do it for the next 10 years, they will be the exception.

 

I wish the Brewers had better pitching or better scouting to draft pitching but I'm also happy to have been able to see playoff baseball in Milwaukee and not be in a situation like the Astros as a result. Maybe my expectations are too low but I don't expect any small market team to remain a power for a decade, the numbers just don't work for them. I'd trade a couple playoff appearances and a chance to win the WS (which I think the 2011 team had, not the 2008 team) couple with some sub .500 teams in a decade rather than always being a team with 82-87 wins.

[trwi7]

There is a good chance the AA prospect would flame out as most of the top 100 prospects do. There is a list of the top 100 prospects each year but only a few ever make a difference at the ML level. I think it is a bit disingenuous to always assume every prospect that could be had would be great or make a difference for 6 years at the ML level.

 

I'd have to look through every top 100 prospect list to be sure but I'm pretty sure this statement is a load of crap. I just randomly looked at the 2006 list of top 100 prospects and I counted 41 guys who gave at least a couple of quality years of production at the MLB level in some capacity.

 

Justin Upton

Stephen Drew

Chad Billingsley

Justin Verlander

Matt Cain

Prince Fielder

Francisco Liriano

Howie Kendrick

Alex Gordon

Ryan Zimmerman

Carlos Quentin

Nick Markakis

Jon Lester

Chris Young (OF)

Troy Tulowitzki

Billy Butler

Hanley Ramirez

Carlos Gonzalez

Jonathan Papelbon

Homer Bailey

Phil Hughes

Anibal Sanchez

Russell Martin

Ryan Braun

Andrew McCutchen

Edinson Volquez

Jered Weaver

Jason Kubel

John Danks

Elvis Andrus

Adam Jones

Cole Hamels

Gio Gonzalez

Jay Bruce

Dustin Pedroia

Kendrys Morales

Josh Johnson

Ricky Romero

Andre Ethier

Glen Perkins

Matt Kemp

 

Several all-star players on that list as well.

[SRB]

Just a reminder that Brett Lawrie is hitting .261/.313/.399 over his last 645 PA and was below replacement-level for most of this season.

[brewcrewdue80]

Just a reminder that Brett Lawrie is hitting .261/.313/.399 over his last 645 PA and was below replacement-level for most of this season.

 

And now has a 4game hitting streak with a HR and 2 Dbls in it. Someone coming off an Oblique injury and having a rough start can be expected. He's warming up. I'd take a bet his WAR ends up above Replacement level by end of the season and wouldn't blink.

[MJLiverock]

There is a good chance the AA prospect would flame out as most of the top 100 prospects do. There is a list of the top 100 prospects each year but only a few ever make a difference at the ML level. I think it is a bit disingenuous to always assume every prospect that could be had would be great or make a difference for 6 years at the ML level.

 

I'd have to look through every top 100 prospect list to be sure but I'm pretty sure this statement is a load of crap. I just randomly looked at the 2006 list of top 100 prospects and I counted 41 guys who gave at least a couple of quality years of production at the MLB level in some capacity.

So 59 or most of the top 100 weren't even worth listing and you think that makes my statement a load of crap? That's also not taking into account how many of those guys you listed haven't been difference makers for 6 years. A number of those guys have had a good year once or twice and fallen off the map due to injury or just plain not living up to expectations.

 

Quickly scanning the 2005 top 100 shows such stalwarts as Ian Stewart, Joel Guzman, Andy Marte, in the top 10. A guy like Casey Kotchman, rated in the top 10 has stuck around but has never been anything special as 1b. I'm just saying you can't assume some prospect is going to be a great player for years to come just because they are highly rated. Many flame out, or become pedestrian major leaguers, not perennial All Stars or even one time All Stars. Every year there is a top 100, some years those players are better than others but there is always a top 100.

 

Look down that list and see how many guys were never much of anything. Sure there are some great ones but there are more guys who never lived up to the hype. About 1/3rd of the top 30 never even became regular major leaguers, so even when looking at guys who should be no brainers for the majors the prospect lists miss a lot on the top talent.

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/2005-top-100-prospects-248/

[trwi7]

No there were more, I think I counted like 55. You said that a few ever make a difference at the MLB which would mean 5-10 (at most in my definition of the word) which I said is a load of crap and it is.

[MJLiverock]

Still find it hard to call it a load of crap. I think we'll have to disagree on the point but see plenty of evidence it isn't a load of crap. I'm not excited about guys that put together a good year or two, or even a Francisco Liriano who managed a couple 100 good/great innings and has been nothing special or hurt all the rest of his time.

 

I just question the assumption the Brewers would be automatically be better off had they traded some of their prospects for other team's prospects while the major league team was as close to being a legit playoff team as they have had for many years. Trades of Laporta, Lawrie,etc. could just as well have netted the current version of players like formerly highly rated prospects Jose Cappellan, Joel Guzman, Ian Stewart, etc. guys that would have made the current club no better than it is only without the playoff appearances, immense increase in popularity, and left them in a state like the Milwaukee Bucks where fans are apathetic.

 

Looking back at the guys the Brewers have traded off I don't miss any of them for what was received. Every guy has his supporters and every guy the team has traded off has brought out somebody claiming this guy is going to be great going back to when when I first started reading this site and Wil Inman got traded. Or how loaded the Brewers AA Huntsville team was a few years back with LaPorta, Gamel, Green, Salaman, Brantley,etc. and none of them have ended up making an impact at the ML level.

 

But basically my point is just that it can't be assumed that the trading off of the Brewer's prospects for other's would mean the team would be in such a better place now given how often those prospects don't work out as planned.

[monty57]

I'm just saying you can't assume some prospect is going to be a great player for years to come just because they are highly rated. Many flame out, or become pedestrian major leaguers, not perennial All Stars or even one time All Stars.

 

So do vets... see the return we got out of Marcum, the return we've gotten from extending Weeks, the return we got from signing Suppan, Looper, Gagne, etc.

 

There's always a risk. I just wish we'd find more ways to bring in some top quality, inexpensive, young talent instead of always looking for older, more expensive, short-term "solutions." Making a mistake on a guy making $500k/year during the non-guaranteed pre-arby years is far less harmful than making a mistake signing or extending someone to a multi-year contract for eight figures per year.

 

Drives me crazy when people lament not signing FA's or not trading for guys and then having no plausible deal they passed up or could have made

 

Personally, I'm tired of re-hashing things on the micro level. Look at the results of the aggregate decisions the Brewers have made. Jack Z drafted two probable future Hall of Famers and several mutiple-term All Stars. These guys were coming up through the ranks early in Melvin's tenure. With these potential Hall of Famers and All Stars all making league minimum and under team control for six seasons, we managed two playoffs. That's not really something to cheer about. Now we've got a team laden with large, guaranteed contracts that will be lucky to crack .500, and as the older, expensive players leave, we have one of the worst farm systems in baseball from which to try to replace them. We're in a downward spiral, and it didn't have to come to this.

 

I'm not going to get into each and every trade that was or wasn't made. We did what we did, and we are where we are. While it's nice to break a generation-long playoff draught, a fan being happy about two playoffs (one series win) is pretty sad. Especially since using the "window" strategy you admittedly like seems to have left us in a bad spot. Some people believe that we still have a playoff team, and that next year, with the same group (minus Hart) all a year older, we'll still be a playoff team. I don't see it, and I don't see how we're going to get better with most of our payroll tied up in a few players and without much talent on the farm.

 

As time passes, I think we're going to look back on the time period after we had those high draft picks, and see it as a failed experiment. I had such high hopes for the future when I watched guys like Fielder and Weeks play in Beloit. I'm very disappointed that all we ended up with was two good years leading to a mess of a franchise.

[TheCrew07]

I just question the assumption the Brewers would be automatically be better off had they traded some of their prospects for other team's prospects while the major league team was as close to being a legit playoff team as they have had for many years.

 

That's your prerogative but I wasn't saying an AA player was even unavailable, I honestly didn't take the time to look yesterday nor did I research it in the past, I never expected to move Lawrie for that little of a return in the first place. I gave up on Melvin after 2009 and quit looking for younger solutions because it was a waste of my time to put effort into that issue. I was simply using an example that an alternative solution could have worked out better long-term.

 

As for the "prospects fail" hyperbole that is bandied about this forum constantly, can we please move past that type of throw away statement? It's meaningless, every MLB player was once a prospect. Yes prospects fail for all different kinds of reasons but that's actually the argument to have more of them, not less. Of course you do realize that Segura was "AA guy" when we acquired him last season right?

 

We've attacked these issues from just about every angle possible. I used it to do it trade by trade, many posters have pointed out the aggregate pitching result as well as the aggregate MLB team performance, we've pointed out the state of the organization as we've risen, leveled off, and now might be facing a decline. I'm honestly not sure what's left or a different way to make the same arguments again from a different perspective. The philosophies of organization and team building from Melvin's team simply haven't worked. We have an aging top heavy roster, MLB positional depth that's years away other than 1B, and fringe high upside pitching.

 

2 playoff appearances and 1 playoff series win is/was meaningless if that was our high point with all of the positional talent we had assembled. How does it get better from here? Where do we go? I don't think all hope is lost, there are possible moves which have been discussed that would have little impact on this season and set us up for a better future. The problem is that Melvin has never demonstrated a willingness to head down that road, and signing Lohse was yet further evidence of this regime's unwillingness to look past the season directly in front of them until there's no hope... then it's okay to sell or look ahead to next year, but not past next year...

 

This is where we are: below .500 with questionable pitching once again, no first round pick, an aging core, and very little depth. We certainly didn't have to arrive at this point, the organization's path could have led down a different road. 1 or 2 men have made decisions which had the domino effect of putting us here. Mark A has been good for the franchise but if he's the driving factor behind many of these FA pitching acquisitions then he's as much a part of the problem as Melvin is. And If Mark A. is that kind of owner, then I don't hold out much hope because they can always find away to piss away more money on backloaded and/or deferred deals until this all falls apart the way it did for the Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs.

 

The reality of sports in the modern era is that you need to turn over your roster to remain competitive, you can either embrace that fact as Pittsburgh and Green Bay do in football or Tampa Bay and Texas do in baseball, or you rage against it overpaying proven vets until their performance collapses because of age, injury, or both and then you essentially need to tear it all down and start over.

 

I've never wanted to rebuild, I don't want to rebuild in the future, I've vehemently argued against the path this organization has been on because that's where we're heading. People can and will rationalize support for Melvin but the simple truth is that the best decision he made when getting hired was to retain Jack Z, but just about everything since has put the organization into a downward trend. The MLB performance continued to peak as the positional prospects graduated to MLB and matured into valuable and productive players, well at least when there was enough short term solution pitching on the roster, but the organization as a whole peaked around 2006-7 and it's been a slow and steady decline since.

[lcbj68c]

Bravo TheCrew07...Bravo! This team has needed an Andrew Friedman approach for the past 3 years. Now the window is closing and instead of accepting that fact... they instead buy a bunch of expensive worn ceiling fans to continue to try to feel the cool breeze.

[Funketown]

Can we turn this back into the random news thread? This is a good discussion, but I'd rather be able to spend my time here making fun of the Astros!

 

The Astros have allowed 6.14 runs per game, worst in the majors. The Blue Jays have allowed 5.15 runs per game, second worst in the majors.

 

They are incredibly bad, and I'm following them in hopes of the infamous 120 loss season.

[burnzy24]

This GIF is awesome:

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/miggy_composite.gif

[brewcrewdue80]

That gif^^^^^^^ Amazing 6HRs with Maybe 1 pitch being a strike. Talk about Plate Coverage!

 

As to the 2005 top 100 prospect argument. Here's a question. How many top 100 prospects graduated in 2004? A player like Jose Fernandez for Miami who was to be one of the Uber type prospects in a year or two already playing for the ML club?

 

And I do get the argument against Prospects as today I believe, I read the 3Straight years, top 10 prospect Jesus Montero was just sent down to AAA due to his struggles. Another major disappointment future All-Star rated player playing below Replacement level.

[trwi7]

Didn't we have an umpire thread? I can't find it.

 

This awful call courtesy of Jeff Nelson. It reminds me of the call in Yankee Stadium last year. Show me the ball and it's an out.

 

http://i.imgur.com/IWtNLI7.gif