I'll Believe It When I See It (Brewers selling big at the deadline)

[Thurston Fluff]

That's a basic scenario. You just need to improve the pitching more than you take a hit on the loss of Gomez.

 

Yes those type of deals are out there day in and day out. Just dial 1-800-ripoff and you get five great pitchers for one Carlos Gomez. Teams just love giving up more than they receive. It makes their jobs so much easier. After all unemployment is no work at all. Teams are not lining up to lose more than they get. It's just wishful thinking to believe you can just decide to trade someone and there are five offers all of which give you more than you offer. You guys are not being at all realistic in what these players are likely going to get us. If the situation arises like the Dodgers buying all of Boston's crap comes along nobody is saying no. It's just those type of things don't happen very often. You don't rebuild your franchise by waiting for stupid people to give you everything they have of value.

 

Things get more complicated when you add more players and deal with prospects, but what I am saying, what TheCrew is saying and others are saying is that you need to continue to improve the OVERALL talent on the team and organization to get to a point where you can compete routinely.

 

You don't really think I didn't understand that do you? What you don't seem to understand is I think you are wrong on how to get there.

Winning is as simple as scoring more runs than you give up. A 1-0 win counts the same as an 11-10 win.

 

Problem is you guys don't seem to think 11-10 wins count as much as 1-0 does. Giving up runs scored to stop runs from getting scored seems to be the very definition of spinning your wheels.

[nate82]

 

The Giants have won 2 world series in the last few years with pretty pedestrian/crappy offenses because there pitching was so good. Winning is as simple as scoring more runs than you give up. A 1-0 win counts the same as an 11-10 win.

 

 

The Giants have actually had a better offense than most will want you to believe. In 2012 the Giants ranked 12th in runs scored and had a wRC+ of 99 which is just below league average. Not really a pedestrian offense. Now for 2012 the Reds and the Braves actually had a rather pedestrian/crappy offense as both teams had a wRC+ below 100. The Reds had a wRC+ of 93 and the Braves had a wRC+ of 92. So no you can't get away with a pedestrian offense and win the world series you need at least an about average offense which nearly all of the recent world series winners have had a wRC+ of 98 or higher 2012 Giants (99), 2011 Cardinals (112), 2010 Giants (98), 2009 Yankees (117), and the 2008 Phillies (98). If you look back in 2011 the Giants had a wRC+ of 87 and missed the playoffs why did they miss the playoffs that year if there pitching is so great? The answer is because their offense just did not generate enough runs for their pitchers and thus missed the playoffs because of their offense. You can't win with just pitching alone a well below average offense is not going to make it into the playoffs just like a well below average pitching will not.

[logan82]

We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching.

[thebruce44]

That's a basic scenario. You just need to improve the pitching more than you take a hit on the loss of Gomez.

 

Yes those type of deals are out there day in and day out. Just dial 1-800-ripoff and you get five great pitchers for one Carlos Gomez. Teams just love giving up more than they receive. It makes their jobs so much easier. After all unemployment is no work at all. Teams are not lining up to lose more than they get. It's just wishful thinking to believe you can just decide to trade someone and there are five offers all of which give you more than you offer. You guys are not being at all realistic in what these players are likely going to get us. If the situation arises like the Dodgers buying all of Boston's crap comes along nobody is saying no. It's just those type of things don't happen very often. You don't rebuild your franchise by waiting for stupid people to give you everything they have of value.

 

Things get more complicated when you add more players and deal with prospects, but what I am saying, what TheCrew is saying and others are saying is that you need to continue to improve the OVERALL talent on the team and organization to get to a point where you can compete routinely.

 

You don't really think I didn't understand that do you? What you don't seem to understand is I think you are wrong on how to get there.

Winning is as simple as scoring more runs than you give up. A 1-0 win counts the same as an 11-10 win.

 

Problem is you guys don't seem to think 11-10 wins count as much as 1-0 does. Giving up runs scored to stop runs from getting scored seems to be the very definition of spinning your wheels.

 

Honestly, I don't think you realize how dynamic talent evaluation is. Its not like all managers are sitting there with WAR in front of them to make sure they get more than they give. There are a lot of other factors such as cost, positional needs, future vs present value, and team specific needs that can effect what someone is willing to take or give up.

 

Gomez is a very good player with a low cost and future value. He doesn't fit a team specific need for us as much as pitching, so you try to find a team that needs more offense and defense in center field right now, yet doesn't have an overwhelming need for future value at pitching.

 

Its not that hard to see whats possible, or that out of line to suggest that both teams could benefit from a move like this.

[adambr2]

We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching.

 

I get the point you are trying to make but IMO if we trade Gomez, yes we need to get value back equal to Gomez. Gomez is one of our most valuable potential trading chips. I would never concede losing a trade to part with these guys just to fill a hole somewhere else that may constitute a net improvement if we acquire a pitcher over our #5 who is a greater help than Gomez over Schafer. Gomez is a CF with pluses across the board -- power, average, speed, and defense. These guys are so valuable, particularly one leading MLB in WAR and one with a great contract situation.

 

I put Gomez with Braun right now where you don't move him unless you get blown away. We can always re-visit a deal for him in a year or two if the price isn't right.

 

I don't see an immediate need to make room for Schafer in the outfield, as I think he's going to need to show a little more than this to get me to buy into the hype. He's going to need to do better than a .619 OPS to cut it as a starter at any OF position.

[RockCoCougars]

I don't have a problem with trading vets for prospects if the season is lost in July. That said, I also don't want to see the Dean Taylor school of thought where you dump guys just because- trying to catch lightning in a bottle. I want quality not quantity, failed prospects need not apply... meaning I don't care where Baseball America had a guy in the organizational rankings two years ago, if he can't make contact/throw strikes now (or if he looks AAAA in a cup of coffee or two), I don't want him. I'd rather get young toolsy guys from the low minors.

[logan82]

We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching.

 

I get the point you are trying to make but IMO if we trade Gomez, yes we need to get value back equal to Gomez. Gomez is one of our most valuable potential trading chips. I would never concede losing a trade to part with these guys just to fill a hole somewhere else that may constitute a net improvement if we acquire a pitcher over our #5 who is a greater help than Gomez over Schafer. Gomez is a CF with pluses across the board -- power, average, speed, and defense. These guys are so valuable, particularly one leading MLB in WAR and one with a great contract situation.

 

I put Gomez with Braun right now where you don't move him unless you get blown away. We can always re-visit a deal for him in a year or two if the price isn't right.

 

I don't see an immediate need to make room for Schafer in the outfield, as I think he's going to need to show a little more than this to get me to buy into the hype. He's going to need to do better than a .619 OPS to cut it as a starter at any OF position.

How do you get better unless you are willing to trade guys? It seems dumb to me just to stand pat because you can't get equal value. You need to get the best deal that will help your club even if you don't get equal value.

[Surhoff5]

We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching.

 

I get the point you are trying to make but IMO if we trade Gomez, yes we need to get value back equal to Gomez. Gomez is one of our most valuable potential trading chips. I would never concede losing a trade to part with these guys just to fill a hole somewhere else that may constitute a net improvement if we acquire a pitcher over our #5 who is a greater help than Gomez over Schafer. Gomez is a CF with pluses across the board -- power, average, speed, and defense. These guys are so valuable, particularly one leading MLB in WAR and one with a great contract situation.

 

I put Gomez with Braun right now where you don't move him unless you get blown away. We can always re-visit a deal for him in a year or two if the price isn't right.

 

I don't see an immediate need to make room for Schafer in the outfield, as I think he's going to need to show a little more than this to get me to buy into the hype. He's going to need to do better than a .619 OPS to cut it as a starter at any OF position.

How do you get better unless you are willing to trade guys? It seems dumb to me just to stand pat because you can't get equal value. You need to get the best deal that will help your club even if you don't get equal value.

 

So would you trade Segura for someone like Shelby Miller? Yes, I know that would never happen, but if you could deal a SS with crazy high value for a pitcher with crazy high value, would you?

 

I don't know my own answer to this, but it would be one way to get young frontline pitching.

[brewcrewdue80]

This isn't going anywhere in conversation.

 

Trading away Gomez who we have for 3more seasons. We have Schafer to replace him for 3 years or longer with Taylor and Haniger in the woodworks.

 

Now we can trade for high,high impact pitching for Gomez, saying a team doesn't want to trade those guys away isn't looking at that teams big picture. A high impact pitcher that is 2-4 years away when that team has needs for this season to 3years from now. Gomez is a guarantee talent. The high impact pitching prospects aren't. How's Jacob Turner doing? Gomez has to be viewed as a top 25 OF in all of baseball. In his prime.

I feel there's an undervalue going on with him thinking he can't land 2 impact pitchers. One maybe a ready today/year away another 2-4years away.

 

On Aoki, teams need leadoff hitters. A cheap controlled one? He's certainly worth as much Choo was.

[brewcrewdue80]

Impact pitching can be MLB ready or a year away but that doesn't mean they make an impact for that team once called up. You likely see 4ish ERA their 1st and/or 2nd seasons and then they develop to low 3 ERA pitchers.

I feel that saying impact pitcher, guys are immediately assuming a guy like Miller/Harvey who succeed at once and thats not going to be the case with every impact pitcher.

An impact pitcher is someone who should offer 185+ innings with 3.5 ERA or less. Recent pitcher success in MLB makes that sound non-impact but it really is the true expectation.

[logan82]

I get the point you are trying to make but IMO if we trade Gomez, yes we need to get value back equal to Gomez. Gomez is one of our most valuable potential trading chips. I would never concede losing a trade to part with these guys just to fill a hole somewhere else that may constitute a net improvement if we acquire a pitcher over our #5 who is a greater help than Gomez over Schafer. Gomez is a CF with pluses across the board -- power, average, speed, and defense. These guys are so valuable, particularly one leading MLB in WAR and one with a great contract situation.

 

I put Gomez with Braun right now where you don't move him unless you get blown away. We can always re-visit a deal for him in a year or two if the price isn't right.

 

I don't see an immediate need to make room for Schafer in the outfield, as I think he's going to need to show a little more than this to get me to buy into the hype. He's going to need to do better than a .619 OPS to cut it as a starter at any OF position.

How do you get better unless you are willing to trade guys? It seems dumb to me just to stand pat because you can't get equal value. You need to get the best deal that will help your club even if you don't get equal value.

 

So would you trade Segura for someone like Shelby Miller? Yes, I know that would never happen, but if you could deal a SS with crazy high value for a pitcher with crazy high value, would you?

 

I don't know my own answer to this, but it would be one way to get young frontline pitching.

Who said anything about trading Segura?

[monty57]

So would you trade Segura for someone like Shelby Miller? Yes, I know that would never happen, but if you could deal a SS with crazy high value for a pitcher with crazy high value, would you?

 

If we had a MLB ready guy who projected to be a league average SS waiting in the wings, this would be a no brainer. However, this is not the same scenario as Gomez. Segura is still in his pre-arby years, and we don't have anyone remotely capable of replacing him. The question should be "would you trade Gomez right now for Shelby Miller?"

 

Although Gomez's salary may be less than his "free agent value," he's still making $8.5MM/year more than Segura. Throw in that we have capable replacements ready to step in, and Gomez could be traded. I wouldn't give him away, but if we got a lot of value back in trade, I'd make the deal. It seems more likely that Aoki will be the one dealt, with Schafer/Gindl/Davis filling in. In the likely event that we are still down next year, we could trade Gomez then, when our high-upside A-ball OFs are closer to ready.

 

I don't know what Aoki would bring back, but I think he has decent trade value. He's "proven" as a leadoff hitter, gets on base, can play all three OF positions and has a lot of "team control" for not much money. A team looking to win now, not willing to trust "unproven" players, would jump at Aoki. Gomez would bring back more, but I don't see Melvin/Attanasio trading him this season unless Attanasio's really feeling the need to trim salary and no one's biting on Ramirez and Weeks.

[MJLiverock]

So would you trade Segura for someone like Shelby Miller? Yes, I know that would never happen, but if you could deal a SS with crazy high value for a pitcher with crazy high value, would you?

 

If we had a MLB ready guy who projected to be a league average SS waiting in the wings, this would be a no brainer. However, this is not the same scenario as Gomez. Segura is still in his pre-arby years, and we don't have anyone remotely capable of replacing him. The question should be "would you trade Gomez right now for Shelby Miller?"

 

Or the question should be would the Cardinals trade Miller for Gomez? My guess is nope. For the same reasons I would say yeah I'd give up Gomez for Miller in a heartbeat.

 

Realistically I don't see the Brewers getting impact front line pitching for the likes of Aoki, Axford, Henderson, K-rod. Maybe if you combined all four of them to a team looking to fill a lot of holes now and has an abundance of pitching, we may get a AA pitcher with some upside. Otherwise, teams know how valuable high ceiling young pitching talent is and they aren't likely to give it up for a bunch of reclamation projects or average outfielders. The team can dip all the way down to A ball and seek talent but that just again adds risk the pitcher doesn't materialize and given this scouting department's track record with identifying raw young pitching talent... Likely they will get back guys like Jungman (projects that may make the majors but aren't likely to be more than a #4 of which the minors seam to already have plenty) or the old fallen prospects like Dave Bush or Jose Cappellan tyoes of past trades.

 

I have no problem trading any of the guys mentioned but I think the proceeds will be less than some expect.

[Thurston Fluff]

Honestly, I don't think you realize how dynamic talent evaluation is. Its not like all managers are sitting there with WAR in front of them to make sure they get more than they give. There are a lot of other factors such as cost, positional needs, future vs present value, and team specific needs that can effect what someone is willing to take or give up.

 

If there is one thing I can tell you is I am far from one who would just sit and look at WAR. I have fought a war against WAR for years. Not to nitpick managers don't make trades. I get what you mean though.

AS far as you don't have to get the same amount of talent to make a trade viable that is not what I was being told a page ago. To quote xisxisxis

"Things get more complicated when you add more players and deal with prospects, but what I am saying, what TheCrew is saying and others are saying is that you need to continue to improve the OVERALL talent on the team and organization to get to a point where you can compete routinely. By reducing the talent (which is what Melvin has done for quick fixes and going all-in for 2011) we get to the situation where we are right now. "

I tend to agree if you give up more overall talent than you receive it is very unlikely to help. Granted there are times when you trade from a position where you have a lot of comparable level of players and a huge hole in another it can help improve the overall team. I just disagree that we have a match for that top tier young pitcher we need.

How do you get better unless you are willing to trade guys? It seems dumb to me just to stand pat because you can't get equal value. You need to get the best deal that will help your club even if you don't get equal value.

Nobody is saying don't make any trades. I have already agreed trading Aoki might be useful. That said teams have way more options to improve than just trading away core players. Drafting, free agency, minor league signings, foreign players, reclamation projects all help improve the club. The Brewers for example found some decent players like Estrada, Narveson, and Axford for nothing. They found Aoki. That improved the club. They are always doing that sort of thing. As far as being dumb to stand pat I think it is worse to be impatient. Players improve. We have players who have the potential to be very good. We need to let them continue to improve before panicking and trading away players to fill a hole that might have been filled internally if we had just been more patient.

 

Now we can trade for high,high impact pitching for Gomez, saying a team doesn't want to trade those guys away isn't looking at that teams big picture. A high impact pitcher that is 2-4 years away when that team has needs for this season to 3years from now. Gomez is a guarantee talent. The high impact pitching prospects aren't.

 

I just don't believe you are going to get a high impact pitching prospect for Gomez. Gomez has one year of above average offensive production under his belt. That is hardly a proven talent. I seriously doubt a team would overpay for him for a short term run. It seems to me teams look for rentals with shorter contracts and longer track records that they can get for lesser long term costs. Pitchers seem to be the ones who garner big returns in July. I could be wrong and if we can get more than Gomez is worth as in a legit can't miss front line pitching prospect then fine. I just haven't seen anything to make me believe that is realistic.

Gomez is a very good player with a low cost and future value. He doesn't fit a team specific need for us as much as pitching, so you try to find a team that needs more offense and defense in center field right now, yet doesn't have an overwhelming need for future value at pitching.

 

Accept pitching is in much more demand all around baseball. There really aren't a lot of teams looking to give up top level pitching. Getting a mid level pitching prospects who projects to a 3-5 in the bigs we have. Hell we have more average pitching prospects than we have centerfield prospects. We are lacking in top tier pitching. Gomez will not net us what we need IMHO.

 

We don't need to get value back equal to Gomez. We only need to get a guy back who is better than our worst starting pitcher by more than we are stepping back starting Schafer instead of Gomez. That isn't a huge step back while there is a lot of room for improvement in the starting pitching.

 

If we are only worried about this season that might make sense. If we don't get equal value back I seriously doubt this team will be as good next year or even a couple season's down the road. Do you really think a young Narveson type would be more valuable to the team going forward that Gomez and one of Fiers, Bugois, Pena, Hellweg or Thornburg? We have enough possible bottom of the rotation prospects for next several seasons. WE are lacking top tier ones.

[Surhoff5]

Who said anything about trading Segura?

 

 

It was a hypothetical which I didnt really think was that hard to figure out.

 

In any case, if the Cards offered a trade like that, would you take it if you were Milwaukee? It would give the Brewers a frontline pitcher with 5 more years of control. As someone put it earlier, would Segura + #5 Starter > Shelby Miller + Replacement Shortstop?

 

I don't know the answer to that.

[logan82]

Who said anything about trading Segura?

 

 

It was a hypothetical which I didnt really think was that hard to figure out.

 

In any case, if the Cards offered a trade like that, would you take it if you were Milwaukee? It would give the Brewers a frontline pitcher with 5 more years of control. As someone put it earlier, would Segura + #5 Starter > Shelby Miller + Replacement Shortstop?

 

I don't know the answer to that.

So a strawman.

[TheCrew07]

You said and I quote

The problem is this, if you won't trade a productive hitter like Gomez or Aoki, then I would like someone to explain how exactly we will ever get the impact pitching to match-up with post season rivals?

It seems to me that is saying trade one of our outfielders for impact pitching. The outfield depth you speak of is Gindl, Schafer, Davis, Prince and Halton. None of which posted an OPS in AAA above .831. Three of them have (or had in the case of Schafer) one under 800 in AAA. That seems more like a bench player than a starting caliber outfielder on a competitive major league roster. To me that is a text book definition of creating a hole to fill another.

 

Once again, it's a not hole if we have replacement player. The replacement doesn't have to be of equal value to make the trade a net positive for the MLB club and for the organization as a whole.

 

I really don't think this concept should be all that hard to understand. If you can drop 2 WAR at one position but pickup 4-5 at another your team is still better. Regardless if you like WAR as a concept or not, frame it in real wins, the fact that pitching > hitting, frame it however you want, the team could still be better.

[TooLiveBrew]

Who said anything about trading Segura?

 

 

It was a hypothetical which I didnt really think was that hard to figure out.

 

In any case, if the Cards offered a trade like that, would you take it if you were Milwaukee? It would give the Brewers a frontline pitcher with 5 more years of control. As someone put it earlier, would Segura + #5 Starter > Shelby Miller + Replacement Shortstop?

 

I don't know the answer to that.

So a strawman.

I think it's a pretty relevant question. I didn't read it as an attack or argument from Surhoff5, maybe I'm missing something.

[Surhoff5]

Definitely not an attack. I just thought it was an interesting question that a buddy of mine brought up on how to get frontline pitching. Felt relevant to post here.

[brewcrewdue80]

Honestly, I don't think you realize how dynamic talent evaluation is. Its not like all managers are sitting there with WAR in front of them to make sure they get more than they give. There are a lot of other factors such as cost, positional needs, future vs present value, and team specific needs that can effect what someone is willing to take or give up.

 

Now we can trade for high,high impact pitching for Gomez, saying a team doesn't want to trade those guys away isn't looking at that teams big picture. A high impact pitcher that is 2-4 years away when that team has needs for this season to 3years from now. Gomez is a guarantee talent. The high impact pitching prospects aren't.

 

I just don't believe you are going to get a high impact pitching prospect for Gomez. Gomez has one year of above average offensive production under his belt. That is hardly a proven talent. I seriously doubt a team would overpay for him for a short term run. It seems to me teams look for rentals with shorter contracts and longer track records that they can get for lesser long term costs. Pitchers seem to be the ones who garner big returns in July. I could be wrong and if we can get more than Gomez is worth as in a legit can't miss front line pitching prospect then fine. I just haven't seen anything to make me believe that is realistic.

Gomez is a very good player with a low cost and future value. He doesn't fit a team specific need for us as much as pitching, so you try to find a team that needs more offense and defense in center field right now, yet doesn't have an overwhelming need for future value at pitching.

 

Accept pitching is in much more demand all around baseball. There really aren't a lot of teams looking to give up top level pitching. Getting a mid level pitching prospects who projects to a 3-5 in the bigs we have. Hell we have more average pitching prospects than we have centerfield prospects. We are lacking in top tier pitching. Gomez will not net us what we need IMHO.

 

If we are only worried about this season that might make sense. If we don't get equal value back I seriously doubt this team will be as good next year or even a couple season's down the road. Do you really think a young Narveson type would be more valuable to the team going forward that Gomez and one of Fiers, Bugois, Pena, Hellweg or Thornburg? We have enough possible bottom of the rotation prospects for next several seasons. WE are lacking top tier ones.

 

Thurston let me give you the examples from this offseason that Gomez is worth not just a high impact pitcher but at least two!

 

Ben Revere. 25yrs old. 0 career HRs. He was traded for this offseason and cost the Phillies Trevor May AND Vance Worley.

Denard Span. 29yrs old. Coming off of .738-.687-.679OPS seasons. Not a Defensive star like Gomez yet, yet he still netted Minnesota a top 60 prospect named Alex Meyer.

 

Nothing those two have done in their careers compares to basically Gomez last season's worth of games. Gomez is 27 so right in between both of them. Gomez has always been an excellent defender, and that alone to me makes him worth a top arm so long as his bat played in to the lineup. Nevermind that now Gomez's bat and speed on the Basepaths are playing to the top of the lineup. That earns another Arm now. 2 high impact arms for Gomez from another team should be the return.

You have to remember Gomez's defense is such a huge benefactor for whatever team he plays for and not get caught up in whether his bat history deserves a high impact arm. His bat just needed to play itself into a lineup, his defense and potential power/speed was so high it just required his bat to keep him in the lineup for that factor to pay off. It's all come together and for 3years of Gomez in his prime....What he provides 5tools? This is a 6+WAR player every one of those years now. AllStar years. Gomez's defense improves that pitching staff alone, again losing an impact pitcher and keeping an average pitcher who's likely gaining 1out vs. a hit every 2 starts because of Gomez. Who knows how many runs saved that is? Could be none. Could be 4 or more in that game.

 

Carlos Gomez is a top 25 maybe up to 15-20 OF in all of Baseball today. Being 27 that shouldn't change in the 3 years he's still under contract. And he's Still Improving!

1 team losing an impact pitcher when impact pitching may be abundant or affordable to lose while gaining a 6+WAR CF with Elite D over maybe their Replacement level CF they have currently. Why trade away the impact pitcher? What good does it do if his CF is maybe average? Or have a negative impact on the team? A front office should look that over and say, my top pitching prospect does me no good when I have nothing coming up to play a legitimate CF behind him. If that guy doesn't help defensively or offensively what good are the impact pitchers on that team? I truly believe Gomez is worth a lot. Just based on what Span and Revere netted this offseason.

Just based on Atlanta giving up their 1st rd pick for BJ Upton who Gomez clearly is better than now rather than hoping he reaches equal ability. Those 3 players weren't shooting up in skills like Gomez is currently and the team acquiring Gomez in trade should feel better than what Washington,Philly, and Atl got back in return for their CF.

[craigharmann]

OK, I've come around on trading Aoki. Package him and Yo to Texas for prospects (Olt plus a pitcher), A-Ram to the Dodgers, Rickie wherever he can, K-Rod, Axford, Henderson, Gonzalez, whoever else in the bullpen gone. Go with Braun in LF (once back from DL), Gomez in center (although, he could be moved and Schaefer could go in center), and a platoon of Schaefer/Gindl in LF. Olt replaces A-Ram, Scooter at 2nd, with Yuni/Bianchi as middle IF backups, Halton up as backup 1B/3B/OF and bring up Nashville's bullpen. Couldn't hurt, could it?

[PrinceFielderx1]

After this horrible series to the Astros you got to see that we are big time sellers at the deadline.

[narwhalattack]

After this horrible series to the Astros you got to see that we are big time sellers at the deadline.

 

Well at the end of the day it doesn't matter what WE think and it doesn't matter what DM thinks. It's all in Mark A.'s hands.

[Invader3K]

After this horrible series to the Astros you got to see that we are big time sellers at the deadline.

 

Well at the end of the day it doesn't matter what WE think and it doesn't matter what DM thinks. It's all in Mark A.'s hands.

 

That's the thing. I could easily see the Brewers making a token trade, dealing someone like Ramirez, but standing pat otherwise with the thought process of "Well, we just need to add one or two more pieces and hope for better performance from our starting rotation and less injuries to contend".

 

Hopefully Melvin is ready to tell Attanasio "enough, this team needs to get younger if you ever want any actual shot at the World Series", but I don't see any real evidence of it. Time will tell.

[TURBO]

Based on past performance, when have you ever seen Doug Melvin begging for a younger team?

 

I think it is the opposite. Melvin is part of the problem here, I don't know how much input Attanasio is forcing on Melvin, and no one knows for sure, it's all speculation and nothing more.

 

Until I hear Melvin come out and say it, I don't believe that is how he feels.