The Brewers didn't address their real needs

[Fatter than Joey]

That leaves Torres and Gagne vs Cordero and um Spurling I guess and Mota vs Aquino/Dessens/King/etc. I still think it is an upgrade.

 

 

 

We (not you and I) always have a similar type of debate whenever someone posts a positional argument. You can't just take components of a team and compare them against one another and say "Team A has a 6-3 advantage" -- They have to be weighted somehow. For example (traditionally speaking) an upgrade/downgrade over your closer is more important/detrimental than an upgrade over your garbage innings pitchers, so I am more concerned about the difference between Gagne and Cordero than I am with the difference between Mota and Aquino and Co. Ultimately in 2008 some pitcher is going to get hurt and there will be some reshuffling and some guy like Balfour will get some IP as well, so it's not like the 2008 BP won't have garbage guys pitching at some point.

 

 

 

You could very well end up being right, but I think there are too many question marks given the talent level of the new pitchers to call this a huge upgrade.

 

 

 

I'm just giving you a hard time about the ERA/small innings stuff. I know your position on it well. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ennder]

Well I dont' know about a huge upgrade, I'd rather have this years bunch of guys than last years but I don't think it is like a 3 win upgrade or something like that. Personally I think the 7th/8th inning guys are more important than the closer.

[logan82]

I think the biggest upgrade to our pen will, hopefully, come from our starters covering more innings. You are right that I probably am going off of ERA's. To be honest I don't remember what I originally formed my opinion off of as I haven't given it much thought for about a month which, I believe, was around when this last discussion came up.

[Fatter than Joey]

Personally I think the 7th/8th inning guys are more important than the closer.

 

 

 

Oh I agree -- I think that way as well, and that is why I used the term "traditionally" -- In either case though -- you still have to weigh the "best reliever" upgrade more than the "garbage inning" reliever.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, Yost will be using Gagne to close games regardless of whether he is good at closing, or should be pitching in the 7th/8th.

[Gopher74]

1.) I fail to see how Gagne+Torres+Riske+Mota is a "huge upgrade" over Cordero+Linebrink+Villy+Wise, they may be better, they may be worse.

I guess I don't include Villanueva, and if I didn't, I'd look at his 10+ERA August and his 6+ERA July and say that he was a very large part of the BP problem.

Linebrink was nothing special here. Cordero was a closer, and while he was very good, Gange doesn't need to match him.

And Wise was absolutely terrible. You couldn't count on him for a single thing last year.

 

So I'm speaking of the period of time when our Bullpen absolutely collapsed on us in large part due to the failures of Wise and Villanueva.

The flip-side to that coin, is that if they all leave, DM is going to have to reload at the conclusion of 2008 which a bunch of similar type players -- which is fine with me, the problem is, is that if we find 4 different Eric Gagne's for the next 4 years, each contract will be more expensive, due to inherent rise in players salaries. If Cordero pitches well for the Reds for the next 4 years, that 4th year will be a bargain price for the Reds. In short, I like the fact that one-year contracts/commitments limit our long-term risk, but we shouldn't rush to the conclusion that in 4 years we will have spent less money, or spent the money we did spend wisely.

 

Well that's certainly a giant leap to reach that conclusion.

 

Luis Pena could very well develop into that closer as early as 2009. Steve Bray could become a reliable reliever. Mark Rogers may become a closer. We could very easily have 10-12-14 picks in the 1st 2 rounds in the next two drafts, any of which could be used to pick a college closers who may be ready in the near future. We may be able to trade for a closer next season depending who's on the market. Any number of things could have happened. Here are the 2 things I know for sure.

1-We absolutely needed a closer this season.

2-WE have no idea what will happen in the future. We don't know if a closer will come out of nowhere, if we'll develop one, if we'll need one.

 

So this off-season instead of giving Cordero about 12 million a year until he was 36, we're giving Eric Gange, a closer with a fabulous track record as a closer, but a clouded injury history will make 10 million dollars for ONE single season.

[TooLiveBrew]

And Wise was absolutely terrible. You couldn't count on him for a single thing last year.

 

Broad over-generalizations like this are completely unfair to players. I understand you're going for hyperbole, but that's anything but accurate.

[LouisEly]

The flip-side to that coin, is that if they all leave, DM is going to have to reload at the conclusion of 2008 which a bunch of similar type players -- which is fine with me, the problem is, is that if we find 4 different Eric Gagne's for the next 4 years, each contract will be more expensive, due to inherent rise in players salaries.

 

Gopher beat me to it. The plus side is if these players do well and leave, the Brewers get draft picks. I'll take a few more Yo Gallardos, JJ Hardys, and Cole Gillespies with some Will Inmans to trade for major league relievers.

[Fatter than Joey]

I guess I don't include Villanueva, and if I didn't, I'd look at his 10+ERA August and his 6+ERA July and say that he was a very large part of the BP problem.

 

 

 

OK -- If we are going to play the reliever ERA game, Gagne had a 6.57 ERA post all-star break. Torres had a 5.47 ERA and Mota had a 5.76 ERA last year. Villaneuva was very solid last year -- I think Yost probably overused him, but common sense would dictate that if CV was a large part of our BP problem, he wouldn't be moved into our rotation.

 

 

 

Cordero was a closer, and while he was very good, Gange doesn't need to match him.

 

 

 

Yes he does, if you want to claim that our BP is a huge upgrade.

 

 

 

And Wise was absolutely terrible. You couldn't count on him for a single thing last year.

 

 

 

100% False. Wise certainly has his warts, and ended 2007 terribly, but he contributed to a lot of Brewers wins up until July.

 

 

 

2. WE have no idea what will happen in the future. We don't know if a closer will come out of nowhere, if we'll develop one, if we'll need one.

 

 

 

Exactly, which is why I found your comment about the Brewers saving money odd. There really is no savings in Gagne in the short term, and overall we are clearly sinking (as opposed to saving) money in our pen in 2008.

 

 

 

As for the long-term, we may very well end up spending more/as much money than we would had we signed Cordero.

[RU Rah Rah]

Back to the original title, which - frankly - I could not agree with more...

 

Bill Hall:

 

"Right now, I don't even have an infielder's glove, I didn't think I'd need one again... I think every player likes to look out for himself at some point. You want to protect your dignity a little bit."

I noticed this quote, too. I'm just wondering what his frame of mind is going to be. His public comments aside, he has to be at least a little bit miffed over getting shuffled yet again -- especially since he made the move to CF with the understanding that he would stay there for awhile. I hope he gets angry, but in a good way, and resolves to show everyone what he is made of.

 

What scares me about the "needs" issue is that I don't think CF or 3B are really going to be settled beyond 2008. My surmise is that we're going to go through something similar (a hunt for a "real" 3B) next year, or even before the trade deadline this year. But maybe that's just being too greedy, when you think of the other positions basically being settled for awhile.

I will say that LaPorta might be the lynchpin in all of this. If he can be counted on to be competent in LF in 2009, you can think semi-long-term about a LaPorta-Hart-Braun core in the outfield and a Fielder-Weeks-Hardy core in the infield. If Hall doesn't pan out, 3B would be the weak link there, but it might be a wee bit much to ask to have those seven positions all manned by home-grown studs.

As for the bullpen: it's often a roll of the dice. I think DM has patched together a crew that could work out decently -- provided that they are deployed judiciously by Ned. I am probably more worried about his ability to manage the pen than I am about its overall talent, top to bottom.

[lukevan]

Basically, if LaPorta is ready to go next season, Braun shifts to RF and Hart to CF. If he's not, Cameron's option can be picked up to give him another year. We obviously would need to see something good out of Braun in LF this season to be confident in him in RF, but he has a strong arm and good speed so it's all about the outfield instincts he has/develops.

[gregmag]

The flip-side to that coin, is that if they all leave, DM is going to have to reload at the conclusion of 2008 which a bunch of similar type players -- which is fine with me, the problem is, is that if we find 4 different Eric Gagne's for the next 4 years, each contract will be more expensive, due to inherent rise in players salaries.

 

 

 

This is a fair point, but it misses something important: the risk inherent in long-term deals. If Cordero has a terrible year next year, or gets hurt, his value on the open market next offseason would plummet -- except it doesn't matter, because the Reds are committed to him. Of course, it works the other way too; he could be great next year. But there isn't much upside risk for him from the deal, given that it makes him one of the very highest-paid relievers in baseball. In the free agent market, marquee players have sufficient leverage to make the signing team take on most of the risk.

 

 

 

In contrast, when DM goes into next offseason, he can assess the market at that moment and pay what he thinks guys are worth. This organization has, I think, a pretty good record of talent evaluation; the opportunity to use that skill in the open market can provide a big comparative advantage. In addition, relievers tend to be risky, because of sample size concerns among other things, which makes them -- in general -- bad bets for long-term deals.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing that locking up the right reliever is necessarily a bad idea. I'm just saying that the benefits to the team of market flexibility substantially offset your salary inflation concern.

 

 

 

Greg.

[Gopher74]

And Wise was absolutely terrible. You couldn't count on him for a single thing last year.

 

Broad over-generalizations like this are completely unfair to players. I understand you're going for hyperbole, but that's anything but accurate.

Not in the second half it wasn't. I should have added that. But he was a garbage player in the second half of last year.

 

[Fatter than Joey]

Greg --

 

 

 

I think we are on the same page -- we both seem to recognize that there are 2 strategies.

 

 

 

1.) Tie a player up with a multi-year contract -- with the risk being an albatross contract and the reward being a good value at the end of the deal, and stability in roster.

 

2.) One year contract -- Risk -- have to reload the following year with salaries always increasing, and constant roster movement with the reward of never having an albatross contract.

 

 

 

I understand why DM did what he did with the BP, and by no means do I think he did the wrong thing necessarily -- I just think it is WAY to early to conclude that we will end up saving money in the long run, and that this approach will turn out to be financially prudent.

 

 

 

In 4 years, Cordero may have been cheaper than signing 4 one year deals with players like Gagne -- or like you point out Cordero could begin a 4 year suckfest where the one year deals will turn out to be pretty smart. It's just to early to tell.

[Gopher74]

OK -- If we are going to play the reliever ERA game, Gagne had a 6.57 ERA post all-star break. Torres had a 5.47 ERA and Mota had a 5.76 ERA last year. Villaneuva was very solid last year -- I think Yost probably overused him, but common sense would dictate that if CV was a large part of our BP problem, he wouldn't be moved into our rotation.

 

I didn't know we were "playing a game", but the point here is we're comparing what players actually did last year, not what they're likely to do in the future, because they're not longer on this team, to what the players we're bringing are likely to do, so this comment has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

And CV was solid last year. I think I tried to clarify now that I'm talking about the second half of the year when we actually had BP problems. Now "common sense" would tell you that CV was bad when that BP started to fall apart. And explain to me how exactly CV wasn't a part of the problem using whatever numbers you'd like when our BP started to falter?

Yes he does, if you want to claim that our BP is a huge upgrade.

 

 

Umm..no he does not. I'm not arguing that HE'S a better closer than Cordero, and it's kinda funny for someone who talks about how overrated the closers position is, to place so much importance upon it.

 

But it's actually pretty simple. We've drastically upgraded out middle relief and our late inning reliever up until our closer, the spots that were the biggest issues last year.

 

Exactly, which is why I found your comment about the Brewers saving money odd. There really is no savings in Gagne in the short term, and overall we are clearly sinking (as opposed to saving) money in our pen in 2008.

 

So it's alright for you to just assume that every year we're going to sign one year 10 million dollar deals, but it's not alright for me to assume that at some point in time we're going to develop a relief pitcher with an abundance of picks in the next couple years?

 

The logic is pretty simple. 1 year at 10 million is not as much as 4 years at 46 million, not matter HOW you look at it.

 

It kinda seems like this is an example of arguing just to argue. I think most realize we made this move this year because we were in a desperate situation, and that a farm system that's develop talent at every other position just might at some point develop a good reliever in the near future.

 

As for the long-term, we may very well end up spending more/as much money than we would had we signed Cordero.

 

Not likely.

[twobrewers]

In 4 years, Cordero may have been cheaper than signing 4 one year deals with players like Gagne -- or like you point out Cordero could begin a 4 year suckfest where the one year deals will turn out to be pretty smart. It's just to early to tell.

Don't forget, however, that signing four Gagne type players could also result in extra draft picks. Just saying, that is part of the equation.

[TooLiveBrew]

As for the long-term, we may very well end up spending more/as much money than we would had we signed Cordero.

 

Not likely.

While I'm glad we didn't sign Cordero to that monster deal, in a year or two the cost to get a CP could well be that $40-ish mil. number, but for only 3 years. If anything, it's much more likely we'll spend as much or more money, as opposed to the opposite. Even if you go year-to year, the AAV is clearly already $10 mil.

[Gopher74]

As for the long-term, we may very well end up spending more/as much money than we would had we signed Cordero.

 

Not likely.

While I'm glad we didn't sign Cordero to that monster deal, in a year or two the cost to get a CP could well be that $40-ish mil. number, but for only 3 years. If anything, it's much more likely we'll spend as much or more money, as opposed to the opposite. Even if you go year-to year, the AAV is clearly already $10 mil.

Again, if you assume that every year we sign a closer to a 10+ million dollar contract, something that's highly unlikely.

 

And you're taking a huge leap in assuming that closers deals are going to jump that much more in just a year or two. If anything, if Cordero was a FA to be next year, he'd have gotten far less money with Joe Nathan being the top closer out there.

 

Very few of the big market teams have a need for a closer. Think of all the teams that won't get in on the bidding for a closer? The Yanks, Sox, Angels, Dodgers, and just run down the list. Most of them have either young closers, or the guys they have that are good won't get away.

 

But to just say because we signed a guy for 10 million this year that we'll do the same for the next 4 years, and then take that total and compare it to what Cordero got is ridiculous in my opinion.

[TooLiveBrew]

Again, if you assume that every year we sign a closer to a 10+ million dollar contract, something that's highly unlikely

Based on what? We don't have as many chips to trade as we did in the past, and Melvin is on record many times with how much he dislikes creating one hole to fill another.

 

If anything, if Cordero was a FA to be next year, he'd have gotten far less money with Joe Nathan being the top closer out there.

 

It's not about Cordero v. Nathan, it's about the biggest (market-setting) contract, which happened to be CoCo's.

 

But to just say because we signed a guy for 10 million this year that we'll do the same for the next 4 years, and then take that total and compare it to what Cordero got is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

What about it is ridiculous? I wasn't the one that made that comparison - I just don't agree that our spending $10 mil. AAV for a closer is unlikely.

[Gopher74]

What about it is ridiculous? I wasn't the one that made that comparison - I just don't agree that our spending $10 mil. AAV for a closer is unlikely.

 

Because you're all the sudden assuming that we're going to do something that we've done a grand total of one time ever in signing a closer for a large deal. Forget using 10 million dollars, obviously this is the first time that's ever happened, but just large deal, it's never happened before, so now we're going to assume that we do it each of the next 4 years? Which is more likely?

Based on what? We don't have as many chips to trade as we did in the past, and Melvin is on record many times with how much he dislikes creating one hole to fill another.

 

Actually you could pretty easily argue that we've got more. Hart, Weeks, Prince, those guys were not "trade chips" in the past. Just about any minor leaguer is a "trade chip" right now, and we've still got a top 10 farm system, so we do have quite a few trade chips.

Second, who said the only way to get a closer is through a trade? Again, we've got as many as 10-12 picks over the next 2 years in the first two rounds. I'm sure we could find a closer somewhere. Pena could be a closer, Turnbow could re-sign to be a closer, Riske could close, Torres could close.

 

You have to assume that 1-There's a quality reliever out there who's worthy of 10 million dollars, that with all of our young stars we're going to chose to offer them 10 million dollars, and finally that they're going to want to sign here.

 

You really think it's "likely" those things all happen?

 

 

It's not about Cordero v. Nathan, it's about the biggest (market-setting) contract, which happened to be CoCo's.

 

I'm not sure how you can argue, especially when it comes to a closer that it doesn't matter what else is out there. Of course it does. Take for instance the CF'ers this year. Do you think that if only Aaron Rowand was available, he might have gotten a bigger deal? Or Andrew Jones? But when there are several good players at a position, the second, third players on that list are worth less. For instace, next year Nathan and I believe K-Rod are FA's. Do you think Gange will get the same with those two as he'd get without them?

[TooLiveBrew]

Your point was that CoCo could've gotten less. But he didn't - bc Nathan wasn't a FA this season. What I argued is that your comparison wasn't relevant to this year's offseason. You echo my point on Cordero's contract - he just happened to be the one to set the bar this offseason for CP, as opposed to Nathan, etc.

 

Hart, Weeks, Prince, those guys were not "trade chips" in the past.

 

They shouldn't be trading chips 3 years from now, either. The earliest those guys should be up for trading is in 2011, the last year of Cordero's 4-yr deal. In the interim, I find it highly unlikely that any of those 3 goes anywhere. No way we're sending LaPorta anywhere, and I don't think Gamel is valuable enough yet to be a part of bringing in any big-time RP.

 

Second, who said the only way to get a closer is through a trade? Again, we've got as many as 10-12 picks over the next 2 years in the first two rounds. I'm sure we could find a closer somewhere. Pena could be a closer, Turnbow could re-sign to be a closer, Riske could close, Torres could close.

 

Good point(s) here.

 

You have to assume that 1-There's a quality reliever out there who's worthy of 10 million dollars, that with all of our young stars we're going to chose to offer them 10 million dollars, and finally that they're going to want to sign here.

 

Let me say I don't think Gagne is worth the $10 mil. per se, but it's what we had to pay him, unfortunately. I think I agree with you, though, that, given other priorities, we won't be as likely to spend $10 mil. on one bullpen arm - but it all depends year to year, obviously. If the revenues are there where it doesn't impede other important re-signings, then I think it'd have a very good chance of happening.

[Ennder]

If Gagne has a good season and becomes a type A FA he was worth the money for sure. If he has a bad year then well we are only out one year worth of money at least.

 

 

 

We really need to start developing bullpen arms from within and I'm guessing that is the long term plan. The good thing with the Gagne signing is we have more financial flexibility next season. The Cordero deal locks up a lot of money a long time and is just as risky as the Gagne signing in its own way.

[Gopher74]

They shouldn't be trading chips 3 years from now, either. The earliest those guys should be up for trading is in 2011, the last year of Cordero's 4-yr deal. In the interim, I find it highly unlikely that any of those 3 goes anywhere. No way we're sending LaPorta anywhere, and I don't think Gamel is valuable enough yet to be a part of bringing in any big-time RP.

 

Yes, my point is that the top minor league players we've had in the past haven't been players we'd look to trade to upgrade anywhere else, however now with each position pretty much manned by a young player, and us needing so little from our farm system that we've actually got more tradeable assets right now because just about ANYONE can be traded. Maybe not LaPorta, but Jeffress, Gamel, Escobar, and in 3-6 months from now, that crop could look that much better. Especially as our lower level guys really start to develop and get closer to the big leagues. In others words, by next year, I think we'll have plenty in our farm system to acquire a closer if need be whereas this year we might not have had quite enough.

Your point was that CoCo could've gotten less. But he didn't - bc Nathan wasn't a FA this season. What I argued is that your comparison wasn't relevant to this year's offseason. You echo my point on Cordero's contract - he just happened to be the one to set the bar this offseason for CP, as opposed to Nathan, etc.

 

No, my point was in the future there may be a deeper FA class and we may be able to address our closer needs at a more reasonable price.

 

 

 

I guess I'd have rather seen us give up the extra couple million dollars to re-sign Cordero. But even if your argument is that it MAY end up costing us more money, the fact is, we committed for one year, not 4, and as of now, it did not cost us more money. It absolutely saved us money. It gave us more options. If you sign Cordero, you have no choices, you have to pay him for 4 years.

[Fatter than Joey]

the point here is we're comparing what players actually did last year, not what they're likely to do in the future, because they're not longer on this team, to what the players we're bringing are likely to do, so this comment has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

OK -- Villanueva was a part of our BP in 2007. He pitched 79.1 IP, that is a substantial contribution. In all likelihood Villanueva will be moved to the rotation. Do I think Torres/Mota will be a huge upgrade overall in 2008 than Villy would have in 2008 if he were to pitch in the BP? -- No, I do not. I think whoever picks up those innings -- Bush/Vargas/Mota/Torres will be at best as good as Villy would be in 2008.

 

And explain to me how exactly CV wasn't a part of the problem using whatever numbers you'd like when our BP started to falter?

 

You pointed to an 11 inning sample from August where CV had a 10+ ERA. Certainly that was not a good point in the season for him. I showed you were Gagne, Mota, and Torres all had bad portions in 2007. You can't just take a month of work, and say Torres (e.g) will be better than Villy was in August. I certainly hope he will be better, but all these pitchers we are talking about are bound to have a month were they put up an ERA of 6+ at least.

 

It's kinda funny for someone who talks about how overrated the closers position is, to place so much importance upon it.

 

I have never once said that the closer pitcher is overrated. Most people who will argue that the closer position is overrated will base their argument on some sort of $$/IP ratio. For example "It is silly to pay Pitcher X $10M for 80 IP". I have no problem with that argument, but I don't agree with it. I have no problem giving a RP $10M for 80 IP, -- I'd rather that he would be used in the highest leverage portion of the game.

 

We've drastically upgraded out middle relief and our late inning reliever up until our closer, the spots that were the biggest issues last year.

 

I fail to see where Mota+Torres+Riske is a "drastic" upgrade over Wise+Linebrink+Villy. Turnbow and Shouse remain the same. Mota may be an upgrade over some of our garbage inning pitchers last year, but that is not going to translate into many wins.

 

So it's alright for you to just assume that every year we're going to sign one year 10 million dollar deals, but it's not alright for me to assume that at some point in time we're going to develop a relief pitcher with an abundance of picks in the next couple years?

 

No. My point is that you can't assume either will happen. Both cases are possible scenarios, I have never indicated otherwise. Now, I will say that the Brewers track record with developing pitchers has been pretty subpar, and there currently is not a lot of pitching depth. The FA market on the other hand will always be there, as will trades.

 

The logic is pretty simple. 1 year at 10 million is not as much as 4 years at 46 million, not matter HOW you look at it.

 

Well -- If Gagne does poorly, we cut him loose, and are looking for another pitcher at his level and price-tag. If Gagne gets back to his top form, he will be paid more in 2009-10 than Cordero by someone. You're right of course if we lose Gagne -- we could hand over the job to Riske that's a possibility, however someone would be needed to be acquired to fill his spot. I can guarantee you that a lot of that $36M (difference between Gagne and Cordero totals) will be going back into the BP.

 

And you're taking a huge leap in assuming that closers deals are going to jump that much more in just a year or two.

 

Looking at what guys like Linebrink got this off-season, I don't think it is a huge leap at all to assume that competent BP pitchers are going to be making $10M per year.

 

I'm sure we could find a closer somewhere. Pena could be a closer, Turnbow could re-sign to be a closer, Riske could close, Torres could close.

 

Sure those guys could close, but given their histories, I don't think it would be a very wise move.

 

The good thing with the Gagne signing is we have more financial flexibility next season. The Cordero deal locks up a lot of money a long time and is just as risky as the Gagne signing in its own way.

 

Certainly -- Signing Gagne and Cordero both have their risks/rewards -- all I am really saying it is too early to tell if money will be saved. I certainly understand why DM did what he did, I just don't think it is a "drastic upgrade" or that we know at this point it was financially prudent.

 

In others words, by next year, I think we'll have plenty in our farm system to acquire a closer if need be whereas this year we might not have had quite enough.

 

This is a possibility -- however, we would still need to pay that closer something.

 

If you sign Cordero, you have no choices, you have to pay him for 4 years.

 

On the flip side -- with all of the Brewers one year commitments in 2008, we are going to have to retool our BP again in 2009. Regardless of the FA market, contracts are going to increase year to year.

[Gopher74]

OK -- Villanueva was a part of our BP in 2007. He pitched 79.1 IP, that

is a substantial contribution. In all likelihood Villanueva will be

moved to the

rotation. Do I think Torres/Mota will be a huge upgrade overall in 2008

than Villy would have in 2008 if he were to pitch in the BP? -- No, I

do not. I think

whoever picks up those innings -- Bush/Vargas/Mota/Torres will be at

best as good as Villy would be in 2008.

 

Ok, and as I've said a couple times now, I was talking more about the second half of the season when our BP really fell apart and blew most of those 3 and 5 run leads.

For the record, I think that Torres can replace Villanueva pretty well. Plus we're going to have Bush in our Bullpen, something we didn't have last year and quite possibly Parra.

 

You pointed to an 11 inning sample from August where CV had a 10+ ERA.

Certainly that was not a good point in the season for him. I showed you

were Gagne,

Mota, and Torres all had bad portions in 2007. You can't just take a

month of work, and say Torres (e.g) will be better than Villy was in

August. I

certainly hope he will be better, but all these pitchers we are talking

about are bound to have a month were they put up an ERA of 6+ at least.

 

 

And again, I've made the point of trying to explain that I'm talking about the second half of the season when our BP started to fall apart, starting right about when Villy started. In fact, I've done so about 4-5 times now.

 

Second, yea, the pitchers we got did all for one reason or another have down years last year. They've also got very good track records(save for Riske who didn't have a down year last year) and evidence suggests that they will be very solid pitchers for us next year, so since they weren't on our team last year, I'd ask what relevance what they did last year has on this discussion? There is no argument that can be made that Carlos Villanueva was good when our BP started to fall apart. Never mind that I've desperately tried to make it clear that I was talking more about the second half of the season as there was no problem with our BP the first half. I mean, we can keep going in circles here, but when I say that it's an upgrade, I'm talking about the group that was in the bullpen when it started to fall apart and how they pitched while it fell apart.

 

I guess we don't have to upgrade from the first half of the year, but our BP was awful the second half.

 

 

I have never once said that the closer pitcher is overrated. I'd rather that he

would be used in the highest leverage portion of the game.

My apologies. I thought that you were one of the ones who made such an argument.

 

Either way, my point is that the CL position IS overrated. It's not the pitcher who usually pitches the most important innings in the BP. Cordero didn't come in last year and pitch when we were in big jams, he came in to start the inning. Turnbow for a stretch last year seemed to have the 3-4-5 guys every inning. The way that the Cubs used Marmol last year was a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Be it the 6th, 7th or 8th, he came in when the team was in real trouble and seemed to get them out of it everytime.

 

So no, I do not believe that in order for us to have an upgrade, we HAVE to upgrade the closers position. That's like saying that in order for our offense to be better the number 4 slot HAS to be improved. Not if the leadoff hitter, the number 3 hitter, the 5 hitter all are much better.

 

I fail to see where Mota+Torres+Riske is a "drastic" upgrade over

Wise+Linebrink+Villy. Turnbow and Shouse remain the same. Mota may be

an upgrade

over some of our garbage inning pitchers last year, but that is not

going to translate into many wins.

 

I think our problems were in the 7th and 8th innings last year for the most part. When Turnbow didn't "have it", we didn't have anyone to go to most of the year. We had Cordero and you don't want to overuse your your closer, and then later on we had Linebrink who often times pitched the 7th inning. Now we've got Riske who is better than Linebrink, we've got Torres who's always been a workhorse, and that allows Turnbow to be yanked quicker if he shows he doesn't have it, thereby increasing his overall production.

 

I don't believe I've made the argument that Mota's going to be anything other than a chance. He's got a chance to be very good, to be the guy he was in 2006 in which case the upgrade is that much bigger, but he's been a unreliable guy for the most part the last several years.

No. My point is that you can't assume either will happen. Both cases

are possible scenarios, I have never indicated otherwise. Now, I will

say that the

Brewers track record with developing pitchers has been pretty subpar,

and there currently is not a lot of pitching depth. The FA market on

the other hand will

always be there, as will trades.

Well you did assume that. But that's the point.

 

And the Brewers history of developing players really needs to be thrown out the window as most of that history was forged prior to the current group being in place. I think most of us have confidence in Jack Z and company, and there is a fairly large group of pitchers right now in the minor leagues, many of which will likely be relievers based on the simple fact that we've got so many young starters.

 

But if you're saying just that "you don't know", aren't you arguing semantics? Your argument then becomes, "well, we MIGHT have to go out and sign guys in the next 3 years who MIGHT end up costing more money, so we didn't save money". The chances are incredibly low that we're going to sign 3 more contracts like Gange's.

Looking at what guys like Linebrink got this off-season, I don't think

it is a huge leap at all to assume that competent BP pitchers are going

to be making

$10M per year.

 

First of all, competent is a vague definition. Second, it's not likely that pitchers are going to go from making 46 million over 4 years like Cordero did to 46 million over 3 years in the next year or two like was suggested. It's just as likely that Cordero would get less on next years market. Baseball isn't a sport in which the top deals get bigger every single year. There was the same type of panic after the Manny, Kevin Brown, Darren Driefort, Chan Ho Park, Derek Jeter, Giambi, Vlad, Bagwell, Helton, Hampton type deals.

Sure those guys could close, but given their histories, I don't think it would be a very wise move.

 

They were suggestions of other options than spending 10+ million dollars in the future. It's entirely possible that a closer comes form our system. Be it Pena like I mentioned, Jeffress, Rogers, or even Parra.

This is a possibility -- however, we would still need to pay that closer something.

It's very unlikely that'd be 10 million dollars. In fact, if we do develop one, it'll be 4-5 years before he makes 10 million dollars. Hence the "money saving move.

 

On the flip side -- with all of the Brewers one year commitments in

2008, we are going to have to retool our BP again in 2009. Regardless

of the FA market,

contracts are going to increase year to year.

 

That's definitely not true. Like I said, look back to the contracts being signed in the late 90's and early in this decade. It's entirely possible Linebrink would get less on next years market.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Seriously, stop quoting entire posts. - b19

[TooLiveBrew]

No, my point was in the future there may be a deeper FA class and we may be able to address our closer needs at a more reasonable price.

 

Gotcha - but whatever that class is, it's a good bet that the $10 mil. AAV will increase with each new top CP deal, so $10 mil. won't last through the 2009 offseason at the top.

 

I guess I'd have rather seen us give up the extra couple million dollars to re-sign Cordero. But even if your argument is that it MAY end up costing us more money, the fact is, we committed for one year, not 4, and as of now, it did not cost us more money. It absolutely saved us money. It gave us more options. If you sign Cordero, you have no choices, you have to pay him for 4 years.

 

My argument has never been different from 'it may cost us more money.' I think you're getting some people's points jumbled. I love that the Gagne deal is for one year.