Rumorville: Brian Fuentes
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 7:36 PM CST
31 comments
From Baseball Prospectus:
–The Brewers are expected to move to the head of the class in the Brian Fuentes sweepstakes now that free-agent closer Francisco Rodriguez has agreed to terms on a three-year, $37 million contract with the Mets. Fuentes, a free agent, would fill the closer’s role with the Brewers, but the Angels are also expected to pursue him now that they have lost Rodriguez.
Steve Phillips says it's either the Angels or Cardinals for Fuentes.
Fuentes 2008: 62.2 IP, 1.10 WHIP, 47 H, 82 K, 22 BB, 2.73 ERA, 3 HR
As long as the signing is to win beyond 2009, I'd be okay with it. If it's an effort to load up 09 as part of some fantastical dream to catch the Cubs, I will poop in a brown bag, set it on Doug Melvin's doorstep, light it on fire, ring the doorbell, run away, hide behind bushes, and watch him stomp the bag of poop that is on fire with the end result being him getting poop all over his feet, legs and doorstep. I will then pop out from the bushes and yell, "That's for your poopy choices in life, son" and retreat away in an '82 Delorean.
0 recs |
31 comments
Email
Print
Comments
His name is Brian FUentes get it right
I think we need to establish a “FUentes” tag
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Dec 9, 2008 7:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Legendary rollieFingers’sMUSTACHEride
Accompanied by my favorite profile description of all-time:
Brett favre is god! Price is my idol! beer is my source!
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Dec 9, 2008 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy shit. That guy suggested Matt LaPorta for Brian Fuentes?
That guy still values batting average above OBP.
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I’m not in favor of FUentes unless we have to trade our top prospect to get him.
As far as playing for ‘09 or not, I’m assuming there is a semi-set budget Melvin has to work with so there is no reason not to fill. The last 4 years the Wild Card team has averaged about 89 wins. If in June/July its clear they aren’t going to get there then they can start to trade away pieces, I don’t understand why they should concede anything in December.
by Supertramp on Dec 9, 2008 8:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If filling the semi-set budget doesn’t affect 2010, then I’m all down.
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Catching the Cubs isn't the only way into the postseason
See National League Wild Card, 2008. Also see championships won on paper in December vs. championships actually won.
Of course, acknowledging either of those would make it harder to be so sophomoric.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Dec 9, 2008 8:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Braves seem to be about to stockpile pitching
The Mets just upgraded their bullpen. The Phillies won the World Series last year. And the Marlins won 84 games last year.
Hopefully the NL East will beat each other right out of the wild card race.
by tcyoung on Dec 9, 2008 9:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t put words in my mouth with regards to the wild card. I explicitly said, “If it’s an effort to load up 09 as part of some fantastical dream to catch the Cubs”. Any move this year done to catch the Cubs—and, sorry to inform you, is unlikely—is a poor use of resources and even doubly so if it hampers the long term ability for this club to win from ’10 and beyond.
“Also see championships won on paper in December vs. championships actually won.”
Of course divisional championships, wildcards and championships aren’t won on paper, but if you weren’t too busy getting your reactionary panties in a bundle about the possibility that the Brewers aren’t going to be as good in 09 as they were this year and that the Cubs could be even better in 09 than they were this year, you’d’ve seen that the point I was trying to make was that instead of potentially spending resources now to try to make something less likely a little more likelier, they should save the capital until it does more than increase our chances from lukewarm to room temperature.
“Of course, acknowledging either of those would make it harder to be so sophomoric.”
Wah, HRF doesn’t think the Brewers can compete with the Cubs and then wrote stuff in a style unsuitable for a twenty page report on the developing economies of South America, Wah!
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 9:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what I don't get is how they'll be competitive in '10
You’ve got a core of Braun and Gallardo. Weeks is probably 50/50 as a CF so you might have him. I guess Gamel will be in the outfield and Escobar at short. Are the players who are traded away going to go for major league ready players?
by ol Pete on Dec 9, 2008 10:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Can I try to rephrase the HRF plan?
- Don’t make some stupid signing/trade this year that ties up money in 2010 and 2011 because it might help us in 2009 (barring re-signing Sabathia or something).
- We don’t want a decent 2 WAR starting pitcher to come in on a 3 year deal and help us finish 5 games out of the wildcard in 09 while sucking up salary when we should be contending in ‘10. We also don’t want to trade a prospect for a rental at this point, unless it puts us in the playoff.
- 1-year, risky commitments are fine, as are moves that will get us quality players now and in the next 2-3 years.
That’s how I see it, anyway. I think we can contend this year if we play our cards right, but we can’t trading Fielder for a rental or anything.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Dec 9, 2008 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Beat me to the punch.
I’ll add one thing to Ol Pete saying “what I don’t get is how they’ll be competitive in ’10”
I’m not saying they’ll be outright competitive in ‘10, I’m saying they’ll be more competitive than now when in ’10 if they stand pat and await Gamel and Escobar.
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 10:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he writes a lot of stuff that isn't in your rephrase
His plan operates on the premise that next year won’t be very good. For instance Weeks is going in CF regardless. There really is no point in keeping Hardy or Prince. Hart is a bad player and should be sold off for whatever. Parra isn’t performing well and I would guess he wants him in AAA till his walk rate comes down.
What does the ’10 team look like?
by ol Pete on Dec 9, 2008 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why on earth would I want Parra in AAA? Because I don’t leap heaps of praises on him because he has an earth shattering WHIP? Because I’m not banking on him becoming an ace? That means I want him in AAA? Because he has a 1.5 WHIP? Could you be any more dramatic for the sake of being dramatic?
My plan operates on the premise that dollars are better spent when the likelihood of success in the future is higher, especially when spending those dollars now can risk the viability of that future. And I want to keep Hardy, and the only way I’d trade Prince is for someone like Matt Cain or a super pitching prospects who are a year away.
Since for some reason you have an adverse view to the risk/reward of putting Weeks in center, here’s the ’10 lineup of standing pat and waiting:
2B: Weeks
3B: Hardy
OF: Braun
1B: Fielder
OF: Gamel
OF: Hart
SS: Escobar
C: Salome
Forgive me for thinking that lineup is better than this years. The evil of that.
I have never said there is no point in keeping Hardy or Prince. Perhaps next time when faced with a viewpoint opposite of your own you should read it instead of making your own interpretations that are comically false.
Also, I still can’t get over how you could guess I want Parra in AAA. Hysterical.
Since you start with “His plan operates on the premise that next year won’t be very good” why don’t you try to tell me why I should be operating on the premise that the team—without Sheets and Sabathia and suspect pitching in the rest of the rotation and the pen, not to mention lineup holes—is going to be very good. Hell, scratch very good, how about just going to be as good as their Pythagorean record last year of 87-75. Hell, scratch meeting their Pythagorean, how about just that there’s enough likelihood and minimal what if’s to go spending now in pursuit of ’09 when the money can be spent better later. That banking towards ’09 is in any way, shape or form viable.
by HRF on Dec 9, 2008 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i do read your stuff
You don’t have to get all high and mighty.
If you don’t want Parra in AAA, surely you don’t want him to start. He doesn’t know how to throw strikes. He’s like Bush and Suppan or is he behind Bush? Fielder and Hardy are still on the team? Are you going to sign them to contracts or is this an all or bust year? Hart wouldn’t be on the team – you repeatedly say he’s not worth much and isn’t very good. Isn’t your comp for him Patterson?
Salome is your catcher? I hope the rawness that even people like Money talk about has been polished.
And come on, you’ve got Weeks at 2nd. Was that a mistake? You decided that ’09 was a no chance year and were going to give him a tryout in CF come hell or high water.
by ol Pete on Dec 10, 2008 9:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to keep track
At different points in the past few months HRF has wanted to:
— Move Hardy to 3B
— Move Hardy to 2B
— Give Escobar the starting SS spot and move Hardy to 3B last September
— Move Rickie to RF mid season last year
— Move Rickie to CF this offseason.
— Not spend $10 million on Cameron since the Brewers will be a “non playoff team” in 2009
— Cut Jason Kendall
— Trade Hart, despite realizing his value is as low as its ever been
— Said it was “laughable” not to include Parra among the group of pitchers who will get shelled in 2009 (assuming this is where some of the confusion comes from)
I’m with you Pete, hard to keep track sometimes and probably doesn’t warrant a 350 word rebuttal when you don’t get something exactly right.
by Supertramp on Dec 10, 2008 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
First, I love how you say “At different points”, as if I’m a walking contradiction.
"— Move Hardy to 3B
— Move Hardy to 2B "
Yes, I want to move Hardy ANYWHERE to make room for Escobar. Either by putting him at second, Rickie in CF and platooning third—which, with the signing of Lamb, looks to be the move now—or putting him at third and Esco at short. Suggesting different ways of moving him, tsk tsk on me. YOU ARE GOOD.
“— Give Escobar the starting SS spot and move Hardy to 3B last September”
Desperate times, desperate measures. There was zero production from 3B and the improved defense may have saved runs, because the offense sure as shit wasn’t benefiting from the play of the 3B position.
“— Move Rickie to RF mid season last year”
This was for two games, NOT FOREVER. Hart’s .239/.263/.396 played it’s way out of the lineup in the second half and Weeks’ .263/.378/.451needed a place somewhere in the lineup. Again, desperate times, desperate measures.
"— Move Rickie to CF this offseason. "
Some of us can look past Bill Hall. Clearly you can’t.
“— Not spend $10 million on Cameron since the Brewers will be a "non playoff team" in 2009”
Missing the playoffs and winning 83 games is different how from missing the playoffs and winning 85 games? Oh, wait, it isn’t. Missing the playoffs and winning 80 games is different how from missing the playoffs and winning 82 games? Oh, wait, it isn’t. Trade him, make room for Weeks, the ten million spent on Cameron has better uses. Like, say, as part of an LTD for Fielder or Hardy.
“— Cut Jason Kendall”
This is a wet-dream of mine. If only grit was a way to score runs he’d have a VORP above zero point one.
“— Trade Hart, despite realizing his value is as low as its ever been”
Hart gone opens the way for Gamel and Prince to be on the same roster, as Gamel is not staying at third. I hope he turns it around, I’m not going to bank on it, and I think it’s worth it to see what the market is for him now, as if he stays terrible to start 2009 he’ll have NO VALUE. Yes, the returns on him won’t be as high as after 2007. But how sure can we be they’ll be any higher in July, or next winter? Let’s see what the market is right now and if any other team is willing to look past/barely take into account his abortion that was last season.
“— Said it was "laughable" not to include Parra among the group of pitchers who will get shelled in 2009 (assuming this is where some of the confusion comes from)”
That is laughable. I don’t THINK he’ll get shelled in 2009 but to be so high on him as to blind oneself to his massive WHIP when projecting him next year is laughable. I think he’ll improve, I hope he’ll improve, he has a hell of a ceiling. But the likelihood of this happening is nowhere near high enough to consider him a legit no. 2 or 3 next year.
“I’m with you Pete, hard to keep track sometimes and probably doesn’t warrant a 350 word rebuttal when you don’t get something exactly right.”
You can’t keep track of non-contradictions and have proven yourself a simpleton, trying to make it look like I want Hardy and Weeks cloned so they both can play two positions. His extreme, comical characterization warranted nothing less. Ditto for yours.
by HRF on Dec 10, 2008 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As a mere simpleton, the above was hard for me to understand. However, there is a college professor in my village so all is not lost.
With your posts being clearly beyond understanding for a weak mind like myself, I will take your posts to him so we can discuss them before I attempt to refute anything.
(you can save a response…I don’t need to read 400 words containing the same tired rhetoric and name calling).
by Supertramp on Dec 10, 2008 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
“Oh no, I was called a simpleton, because of this I will put my head in the sand and, instead of refuting anything, just say "same tired rhetoric” and walk away."
Good work.
by HRF on Dec 10, 2008 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’m honored that you have chosen to rephrase my post to make some sort of point?
What exactly did you want me to refute? I just pulled different statements you have made and put them in a post.
I know it may be hard to believe based on how many times I respond to your posts (I have the same bad habit of responding to comments on the JS website), but I actually don’t care that much about your opinions on baseball.
Sorry.
by Supertramp on Dec 10, 2008 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“i do read your stuff/You don’t have to get all high and mighty.”
It’s funny how you say this no and disprove yourself later:
“And come on, you’ve got Weeks at 2nd. Was that a mistake? You decided that ’09 was a no chance year and were going to give him a tryout in CF come hell or high water.”
Watch me as I point to what you completely didn’t read:
“Since for some reason you have an adverse view to the risk/reward of putting Weeks in center, here’s the ’10 lineup of standing pat and waiting:”
So, way to fail at reading comprehension, which, evidenced by this thread, I can hypothesize is a daily battle for you.
“If you don’t want Parra in AAA, surely you don’t want him to start. He doesn’t know how to throw strikes. He’s like Bush and Suppan or is he behind Bush? Fielder and Hardy are still on the team? Are you going to sign them to contracts or is this an all or bust year? Hart wouldn’t be on the team – you repeatedly say he’s not worth much and isn’t very good. Isn’t your comp for him Patterson?”
Why don’t I want Parra to start, get reps, and get better in a down year for the team?
…
…
There is no answer. I do want Parra to start, get reps and get better in a down year for the team so he can hopefully learn how to throw strikes and reach his ample, ample potential.
-I’ve never put Bush in the same company as Junkballer Jeff. Bush has the capability to be good, Suppan is replacement-level.
-Hardy needs to say. For the, like, ten-billionth time on this message board, I’m only in favor of trading Prince—like I’m damn sure everyone else is—if it’s for someone like Matt Cain or if we get super pitching prospects that are close to the majors in return.
-Hart wouldn’t be on my team in 2010. I call him Corey Hart Patterson because of his terrible OBP.
“Salome is your catcher? I hope the rawness that even people like Money talk about has been polished.”
Hoping that year in AAA would provide it for the twenty-ten seasson.
Your massive fail amuses me.
by HRF on Dec 10, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Weeks at 2nd. Yes I can read one sentence that includes the phrase “standing pat and waiting” but it doesn’t jibe with the frequent other times you think it is an automatic move to get him in CF. I’m actually really surprised that you now want to leave him at 2nd for some indeterminate time period. You can talk about reading comprehension and I sometimes fail, but in this instance, your writing fails to be consistent and responsive. So when is Rickie Weeks moving to center field and why not next year – hell why not in spring training?
Given your repeated disdain for Parra, I’m surprised you want to keep him on the team at all. You had previously put him behind Bush in performance and questioned why he would be valued over Bush.
I think its strange that you want to keep Hardy and Prince (unless you get some great return) given that you’re talking about their last year of arbitration. As I asked and what you failed to respond to, is whether you suggest keeping them because its an all or nothing year. When they leave, they’ll net draft picks that won’t benefit the team for at least a year and probably several years. So is it a go for it and rebuild if you don’t make it year in ’10?
Hart – looking at what you wrote and how much you’ve expressed hate for him as a player, I have no idea whether you’re going to have him on the ’10 team. Earlier in the thread you said no and now you said yes.
by ol Pete on Dec 10, 2008 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“Weeks at 2nd. Yes I can read one sentence that includes the phrase "standing pat and waiting" but it doesn’t jibe with the frequent other times you think it is an automatic move to get him in CF.I’m actually really surprised that you now want to leave him at 2nd for some indeterminate time period.”
What I said was this: "Since for some reason you have an adverse view to the risk/reward of putting Weeks in center, here’s the ’10 lineup of standing pat and waiting:"
It doesn’t take a TheJay to see that that lineup posted was just to see where things would be when standing pat. I, CLEARLY, wasn’t advocating it. It is beyond me how you STILL cannot get this.
Again: That lineup, posted above, was just to show what it would be standing pat. That’s it. Me posting that doesn’t mean I was advocating it. It is unfathomable how you cannot differentiate intent.
“You can talk about reading comprehension and I sometimes fail, but in this instance, your writing fails to be consistent and responsive. So when is Rickie Weeks moving to center field and why not next year – hell why not in spring training?”
Again, it is comical that you couldn’t understand I wasn’t advocating standing pat. That I was just throwing it out as an example of what an oh-ten lineup would look like standing pat. I want Weeks in CF in spring training. I want Weeks to succeed in CF for the Brewers. Posting a potential lineup of standing pat for the sake of argument does not mean I’ve changed my mind or am advocating keeping Weeks at second base. Your failure to differentiate between “What I want” and “This is what standing pat would look like” is hysterical.
“Given your repeated disdain for Parra, I’m surprised you want to keep him on the team at all. You had previously put him behind Bush in performance and questioned why he would be valued over Bush.”
How is it disdain to point that while he has a huge ceiling he also had a WHIP of of 1.5+? Bush had an ERA+ of 103, Parra of 98. I think Parra will eventually become the better pitcher of the two. But until Parra can throw strikes he hasn’t earned being better than Bush. How is that disdain?
If by disdain you mean, ‘not slurping him’, then, yes, I have disdain for Parra.
And I never suggested once I value Bush more long term over Parra. Saying Bush is ahead of Parra last year/going into next season != long term Bush > Parra.
“I think its strange that you want to keep Hardy and Prince (unless you get some great return) given that you’re talking about their last year of arbitration.”
Fair market value isn’t some “great return”. And, again, I’m in favor of trading Prince this off season. Just not for something ridiculously stupid, like a closer. And if unable to get Hardy an extension, I’d trade him too.
“As I asked and what you failed to respond to, is whether you suggest keeping them because its an all or nothing year.”
I don’t suggest keeping Fielder, and I suggest keeping Hardy unless he can’t be extended. Again, that lineup posted was not something I’m saying the Brewers should do. It was just to show what standing pat til ’10 would look like.
“When they leave, they’ll net draft picks that won’t benefit the team for at least a year and probably several years. So is it a go for it and rebuild if you don’t make it year in ’10?”
No, it’s not, and I never said it did, and I never said ‘10 was a make or break year. What I’ve been saying is that starting in ‘10 the Brewers will be more viable than this year to compete and that going forward from ’10 is when Melvin and company should be treating the team as such. That they aren’t likely to contend next year and the sparse resources of the Brewers will be better spent starting in ’10 when there will be a legitimate window open to win then AND BEYOND.
“Hart – looking at what you wrote and how much you’ve expressed hate for him as a player, I have no idea whether you’re going to have him on the ’10 team. Earlier in the thread you said no and now you said yes.”
I wouldn’t have him on the ’10 team. For the 63rd time, he was only on the ’10 list because that was just to show what the team would like if Melvin and co. stood pat.
by HRF on Dec 10, 2008 6:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think this is the only time you've been sophomoric, that's just sad
I do like that the guy who’s made a habit out of overreacting says I’ve got my “reactionary panties in a bundle.”
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Dec 10, 2008 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify
My point is if you can’t figure out that putting the same childish crap in the majority of your posts gets old and annoying after a while, that’s just sad. Maybe it’s just me, though.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Dec 10, 2008 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh noes! Boner Jams are evil! All these mentions of things not fit for the dinner table! Mass panic!
by HRF on Dec 10, 2008 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that's a criticism, just a non sequiter
Last time I ordered reactionary panties from Victoria’s Secret, they came in a bundle.
FWIW.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Dec 10, 2008 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You have to pay more when they’re “reactionary,” but it’s worth it.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
by roguejim on Dec 10, 2008 7:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally unrelated to ANYTHING:
But I did not know that we drafted Jason Giambi in 1989. Obviously he didn’t sign with us, but still….that could have helped through all those losing seasons.
Eric Gagne DL time: May 23-June 29 Brewers record in that span: 20-9
by NoahJ on Dec 10, 2008 12:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Unless anyone objects
Now seems like a good time to close the comments.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
by roguejim on Dec 10, 2008 8:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
St. Louis
|
91 | 71 | .561 | 0 | Lost 6 |
|
Chicago
|
83 | 78 | .515 | 7.5 | Lost 1 |
|
Milwaukee
|
80 | 82 | .493 | 11 | Won 3 |
|
Cincinnati
|
78 | 84 | .481 | 13 | Won 2 |
|
Houston
|
74 | 88 | .456 | 17 | Lost 3 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
62 | 99 | .385 | 28.5 | Lost 2 |
(updated 11.21.2009 at 10:31 AM CST)
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
