Trade is offical: Durham a Brewer
For Steve Hammond and Darren Ford. I still think this is stupid.
No word yet on how much, if any, money is coming Milwaukee's way, or who's going down to Nashville.
[UPDATE] Rotoworld says Dillon got the ticket to AAA. No surprise there.
about 1 year ago
battlekow
134 comments
0 recs |
Comments
This
is stupid. And the Redskins just trumped us by trading for Jason Taylor.
by molitorfan on Jul 20, 2008 6:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is too much to give.
I hope Ray makes good.
by Braunstalker on Jul 20, 2008 6:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I suppose Dillon goes to Nashville
maybe that’ll help him with regular at bats
by ol Pete on Jul 20, 2008 6:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That i'd assume..
And then Stetter when they activate Soup.
I just don’t really get the trade unless there’s something else brewing.
by SgtClueLs on Jul 20, 2008 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really like the deal
I don’t really see the point of a lot of the fuss you guys are having with the deal. If you look at it, we’re picking up Durham, a trusted veteran with some speed, contact, and some pop in his bat at age 36 in return for a soft-tossing starter who was 0-4 in AAA with a 7+ ERA and a speedy A-ball prospect who wasn’t batting above .260. I mean, Scott Podsednik ceiling? Sure.
Look at what the Brewers add to their bench. We can’t always acquire Sabathia, but I parallel this deal to the Red Sox in 2004 picking up Dave Roberts. Aging vet who’s seen it all, and a few clutch plays help the team in the long run. Let’s not write Durham off before he plays a game for us. I think it’s going to be pretty cool to have him, he’s a good player.
If he's the Prince, then I'm the King.
by ryan braun on Jul 20, 2008 6:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Since it’s been decided we’re going for it this year we need to have everyone on the bench contribute. Durham will play more this year than those other two guys would have in their careers for the crew, in my opinion.
by madwilbury on Jul 20, 2008 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the problem
- He sucks at defense at second
- I like his OBP skill, but it’s not guaranteed to hold up
- If we’re just getting a pinch hitter, why not call up Brad Nelson or sign Richie Sexson or something?
I don’t think it’s a terrible deal, were not giving up a whole lot. It depends on how Durham’s utilized, I guess.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
Hammond is just a little bit better than Miller, Narron, Welch, etc, so I’m disappointed to see him get included.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's at least the 3rd best pitcher for a last place AAA team
Because DiFelice and Dillard were called up before him. Soft-tossers can pan out, but that’s a higher risk than a harder throwing pitcher. Even if he pans out, I don’t see him being too successful, I think Durham is worth it. Besides, our pitching prospects suck.
If he's the Prince, then I'm the King.
by ryan braun on Jul 20, 2008 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was in AAA for all of four games
His 7+ ERA is meaningless, essentially. He posted a 20/5 K/BB in 17 innings.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he does pan out
Great, good for him. Ben Hendrickson put up monster numbers in AAA, too. I’m just saying not even prospect pans out to the top of their ceiling, and we are going for it this year. I see much more value in Durham for two months +, than a soft throwing Hammond in a year or two and a 2004 draft pick in Single A.
If he's the Prince, then I'm the King.
by ryan braun on Jul 20, 2008 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense aside...
Yeah, his defense does suck. But he can play multiple positions, and from what I remember about him from Moneyball, he’s dabbled in outfield. All it a very poor man’s Chone Figgins, I know that’s a pretty ridiculous comparison, but that’s what I think.
Utilized right, yes, he’s got a lot of speed and contact. Plus, I really love Russell Branyan’s defense, you know. He’s so talented.
If he's the Prince, then I'm the King.
by ryan braun on Jul 20, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham can only play 2B, he cannot play multiple positions and has played 2B/DH for 1818 out of 1819 career games. His defense doesn’t really suck though, he’s definitely a late inning defensive upgrade over Weeks.
I’m trying to be optimistic and noting that he’s an offensive improvement over Dillon, but his offense can’t really be relied upon either. He used to be a decent hitter but was atrocious last season with an OPS+ of only 65 (the same as Craig Counsell, who can play multiple positions and is a superior fielder).
Hopefully last year was somewhat of a fluke though, and he stays above league average from here on out. Hitting off the bench and in the Brewers lineup can only help. I don’t know either of the minor leaguers very well but I can’t imagine this largely frivolous deal would have taken place if they were seen as having a lot of upside.
"My thing is that you guys eat meat all day and you can't hit a ball. That's my thing." - P. Fielder
by SRB on Jul 20, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you on all points, except
that he’s a late inning upgrade defensively from Weeks. From what I’ve read and heard, he has absolutely no range, I saw his range factor earlier and it was one of the worst in the league… I can’t find the data now.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensively, it's some nice LaRussa-proofing
Helps against the late inning LaRussa relief moves.
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have that card signed somewhere... yay!
go get em' seth!
by Jamie in LA on Jul 20, 2008 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing that would make this more worthwhile
would be if Durham has agreed to turn down arbitration. Then we could offer him arb, he’d say no, we get picks. Someone in the other thread seemed confident he’d be a Type A FA, which would make it wonderful; even Type B might flip the deal in our favor.
That said, I think it’s unlikely that’s happened.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 6:30 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Hopefully he has an under-the-table agreement to re-sign with the Giants for five years after the season
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if durham is above replacement level for the rest of ‘08 it’s a win for the brewers.
talent like hammond and ford can be signed off the street. i’m really surprised to hear anyone say we gave up too much. there is a pretty good chance that neither of these two minor leaguers ever contributes to a major league team.
Bring Back The Old Logo!
by jacob on Jul 20, 2008 6:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you're undervaluing Hammond
Guys like Chris Narveson can be signed off the street. Hammond is better than Narveson.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a question
what relief pitcher could we have gotten back for Hammond and Ford? My major issue with the deal is that I think we need an upgrade in the pen as well and now we have traded away players we could have used to get pen help.
by molitorfan on Jul 20, 2008 7:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Looking at STATS ZR...
...I’d say that Durham is definitely a bad defensive second baseman, but that Weeks is worse. (Weeks is the worst second baseman in my ZR projections.) I’ve got IDs mapped to the RZR data finally, and I’m going to try to get RZR projections set up soon.
But I really don’t see how this move makes the Brewers better unless he’s taking playing time from Weeks, and I mean a lot of playing time. If you’re just looking for a bat on the bench, the Brewers have a ton of those guys in the minors who can hit, don’t they?
by cwyers on Jul 20, 2008 7:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, as of now
Weeks’ RZR is .800 and he’s tied for the most OOZ plays (23) of any non-Utley 2B (Utley has 44!). Durham is .768 & 8.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t see Rickie’s problem being range and he really hasn’t been bad this year. Come to think of it, the curse of throws in the dirt doesn’t seem that common this year.
by ol Pete on Jul 20, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham's down a bit in RZR from the past few seasons.
Sure, he’s 36, but I’m still not quite ready to write him off just based upon a half-season of ZR data.
Weeks is also having an outliers of a season, but the other direction.
by cwyers on Jul 20, 2008 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$$$ and playing time
Durham had a provision in his contract that paid him $200,000 if he was traded, and Brewers GM Doug Melvin said his club picked up that cost. But a Giants source said that team picked up about half of the $3 million remaining on Durham’s contract.linkManager Ned Yost said he hadn’t thought it out yet but would probably play Durham at second base “a couple of times” a week. That obviously would cost Rickie Weeks playing time but Weeks kept a stiff upper lip about the deal and said he still considered himself the team’s second baseman.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 7:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
so, let's see...
half of $3MM is $1.5MM…add $200k, and we’ve got $1.7MM.
That sounds just a touch like paying $2 million for a tweak, right?
Right?
(Yes, Melvin made the “tweak” comment about the bullpen, but I don’t see how this move would have much more of an impact than, say, Taschner over Stetter.)
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bright side
I needed an excuse to update the prospect list anyway.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 7:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is everyone comparing him to Weeks?
The question should be, is he an improvement over Dillon (I assume that’s who will be sent down). Unfortunately, Joe has played little and hasn’t hit much, particularly as a PH. I think Ray will be an improvement in that area. I hope his availability will build a fire under Rickie, who was never worried about Craig taking over his job.
by richfry on Jul 20, 2008 8:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Marcels for the rest of the year
Durham: .259/.335/.412
Dillon: .262/.338/.399
Major upgrade!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what Dillon is projected to do against righties
If Durham or Dillon are the guys they’re sending up to pinch-hit later in games, I’ll take the guy who’s been able to hit righties this year (or ever).
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Jul 21, 2008 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruh-roh!
Durham wears number 5 and has for most of his career. I wonder if the Brewers let him take it. Probably, but usually they’d prefer to let the #5 sit vacant for a while.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 8:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
basic agreement done at all-star game weekend
At least it sounds that way in this article. Not announcing till after the game was Durham’s request.
by ol Pete on Jul 20, 2008 8:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can respect that
Still would have been cool to pull a mid-game switch. Those chances don’t come by very often…
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My God I hate Ned Yost.
Here’s his latest gem, uttered in defense of Rickie Weeks, which once again proves that he’s either a complete moron or he’s convinced that everyone else is stupid enough to buy what he’s selling.
“I wouldn’t say he has underachieved,” said Yost. “He has never been a .300 hitter (in the majors), so who says he is underachieving?’
“He’s working his way up. He’s getting better in all phases of his game. For me, he has never underachieved because he never achieved up here. How can you say he has underachieved?”
He’s competely right, of course, assuming that we were hoping for a .216 hitter when he was the 2nd overall pick in 2003. And it’s completely unreasonable to say that he’s underachieved offensively (though not defensively) since his nearly 100pts lower than it was in 2006, because you’re only underachieving if you were once a .300 hitter and aren’t hitting for that average now. What. An. Ass.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 9:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
that should read "since his OPS is nearly 100pts lower"...
... I really could use an edit function…
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he scores so many runs...
Sigh.
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weeks
Weeks has never been close to a .300 hitter. In 2006, his BABIP was about .355 which was flat out luck.
Weeks is what he is…a lower average type who can still get on base, is a great percentage basestealer, has occasional pop, and is an improving but still mediocre fielder.
He is still just 25 years old as well, so he still has some development left.
Is he underachieving this year? To a point, but he has also been a bit unlucky with his BABIP and his HR/FB rates, both of which should revert back to the mean. That being said, his average is only 60 points (not 100) point lower than 2006, and only 17 points lower than last year.
So is Yost wrong? A little, or at least from a certain point of view, but I don’t see any need to throw Weeks under the bus publicly. He has been with this group of players for quite a while and they still play hard for him, which isn’t always to be expected. I think part of this is that he refuses to throw his players to the wolves. He would rather be a little caustic with the press, which in my mind, is preferrable.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's fine if the choices are restricted to
throwing Weeks under the bus publicly and arguing about the definition of “underachiever.” They’re not. How about a little honesty? Like saying Rickie’s still a big part of the club this year and into the future, but we’ve got to get more production out of the leadoff spot and if that means playing Durham a couple of times per week, then that’s what we’ll do until Rickie gets his OBP up.
But why would Yost do that when he routinely gets away with departing into his own rhetorical reality, or when desperate, simply writing off the questioner as not udnerstanding the game as well as he does?
And I said his OPS was nearly 100pts lower, not his batting average.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He said something like that last week...
..though probably not as caustic as you would like.
He said something like Weeks’ production hasn’t been where they want it, but he has contributed overall and has hit into some bad luck (both of which are true to varying degrees).
I think Yost understands that what he sees on the field and what the raw numbers say haven’t been exact matches, and when you look at him subjectively, he is peforming about as well as he always has.
If you normalize the two “luck” factors that I already mentioned, he is pretty close to where he was last year…not quite…but close.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not looking for caustic.
I’m looking for an absence of nonsensical bullshit or silence.
Oh, and I’m looking for 2006 out of Rickie at the plate, not 2007.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you are asked a question...
...you have to say something right? Kind of hard to say unless you have the context of the question? Maybe the reporter was trying to goad Ned into bashing Rickie?
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, you don't.
But if you choose to answer, the words you speak are your responsibility. Maybe the reporter was trying to elicit a thoughtful, realistic response. OR, maybe he was hoping for this kind of nonsense so he could make Ned look like an idiot in the paper the next day.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
melvin
i heard him interviewed on dennis krause and the topic came up on how ned handles his players in the media and even melvin acknowledged that and i’m paraphrasing because i can’t remember it all, “a player could go out and have the worst game of his career and ned will say he did well”. and he said that’s ned, ned knows that’s not what really happened but he feels he needs to stand up for his players in the media and not bash them.
sort of anti-george karl in that sense. does it annoy me? yeah. but i understand why he does it.
"If there is a more reactionary blog with idiotic commentary out there I'd be surprised." -On Bleed Cubbie Blue
by Michael M on Jul 20, 2008 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand it too.
But when he resorts to this strategem to avoid being critical of his players, he deserves to be called on it.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's fair
but i’m sure his players appreciate it, if they care, i don’t know…i guess i just got used to it and decided it is what it is
"If there is a more reactionary blog with idiotic commentary out there I'd be surprised." -On Bleed Cubbie Blue
by Michael M on Jul 20, 2008 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but what does it gain?
Please explain why we should care? Why dooes anyone need to “call him on it?”
I always say the same thing about his reputation in the media. Who cares if he is gruff or an a-hole?
Just my personal opinion, but all I care about are the decisions that lead to the team winning or losing, and I don’t think that comments like this have anything to do with that.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why does anyone need to call him on it?
because he’s not as mature as us!
"If there is a more reactionary blog with idiotic commentary out there I'd be surprised." -On Bleed Cubbie Blue
by Michael M on Jul 20, 2008 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we disagree.
If he’s simply trying to find a way to end the exchange without criticizing, then you’re right. But if he actually believes what he’s saying, that’s a problem in my opinion because it’s divorced from reality. And if your manager doesn’t understand the impact or lack thereof his players are actually having at the plate then he can’t make rational (let alone good) decisions as a manager. Ned’s shown plenty, in my opinion, that suggests that with some players he actually believes what he’s selling.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i see what you're saying
i don’t personally believe he believes all the things he says (that sounds funny doesn’t it?)
i was about to write a longer response but everything i wrote sounded like i went in circles so i’m going to go with this
"If there is a more reactionary blog with idiotic commentary out there I'd be surprised." -On Bleed Cubbie Blue
by Michael M on Jul 20, 2008 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I read that
I knew what he was trying to say and yes, it is tiresome that he always defends players (although his remark about JJ providing “nothing” makes me wonder), but to say that Rickie has never achieved sounds terrible.
by ol Pete on Jul 20, 2008 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
He’s a FA after this year (I think), so…
1. Marginal trade.
2. ?
3. Draft pick!
(he’s at least a Type B even after his terrible ‘07, right?)
by rob deer's moustache will destroy us all on Jul 20, 2008 9:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Jenks wasn't after 2007...
... and he had 400+ ABs, 21HRs and an OPS+ of 101. So I wouldn’t hold my breath on Durham being a Type B.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that to get compensation, you have to offer the FA arbitration, which they have to then decline
I doubt Durham would decline his, since you can only cut a player’s salary something like 20%, which means he’d be due to make $6M next year, way more than he’d get on the open market.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overreaction
I think there is a general overreaction based in large part to people thinking that all “prospects” are truly prospects.
1. I will give Melvin the benefit of the doubt that neither of the guys traded project to be useful players. Fast guys that can’t hit or soft tossers can be found for nickels on the dollar.
2. In terms of projection, Durham doesn’t really add any wins to the team, but in an isolated case, he gives us that lefty bat so that we don’t have to send up Dillon or Counsell. I thought it was a mistake to trade Gross (warts and all) for this reason. Durham rectifies this to some degree.
(And I say this knowing that Durham is going to regress to the mean quite a bit if he plays enough.)
Bottome line for me is that a small useful part is worth a couple of non-prospects.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 9:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What makes Durham a lefty bat?
In 2005-2007, he hit .276/.352/.504 vs LHP and only .266/.334/.419 vs RHP. Don’t be sanctimonious about knowing better than anyone else what exactly a prospect (or is that “prospect”?) is and then spit out stuff like that.
I like how for some reason calling Hammond a “soft-tosser” seems to seal the deal for everyone. Lots of Major Leaguers are soft-tossers. You know how hard Cole Hamels throws? 90. Look at Hammond’s stats this year: 105.7 IP, 101 H, 38 BB, 98 K. That’s not fantasy, that’s not fanboyism, that’s not overvaluing prospects—it’s a legit line from a back of the rotation lefty. Nobody is saying Hammond is going to set the world on fire, but six years of him for cheap is worth a hell of a lot more than having a Joe Dillon clone with less defensive versatility for 2.5 months when we already have the original.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have a detractor!
Still not sitting well with you, eh?
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would it?
Three hours later, Ray Durham is still pretty comparable to Joe Dillon, and Steve Hammond is still an undervalued possible innings eater.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t be sanctimonious about knowing better than anyone else what exactly a prospect (or is that "prospect"?) is and then spit out stuff like that.
Who are you referencing here? :)
Did this person, in a way, inspire a “Worst thread ever?” comment?
Also, awesome use of sanctimonious.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I think Brad Nelson is awesome!
Fuck you! Brad Nelson sucks!
Fuck you! Brad Nelson r00lz!
Fuck you! Brad Nelson is teh sux0r!
wash (thoroughly), rinse, repeat, ad infinitum
Jesus Christ that board tries my patience sometimes.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what I don't get
is why everybody gets so worked up about some middle reliever in the Braves system.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prestigous, conscientious, contentious, non-pretentious usage of "sanctimonious"
I’m personally cool with the deal. Much more so than the Inman trade last year…
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
incidentally
Carlos Villanueva was a “soft-tosser.”
All the stuff people say about Hammond now was said about Villa in 2005 and 2006. It’s not a very good comparison, mostly because Villa was younger then than Hammond is now, and I don’t mean it to be, but to repeat myself (and bk), Hammond is more valuable than most people seem to acknowledge.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
Though Inman won’t be worth much to this argument until he actually does something in the majors—for now, he’s still the whipping boy of those who say “stats don’t matter if the scouting data is so negative.”
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the deal was for Ford and
Narron or Narveson or Brae Wright or David Welch, I wouldn’t be upset with it, but I think Hammond is a notch above those guys. I don’t think it’s excusable to just throw in a potential cheap starter like that for an average, expensive rental.
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"an average, expensive rental"
A “two million dollar tweak,” if you will.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we'd never pay that much for a tweak
Doug said so!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree with this
But I am posting drunk so take that for what it is worth. I mean that $2 mil is $2 mil that could be used some place else to help the team. I am not in love with Hammond but we don’t have a lot of pitching in the minors so maybe I am undervaluing him.
by dixieflatline on Jul 20, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not in a position to judge the wiseness of the trade...
... but I don’t think you can use the “there goes $2 mil we could use somewhere else.” Attanasio, who said that with a payroll of 90 million the team might break even if it makes the world series, is already operating way over the red line financially. Given that, the 2 million (actually 1.7) they’ll spend on Durham the rest of the year is highly unlikely to prevent another move that adds more salary this season. This is 2 million that probably wouldn’t get spent at all if Durham isn’t around, and I don’t think it will prevent another deal, assuming there’s one out there to be made.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that is the case then cool spend the money
But if we could add another reliever for that price or get a team to throw in more money if we chip in another prospect then maybe that $1.7 might make a difference. I don’t know I just am not in love with this trade like I was with the CC trade.
by dixieflatline on Jul 20, 2008 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I know.
If Attanasio set the absolute payroll limit at 92 mil, then I agree with you. I just don’t think that’s the case. Guess we’ll find out.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't you like...
...Mr. A to not be down an unneeded $1.7M so that he can make blockbuster trades next year and the following to keep us competative?
If an upgrade doesn’t upgrade, what’s the point? All it does is limit our future potential, without really benefiting the present.
by PagsBrewCrew on Jul 20, 2008 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a point...
... but I just think the franchise is beyond the point where spending an extra 1.7 million holds us back the next year. That was true not too long ago, but I don’t think it is anymore.
Besides, if this 1.7 million hurts that bad then we should all be very concerned by the Gagne contract, since we’ve gotten pretty much zero production out of him since May for far more than what Durham will collect.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gagne money
is money already spent at the start of a season
that was a sunk cost…one that we couldn’t do anything more about last week.
Now this Durham deal IS something we could have done something about last week, and so at that point wasn’t a sunk cost.
I suppose it’s pointless for us to have this discussion now, since it was a sunk cost now, but earlier today it was not:P
by PagsBrewCrew on Jul 20, 2008 10:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Mark doesn't mind the money (and it doesn't limit further options)
Then nobody else should mind the money either.
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the way i look at it
There may be some fringe value there as a near replacement level guy. Might he stick at the bottom of the rotation as a Mark Hendrickson or Zach Duke or someone? Sure. However, those guys are floating around and are pretty easy to get.
Heck, you can get one for an old and well past his prime rental like Ray Durham right?
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you can only get one for a guy like Ray Durham
if there’s a team desperate to make the playoffs for the first time in 26 years. How often does that happen!?
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I was running the Brewers and I knew what my rotation looked like next year, I'd much rather have Zach Duke next year than Ray Durham this year
Especially if I already had Ray Durham Joe Dillon.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
then you can go get a guy like him
There are minor league free agent/veteran journeymen types floating around with that sort of skill set, so if you want one, you can go get one.
It isn’t like trying to get an elite CF or catcher.
As noted, Dillon and Durham are bad comparisons as a bench player, since Durham is a lefty (well, switch, but you get my drift) and Durham has more pop and can run better.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham isn't a lefty!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
please tell us which Duke-like pitchers we could get for free
Duke sure as hell wouldn’t be free.
Even Hendrickson costs $2MM this year, and if you make enough decisions of “well, we can get a FA instead,” those $2MMs add up.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$2 million a year...
...is free in today’s economy.
By free I also mean in a trade as well.
I would guess that you could find a lot of guys that have ok numbers in AA as 26 year olds.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
$2M pays for the first three years of Steve Hammond's career
And, as a bonus, also pays for two years of Joe Dillon!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham gives an option that Dillon does not
Second (or third) lefty batter vs. righty reliever late.
Against Chicago & STL (and in the playoffs) that could be important.
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham isn't a lefty!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey.
I was wonderin’, is Durham a lefty?
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope.
Should I FanShot it?
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not for me.
I was just entertaining myself.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
????
Santicmonious? Have you seen him listed as a real prospect by anyone? I haven’t.
Most of those numbers were put up in AA ball as a 26 year old, his third year in AA. Those aren’t numbers put up in the majors. Brewerfan.net, who you probably know does a pretty decent job of ranking prospects, ranks him 23rd. Baseball Prospectus didn’t even include a profile for him this year in their tome. If someone has the BA rankings, I would love to see where they put him, as I don’t recall him being anywhere near their top 10.
As for his performance against righties, also realize that the pitcher contributes to these rankings as well. What I mean is that there are some righties that just eat up righties, so Durham would be a better alternative than someone like Dillon.
Bottome line is that the deal isn’t a difference maker in any way. It is a tweak. But, it does fill a small hole on the bench without giving up anything that they view as having any real value (or they wouldn’t have made the deal). Not a big impact, but not stupid either.
MIGHT he be a decent pitcher? You never know, but on the surface, he doesn’t look like it. I won’t even touch your comparison to Cole Hamels.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh...I ranked him as a real prospect. On this site. The one we're currently having this conversation on.
I didn’t compare him to Cole Hamels. Check your math, bro.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamels, et al
Well, I guess our definitions of “real prospects” are different. I view “real prospects” as difference makers, not fringe prospects that might stick at the back of a roster.
You mentioned Cole Hamels being a soft-tosser, which he kind of is (I watched the game today and he was in the 88-91 range with his fastball). I just don’t think he has anything to do with the conversation, as Hamels has elite stuff. I believe that Hamels is still younger than Hammond as well.
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, I'm not comparing Hammond to Hamels
I’m just saying that you can’t throw out “soft-tosser” as a conversation ender. A prospect is anyone who can contribute above replacement level in the Major Leagues. Steve Hammond is a prospect. A B-/C+ prospect, but a prospect nonetheless.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Upside
I think his upside is barely above replacement level.
I think his expected value is in that replacement level to career minor leaguer.
It woudl be interesting to see some comparisons to what 26 year olds in their third year of AA with his numbers.
Out of curiosity, can you find some examples of solid starters with his basic minor league profile…outliers or not???
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
MLE
His MLE’s the last two years:
2006: 73 IP, 49/29 K/BB, 4.40 ERA
2007: 142 IP, 89/51 K/BB, 6.55 ERA
If someone can translate this year’s numbers, they can add it if they want (I only know of hitting translators).
by badgermaniac on Jul 20, 2008 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I'll put my rankings up against Brewerfan's any day of the week
Players they have above Hammond: Brent Brewer, Hernan Iribarren, Brad Nelson, and Chris Errecart.
Uh, pass.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why Are you ripping on BRAdd Nelsone agiant1!@j1!!!1!!!
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 20, 2008 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is funny
From Jim Powell’s blog:
The additions of Durham and CC Sabathia well before the July 31st trading deadline could ultimately prove to be a major factor in who makes the post-season in 2008 and who does not.
You can put whatever you want in from of “and CC Sabathia” in that sentence and it will still be true. For instance:
The additions of Mel Stocker, Greg Gagne, three shaman, 120,000 pounds of bluefin tuna, a partridge in a pear tree, and CC Sabathia well before the July 31st trading deadline could ultimately prove to be a major factor in who makes the post-season in 2008 and who does not.See? Just as true!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 9:58 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Also if you wait to september the cavalry comes
I am kind of drooling over being able to call up a third catcher, Salome, so we can pinch hit for Kendall hopefully using Gamel to pinch hit and then Escobar to pinch run. Seriously we could get a nice bump from those guys and I hope this move doesn’t impact that. BTW, drinky on Sunday is not a good idea…
by dixieflatline on Jul 20, 2008 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And on the seventh day, dixie drank
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah seriously a lot
Wife’s brother and sister in town so drinky. I don’t drink a lot so it doesn’t take a lot to get my 170 lbs body quite drunk. Spellchecker is saving my a$$ right now.
by dixieflatline on Jul 20, 2008 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turn it off for a bit
It’ll be fun for the rest of us.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Wife's brother and sister in town so drinky"
is almost sig-worthy even with the spell checker on.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should say “the keyboard has been drinking, not me.”
Hat tip to Tom Waits
by ol Pete on Jul 20, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Ned Yost is a mental midget
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on. It's 2008.
He’s a mental little person.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
creampuff casper milquetoast!
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response to BK’s Powell blog rejoinder…hehe
I am pro-Cameron
by Lake County on Jul 20, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ford & Cain
From the infamous 39 On the Line (their agent’s blog):
I remember when I was first scouting Darren at Chipola JC while he was under control of the Brewers. They were playing TCC who had a raw leadoff hitter/centerfielder named Lorenzo Cain. At the time, the two had very similar games, however Darrens speed game couldnt be matched by anyone (and still cant in my opinion) The two were bitter rivals in college but after signing the two became the very best of friends in pro ball. It is going to be very strange not having that pair together anymore, and I know it is going to be hard at first for both of them. Thankfully Darren will still have ST in Arizona and of course there is the offseason. Their friendship has transcended baseball and I know both will be close for a very long time.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
by battlekow on Jul 20, 2008 11:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think everybody is missing the big picture here.
Durham helps shore up whatever deficiencies we might have in veteran leadership and grit.
by Acheron on Jul 21, 2008 8:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
KUG
I’m to lazy to make a simple spreadsheet using the KUG formula. Can anyone dig up his Units of Grit?
by SgtClueLs on Jul 21, 2008 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on it
Check back in about 10 minutes
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 21, 2008 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Durham's Grit Ratings
Adjusted Raw Grit Number: 48
KUG: 14.12, which would be good for fourth on the team
And neck size to baby eating ratio.
by Jordan M on Jul 21, 2008 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now we see the True Value
Gotta love the Grit.
Thanks! and he does appear to routinely rock the 5 o’clock shadow.
by SgtClueLs on Jul 21, 2008 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ray Durham is an 80 in MLB 2K8
Not that it matters, but when I tried to trade for him, they wanted Manny Parra, Craig Counsell, and Matt LaPorta. And, we all know that video games are as close to real life as you can get. :-)
If he's the Prince, then I'm the King.
by ryan braun on Jul 21, 2008 9:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Get MLB: The Show '08
I traded Dave Bush straight up for Scott Kazmir and Bill Hall and some B-level prospect for Tim Lincecum. It was good.
by NoahJ on Jul 21, 2008 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
crazy comment from elsewhere
Not a bad move by the Brewers. They plan on converting Rickie Weeks to center field next season, or so the story goes.
by ol Pete on Jul 21, 2008 11:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
heh
tongue in cheek treatment of the Bill Hall situation?
by PagsBrewCrew on Jul 21, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I missed all the trade excitement because I was away from the intertubes for the weekend. I would have liked the trade that included Salome and Taschner even more. I swear everything big happens when I leave the internet.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 22, 2008 10:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs


























