Doug Should Stay
In the wake of the Ned Yost firing--a move that Doug Melvin clearly objected to--the next natural subject is the fate of our GM. 2008 was supposed to be "the year" (of course, it might still be), and if the Brewers miss the playoffs, Melvin might not survive the offseason.
Melvin isn't perfect, and this season may have exposed some of his weaknesses. But to me, he still looks like a good GM, and if he learns a couple of semi-obvious lessons from the experience this year, he could become a great one.
The Faults
Since Yost is still on everyone's mind, that seems to be a good place to start. Melvin has been extremely loyal to Yost, perhaps well past the point of rationality. How you feel about this is probably tied to how you feel about Yost--if you like the manager, it isn't much of a slam to criticize Melvin for liking him, too.
Now that Yost is gone, it has become open season on the GM--I've seen him criticized for:
- an insufficient focus on defense
- poor bullpen construction (G-A-G-N-E doesn't spell relief)
- signing Mike Cameron
- trading away too much talent for Sabathia
- letting Vargas go
- sticking with Weeks/Hall/whoever
- and plenty of other things I can't think of at the moment.
Some of those are legitimate complaints; others are just piling on with the benefit of hindsight.
The Track Record
Before looking at some of those moves as they relate to the 2008 season, it's worth remembering that Melvin was almost universally supported until this past offseason. I'm sure all of us have disagreed with a move now and then, but he has generally made quality trades, proven himself an excellent acquirer of free/cheap talent, and before Suppan came along, has never blown the bank on mediocrity.
I think most of us would agree that Melvin is an excellent GM for a small-market/rebuilding team. The question isn't whether he has the tools, the question is whether those same tools apply to the mid-market, contending Brewers.
The Season
I'm going to try to break down the decisions that have so far affected the 2008 season and determine to what extent credit or blame is due to the GM:
The Bullpen: Melvin made it his goal to upgrade the pen, and was at it all winter. That meant acquiring Mota, Riske, Torres, and Gagne. This, clearly, is a mixed bag. Torres was a fantastic deal--one of the best transactions for any team in the offseason. The jury is still out on Riske--Yost never seemed to know how to use him, and it's impossible to know what to expect from him once he's healthy, since it's not clear when he actually was healthy this year.
Mota looked like an awful deal for a while--certainly we overspent. (Remember we could've dumped Johnny Estrada and been on the hook for $0, not $4MM.) But he's given up exactly one earned run since July 9, and his ERA is now under 4. If he had been evenly mediocre rather than ugly-for-three-months/great-for-two, we wouldn't be talking about him.
And then there's Gagne. I tried to find the good in it at the time, but this was really just Melvin afraid of his own strengths. $10MM was an awfully big bet for that much uncertainty, and in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake. It isn't completely indefensible, but even without the benefit of hindsight, a lot of us felt that there must have been a better way.
Cameron and the position switches: The other offseason priority was defense. Given the evidence at hand, he undoubtedly made the right move, bringing in Cameron and moving Hall and Braun. Hall was a total bust (as much on offense as defense, so that's not entirely relevant), while Braun took nicely to his new position.
For the first time in months, though, I've seen criticism of Melvin for signing a guy with a 25-game suspension. This really irritates me. Yes, fine, Cameron has a .238 batting average. But he also has an 800+ OPS, which is better than league average. Even if you think his defense has slipped back to league average, he is a steal this year at $5MM. Seriously--we only spent a little more for him than we did for Mota. Along with the Torres trade, the Cameron signing was one of the best moves of the offseason by any team. It was clear at the time, and it's still clear now.
The Sabathia Trade: This one really confuses me. Until this disastrous month, few people questioned the wisdom of this move. We gave up a lot, but we got a lot. Not only that, but Doug was proactive in a way that GMs rarely are--he knew CC would be the best talent available, so he not only forced Mark Shapiro to make a decision, but he also made the trade a month early. If the Brewers don't make the playoffs, we'll wish we still had LaPorta, but the blame is on the offense, not on Melvin for making a blockbuster deal.
Keeping Weeks and Hall Around: It's easy to get excited about Weeks's potential--he had a stellar second half last year, and that was reason enough to expect something decent from him this year. Hall is a tougher nut to crack. I don't think anybody expected him to be so awful on defense; Counsell was a bit of an insurance policy, though it would've been nice to see Doug pick up someone along the lines of Dallas McPherson as a higher-ceiling AAA plug-in than Branyan.
Branyan, of course, worked out great, and Doug may deserve some of the credit for giving Russell his chance. (Issues like that make this sort of analysis tough--we may never know how much to attribute to Ned, Doug, and others.) There were some reasons to be optimistic about Hall coming into the season, but perhaps he (not to mention some of us, including myself) was too positive.
Ignoring defense: A year ago, this would have been a good criticism. But to the extent Doug may not sufficiently prioritize defense, it's more clear in 2008 that it's a conscious trade-off. Obviously Prince is a below-average defender, but it's hardly stupid to keep him around. The Cameron/Braun moves in the offseason showed that Melvin recognized defense as a problem--one worth spending money and taking moderate gambles on.
The Verdict
As you can probably tell from the title and what I've written so far: I like Melvin, I think he's a very good GM, and he should stick around. It's easy to point fingers when your team sucks, but when it comes to front office guys, you have to take the longer view.
I suggested earlier that Doug may need to better recognize his own strengths. This year's payroll included well over $20MM for relief pitchers. Some of that, maybe even half, was necessary. But some of the best performing relievers on this club have been Shouse (acquired in trade for nothing), Villanueva (acquired as a very low-ceiling prospect), and hell, even Mark DiFelice. McClung has been solid, as has Balfour (though not for us, of course).
It's not at all clear how Melvin should've known to spend the money better (starting pitching? you want another Suppan? was there a FA third baseman worth getting even if he had foreseen the need for one?), and that might mitigate this criticism a bit, but the bullpen does stand out as a mistake that this particular GM shouldn't make again.
As for everything else, I just don't see it. Melvin has consistently made the moves necessary to put this team in a position to win. Yost worked against him at times, the Gallardo injury sure didn't help, and even the foreseeable bullpen mess could've easily been less of a disaster. (Back to Yost again...)
If Mark Attanasio wants to make a change, I suggest he gather outside advice (Hi Mark! email link down below...) on next year's manager, and make sure that Doug has a plan for 2009 that doesn't involve spending nearly one-third of the payroll on free agent relievers.
Apart from that, he should continue to give Melvin free reign to do his job. If he can avoid repeating those two missteps, the Brewers will continue to have one of the better GMs in the game.
5 recs |
68 comments
Comments
Well said
On a side note, I think it will be interesting to see what happens to Hall. Defensively a full offseason of working out at 3rd should hypothetically help, I mean the guy used to be a decent infielder. I’ll also be curious of what happens with the lasik surgery. The guy looks completely lost at the plate and part of me wonders if he just isn’t seeing the ball well. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets the surgery like he said he would early in the year and if it has any effect seeing pitches. Is there any data out there on contact rates improving at all for guys who have had the surgery (i.e. Kendall, but I’m sure there are others)?
My only regret is that I have but one life to give to my blog
by MadJimiBrewha on Sep 22, 2008 3:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
In a way...
Melvin has rotten timing. It’s easy to forgive poor performance - be it by the players, coaches, or GM - when the team is bad. (Bringing in a LOOGY to face an all righthanded lineup? Who cares? You’re probably down 50 anyway, and Alex Sanchez and Henry Blanco are leading off the next inning.) But when the team improves, every play, and every decision, get more of a microscope. I don’t get the impression that Ned Yost version 2008, for example, was a better manager than Ned Yost version 2004 - I think he was pretty much the same coach, and as the stakes got higher, his managerial miscues became too much to bear.
I think Melvin’s best deals were early on in his tenure. The Sexson trade, Doug Davis, Scotty Po, Turnbow, etc. - they were all good deals for the Crew, and they all happened early in his Brewer GM career. It’s his bad luck (at least, I assume it’s bad luck) that his more recent transactions have been more of a mixed-bag (Linebrink comes immediately to mind).
Or, maybe it’s just easier to GM a team when they’re bad: every move you make is bound to be an improvement when the team stinks.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 3:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That's true
every move you make is bound to be an improvement when the team stinks.
And that’s a lot of Doug’s problem. SP was the only obvious place to make an improvement at the deadline, or even late in the pre-season. Waiver wire pickups don’t have as much of an impact if those guys end up on the bench, which would be the case with Podsednik now.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was having a good day
why did you have to bring up Linebrink?
September 15: Not a bad little Monday
by molitorfan on Sep 22, 2008 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well put.
All told, I think you made more or less all of the points I expected to come up in defense of Melvin when I put up the poll asking about the 2009 GM. I still think he should stay, but I don’t think of him as an elite GM anymore, just a pretty good one, with warts that need to be removed.
Hence my decision to call it "screwing around" as opposed to "in-depth study."
by KLSnow on Sep 22, 2008 4:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Elite GMs
I’m curious who people think the elite GMs are. Pretty much everyone seems to think Billy Beane does a great job, but other than that all the media worship goes to guys like Theo Epstein who can wallpaper over their mistakes with the owner’s cash.
I guess my point is that I find it hard to believe that if Doug gets fired the new GM would be an improvement.
by sheeter on Sep 22, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take that challenge:
My elites:
Andrew Friedman, Tampa: Started with less than we had at about the same time we started building, and he’s ahead of our pace.
Mark Shapiro, Cleveland: 2008 is a loss, but he’s consistently built competitive teams in a market that’s not very big or wealthy.
Terry Ryan, formerly of Minnesota: Did as much or more than Cleveland did with even smaller resources and a terrible stadium.
Walt Jocketty, now with the Reds: Seemed to always find the right button to push to give Cardinals teams a mid-season lift. Worked for years without making the obvious, career-path-altering mistake.
My second tier:
Theo Epstein and Bill Stoneman (formerly of the Angels) fall into about the same class for me: They built good teams with big budgets. It’s a different game when you don’t necessarily have to worry about how you’ll pay a guy when he hits arbitration or assume you’ll lose a guy when he hits free agency.
Billy Beane is around here somewhere too. He had some notable and improbable successes but hasn’t been able to sustain it.
I think Melvin falls somewhere in that second tier. Too good to say “He needs to go,” but I could justify dumping him if we knew his replacement had a chance to be elite. I think Jack Z has a chance to be elite.
Hence my decision to call it "screwing around" as opposed to "in-depth study."
by KLSnow on Sep 22, 2008 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK fair enough
I’d probably agree with most of that, except that I’d put Melvin at or near the top of that second tier- which would make it really difficult for me to fire him and expect better.
by sheeter on Sep 22, 2008 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I’m curious as to what makes you believe he would be elite? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Melvin is the GM for this team anymore, and would like to take Jack for a test run. I just wonder what it is in him that you think could make him elite?
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kudos
I echo what you stated, Jeff. The team has a lot of talent and is primed to compete for a few years. In any case, there isn’t an out of work GM I would rather have. I fear if he’s let go the team will be Bavasi. (shudder)
My non-embarrassing thoughts on the Brewers:
Two Fisted Slopper
by nmc on Sep 22, 2008 4:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I need more time to think on this
I am surprised that you don’t mention the Suppan and Kendall signings.
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 4:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah, it was getting long.
I don’t have a problem with Kendall — mostly because I don’t know how to value defense/game-calling, and because the alternatives are so poor (and are nearly as expensive).
Suppan…I think I’m going to look pretty hard at that in the offseason. If he gave us 4 years like last year, I’d be happy with it. I would’ve expected better this year. But an average of $12MM/yr is pretty much the going rate for mediocre starting pitching, and as the team reaches mid-market payroll levels, there are probably always going to be a couple guys like that on the team. (There have to be, I suspect, if you want to contend every year, rather than constantly being at the bottom or top of a rebuilding cycle.)
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since I don't know if I'll find time to catalog the melvining
My main problem with the Kendall deal is that they went out and signed a catcher in decline (.242/.301/.309 last year) and stuctured the deal in such a way that if he started the entire season, they get him for another thrilling year. So, this year has only been marginally better (.248/.330/.325) and surely those numbers will get worse next year as he collects $4.6 million and starts nearly every game. Maybe Rivera isn’t as good, but really, he can’t be that much worse.
The only wild card is the outlandish 40% CS. Even if he were able to keep that up next year, even at 30%, that’s only 10-20 outs over a mediocre-to-poor catcher over the course of a season. It would probably be fairly easy to make up those outs at the plate.
I think the Suppan deal is going to look worse and worse, and even though Cameron was a steal this year at $5 million (I was wrong on that one), there’s no way $10 million for Cameron next year will work out. So, assuming Melvin picks up Cameron next year (and I swear he will), he’ll have some substantial free agent failures in his roster:
Kendall $4.6 million everyday starter
Cameron $10 million every day starter
Suppan $10 million every 5th day starter
Ghost of Francisco Cordero. I agreed at the time that $42 million/4 years for a reliever was nuts, but Melvin had already offered $40 million. Melvin’s paranoid fear of being ripped off in negotiations with players and teams is sometimes terminal.
If Melvin stays, he’s going to need to make some outstanding deals to keep the team moving forward, and I haven’t seen that ability to make big deals. A Fielder+Weeks/Hardy trade for Cain would be enough to give him vertigo, I think.
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kendall is the man
I still think Kendall is a good catcher and a huge improvement over Estrada. In my opinion though Yost cost this team by not playing the backups more. I can’t back this up but my thoughts all season were that Yost needed to get Kendall and some other guys more rest. Kendall wants to play everyday but he isn’t getting any younger.
by pjpaulus on Sep 22, 2008 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
(ahem)
I would have been happy if Yost didn’t start the backups ALL AT ONCE. Even if we did win a fair amount of those games…it still bugs me.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're overstating the case.
Cameron is another thing we’ll be arguing about all offseason, and I’m going to be taking the other side all the time.
This year, his VORP is 20.0 even. In a full year, that’s ~25, or 2.5 wins. If his defense is exactly league average, that means $4MM per free-agent win (really a little less, since there’s a .75MM buyout, but that’s quibbling) …that’s pretty much the going rate. It’s much more likely, given Cam’s track record, that he’ll be above average on defense, making $10MM a better-than-average free agent deal.
As for Kendall, if the choice really were Kendall/Rivera, you’d probably have a good argument. But unfortunately, there is simply no way a major league team is going to go into a season with somebody like Rivera as the starting catcher. If they do, they’d sign a top-tier backup—maybe Gregg Zaun—for probably $2-2.5MM. We can argue about whether teams should do that, but it’s simply unrealistic to think a contending team isn’t going to sign a veteran, proven, etc. catcher. Those guys start at $3MM, and most of them don’t hit any better than Kendall. I just can’t get that worked up about it.
Suppan…I won’t repeat myself, at least until the offseason and I start writing about it again :).
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rivera/Munson would have been realistic, I think
Given the Brewers history at catcher, that would actually have been pretty good :)
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
It would’ve been fine in practice, but is there any precedent for a GM of a presumably contending team entering the season with a tandem like that?
The only way I can see that happening is something like the Ausmus/Towles business, where no one was signed so that Towles would have a chance to emerge. That’s pretty common, but unless you’re crazily bullish about Salome’s defense, we won’t have that until, possibly, 2010 and Lucroy.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, we will revisit this
I really don’t think Kendall is very good, and that he is getting even worse at an accelerated rate. I would rather see Rivera/Munson next year than Kendall/Rivera. Of course, I’d like to see even a little better than that, but we’re basically stuck with Kendall, so the exercise is academic.
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that isn't the point!
I’m not disagreeing with you that Kendall is or isn’t very good. As I said, I don’t know how to value game-calling, so I’m agnostic for now.
The point is, no team/no GM of a contending team will go with a tandem like Rivera/Munson. Replace Doug if you want, but we’ll still get stopgap veteran catchers for $4-5MM until a stud comes along.
I’d like to see lineup decisions made based on Markov chains, too, but that’s only a bit less likely.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean by precedent for a tandem like that?
Do you mean two mostly unproven catchers at the major league level? I can find plenty of teams that have been in a world series with catching statistics that mirror roughly what I would expect from a Rivera and Munson/whoever duo. I would expect from Rivera, the presumed starter a roughly .260/.310/.400 clip. I would be more worried about Munson as he hasn’t shown he could bat consistently, but I think you could find a backup who can hit .240/.290/.350. There is certainly roughly precedent for those types of catchers in the world series.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Production-wise, yes
Rivera and Munson would probably outperform most of the league’s catchers offensively. But a contending team would never go into the season without a veteran to provide “stability” behind the plate, for the same reason they won’t throw their closer in the eighth vs. the heart of the order or defy any of the other conventional baseball things.
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So put a veteran behind Rivera.
Damian Miller was all set to resign with the Brewers.
And I wouldn’t say Munson would outperform most backup catchers. His minor league numbers were not consistently good.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing
I personally would love to see them go with young and inexpensive guys at catcher, I’m not arguing against that plan. But I don’t think it’s feasible to think DM or any GM would do that.
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rivera isn't young, hes 31.
Though if you mean young in experience, eventually we will anyway with all our catching prospects. Yeah, they’ve all been lauded more, but how much different could that be?
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But a contending team would never go into the season without a veteran to provide "stability" behind the plate.
Aren’t the Rays doing that this year? Granted, Navarro was talked up for years as a future star, but given his poor showing offensively last year, didn’t the Rays go against baseball wisdom by not picking up a mediocre MLB veteran catcher in case he struggled again this year?
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Sep 22, 2008 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can I confess that I really don't care? :)
I was just trying to clarify Jeff’s point to Noah.
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I should’ve responded directly to him, I guess.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Sep 22, 2008 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which I guess was my original question.
And I guess TheJay helped prove my point. I would have been fine with going with something like a Rivera/Miller tandem. Until that failed. Than I would piss and moan about how we should have signed someone like Kendall or something.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a decent example...
Though Navarro does verge on the ‘prospect’ label. (As he lived up to this year to some extent, and showed flashes of over the previous few years.)
And they did have Mike DiFelice hanging around, but that doesn’t disprove the point. The one thing that might is the issue of whether the Rays seriously thought they were going to contend. PECOTA had them sub-500 this year.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about the Phillies?
Ruiz and Coste aren’t young, but they aren’t really MLB veterans.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Sep 22, 2008 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruiz was the starter last year...
that’s good enough for me.
Here’s what I think is going on (again, I’m not endorsing it, just observing):
“baseball guys” assume that unproven catchers probably can’t call games well enough for a MLB pitching staff. sometimes a catcher hits well enough that the manager has to deal, and that catcher might even turn out to be a good game-caller. sometimes the mgr is just plain stuck, as would’ve happened if Kendall got hurt.
But until a catcher has held up over an entire season and a pitching staff hasn’t revolted, the catcher is assumed guilty.
So to tweak my earlier claims, it isn’t so much a matter of veteran-y goodness of the Bennett/Ausmus variety (though that certainly helps), it’s a matter of proven-ness, which is a lower standard. Ruiz, Navarro, and a million other 650-700 OPS guys have crossed that threshhold, while Rivera, Munson, and others have not.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cubs have soto
a rookie catcher starter
I’m just uninformed and all, but who is their vet C backup?
Situational Signature (8th/9th inning only): pleasenotkendallpleasenotkendallpleasenotkendallpleasenotkendall
--NoahJ
by PagsBrewCrew on Sep 23, 2008 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blanco
that’s actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Soto was a reasonably heralded prospect, but Blanco is probably regarded as a top-tier backup, a guy who has played half his team’s games five times (including for the mighty 00-02 Crew!) and could step in if need be. Pretty similar situation to Houston’s, only Soto panned out while Towles hasn’t.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 23, 2008 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
Situational Signature (8th/9th inning only): pleasenotkendallpleasenotkendallpleasenotkendallpleasenotkendall
--NoahJ
by PagsBrewCrew on Sep 23, 2008 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You think a Fielder + Hardy trade is viable? Maybe One of those two and Weeks (probably Prince), but there is no way that I would ever be happy with trading off our maybe two most valuable trade commodities for one pitcher, albeit Matt Cain. We would definitaly have to recieve something else of pretty damn good value along with Cain in that scenario.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Prince has long-term value in the NL
Trading him away while he has a couple arbitration years of value sounds good to me.
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that prince doesn't.
But would you really trade Hardy with him? Why not, than, just try to find a trading partner in the AL who could give you a good young pitcher for Prince?
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only mentioned Hardy because Gammons said something like that
I would prefer to keep Hardy, but I’d be OK with moving ahead with Escobar, too.
by Marty McSuperFly on Sep 22, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, but theres been a lot more talk about moving Hardy in that case.
I want Escobar at short, but Hardy has actually been one of our better bats this year. I think he could be a very good third or second basemen, though I prefer to see him at third.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This sums up my concerns... and more...
… better than I could have.
I have an unreasonable dislike of Bill Hall.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 22, 2008 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've never seen some of those
I’d say Suppan is a big negative and the devotion to Yost is strange.
Somehow he made Cordero angry. What happened there?
by ol Pete on Sep 22, 2008 4:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He was smart
Imagine having Gagne not for $10 million 1 year, but $11 million for four years…
Cordero was not the stud we had last year, and letting him go (although offered him alot) was smart, he may have been angry for whatever reason, but it worked out for the Brewers
The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws.
by Kyguy922 on Sep 22, 2008 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sabathia was a steal
Its funny to read that people are saying that Melvin gave up to much to get CC now when everyone was saying the Indians could have gotten more for CC when the deal happened. Maybe its people are worried about the PTBNL or Gamel coming back to Earth in the second half. Either way CC was a steal to me because without him the Brewers would be out of the picture.
by pjpaulus on Sep 22, 2008 5:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think most would agree with you
If our incompetence causes us to miss the playoffs, though, there will be a lot of simmering Brewer fans watching the career of Matt LaPorta pretty closely.
I’ve already envisioned the scenario where CC re-signs with the Indians for a long-term deal, LaPorta is called up, and he and CC become the best of friends, playing bridge every other Tuesday night in the offseason.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that scenario, Melvin will go to his grave claiming...
“I’ve been tricked!”
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Sep 22, 2008 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'll pay for that.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you almost word-for-word here
I really don’t think you can expect to find an upgrade anywhere, unless Billy Beane becomes available. And though Zdrnscikck is a good GM prospect, why not leave it in the situation we have no, where Jack can focus on what he does best?
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 7:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
that Jack Zydecoroni’s ascension to GM is pretty much assured. The question becomes, will it be for us or some other team?
"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 Sep 22, 2008 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll phrase it this way
If Doug ever leaves, I hope Jack Zdrdzamboni gets the job, but the arrangement we have now is ideal. Or, if Mark is convinced Jack can be a GM, that’s the only way I’d condone firing DM.
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
My fear is that as good as he is at evaluating talent, moving him to GM could be a double wham-o of losing our scouting zen guy, and also that he might suck as GM, the Peter Principle in action.
As for Moustache, I think he’s done a pretty good job, though not so fantabulous that I’d be devastated if he were let go. If I got to choose between retaining either Matt LaPorta or Doug Melvin, I’m pretty sure I’d go with LaPorta.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No matter who the GM is...
… you have to have a Jack Z in this market. Drafting credible prospects is central to every team in the bigs over the long term, but it’s absolutely huge to a mid or small market team like Milwaukee. You can make all the savvy FA moves and trades you like but if you aren’t producing a handful of legit prospects every year or two, you’re cooked. So if Doug stays, they better have someone lined up behind Jack Z that’s just as good, or things will get ugly again.
I have an unreasonable dislike of Bill Hall.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 22, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think one of his top scouts.
Who he’s pretty much trained in his style and has his trust in things like that would take his place. I have a feeling someone like that would continue to be very good. Especially since Jack would still be very active in the drafts I’m sure, unlike Melvin because he HAD Jack.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not think that Doug is the GM to get us over the hump.
He was a great GM by maneuvering deals on waivers, trades, etc., however they netted us average players who, due to the poorness of the team, started and put up pretty good stats. The problem is that “pretty good stats” than mostly translates to mediocre now. Or, take relief pitchers he has claimed. Shouse has been a great pickup, and Villy has been a good one. But he gets good deals on Turnbow and Kolb, only to see them fall apart. His free agent signings have not gone well (Suppan, Gagne, to a lesser extent Suppan) and he has built this team primarily to be a power team, leaving us prone to slumps as we just experienced.
He didn’t build a great team in Texas either, and apparently still loves the guys he did have as he has tried to put all of them he could on the Brewers. He made overpriced free-agent acquisitions (A-Rod), and his pitching staff was atrocious in his last year, 2001. There ERA’s in order are 4.45, 5.17, 6.02, 6.19, 7.04, 7.14, and 7.18. They had Kenny Rogers, who has had a good career, but Rick Helling was the best pitcher on the starting rotation. All of those guys started more than 12 games, by the way.
Melvin has been a good guy to get us to a contending spot with savvy deals and good/lucky waiver wire pickups, but he is not building a team that can quite make it to the playoffs for years to come.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ex-Brewer Rick Helling!
I had totally forgotten about Ricking Hell.
"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 Sep 22, 2008 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what you're saying here
but who can you get that’s going to for sure be better? I wouldn’t think Jack Zdrzckckck is that guy to “get us over the hump”, he’d be one you’d want to build through the draft and trust young guys.
Sat: George 2 (37, missed catch, fielding) Fri: George (35, throw) Tues: George (34, throw)
by Jordan M on Sep 22, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. But as I've said numerous times, next year will be a "reloading" year.
I think that having Jack Z pick a protege of his to go through the drafting would be pretty good, as I’m sure all his main scouts (who would fill his spot) have picked up on what he has done and would build off of it. I’m sure that Zduriencik (check it out, I think I can spell it without looking it up now!) would also still be giving his fair share of thoughts in the draft, whereas Melvin stayed out of it for the most part.
My vote would be give Jack a shot and see what he can do to try to get this team to the next level. I honestly think that I would expect him to do at least as good of a job as Melvin has. I think that his experience in scouting players could translate into free agent signings and trades, especially in trades where we pick up minor league guys. Or, we could even make them Co-GM’s and let them work together perhaps.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
my thoughts
I agree on Jeff’s assessment that Melvin should stay. Still, I think Melvin was tremendous early on, but the last two years have been mediocre. The Estrada, Linebrink, and to some extent, Suppan additions were pretty bad. Ditto for Dessens and Aquino. Picking up Mcclung was nice. This year letting Coco walk was a good move, but signing Gagne was atrocious. Torres was nice. (There seems to be an iron rule: don’t spend too much on your bullpen, which Melvin broke.) At the time, the CC trade was tremendous, as was the timing of it, and was exactly what this fanbase needed. Of course, not every good decision turns out the way you want it too. Cameron and Kapler turned out to be great signings, and Branyan was something for nothing.
So, he’s been decent, but nothing close to the genius he was a few years ago. Trading Fielder for Lincecum in March… now that would have been Richie Sexson-style genius. We’d still have Laporta now, we’d probably have had a wild card lead to big to blow at this point. I think I’ll go cry…
by keephopealive on Sep 22, 2008 8:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who would have played first base for the season?
Brad Nelson?
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a stopgap like Nelson or Dillon
until bringing Laporta midseason. Even if we got very little production from first base, having Lincecum this year and going forward would have been a steal.
by keephopealive on Sep 22, 2008 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Rivera? Matt Stairs?
"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 Sep 22, 2008 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Nelson over either of those.
He’s kind of a taller, poor mans vesion of Prince. Sort of.
Bye Ned!
by NoahJ on Sep 22, 2008 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said Jeff!
Better than I could’ve put it, certainly. Not every move works, but on the whole Moustache has been MUCH better than replacement-level. Even when he makes a gamble that doesn’t pay off w/ Gagne, that $10M comes off the books next year. I’d argue the Gagne signing was also one of the best of the offseason for that reason.
Right now Jack Z is just a prospect. If we miss the playoffs this year, so be it, I’ll be interested in the next batch of moves to get us over the hump. And I’ll be glad we had a chance to get so pissed off at missing out on a 90-win season.
by balldeagle on Sep 23, 2008 10:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
People are questioning the Sabathia move? Really? The man has 6 complete games and a 240 ERA+ with Milwaukee, to say nothing of the fact he’s kept the Brewers’ bullpen off the mound. There’s a coin-flip’s chance that Matt LaPorta won’t be a significant major leaguer until 2010 — when he still wouldn’t have a position on the Brewers. That’s no knock on LaPorta, but … sheesh. What’s CC have to do? Solve the parking situation on Brady Street?
by fleerdon on Sep 23, 2008 1:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i'll be satisfied
when he announces that he’s signing a long-term deal with the Brewers for $50 million below market because he’s never seen a greater city or fanbase, and it would hurt too much to leave it. I’m not so worried about Brady St.
by keephopealive on Sep 23, 2008 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a huge number of fans
You can find someone who says anything.
by ol Pete on Sep 23, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 
























