Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dana White Announces Koscheck vs. Hendricks for UFC on FOX

Analyzing the Corey Hart extension

Running a mediocre mid-market team is hard. That sounds like snark, but I'm serious. When you have $150 million to play with every year, like the Yankees or Red Sox, you can fill just about every hole with a free agent and then win 90 games. If you're in the $50-$60 million range, everybody knows you have to rebuild.

But the middle is trickier. Think about the 2008 Brewers: They had the advantage of several above-average below market guys, so money could be spent filling holes, on guys like Mike Cameron and Salomon Torres (and ultimately C.C. Sabathia), and the team could afford to keep a great player or two around, as was the case with Ben Sheets.

That's the framework we have to use to evaluate Corey Hart's deal. It's not hard to make the case that Hart could be worth his $26.5 million, while of course it remains to be seen how he'll produce for the next three years. That much money should buy about five or six wins on the open market, and I'd guess he'll be worth about that. But given that the 2011, '12, and '13 Brewers will only have payroll space for so many guys priced at open-market levels, should Hart be one of them?

The deal in a vacuum

The structure of the deal, it appears, is a $1MM signing bonus, $6.5MM next year, $9MM in 2012, and $10MM in 2013. Because baseball salaries drift ever further upwards, those numbers will feel a little lower come '12 and '13, especially if the economy rebounds. In comparing the yearly salaries to current players, it may be more helpful to think of it as $8.5MM and $9MM for the last two years.

At what is essentially $9MM per year, Hart is being paid as a two-win player, or slightly better than one. In Wins Above Replacement (WAR), as in everything else, Hart has been crazily unpredictable. This year, he's been worth 2.8 WAR, putting him on pace for about 4 by the end of the season. His breakout season in 2007 was worth 4.9, but the next two years were 0.9 and 1.4.

So who is the real Corey Hart? I wish I had an answer to that question. His strikeout and walk rates haven't changed much. His line drive percentage has stayed the same, so this year's boost in BABIP may be attributable only to luck. He is hitting more fly balls, and more of them are leaving the park--there's probably something skill-based going on there.

So, weaselly as it is, I have to conclude that the "real" Corey is somewhere in between this year's All-Star and the 2008-09 disappointment. The most recent CHONE projections forecast him as a 2.4 win player (per season), and that seems about right to me. He'll probably be "worth" his contract, but it's unlikely that the deal will turn out to be a major coup for Milwaukee.

The deal in context

That brings us back to the bigger picture. The fact that Doug Melvin held on to both Fielder and Hart at the deadline suggests that he may think the team is set up to contend next year. If so, perhaps he did everyone a favor by saving a bit of money on Hart's last arbitration year.

In the long term, the bigger question is what I opened this post with. A mid-market team is going to pay the going free-agent rate for some of its players. If the Brewers contend in, say, 2012, that will be the case in Milwaukee. But should Hart be among them?

This is a very difficult question to answer, since it depends on how certain prospects develop and who is available in the '11 and '12 free agent classes. A definitive analysis would have so many "maybes" that it would be almost worthless. But my gut says that Hart is not worth market rate to the Brewers.

Here are two of the reasons why. First off, he plays an unimportant defensive position. To me, right field, left field, and first base are kind of like the bullpen. If you can get a super-premium player (like Fielder or Braun), you should--it's like having Mariano Rivera pitching the 9th inning. It's worth the big bucks.

But Hart is not a super-premium player. Just as a good GM can usually find a solid 7th- or 8th-inning guy for peanuts, he can find a corner outfielder able to do the job. Even some rich teams believe this. Over the last 10 or 12 years, the Yankees have had some stars at 1B, LF, and RF, but they've also had 90-win teams with very pedestrian players there.

If it turns out that the Brewers do need a right fielder going into the 2012 season, there will probably be one on the open market. Sometimes it's hard to find a solid catcher or shortstop, but there are always decent corner outfielders available.

The other reason is that with Braun locked in to left field, the Crew has blocked a lot of potential paths for prospects. Mat Gamel may be a corner outfielder. Brett Lawrie may have his future there. Heck, if Caleb Gindl keeps advancing, he'll be stuck in a corner. If Fielder gets swapped for prospects in the offseason, there may well be more guys in the system who can't stick at their primary position.

An overload of quality players at a certain position can be written off as a good problem to have, but it's a less good problem in a corner. Except for super-premium players, teams have what they need--every other club (even the Astros now) has good-hitting prospects drifting down the defensive spectrum. That makes the trade value of a right fielder less than you might think. It's rare that someone is desperate for a right fielder.

All together now

The point isn't that Lawrie is blocked. Or that $9MM to Hart will hamstring the Brewers chances of signing somebody good in the next two years. (Though it might be the straw that breaks Mat Gamel's back.)

The point is that Doug Melvin locked himself into a commitment he didn't need to make. Hart is not the face of this team, and his presence isn't going to sell 250,000 more tickets. He's a complementary player, and first half aside, that's his future.

In 2012, it's unlikely we'll point to the Corey Hart deal as the reason for another 3rd-place finish. Maybe Corey will have another .290/.330/.500 season and appear to be worth a bit more than the money he's paid. But maybe we'll have parted with a prospect by then, or left him to rot in Triple-A. Or perhaps we'll have passed on 2012's Bobby Abreu, an all-star player available for $5MM on a one-year deal.

Mid-market GMs have more freedom than their small-market counterparts, but they still must do whatever they can to retain their flexibility. They don't have enough money to solve every problem by writing a check, so they must find other ways to build contending teams. By locking up a pretty good player at the going market rate, Doug Melvin just cost himself a fair bit of flexibility. And he doesn't have much to show for it.

Comment 159 comments  |  11 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

It's like he knows something about the Brewers

and this is his only recent post. I call troll!

But really, I think it’s a great post. Very realistic on how to run a mid-market baseball team and how DM may have negotiated a fair contract in a vacuum, but also suggests he’s not the right GM for this team.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 12:18 PM CDT reply actions  

another thing

even though we’re a mid-market team, a few more years of suckiness will lose quite a bit of our fanbase and we can go back to small market again. Some of our casual young fans will likely go to the twins (who have been doing well lately) or perhaps white sox/cubs or even tigers. As far as national market, perhaps the Royals will figure out their ass from a hole in the ground and will take over the banner of beloved underdog (provided the Rays don’t tote that banner now). Basically, if we don’t get above .500 consistently, I think we’ll find that we’re at an inflation-adjusted $70M or lower salary level.

Will hart hold us up high enough? Perhaps. But I believe we could have filled in his position around replacement level and freed up some of that cash to sign/trade for a pitching acquisition.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 12:40 PM CDT reply actions  

But... TV deal

I forget what year our TV deal expires, but isn’t it one of the least lucrative in MLB? I’d imagine part of Attanasio’s goal is to keep the level of play up to keep attendance and interest around the 3MM tickets level, which translates into a mid-market TV deal, as opposed to our currently very small-market deal. If that happens, that potentially gives payroll a semi-permanent boost a little further into mid-market land.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

TV deal

Per this link, the Brewers extended their TV deal that was set to expire in 2012. I’d guess they got a little better terms for the next few years, but specific financials weren’t released to the public.

Get a ife broseph

by Supertramp on Aug 3, 2010 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

I like your link better

Makes the move to an $80-$90 million payroll make more sense.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Some numbers

I agree with the premise of the post, but wanted to also throw out some numbers to suggest that the improvement is real and not just a fluke of BABIP, as was inferred.

1. BB%

His walk percentage over the last four years has been 6%, 4%, 9%, and 8%. That looks to me like he certainly HAS improved his willingness/ability to take a walk. We didn’t see the effects last year (and adjustment year?), but yes, they have changed.

2. BABIP

Hart is at .319. His career numbers are at .308. I don’t see that at all as anything noteworthy to suggest that his average has been “lucky”.

3. Fly Ball Rate

His fly ball rate has gone from 40% to 42% to 47%. This looks like skill growth to me as he is finding better pitches to drive and fewer to roll over (while his LD rate has been constant, his GB% has dropped as the FB rate has risen).

4. HR/FB rate

It looks a little high/lucky at 17%, though his career rate is 12%. Some of this might be a little luck, but it also goes along with some of the other numbers that suggest he has made some growth as a hitter. He might not be a 35 HR guy as he projects to be this year, but he sure looks like a 30 HR type guy.

5. Swing %

The last two years, he is swinging at fewer pitches. His career rate is about 26% and the last two years, he is at 24-25%. This is going to mean some pitcher counts (which is why his K-rate is basically unchanged), but that he is also doing a better job of finding drivable pitches. Subjectively, I think this is primarily a case of laying off those low and away sliders.

In fact, against sliders, he has gone from 4.5 runs BELOW average against sliders to just 0.1 runs below average.

Meanwhile, he is murdering fastballs to the tune of 17.6 runs ABOVE average (up from 7.3 last year and -2 the year before).

That looks a lot to me like development as a hitter…finding better pitches he can handle and then really driving them into the air.

I have been a fairly harsh critic of Hart. I didn’t think he was cerebral enough to make the kinds of adjustments we have seen the last two years, but the numbers sure support it, which makes me cautiously optimistic that he will indeed be closer to a 4 WAR player than a 2 WAR player.

Ultimately though, I agree that he was expendable due to the positional flexibility issue. I would much rather see an investment in Weeks (and we still may).

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:00 PM CDT reply actions   2 recs

HRs

Hittracker has him 2nd in the league in “just enough” HRs with 10. That alone isn’t much, but I think you have to look at it when his HR/FB% is quite a bit higher than career norms. I’m not as confident he is a 30 HR guy.

Get a ife broseph

by Supertramp on Aug 3, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Response

A jump of 12% to 17% isn’t all that much, especially when you look at things like an increased fly ball rate.

His HR percentage might be a little lucky, but there is more here than just an increased FB/HR rate.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Remember....

…that he is on track for 35 or 36 home runs, so when we say 30 HR, I was already downgrading him a tad due to the elevated HR/FB rate.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

"just enough"

In the context of park-neutrality, he may not be a 30 HR guy. But this deal means he’s playing 81 games a year at Miller Park, and he can get away with more “just enough” home runs. And he gets to face Cubs, Astros, and Pirates pitching a lot too, which might help those numbers.

Applying Simpsons and Star Wars quotes to Brewers discussions since 2009.

by Yar Nivek on Aug 3, 2010 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fair enough point, I suppose

Although Miller Park’s 2010 PF slightly favors the pitcher in runs. In HR, however, it is the 7th most hitter friendly.

I’m sure that’s skewed by the terrible job a lot of Brewers pitchers have done keeping the ball in the park, though.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Someone pointed out contact lenses

I’ve heard different things from different hitters about the impact of seeing the spin on a ball out of a pitcher’s hand, but it’s another permanent change made this season.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Many good points there

with BABIP, it’s not a huge diff from his career, but it is a big diff between his good years and his bad years.

with the pitch-type stuff, I don’t know enough to be sure about this, but my instinct is that it’s a very good way of describing what has happened, maybe not so good at predicting what will happen. Especially with someone like Corey, who seems a bit blockheaded … maybe one misguided coaching tip will reverse all the positive trends we’re seeing now. But I don’t know. It’s good to have reason for optimism.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree

I would not take the improvement to the bank, as he seems like the type that could throw everything out the window with a bad 3 week spell (based on his public comments the last couple of years).

FWIW, his BABIP was .305 last year (which I think we can all agree was a terrible year).

Here are his numbers since coming up…

.337 (his partial year, suggesting that with more ABs, it would have come down)
.321
.293
.305
.319

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Forgot to add..

..that although I wouldn’t take it to the bank, I am certainly optimistic, as there is quite a bit to like in the underlying numbers.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

BABIP

wouldn’t that suggest that he’s not getting lucky this year, but rather that he got unlucky in his bad years?

http://www.mlbsoup.com

by tcyoung on Aug 3, 2010 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

both.

basically, that his bad years can partially be explained by bad luck, good years can partially be explained by good luck. As I weaselly say in the post, his actual talent level is somewhere in between.

Also, didn’t think of this until now, but if anything, we should be seeing his BABIP go down — at least, barring an improvement in IF/F or LD%. I had forgotten how much he ran his first couple of years. The average player’s speed/base-stealing skill peaks around 23 (IIRC), so he should be getting slower. Slower = fewer bloop/infield hits = lower BABIP. Not a huge difference, but a difference.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't agree

Other than his partial first year and his .293 year, his BABIP numbers have been between .305 and .319. That is very consistent and enough that I think we can throw it out as a significant factor in looking at whether his year was good or bad. (Remember, his terrible year last year was at .305.)

I think his success/failure is more obvious when we look at other data…how many flyballs, how many sliders is he swinging at, etc.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Doesn’t that introduce a lot of selection bias though?

Other then the years he had a repressed BABIP he’s got a good BABIP.

by SgtClueLs on Aug 3, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

No..

…what I am saying is that he only has one year that sort of sticks out, which does happen from time to time.

I just think it is too simplistic to say that his bad years were primarily explainable with bad luck, considering that last year his BABIP was .305, which is right in line with his career norms and statistically insignificant from his .319 this year. If you want to tack on 10 points of average last year or take off 10 points this year, that is fine, but I don’t think it explains his overall difference in value.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's really abstract

Given the variability of BABIP, for a single player there would be no way to distinguish a true inflection point in his BABIP trend. The variability of BABIP in itself is a problem. You can be as weaselly as you want, but to be able to claim his true BABIP is anything is kind of ridiculous. His career statistics are suggestive of a bimodal distribution for goodness sake. If that’s the case, then there is no true central tendency.

Over time, I’ve come to regard BABIP is an interesting diagnostic tool for explaining why we’re seeing the batting statistics, but i think it shows relatively little about a player’s true “BABIP ability” for any given year or annual trends. Just like the defensive metrics need years for some positions to be a remotely reliable measure, how many plate appearances can a player directly affect their BABIP? It has to be a small number each year.

Okay, so maybe that turned into a rant, but I don’t think the BABIP discussion is very informative.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

“how many plate appearances can a player directly affect their BABIP?”

Very few. That’s the point. League average is x. (Around .300.) There are a few ways a batter can influence it — LD%, IF/F, left-handedness, speed — but they are minor. If someone posts a .350 BABIP, they are almost always getting lucky. .250? Unlucky. So Corey’s career is .308. That’s our best information about “BABIP ability,” and lo and behold, it’s close to league average. Over the course of a several-year career, the pitchers he faces, the defenders he faces, and his luck all wash out. So that’s a good estimate of his BABIP ability, just like his five-year aggregate defensive stats are a good indicator of his defensive ability.

I’m not going to argue whether Hart has or has not changed. But if you want to win bets in the long term, bet on people not changing. You can show me trends all day long, and I’ll stick with career averages, CHONE, or Marcel.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

I should've been more specific

The average player’s speed/base-stealing skill peaks around 23 (IIRC), so he should be getting slower. Slower = fewer bloop/infield hits = lower BABIP. Not a huge difference, but a difference.

I meant that trying to track his true “BABIP ability” by age is a bit disingenuous.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

???

1. Then I don’t understand why you brought it up in the first place, given that his numbers this year aren’t statistically outrageous…he is hitting about 10 points above his career norm. Given that, I think you throw it out as a factor in explaining his year.

2. Players typically don’t make drastic changes, but they do develop in small ways. That is why I posted some of the behind the scenes numbers. I think his progress this year is VERY explainable and VERY supportable. They suggest that it isn’t just the same guy with slightly flukey numbers, but the same guy who has made some little strides in his game that have taken him to a slightly higher performance level.

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

isn't it theoretically possible for a player who is super skilled and fast to maintain a BABIP of .500?

captainbok: What do you like the most about milwaukee

Jeff Suppan: Captain Bok, that is a great question. Does "Bok" mean Book of Knowledge? My favorite thing about Milwaukee are the Brewers.

by JAMOOL on Aug 3, 2010 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well, yeah.

It’s theoretically possible for a super talented player to have a line of 1.000/1.000/4.000 over 600 AB, too. Just not exactly likely.

by NoahJ on Aug 3, 2010 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Theoretically if I buy 100,000,000 lottery tickets I will win.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

What angers me is the Brewers had the perfect opportunity to sell high on Hart

He’s having a career year, and Milwaukee has a prospect ready to replace him, Lorenzo Cain.

Trading Hart at the deadline or in the off season, would have opened the door for a top prospect, and added some additional help to the farm system.

The bottom line is, the farm system is the blood of every small/mid market team; keeping it well stocked with top prospects should be a top priority for a GM. I doubt Doug Melvin understands that.

by KittenMittons on Aug 3, 2010 1:44 PM CDT reply actions  

The days of 'selling high' are (sorta) behind us

If you and I know that Doug would be selling high, don’t you think that Sabean knows that, too?

This deal says that Doug values Corey quite highly himself — perhaps even a bit too highly. So a trade partner for the Brewers would have to be … well, very possibly wrong. I know it’s fashionable to make fun of a few front offices for making stupid deals, but the number of F.O.s out there who are regularly doing so is very small.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Nobody..

…got squat for their firesale deals. When guys like Haren go for (more or less) beans, you know you just aren’t going to get a decent return on a guy like Hart (which is why you didn’t see guys like Dunn go either).

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Exactly

Haren, Oswalt, and to a lesser extend Lee all went for underwhelming packages. What makes everyone think people were offering the world for Hart (or Fielder for that matter)?

by dtmeyers on Aug 3, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

disagree

Lee and Oswalt both brought back very nice returns for the selling team.

by backtocali on Aug 3, 2010 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

Without the money

Oswalt had a negative surplus value. With it, he wound up getting them 2 players with 6 years of service time and another with 5. And 2 of those guys should be at lest serviceable, with one of them being above average.

by backtocali on Aug 3, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

So they bought 3 players, and threw in a pile of crap (oswalt)

got it. Why can’t teams just buy other teams players again?

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

Heck

I wouldnt mind seeing that this year involving Randy Wolf before the end of the month.

by backtocali on Aug 3, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fielder

Is the only one I have advocated trading for A ball prospects, guys, who by the way are in the top 100 Prospects according to Baseball America. Generally, when a guy like that, in A ball, does well, they move up the list. The guys Ive had my eye on are all having good years and would be an ace, a #2 and a back of the bullpen flamethrower, or at worst a #3. Its not a horrible idea.

Do you want Randy Wolf still on the team? For 2 more years?

I would much rather have had a prospect with upside for 6 years of salary control, than 3 more years of Corey Hart for $26 million, if it all had worked out, you’d get a middle of the rotation starting pitcher for maybe 2 wins a year cheaply for 6 years, its not a bad plan.

by backtocali on Aug 3, 2010 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Maybe they didn't have their 5 hour energy and got the 2 o'clock feeling?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

What fun would that be?

you want me to come up with new thoughts to post? That seems like a lot of work, I’d rather just constantly rehash the 2 thoughts I have.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

ok

Not meaning to bash at all, just trying to state my viewpoint.

I get it.

by backtocali on Aug 3, 2010 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

You can't know whether or not Cain can replace him

So what, he’s destroying the Minors. So did Carlos Gomez, so did Escobar, so did Ben Hendrickson. He’ll get to compete for the CF job next year, and maybe he’ll win it.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

The upside makes this deal worthwhile

Hart very well may regress to being “only” a 2.4 WAR player, which is fine and justifies his contract, but makes the deal seem slightly unnecessary as you noted. But he also clearly has the upside to be a 4.0+ WAR player (I mean, if he does it this season, he’ll have done that in 50% of his professional seasons). Finding a player like that through free agency at only $9 million/year is probably impossible.

The only way the deal is a bust is if Hart turns back into the player he was in the second half of 2008 and most of 2009 – whatever was going on with him then, I don’t know, but I think it’s highly unlikely he does. If he regresses to 2.4 WAR the deal is kind of a wash. But if he stays near a 4.0 WAR player, it’s an excellent deal. I like those odds.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 2:02 PM CDT reply actions  

But your odds are based on the high likelihood the deal is a wash

…but the whole point of my post is that if the deal is a wash (in the vacuum of $$ compared to WAR), it’s a lot harder to put a bona fide contender on the field. I agree with you that it’s unlikely we’ll look back and say, “Doug made a mistake that day,” but it’s more likely today than it was last week that we finish third in 2012.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

If the probable worst case scenario is a market value deal, those aren't bad odds.

You’re undervaluing the potential that Hart stays anywhere near a 4.0 WAR player.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

No, I'm not.

“market value deal” for a 2.5 win right fielder for the Brewers is bad.

The 2.5 win outcome is much more likely that the 4.0 win outcome.

I can’t get much clearer than that.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 3, 2010 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

"Bad" seems a little strong

“Inappropriate” perhaps. I think there are “bad” outcomes like Suppan’s contract. Hart’s contract is a perfectly good round peg trying to fit into a square hole.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Market value for the Brewers is not bad...

It’s not ideal, because as you’ve said the Brewers are a team that should be paying below market value, but that doesn’t make it a bad contract. Hart is on track to have been worth 4.0+ WAR in half of his professional seasons, as I said. To say that “the 2.5 win outcome is much more likely than the 4.0 win outcome” is to ignore the gamble that Melvin is making in thinking Hart can recreate that type of season again in the future.

Random numbers for the sake of argument, but if it’s something like a 70% chance the deal is market value, and thus non-ideal but certainly not bad, 25% he’s a 4.0 WAR player and it’s an excellent deal, and 5% that he’s 0.8 WAR and it’s a terrible deal, that is an overall good deal…

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Again..

..I think the numbers suggest that he is more likely to be closer to 4 than 2. Maybe he won’t be at 4.0 the next couple years, but I think 3.5 or something is more likely than 2.5, which paints your argument in a slightly different frame.

I think the real argument here is whether a slightly better than market value deal for a RF is a good/bad for the Brewers (as opposed to a straight market deal).

To use Trevor Hoffman as an example, even with his terrific year last year, I didn’t think it was a very good deal for them, simply because it tied up resources that could have been spent on a tougher position to fill.

I think the same kind of applies to Hart. I think he very well could be that 3.5 WAR player, which makes him an asset/moderate good deal. The problem, as you noted, is that it is at a position where good deals are relatively easy to find, making the money tie-up a net loss (even if he is that 3.5 WAR player that the numbers suggest).

by badgermaniac on Aug 3, 2010 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

The problem I have

Is that even if he jumps from 4 to 6 and this is a very good deal, we will keep losing anyway because the ability to score runs and the tendency to win consistently operate exclusively of each other when you lack pitching.

by nullacct on Aug 3, 2010 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

?

Uh, if we could find a serviceable outfielder for $5 million and we’re paying Hart $9 million, that affects our ability to get pitching. It’s all about balancing value.

What’s the difference between a $5 million / year pitcher and a $9 million / year pitcher. Or if we’re talking about cumulative bankroll space, the difference between a $9 million / year pitcher and a $13 million / year pitcher. It could certainly be larger than the difference between a $5 million corner outfielder and a $9 million corner outfielder.

Not having $4+ million in bankroll flexibility definitely affects our ability to add pitching.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just because the team needs pitching doesn't mean it can cut corners on offense

A $5 million free agent outfielder is most likely going to be worse than Hart.

And, glancing at the numbers, if Gamel plays 1B and Fielder nets us a young pitcher major league ready by 2012, the team will still have around $30 million to spend on one pitcher in 2012 if they want to.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

No one's questioning whether they can get quality pitching

We’re saying that the Brewers have lost payroll flexibility. Payroll flexibility that could’ve been used on pitching in case we don’t get the young pitcher for Fielder all of us are envisioning.

Cash that isn’t locked up in a contract is the stem cell of a baseball roster. It can become anything which makes it very valuable. As soon as it becomes a kidney cell to fix a minor ailment it’s still valuable, but it’s not as valuable as before. We might need it for a brain cell down the road when we get Alzheimer’s.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yes

But if it’s something like $30 million versus $34 million, it’s basically a meaningless difference if we’re adding 1-2 pitchers. And Hart improves the offense, which is still just as important.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ah, but is it?

What’s the difference between scoring 800 runs and 780 runs vs. allowing 800 runs compared to 780 runs? I’m not sure what the relationship is, but I think the Brewers are consistently basking in embarrassing riches of run scoring while living with poverty line pitching. The extra runs Corey Hart adds to the roster may be worth less than the runs they save with $4 million more for adding a better pitcher.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

If we can't sign 1-2 pitchers with $30 million, we're not going to sign them with $34 million

Those numbers aren’t exact, but my point is that Hart’s contract still leaves us with more than enough money than should be necessary to add pitching. Besides, an extra few million dollars can probably be absorbed by Mark A. and changes in payroll.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Remember Francisco Cordero?

Just sayin’.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

How do you know that?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Because it was obvious?

And he never tried to negotiate with the Brewers? I’m sure they could have raised their offer if they wanted to keep him.

Besides, this is an entirely different scenario. The Brewers have a ton of money to spend on pitching that should be more than enough to land anyone they want.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's a BS argument, sorry

You’re all over anyone else if they throw a wildly speculative comment that is unsupportable.

The fact is, he signed with a different team for less than $4MM more. ALSO, he wanted to negotiate in Spring Training. Doug Melvin did not. But…its ‘obvious’ that he wanted to leave because he wanted out of Milwaukee?

Come on.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Cordero, in Milwaukee on Tuesday for the first of 18 meetings this season, got a four-year, $46 million contract with the Reds, just over the $42 million the Brewers had offered for the same term this past offseason.

“It was a good race between the Brewers and the Cincinnati Reds,” he said

Link

Get a ife broseph

by Supertramp on Aug 3, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I'm sure that $1 million/year was really the difference

And he was just so blown away that he didn’t even come to the Brewers for a counteroffer.

I’m not sure why we’re arguing about Francisco Cordero though.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Because it was a $4MM difference?

And you said that $4MM won’t be prohibitive in signing 1 or 2 pitchers?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

This is what you post when you realize you've taken an utterly indefensible position, right?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

Is your position that we should have signed CoCo,

or that we should have bumped our offer even higher than the stupidly high that it was? CoCo wasn’t/isn’t worth that contract, and wouldn’t have been worth it if he signed for what we offered. I’d be willing to be we had the extra $, we just would rather throw it away elsewhere than on a closing pitcher.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Oh. Wait.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think its that he signed with the Reds because he didn’t like Milwaukee, not because he was offered more money there.

I still remember this line from that offseason:


Melvin met with Cordero Monday morning for a cup of coffee to tell him how much he appreciated the job the big right-hander has done closing games

It makes me smile to think of Melvin and Cordero at a Starbucks talking about how well he had pitched.

Get a ife broseph

by Supertramp on Aug 3, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

No, that's SRB's position, not mine

But, the original point was that SRB said that $4MM won’t make the difference in acquiring a pitcher or two. I provided a difference where $4MM did, in fact, make a difference for the Brewers, and his counter was “NO! He didn’t like it here!” Which I think is a bullshit cop out.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

But I'm sayin

you don’t know if it made a difference or not. Do we know that the Brewers didn’t have that money? Maybe they just weren’t willing to offer it to Cordero?

I don’t know, Again. Seems to be a trend today.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

So you're saying

even though he signed for $4MM more with a different team, that there are probably some kind of unknowns that possibly had a bearing on the decision that possibly didn’t make it about money?

I don’t know, when I hear hoofbeats, I usually think horses, not zebras.

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

let me point out a few things, as I understand this discussion

Charlie is saying “there was this guy that having an extra 4 million would have matched the best offer on the table”

SRB is saying “we didn’t want him anyway because he sucked, plus he must not have liked Milwaukee”

To me, charlie is clearly right – $4M more would have matched the best offer. But SRB may also be right – we may not have been willing to pay that extra $4M premium. But that alone doesn’t mean that if we HADN’T, we wouldn’t have signed him. But what it might have meant was in the event of a tie, he would either a) stay where it was familiar or b) look for greener pastures. Maybe he would have taken b, but at least it would have been a 50/50 shot in most circumstances to net someone with an equal offer. And 4M could possibly equalize an offer in the future, as it has in the past.

To me, I see $4M in a $40M offer as being roughly 10% – so it provides us with 10% additional leverage for a single signing.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Right

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's not really my argument

The Brewers made an initial offer to Cordero that was close to the largest contract ever given to a reliever. Cordero then got an offer from Cincinnati for an extra $1 million/year and accepted it without ever getting back to Milwaukee. $1 million/year on a $10+ million/year contract isn’t a huge deal. Teams can absorb that by raising payroll or redirecting money to payroll pretty easily if they really want the guy. The Brewers never got a chance to beat that offer because Cordero never asked for a counteroffer (i.e. because he pretty clearly didn’t want to stay in Milwaukee for whatever reason).

“They said it was substantially more than ours. That’s what I was told,” Melvin said. "We were prepared to make him the highest-paid [reliever] behind [Mariano] Rivera and Billy Wagner. It would have been slightly lower than Wagner.

“It’s about setting the bar. Now they have a new bar for relief pitchers. Francisco is a very good pitcher, and it’s definitely going to help Cincinnati and hurt us. … We thought that we made him a very solid offer. A million dollars a year more, who knows? With these high salaries this year, who knows what is enough. If we would have been at $44 [million] or $45 [million], would he have chosen us? I don’t know. We never got the opportunity to go there. [Stringfellow] never came to us and said, ‘Will you go there?’ We had people who thought we were bidding against ourselves last week.”

via MLB.com

But my other point is that the Cordero deal isn’t really relevant to the original discussion in the first place.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

I believe that's Charlie's argument too

Cordero himself isn’t relevant to the original discussion. This discussion is relevant to being a $4M gap though. If team C didn’t have that $4M offer and could only MATCH the Brewers’ (team B) offer, would player A have chosen door B or C?

This goes to eco’s point: “The extra runs Corey Hart adds to the roster may be worth less than the runs they save with $4 million more for adding a better pitcher.” and your counter-point that $4M never would bridge the gap, so what’s the point? Or more specifically “If we can’t sign 1-2 pitchers with $30 million, we’re not going to sign them with $34 million”

I think Charlie did establish that $4M was the difference in a contract offer made by team B and accepted for team C. SOMEONE (either Cincinnati, Cordero, or the Players’ Union) saw that $4M as relevant, so I think we should too.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's a straw man

Because there isn’t going to be a scenario where having $4 million less is the difference. Cordero isn’t an example because the Brewers not having an extra $1 million/year wasn’t the situation.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I don't think its a logical fallacy

You said you didn’t think $4MM would make the difference. I pointed out a situation where it did. Where’s the fallacy?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

I said that a team having an extra $4 million tied up in another player isn’t going to affect their ability to sign pitching. You countered with an example of a contract offer that was $4 million more than another contract offer. Straw man.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

fair enough, although it's not a straw man at all.

they probably had more than $4M to play with in that year

but who knows, melvin may have put all of his eggs into one basket and would have offered $4M more (or $4M/year more to be more accurate) to a single player on the market. Or he could have proportionally upped all his free agent offers (so, one deal might only get upped $500K, while another would go up $1M). Or he could have made the exact same offers that he’s going to make and put the money in the bank for a rainy day (or an awesome lead in the division standings such that he wishes to do a mid-season acquisition next year).

More money is more money – and $4M out of a $80M total payroll is 5% more money. Melvin may certainly be dumb with that 5%, he may be brilliant, or we can just go with the average – he’d do just about as well with that $4M as he does with the other 20 $54M blocks he has to play with. In other words, it probably would have done the Brewers SOME good to have it.

Whether it would have done as much good as keeping Hart happy, I don’t know. And I don’t think we’ll ever know, unless you’ve figured out how to monitor parallel universes.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

"20 $54M"

20 $4Million that should read

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

I was thinking you had too many blocks

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

"And I don't think we'll ever know"

Good, then let’s stop acting like this deal negatively affected the Brewers pitching situation.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

it negatively impacted other moves we can theoretically make, does it not?

my point is, we can’t conclude that the money spent on Hart is, on balance, a good thing. But we CAN (reasonably) conclude it’s taking money around for signing other players. And it’s reasonable to assume we won’t need any non-pitching impact free agents in the offseason (whether or not Hart was signed), so that money would have/should have been spent getting pitching.

So, we’re theoretically going to get a lower quality of pitching via free agency this offseason. But how much worse? And how much better will Hart be than whomever else we would have plugged in to right field?

We cannot KNOW what the better move is, but we can PROJECT both scenarios. Perhaps the answer would be the Hart signing was teh awesome. I happen to fall on the side that we could have done better with that money on the free agent market for pitching. Then again, I think Hart will win more than $5 in arbitration for this year, so, provided he’s not traded, I think our advantage for this season is less than $4M.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

Are you now intentionally missing the point?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hahaha.

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

The "up" button shows you the parent post

Don’t worry, wasn’t a response to yours :)

Ryan Braun: He loves it.

by SRB on Aug 3, 2010 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

See below

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

above, now, whoops

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

It was the flexibility

If we came up $4MM short when it came to re-signing Hart we could probably put it off or do without it, but if we come up $4MM short on pitching then we’re looking at another losing season. We can’t field the same team as we did this year and expect to win with it.

by nullacct on Aug 3, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

It adds up.

First you’re extending Hart, then you’re re-signing Weeks, then you pick up an option somewhere, and before you know it you’ve spent your pitching money. Maybe not. All I know is if it were me, I’d buy the things I need before I buy the things I want.

by nullacct on Aug 3, 2010 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

For every

current regular we extend, that’s another “top” prospect we can trade for pitching!

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

The "going for it"

attitude.

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

On that note...

reading through this thread, I’m stunned how many people simply seem to assume it’s easy to sign a free agent (at any position) who’ll be worth his money. Yes, maybe the Hart deal precludes us from finding the 2012 Abreu, but what are the odds we were going to get that guy from among all the chaff that always litters the free agent pool during the off-season?

And that’s not even dependent on whether it’s still Melvin calling the shots or somebody else – I know nearly every fan fancies himself the best potential GM ever, but let’s be realistic here, you’d likely do no better than the guys actually in charge if you had to compete with 29 other guys who are simultaneously trying to achieve exactly the same objectives you are.

by Zeyes on Aug 4, 2010 6:47 AM CDT up reply actions  

yeah...

I’m thinking about posting the formula I went through in my head last night. After thinking about it for a while, I don’t think we’re any worse off with the Hart signing, it’s just I think I now realize that we’re not going to contend in 2011 and that depresses me.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 4, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions  

That is a good point, and it makes evaluating deals that much harder

If you assume mediocrity from your front office, is a slightly-better-than-mediocre deal really a good one?

Obviously Abreu is a stretch — he was a fantastic deal, and an equivalent deal may not even be available to anyone in a given year.

BUT … what has seemed to be true the last few years is that when those deals ARE available, they are DH/corner bat types. (Burrell is another example, though maybe that’s because everybody agreed he was going to suck.)

This whole discussion has me thinking that we (fans/analysts) may be overvaluing guys low on the defensive spectrum, and undervaluing guys high on it. WAR supposedly adjusts for that, with different replacement levels, but I think I can make a solid case that replacement level may be set at the wrong place on a pos-by-pos level. I’m getting ahead of myself … I think this is going to be my column next week at THT.

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 4, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions  

I would argue you need both

For every 18-run game, there’s a disaster start on the other side. For every shutout, there’s a dominant pitching performance on the other side. I think we just need a better measure of offensive output (cap “runs scored” at 3 more than opponents, for instance).

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

A couple of times per year Sackmann comes back, writes something here...

… and makes me want to stop clogging up the internets with the tripe that comes out of my keyboard. Dude makes me feel dumb and unworthy to voice an opinion on anything. Right now, for instance, I’m pretty sure I’m sitting in a chair, but I won’t know for sure until Sackmann weighs in on it.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 3, 2010 2:19 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

You're one of the better voices here

When you post, I doubt I’m the only one that takes notice. I post a lot of small comments, but you’re very good at putting a consensus perspective into words and add your own insight that a lot of us couldn’t put into words.

You may not have Sackmann’s experience and eloquence, but your comments certainly add to this community more than most.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

I think you get what I mean

You have experience and eloquence, I just meant Sackmann has them even more than the average bear.

by ecocd on Aug 3, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

TSSC hasn't posted in 45 minutes

I’m a little worried he’s walking around the street in a daze, mumbling about Sackmann and his chair that he may, or may not have been sitting in.

Get a ife broseph

by Supertramp on Aug 3, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Also, cheese.

http://www.mlbsoup.com

by tcyoung on Aug 3, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

does that mean you enjoy his posts

or think they are condescending? There are two interpretations to what you just typed.

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

The former.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 3, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Welcome back

Took a walk?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Something like that.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 3, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Did some drugs?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rode bikes?

That’s something like taking a walk.

Applying Simpsons and Star Wars quotes to Brewers discussions since 2009.

by Yar Nivek on Aug 3, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

i think it may have involved

sitting on a different chair

either that or actually talking with a client, being that it’s the middle of the day and all

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

Great post

I think this details my thoughts about the contract well. I will defend it on the grounds of being a good contract for what Hart offers but am unsure if organizationally this is the best step forward.

captainbok: What do you like the most about milwaukee

Jeff Suppan: Captain Bok, that is a great question. Does "Bok" mean Book of Knowledge? My favorite thing about Milwaukee are the Brewers.

by JAMOOL on Aug 3, 2010 2:41 PM CDT reply actions  

Obviously Doug Melvin is setting up trading Hart to Dayton Moore for Kila Ka'aihue straight up in July 2011

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:08 PM CDT reply actions  

I'm not exactly certain on this one

I’m pretty close to Jeff’s analysis of the deal. However, I don’t think I really buy that this particular deal makes it less likely that the Brewers are contenders in 2012 and 2013. I don’t know if this was necessary, right now, but I think the odds are good that if in the offseason of 2011-2012 the Brewers had the chance to sign Hart to a 2 year, $19 million dollar deal, they would do it. Melvin’s banking that the demand for Hart would be something more along the lines of 3 years and $35 at that point, I guess. So all the points are valid and good. I can kinda justify the deal to make it seem better in my mind while agreeing with all the points here, right?

E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).

by Jordan M on Aug 3, 2010 3:34 PM CDT reply actions  

Sure

you’ll get argued with no matter what your opinion is, so feel free!

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

You seem like a sad panda recently

Did someone put sugar in your gas tank?

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting

when I’m happy consistently, I come across as sad on BCB… maybe my BCB personality is an alternate personality…

http://www.twitter.com/mykenk

by Mykenk on Aug 3, 2010 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

Maybe its just me projecting

"If we want to sign a Type A free agent, we would lose a second-round pick, but we don't have a way to get picks back. Our whole Draft process needs to be redone."

~Doug Melvin

by Charlie Marlow on Aug 3, 2010 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think sugar in the

gas tank does anything anymore.

Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.

by cooper82 on Aug 3, 2010 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

The thing I hate most about this deal is

being stuck with to bad corner outfield defenders for the next 3 years.

Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.

by cooper82 on Aug 3, 2010 7:54 PM CDT reply actions  

TRADE BRAUN

or move him to center. that solves the bad corner outfielder situation

by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 3, 2010 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Heh, Braun in CF would be funny

Maybe he should play first base instead. That is, he should lie out there and we can step on him when we get a hit.

by TheJay on Aug 3, 2010 9:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dammit Jeff, was I sitting in a chair this afternoon or not?

The world wants to know.

TSSC

PS: Thanks for the article. I always feel smarter after I get done reading your stuff.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 3, 2010 10:53 PM CDT reply actions  

Thanks, appreciate it.

As for the chair: I don’t know. Did it look like this?

by Jeff Sackmann on Aug 4, 2010 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Brew Crew Ball is dedicated to providing a friendly atmosphere for intelligent Brewer conversation. Click here to view our Posting Guide and Community Guidelines.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Help- How to "Cut the Cable" and Watch Live Games
Barrelman_small
BCB Advanced Stat Pseudofantasy League - PART II
Small
Interview with a Former Brewer Part Two
Small
Catching Up With a Former Brewer
Barrelman_small
BCB Advanced Stat Pseudofantasy League
People_studying_small
Does Fielder's Contract Outdo Pujols'?
Dr-teeth_small
Fielder: It's all about health
Barrelman_small
NPB Position Players
Braun
2012 Payroll Early Estimate
Newavatar_small
Any tech-savvy readers available to help with a Mug production issue?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

NL Central Standings

W L PCT GB STRK
Chicago 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0
Cincinnati 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0
Houston 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0
Milwaukee 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0
Pittsburgh 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0
St. Louis 0 0 .000 0 Lost 0

(updated 2.13.2012 at 7:02 AM CST)


Moderators

Newavatar_small Kyle Lobner

146_-_street_map_plaza_from_pop_tower_with_bars-tiltshift_small TheJay

Communist_party_small Jordan M

X1pxoywqu4sjf73f7drxq2lmqys7mzsyx7pa9necepiffk_ewcuwmuazb-o17ukmbriclcdkn4lk-4xposaawiq4j8hzdsccpjwatqpz2o2p-i0nnqjlyt7pmytaycsaknszvaktpshtcu9sjle1qchlw_1__small NoahJ

Hikaru_50_small morineko

Picture_069_small Nicole Haase

Gogol_bordello_small BrewHaHeather

Anon-md_small Rubie Q