ptisme:

brewguru:

ptisme:

BTW, I don't think Melvin should be held accountable for the Turnbow signing because Turnbow was the man back when he signed that contract...I don't know of anyone who thought that was a bad move at the time...

In October 2004, the Brewers acquired Derrick Turnbow on waivers from the Angels.

In 2005, Turnbow became the closer and saved a club record 39 games.

In that off-season, Melvin rewarded the waiver pickup with a 3-year, $6.7 mil contract (approx.)

I know A LOT of people who thought that was a bad move.

Who thought that was a bad move?  3 yr, 6.7 mil for a young heat thrower that had 39 saves the year before... Plus he had the wizard (at the time), Maddux to continue to groom him...

Considering the fact that he wouldn't be a free agent for 2 more years and he was a waiver pickup, it was a bad move.

It's nothing that is going to handicap the franchise, but it's of the same ilk of signing Wes Helms and Brady Clark to 2-year contracts after their only good year in the major leagues.

alffan:

Ship... I have always been a Melvin supporter - but this was not his best offseason. Some of the great trades he made have had some short term success but not long term - so back on topic, I think this will be Doug's make it or break it offseason.

I think they need to sign Sheets ... he really doesn't have any arm problems that we are aware of.

But Attanasio gave this man $80 million to play with. Somehow, Florida is riding in 1st place with a team with one-fourth of the payroll.

The problem is, most of the high priced players aren't delivering... 

Melvin needs to make swift moves over the next 60 days and figure out who is part of the future and who isn't. 

 

shipitdear:

It'd be high risk, high return, I'll give you that.  But if we come up empty it could and probably would cripple the franchise for years - see Teddy Higuera...

I am wondering what type of deal Sheets would be likely to get in the offseason -- there seems to be some current backlash about large pitching deals with the Zito deal backfiring (although Zambo's deal is looking good).

I wonder if now is the time to try and lock Sheets to a short extension where we overpay him in exchange for subtracting years from the deal -- i.e., a 2-year, $40 million extension.

Chances are Sheets can grab $15+ in the open market, but $20 mil is still $20 mil, and the short term deal would be good for the Crew and Sheets (if Sheets has a successful 2009 and 2010, he'll still be relatively young enough (32) to ink another free agency deal).

I also thought about the idea of a big time deal that would kick in on a games-started incentive. Offer something like a 1-or-2 year extension, with an extra 2 years that kick in should Sheets start 62 games in two years....

...just some ideas. I think there could be some creative ways to sign Sheets...

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

Ummm...I think we can see from Eric Gagne that past record isn't always the best possible indicator for future success.

Well, other than going out and doing an updated scouting report on someone (which is something most of us fans can't really afford to do, because seeing stuff on TV is only so useful) pretty much all you can do is look at past performance and view it through factors like age and trends.

Other than that, I think you're stuck looking at phases of the moon and animal migration patterns to figure out stuff. 

Very funny.  But this does bring up a legitimate point to consider.  While Gagne's career numbers were good, his most recent numbers in Boston are a disaster.  So, which ones are the better predictor of future success?

I would argue the most recent season is the better indicator, in general, than career numbers.  There are obvious caveats to this, such as sample size, injuries, etc.  But I feel that way because it more likely takes into account trends in production, that may result from age, coaching, experience, etc.

I would also be curious what it was about the "detailed scouting reports" that you mentioned that favored a $10M guaranteed contract for this guy.  All you had to do was watch him with Boston to see he didn't have it anymore.

Ok, but I made the point earlier that his track record in Boston should have been no better an indicator than when he was in Texas.  Overall, he had a 3.81 ERA last year.  Why would we look just to his time in Boston and not the whole year?

ptisme:

ike1024:

But to the guy who thought it was a bad move to let Cordero and Linebrink go: No 7th inning reliever is worth what Linebrink got.  He had a great year in San Diego - I would have a 4.00 ERA in SD.  He really isn't that great and they would have had to severely overpay to keep him and then we would have to hear about what a terrible signing that was and how they overpaid. 

Scott Linebrink= 2008: ERA 1.80    Salary 4 million this season...Your right, the Brewers couldn't use that this year...

Cordero= 2008: ERA 1.93   Salary 8.6 mill

Gagne= 2008: ERA 6.89  Salary 10 mill

Ok, you've convinced me, keeping what we had last year was way too expensive..

I'm not saying that we couldn't use Linebrink, just that he was overvalued and didn't really want to be here.  I have no doubts that people would complained about him being signed for 5-6 million/yr as a middle reliever.

And don't be purposely inane about Gagne and Cordero.  If the choice was keep Cordero for one year at 8.6 mil or Gagne for one at 10 mil, I don't think we would be having this discussion. 

ike1024:

brewhawk:

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

Ummm...I think we can see from Eric Gagne that past record isn't always the best possible indicator for future success.

Well, other than going out and doing an updated scouting report on someone (which is something most of us fans can't really afford to do, because seeing stuff on TV is only so useful) pretty much all you can do is look at past performance and view it through factors like age and trends.

Other than that, I think you're stuck looking at phases of the moon and animal migration patterns to figure out stuff. 

Very funny.  But this does bring up a legitimate point to consider.  While Gagne's career numbers were good, his most recent numbers in Boston are a disaster.  So, which ones are the better predictor of future success?

I would argue the most recent season is the better indicator, in general, than career numbers.  There are obvious caveats to this, such as sample size, injuries, etc.  But I feel that way because it more likely takes into account trends in production, that may result from age, coaching, experience, etc.

I would also be curious what it was about the "detailed scouting reports" that you mentioned that favored a $10M guaranteed contract for this guy.  All you had to do was watch him with Boston to see he didn't have it anymore.

Ok, but I made the point earlier that his track record in Boston should have been no better an indicator than when he was in Texas.  Overall, he had a 3.81 ERA last year.  Why would we look just to his time in Boston and not the whole year?

Because his career was on a clearly downward trend, and that was the most recent.  So, not only should it be a better predictor of a one year performance, but it also should have decreased the market value for him significantly. 

Melvin was fleeced on this deal.  The fact that they wanted to get this done that close to the Mitchell Reoprt release should have been a red flag.  If I am a GM (especially of a small market team like MKE), there's no way I sign a player the week that thing is scheduled to be released.  He was rushed into a bad move because he lost a game of chicken with Cordero. 

ptisme:

ike1024:

Why are you annoyed that I'm annoyed by people criticizing him.  And I'm not annoyed that people criticize, I'm annoyed by the lack of support for their criticism.  Everything I said was valid too. 

I missed the VALID reasoning you had as to why we shouldn't hold Melvin responsible for the moves he made?  BTW, I don't think Melvin should be held accountable for the Turnbow signing because Turnbow was the man back when he signed that contract...I don't know of anyone who thought that was a bad move at the time...

You missed the valid reasoning for that I provided for Cordero not being worth 48 mil/ 4 yrs? 

Or that we can't judge the Cameron signing yet?

Or that 24 mil isn't much for a guy coming off a 30+ hr season.

I at least provided a basis for my thoughts.  If you don't agree, that's fine, but you only look like an idiot by telling me that my thoughts aren't valid just because you don't agree.  I'm going to assume I know as much about baseball as you, so I think my opinion has marginal validity, although you can think what you want.

My point was that I'm tired of the "Cameron sucks - worst signing ever" or "Melvin is the worst" posts when there isn't even a reason given for someone to think that.  If someone has an opinion, I'll listen, and even if I don't agree, that doesn't make it invalid or illogical.

Einsteinhood:

 

 

Good fit for Gagne, Brewers

posted: Sunday, December 9, 2007  |  Feedback  |  Print Entry

This exchange couldn't have worked out much better for the Brewers. They let Francisco Cordero walk, receiving two draft picks as compensation after he rejected their long-term contract offers, and now their divisional rivals are saddled with his four-year, $46 million deal. They now replace Cordero with Eric Gagne on a one-year, $10 million deal that is low-risk (because of its length) and has high-upside. It certainly beats taking Washington's offer of Chad Cordero for future superstar Rickie Weeks. There are two significant risks with Gagne: health and performance. Gagne missed most of the 2005 and 2006 seasons with elbow and back (herniated disc) injuries, then missed time in early 2007 with a hip injury but was healthy for the remainder of the season. (I don't buy the alleged shoulder injury from September 2007, which sounded more like a case of a guy going on the shelf due to ineffectiveness.) The performance risk wasn't a concern when Boston acquired him at the nonwaiver trade deadline, because he pitched very well for Texas in 33 innings prior to the deal. After the trade, his results were terrible, driven mostly by the 18 hits he allowed in just 10 innings in August. There wasn't anything wrong with his stuff: his four-seamer was mostly 92-94 mph and his "Vulcan" changeup was still an outpitch, 82-85 mph, with tumble and fade. The problem was pitch selection: He barely used the change, throwing mostly fastballs, even in obvious changeup counts (e.g., 1-2 to a left-handed hitter). Because his fastball is straight, hitters can time it if they know it's coming. The responsibility for pitch selection can fall on the pitcher or the catcher, depending on the team. But at some point, Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek or pitching coach John Farrell should have altered the pitching plan, or Gagne himself should have started shaking Varitek off when Varitek leaned too heavily on the fastball. None of this happened, and the results were predictably bad. Gagne now moves to a new team with a new catcher and switches to the easier league, going to the NL Central, baseball's weakest division. If he stays healthy for most of the year, he's a good bet to pick up 30-odd saves, earning himself a bigger contract next winter and earning the Brewers another two draft picks. Milwaukee, meanwhile, gets to push Derrick Turnbow out of any kind of leveraged role, using David Riske in the seventh or eighth innings and Gagne in the ninth inning. Brian Shouse is available as a situational lefty. The signing of Gagne fills the Brewers' biggest offseason need, and if they can find a third baseman to let them move Ryan Braun to the outfield, they'll be as solid as any other club in their division.

Keith Law was wrong about this then, and he is even more wrong about it now. 

The Reds were also probably wrong to sign him, just because they had so many other things to fix to even get him the leads that they expect.  That doesn't mean it would have been bad of the Brewers.  If you expect to be a contending baseball team, you are going to have to get into some long term deals, whether you like it or not.

The bargain bin, one year deals are like that for a reason.  They are too high risk.

brewhawk:

Because his career was on a clearly downward trend, and that was the most recent.  So, not only should it be a better predictor of a one year performance, but it also should have decreased the market value for him significantly. 

Melvin was fleeced on this deal.  The fact that they wanted to get this done that close to the Mitchell Reoprt release should have been a red flag.  If I am a GM (especially of a small market team like MKE), there's no way I sign a player the week that thing is scheduled to be released.  He was rushed into a bad move because he lost a game of chicken with Cordero.

Clearly on a downward trend from what point?  When he was the best closer in the history of the game?  Well yes, that's true.

It was certainly possible that he couldn't hack in mentally in Boston, as many can't, and that contributed to his failure there as much as anything.  I'm certainly not prepared to say that he was a downward trend for his career when he had a 2.16 ERA in 34 games LAST SEASON before going to Boston.

Honestly, I think they overpaid, but tell what was a better option at that point? 

brewhawk:

The bargain bin, one year deals are like that for a reason.  They are too high risk.

That's the point, they are less high risk than signing an aging player at an overpaid position to a multi-year deal.

ike1024:

ptisme:

ike1024:

But to the guy who thought it was a bad move to let Cordero and Linebrink go: No 7th inning reliever is worth what Linebrink got.  He had a great year in San Diego - I would have a 4.00 ERA in SD.  He really isn't that great and they would have had to severely overpay to keep him and then we would have to hear about what a terrible signing that was and how they overpaid. 

Scott Linebrink= 2008: ERA 1.80    Salary 4 million this season...Your right, the Brewers couldn't use that this year...

Cordero= 2008: ERA 1.93   Salary 8.6 mill

Gagne= 2008: ERA 6.89  Salary 10 mill

Ok, you've convinced me, keeping what we had last year was way too expensive..

I'm not saying that we couldn't use Linebrink, just that he was overvalued and didn't really want to be here.  I have no doubts that people would complained about him being signed for 5-6 million/yr as a middle reliever.

And don't be purposely inane about Gagne and Cordero.  If the choice was keep Cordero for one year at 8.6 mil or Gagne for one at 10 mil, I don't think we would be having this discussion. 

brewhawk:

If you expect to be a contending baseball team, you are going to have to get into some long term deals, whether you like it or not.

I would just rather not give them to middle aged (by baseball standards) mediocrities (against the standards for their roles) when there are lots of good, young players that are better investments right on our own team. I would also like to time them better, so that the bad ends of the deal don't come right at a time when you're most set to contend.

My objection isn't to spending money. My objection is to spending money foolishly on the shiny baubles of bad free agent markets.

You should know this about me by now. 

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

If you expect to be a contending baseball team, you are going to have to get into some long term deals, whether you like it or not.

Oh, I know it and I'm fine with it.

I would just rather not give them to middle aged (by baseball standards) mediocrities (against the standards for their roles) when there are lots of good, young players that are better investments right on our own team. I would also like to time them better, so that the bad ends of the deal don't come right at a time when you're most set to contend.

My objection isn't to spending money. My objection is to spending money foolishly on the shiny baubles of bad free agent markets.

You should know this about me by now. 

Do you remember how badly I wanted them to sign this guy to a 4-year deal, instead of hanging on to Bill Hall?

ike1024:

brewhawk:

Because his career was on a clearly downward trend, and that was the most recent.  So, not only should it be a better predictor of a one year performance, but it also should have decreased the market value for him significantly. 

Melvin was fleeced on this deal.  The fact that they wanted to get this done that close to the Mitchell Reoprt release should have been a red flag.  If I am a GM (especially of a small market team like MKE), there's no way I sign a player the week that thing is scheduled to be released.  He was rushed into a bad move because he lost a game of chicken with Cordero.

Clearly on a downward trend from what point?  When he was the best closer in the history of the game?  Well yes, that's true.

It was certainly possible that he couldn't hack in mentally in Boston, as many can't, and that contributed to his failure there as much as anything.  I'm certainly not prepared to say that he was a downward trend for his career when he had a 2.16 ERA in 34 games LAST SEASON before going to Boston.

Honestly, I think they overpaid, but tell what was a better option at that point? 

I was very vocal that I thought they needed to re-sign Cordero.  That's what started the downward spiral. 

I don't think I would have touched Gagne for a penny over 4-5M guaranteed, plus incentives.  Otherwise, they needed to be looking trade.  Joe Nathan, Huston Street, Chad Cordero, Kevin Gregg are 4 guys I can think of off the top of my head that might have been available.  For what, I couldn't really say.

The problem with a 1 year deal with him is that even if he did turn out to be successful, they are still stuck in the same predicament going into 2009 when their window is still wide open.

With Gagne an unmitigated disaster and the injury to Gallardo, there's probably not enough trade bait to solve both problems now.  Like I said, Melvin got worked badly in this whole situation.