brewhawk:

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

Aaron Rowand  #33  CF

 

2008 STATS
BA	HR	RBI	OBP	SLG
.348	4	16	.415	.557

We'll just both know.....

;-) 

ike1024:

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.

No for two reasons.

If they can't get a long term deal on the market, the market (composed of a great deal of knowledgeable baseball people) is telling you that the odds of success are dramatically lower.

If he does turn out to be successful (as I said to Einy earlier), you are stuck in the same boat going into 2009 when the Brewers' championship window is still very much open. 

High Short Term Risk.  Low long-term reward..  I'd rather stay away from those if I am competing for a pennant. 

ike1024:

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?

 

ike1024:

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.

Brewguru gave you a well written account of Melvin's moves since taking over and why some may not be too thrilled with the job he did (correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see you refute that post)... Then you said if his time in Texas was equally weighed with his time in Boston his ERA for the year is 3something and in the end you ended up agreeing with Brewhawk that they probably overpaid... Point is, you are suggesting no one has given credible reasons for the Melvin venom when you yourself are the one who hasn't backed up your argument...And by the way, we all get into it on here but you don't have to use the term idiot....It really detracts from your credibility and makes you appear childish...You're the second poster today that's done that... I think as much as some of us get in to it on here we'd probably all enjoy swilling a few back together and talking some baseball, no matter the discussion....

bruguru,

Very informative and impressive post. If your facts are correct, you make a strong case for Doug Melvin mistakes. I wonder though, whether the whole business of any man judging a players future value isn't almost a guarantee of failure quite often. Most athletes simply don't deliver with consistency and it seems to me that they are always surprising or disappointing everyone involved.

brewhawk:

If they can't get a long term deal on the market, the market (composed of a great deal of knowledgeable baseball people) is telling you that the odds of success are dramatically lower.

brewhawk:

If he does turn out to be successful (as I said to Einy earlier), you are stuck in the same boat going into 2009 when the Brewers' championship window is still very much open.

1) got a good chance to get draft picks and thus increase your talent base

2) bought yourself a year to develop internally or make another move to aquire a longer term solution

You always seem to worry too much about the uncertainty of the future. I think thats what leads you too long for long term deals, even if they aren't good ones, because at least then you know what you're dealing with and don't have to worry about the unknown. I could be wrong, but that seems to be going on with you from my perspective. 

brewguru:

His first major trade was getting rid of Rickie Sexson. For Sexson, at the time, one of the premier first basemen in MLB, he got Chad Moeller (a terrible player), Junior Spivey (a terrible player who was traded for Tomo Ohka), Jorge DeLa Rosa (a mediocre pitcher who was later traded for Tony Graffanino), Craig Counsell (a one-year stopgap at SS, but like 20 other players he could have gotten to be the bridge to Hardy), Chris Capuano and Lyle Overbay. Capuano was ok (the year he won 18, he got loads of run support, the next year he was an all-star and then has been in a freefall since then....last year one could argue that Yost's stubborn insistence of running him out there was a major contributing factor to not making the playoffs). Overbay was above average.

Trdaing Sexson right before he flamed out and everyone realized that he was a pretty good move in my opinion.  Sexson hasn't really been valuable since then.  At the time, Spivey was coming off a big season, and Capuano and Overbay had been as good, if not better than Sexson since the trade.  Say all you want about Cappy, but he had one really good year and one really bad one, I wouldn't call that a failure.  We wouldn't have been able to afford Sexson much longer anyway, we weren't contending, and Overbay turned out to be better than him.  All in all, I find it difficult to say that getting Overbay and Capuano for a first baseman who hits .250/35/150 K's is that good.  That's exactly what Bill Hall is capable of and everyone seems to hate him. 

brewguru:

2 years later it was time to trade Overbay. Prince Fielder was waiting in the wings, so Melvin had an opportunity to trade a good surplus to fill in deficiencies elsewhere on the roster. What did he get? Gabe Gross, a backup outfielder (despite Einstein's insistence that he was almost as good as Mickey Mantle), Dave Bush, a #5 starter and Zach Jackson, at 25, still in AAA. I don't think anyone can say this was a good trade for the Brewers.

Gabe Gross was a solid bench player and Dave Bush is actually still on the team.  They traded Overbay to make room for Fielder, what did you want him to do?  I think you overestimate the value of a first baseman that has marginal power and hits slightly below .300.  The problem is that you believe that the Brewers didn't get much for him, but you have no idea if they could have gotten more.  Bush was a legit prospect at the time, and he still could be serviceable.  There are plenty of 25 year olds in AAA, it doesn't mean that he's terrible.  If you can show me some affirmative proof that the Brewers could have gotten more, then I'll listen to the argument that this was a bad trade, but they got two major leaguers and a guy who has a chance to be one.  They had to get rid of Overbay, and even though everyone loved him because he hit .290 with a bunch of doubles, there wasn't much of a need for him.

brewguru:

Another trade was the one with Arizona sending Doug Davis, Dana Eveland and Dave Krynze in return for Estrada, Vargas and Aquino, another bad trade for the Brewers.

Ok, not the best trade, but the Brewers needed a catcher.  Estrada was a good offensive catcher.  Doug Davis had control problems that everyone here complained about.  Krynzel was a bust and everyone whined about him as a draft pick and Eveland had issues of his own.  It's trendy to say that the Brewers blew that one, but Eveland has been with about 12 teams in his career, so obviously something wasn't right with him.  As much as everyone rips on Vargas, he went out there every five days and usually kept the Brewers in the game.

You can claim bad trade - I can claim not a bad trade.  You're no more right than I am.  It's your opinion vs. mine.  It's not like trading Dirk Nowitzki for Tractor Traylor.  No one you named in those trades was an all-star.  The Brewers ended up with just as many decent big-leaguers as they dealt.

Einsteinhood:

brewhawk:

If they can't get a long term deal on the market, the market (composed of a great deal of knowledgeable baseball people) is telling you that the odds of success are dramatically lower.

You're assuming a perfectly rational marketplace. I'll give you that GM's, as a group, are smarter than they used to be. But there is a reason that certain GM's always seem to do more with less (Beinfest and Beane come right to mind) than others. The marketplace really isn't that rational.

I once wrote a 15 page paper attempting to disprove that the NY stock market was perfectly efficient.  It's not.  No market is perfectly efficient (or rational, as you call it).  BTW, for any day traders out there, I cited a WSJ study of IPO's that a large percentage of IPO's are overvalued after the first day of trading, and usually finish lower than that value after one year, for various reasons (profit motivated sell-offs, signaling effects, etc.).  Therefore, an arbitrage opportunity exists by short selling stocks of IPO's after the ftrst day of trading.  Given a large enough portfolio, this should be consistently profitable.  I rocked that paper and got an A.

However, most markets are still pretty good, because they draw on the colletive knowledge of the market members, rather than on an individual.  Therefore, I would submit, that the opinion of Gagne was that the collective knowledge did not expect success from him.  Since those are collectively the most knowledgable people in the world about judging that very thing, more often than not (not always, but usually), the market will be right.  Melvin either saw somethng different, or acted irrationally himself, because of the loss of Cordero.

The big problem I have with the Gagne signing, is tht he was so bad in Boston, he was also obviously doing something wrong.  Therefore, the risk of signing him is that you are banking he is able to not only figure out what was causing the failure, but also to physically solve the problem.  Given that he has clearly lost some speed on his fastball, that compounds the problem and makes even less likely he returns to his old form.  Melvin also ignored the red flag of the pressure to sign just before the release of the Mitchell Report, which I think is just plain careless.

brewhawk:

If he does turn out to be successful (as I said to Einy earlier), you are stuck in the same boat going into 2009 when the Brewers' championship window is still very much open.

Not necessarily. If he is successful (which is looking like more and more of a long shot, but still not out of the realm of reason) you've:

1) got a good chance to get draft picks and thus increase your talent base

2) bought yourself a year to develop internally or make another move to aquire a longer term solution

The problem with these two points, is that they don't serve the need for a solution over the term where the Brewers' talent gives them the best chance to compete for a pennant (up to about 2010-2011 as I see it).  The Draft picks are the highest risk of all, they may or may not make it to the bigs, they may or may not be good, they could get hurt, you don't know when they'll get to the show, etc.)  That isn't going to help win a championship in the current window, and it assumes the guy is actually good enough to qualify.

There also doesn't seem to be a lot of internal candidates to fill that role.  Stetter is maybe the closest.  MAybe Pena.  But they crapped out on a lot of guys last year (Aquino, Ballfour), and traded a bunch of others (Thatcher).  So if number 2 was on Melvin's mind, it's tough for me to get on board wit hthat thinking.

You always seem to worry too much about the uncertainty of the future. I think thats what leads you too long for long term deals, even if they aren't good ones, because at least then you know what you're dealing with and don't have to worry about the unknown. I could be wrong, but that seems to be going on with you from my perspective. 

ptisme:

Ragetti gave you some reasons and you pretty much agreed with most of what he said as I recall

No, I didn't.  I agreed with certain things, mostly to be cordial, but actually refuting everything he said.

ptisme:

Then you mentioned what a great job he did drafting and Geddy pretty much pimp slapped you on that... 

I'm not sure about the pimp slap part, but I gave him credit in a way that most people don't give credit for good points on this board.

ptisme:

Brewguru gave you a well written account of Melvin's moves since taking over and why some may not be too thrilled with the job he did (correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see you refute that post)

I have now refuted that post.  I honestly don't think he made very good points, so I didn't refute it - now I have.

ptisme:

Then you said if his time in Texas was equally weighed with his time in Boston his ERA for the year is 3something and in the end you ended up agreeing with Brewhawk that they probably overpaid

I said that he was overpaid, the same way I think Cordero was overpaid, but it was still the best option at the time.

ptisme:

Point is, you are suggesting no one has given credible reasons for the Melvin venom when you yourself are the one who hasn't backed up your argument

I certainly never said such a thing.  I said there is a large number of people that don't.  Some people have, most don't.  This post wasn't directed at everyone, just at those who give no reasons, credible or not.

ptisme:

And by the way, we all get into it on here but you don't have to use the term idiot

Ok, fair enough.  In fairness to me, I said you look like an idiot, not that you are one.  But I do apologize for that, I shouldn't have done that.

At the same time, you give me no credit for anything that I said.  I responded to you saying that I had given no valid reasoning, when the fact is, I have and I will continue to do so.

 I have to go to bed, but where did you get this idea that Melvin was pressured to sign Gagne before the Mitchell report came out?

You've said it a couple of times now, and I just never heard that he was being pressured by Boras to make the move. Did I miss something?

I'll try to find this later tomorrow, though it's likely to be a tough day for me to be on here at least until after 4 PM. 

ike1024:

ptisme:

Ragetti gave you some reasons and you pretty much agreed with most of what he said as I recall

No, I didn't.  I agreed with certain things, mostly to be cordial, but actually refuting everything he said.

ptisme:

Then you mentioned what a great job he did drafting and Geddy pretty much pimp slapped you on that... 

I'm not sure about the pimp slap part, but I gave him credit in a way that most people don't give credit for good points on this board.

ptisme:

Brewguru gave you a well written account of Melvin's moves since taking over and why some may not be too thrilled with the job he did (correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see you refute that post)

I have now refuted that post.  I honestly don't think he made very good points, so I didn't refute it - now I have.

ptisme:

Then you said if his time in Texas was equally weighed with his time in Boston his ERA for the year is 3something and in the end you ended up agreeing with Brewhawk that they probably overpaid

I said that he was overpaid, the same way I think Cordero was overpaid, but it was still the best option at the time.

ptisme:

Point is, you are suggesting no one has given credible reasons for the Melvin venom when you yourself are the one who hasn't backed up your argument

I certainly never said such a thing.  I said there is a large number of people that don't.  Some people have, most don't.  This post wasn't directed at everyone, just at those who give no reasons, credible or not.

ptisme:

And by the way, we all get into it on here but you don't have to use the term idiot

Ok, fair enough.  In fairness to me, I said you look like an idiot, not that you are one.  But I do apologize for that, I shouldn't have done that.

At the same time, you give me no credit for anything that I said.  I responded to you saying that I had given no valid reasoning, when the fact is, I have and I will continue to do so.

brewguru:

robertj44:

If Melvin was unaware of Gagne's drug (HGH) problem before aquiring him then I don't blame him. It seems to me like he was outed after the deal was done, correct me if I am wrong.

As for Suppan and Kendall, I like them both. Excellent start by Soup today, looked like the 06' version. Kendall has been rock steady as has been Kapler for that matter.

 

Everyone in baseball knew about Gagne's steroid use before the Mitchell Report. If you don't believe me, stop by Section 221, Row 9 on Tuesday or Wednesday and I'll introduce you to some people who can verify I've been mentioning him as a prominent user for 5 years. According to reports, Boston investigated Gagne's use while they were deciding to sign him in December '06. According to Melvin, the Brewers were blindsided by the report in December '07.

Excellent start by Suppan today? OK, Ned. It was a decent start, but when you walk 5 and load the bases a couple times, it's not "excellent".

OK like I said before a lot of knit picking going on here today. The Brewers did admit to being blindsided, which you say is BS, I agree with you and trust your sources. But Dude don't be calling me Ned... I'm as good a Ned Basher as the next guy, you know that. That was a cheap shot, I owe you one.

Gagne loses 7 mph hour on his fastball overnight seemingly, now that he's not juicin he's done. Bad signing whether you use hindsight, foresight, seeming blindness. I miss Coco. This committee thing is OK, not a season long solution I fear. What do they do with that 300 lbs anchor on the end of the bench, send him down to hang out with Jethro? I still maintain my theory that if they would both shave their heads and beards, be forced to wear uniforms that fit, they'd be just fine.

brewhawk:

The problem with these two points, is that they don't serve the need for a solution over the term where the Brewers' talent gives them the best chance to compete for a pennant (up to about 2010-2011 as I see it).  The Draft picks are the highest risk of all, they may or may not make it to the bigs, they may or may not be good, they could get hurt, you don't know when they'll get to the show, etc.)  That isn't going to help win a championship in the current window, and it assumes the guy is actually good enough to qualify.

This is what I was talking about here:

Einsteinhood:

You always seem to worry too much about the uncertainty of the future. I think thats what leads you too long for long term deals, even if they aren't good ones, because at least then you know what you're dealing with and don't have to worry about the unknown. I could be wrong, but that seems to be going on with you from my perspective.

Relief pitching is a volatile thing, and committing top of the market money to a guy well in the middle third of "closers" in terms of effectiveness just so you can call it a solution doesn't make sense to me.

Gagne also needs some anti-fog stuff on the Oakley's

Einsteinhood:

 I have to go to bed, but where did you get this idea that Melvin was pressured to sign Gagne before the Mitchell report came out?

You've said it a couple of times now, and I just never heard that he was being pressured by Boras to make the move. Did I miss something?

I'll try to find this later tomorrow, though it's likely to be a tough day for me to be on here at least until after 4 PM. 

Ican't remember where I read or heard that Boras told melvin 1 year, $10M guaranteed was a take it or leave it deal for him to sign in Milwaukee.  Sorry I can't site a source.  But if there was no pressure, that makes it even more careless, IMO.  There would have been no downside to waiting.

If you find anything like this, post it and I'll respond tomorrow night.  I've got to coach a little league game at 5:00. 

I'm somebody's Ned Yost.  I've already had one parent *** at me.  That should at least put a smile on your face.

Good, civil discussions tonight, Einy.  We should do this more often.

The man is a waste of a very large uniform! He sweats like a pig, his Oakley's get fogged, he's a human rain delay. 10 million in scrap!