Around MLB '12-'13 (offseason signings, trades, rumors, ect)

[BUCKnation]

Remember when some here were rooting for the team to lose so we could get a higher pick in the draft? If we had won some of those games, we'd already be in a wild card spot, instead of now rooting for other teams to lose like it should be. People shouldn't be giving up on a talented baseball team in freaking July for hope for a higher pick in a draft, especially when it's the freaking MLB draft.

True.

I gave up on the team, b/c they would blow every game making me feel like I just wasted 3 hrs every night watching the team. I still followed to see what was going on (Ws or Ls), but I didnt watch any games for a long time until around labor day weekend when I realized we were only 7.5 back, where they earned my viewership again.

[humanrefutation]

I honestly do not remember anyone here ever rooting for losses for the sake of a higher draft pick.

I do remember a few posts sprinkled throughout referencing the draft, but I definitely remember how a lot of folks on this board were rooting for the team to lose to they could sell on Greinke. I can't ever root for the team to lose, but I did see a silver lining when they were losing in that they were able to get something for Greinke.

[MikeIsGood]

I honestly do not remember anyone here ever rooting for losses for the sake of a higher draft pick.

I do remember a few posts sprinkled throughout referencing the draft, but I definitely remember how a lot of folks on this board were rooting for the team to lose to they could sell on Greinke. I can't ever root for the team to lose, but I did see a silver lining when they were losing in that they were able to get something for Greinke.

The Greinke thing I do remember vividly, and I bought into even. I was worried that they would be afraid to make a move. As soon as Greinke was traded, that was over for me. The draft reference I do not, though I will defer to you guys. That's just utterly stupid regardless.

[trwi7]

People shouldn't be giving up on a talented baseball team in freaking July for hope for a higher pick in a draft, especially when it's the freaking MLB draft.

You mean like Melvin did when he traded Greinke? Not necessarily for the higher draft pick but trading Greinke pretty much says he gave up on the season.

[MoneyInDaBank07]

People shouldn't be giving up on a talented baseball team in freaking July for hope for a higher pick in a draft, especially when it's the freaking MLB draft.

You mean like Melvin did when he traded Greinke? Not necessarily for the higher draft pick but trading Greinke pretty much says he gave up on the season.

Regardless of what Melvin did... pretty sure that was you trwil that gave up on the season and was rooting for a draft pick lmao... my my have the tables turned

[Kerb Hohl]

You mean this guy, ranting all along that the fans standing on the edge of the cliff needed to step back from the ledge because the guys struggling for the first 50 games would eventually end up having their standard season?

[/VirtualPatOnOwnBack]

I'm not suggesting that those teams could not run away from the Brewers, I guess I'm asking why they are much different than last year? We have an improved 3B, improved defense overall, LuCroy getting better (he'll be back in a month). Big dropoff at 1B obviously.

The difference has been our starters sucking, bullpen sucking, and Weeks being trash. Those are the things I expect to even out soon. Bullpen maybe not so much.

Yes, the truth is that Weeks is horrendous right now and Aramis is only slowly rounding into career form.

That said, our pitching has been literally as bad as it can be while St. Louis' was as good as it can be. Berkman is out for a long time, every single other masher on St. Louis' great offense is horrendously brittle. None of those guys can or will make it through a full season.

Cincy has improved their staff, but it is still dicey. Right now, they may be the best, but we blew them away last year.

It is true that we are through 1/3 of the season so definitive judgments need to be made, but I guess I'm wondering why guys returning to career norms (we're seeing it from a lot of the Cardinals as we speak) would be such a shocking development.

The Brewers' offense has actually pieced together decent results even with the injuries, Weeks sucking, Morgan not coming around, and Aramis being slow to get there and the pitching has literally been as bad as it can be. As the great equalizer brings these guys back to what we'd expect them to do, I wouldn't be shocked if we started to run some of these teams down.

Again, I'm not suggesting it is certain or anything, but baseball is an incredibly predictable sport. Somehow, when guys pitch against San Diego and Pittsburgh, they are "really hot" and then they start to cool off as the law of averages comes on and they face the right opponents (I remember "fearing" Billingsley when we played LA at home earlier this year after he mashed the Padres twice and the Pirates. Now, *gasp* he's right back at his career ERA.

Things happen like Weeks absolutely falling off the face of the earth, but I think we need to give it a few weeks to see if this upcoming easy schedule gets us back within 2 or 3 games when we start to see some games against Cincy.

LAWLZ @ the Mets being better. They're 5 games over .500 with a negative 20 run differential. Let's cool down on this 40 game stretch guys. I don't think we're World Series likely, but some of these things are a bit out of whack. Obviously I don't want to diminish every sample size, but if you think the Mets are better than the Brewers, over a season, pass me those drugs.

The Dodgers also have zero offense outside of Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier fell apart last year.

Let's take a step back and cool off here just for a second.

Again, I'm not suggesting we're ready to explode. Maybe this is the perfect storm of injuries and regressions. I'm not saying that I'm betting on us to get on fire and grab the division, but we've had our worst case scenario and we're still where we are.

Again, give me 20-30 more games and I'll be ready to sell. At that point, it is too late to turn back if everything is still going wrong.

Also, Arizona is probably not a "fluke." Justin Upton has done nothing this year, Montero has been hobbled, Goldschmidt hasn't panned out in his sophomore year, and Hudson was on the DL. Couple that with possibly the best Major League-ready prospects waiting in the wings such as Trevor Bauer to pitch, and that team is still definitely going to be a contender if not this year, the next 3.

I agree that sometimes it just isn't your season. I'd buy low on the Diamondbacks and to an extent, the Brewers right now. The Mets will be 10 games out of their division soon.

And CoolHandLuke, the Phillies are going to miss the playoffs IMO. Halladay is out 6-8 weeks. Pence and Victorino are alright, but their offense mostly sucks now and we have no idea about Howard and Utley. Rollins may bounce back but he's been brutal.

The Mets are like the Pirates last year. They were a feel good story with McCutchen playing great and some OK bats but then the baseball gods realized that Paul Maholm and the rest of that staff blow and suddenly they stopped winning every game 2-1.

[ReasonablySober]

I've always had a problem with that, though. Games 1-75 still matter.

[Kerb Hohl]

I've always had a problem with that, though. Games 1-75 still matter.

Are you referring to what I was saying? All I was saying is that people were jumping off the cliff, not only about the season, but about the actual players in general at game 40. "Aramis was a bad signing, rebuild." "Weeks sucks." "Our starters have lost their touch."

Yes, it matters in the standings, and that is why trading Greinke was great. That said, it was a slight aberration on how many they lost early in the year and they've gotten back to what they should be.

I never said, "don't worry about being 30-45 after 75 games." I just said that they were clearly way better than people were overreacting about.

[humanrefutation]

You know, GJ, you weren't the only one who was preaching that early on. There were definitely a few posters here, including myself, who were preaching the patience perspective.

[ReasonablySober]

I've always had a problem with that, though. Games 1-75 still matter.

Are you referring to what I was saying? All I was saying is that people were jumping off the cliff, not only about the season, but about the actual players in general at game 40. "Aramis was a bad signing, rebuild." "Weeks sucks." "Our starters have lost their touch."

Yes, it matters in the standings, and that is why trading Greinke was great. That said, it was a slight aberration on how many they lost early in the year and they've gotten back to what they should be.

I never said, "don't worry about being 30-45 after 75 games." I just said that they were clearly way better than people were overreacting about.

Was it?

That's my point. If Weeks isn't terrible for three whole months or if the bullpen wasn't a complete joke, basically if they played to their career norms, we're not out of the playoffs looking in. We're also not selling at the deadline, we're possibly adding.

So when people say come in off the ledge, everything will work its way out in the end, I really find it patronizing because games in April and May count more than they do in August and September. Things don't 'even out'.

Weeks is going to end up having a terrible year. So is Axford and most of the bullpen. There's no 'I told you so' to be had. They were bad and they likely cost the Brewers a shot in the post season.

[Kerb Hohl]

I've always had a problem with that, though. Games 1-75 still matter.

Are you referring to what I was saying? All I was saying is that people were jumping off the cliff, not only about the season, but about the actual players in general at game 40. "Aramis was a bad signing, rebuild." "Weeks sucks." "Our starters have lost their touch."

Yes, it matters in the standings, and that is why trading Greinke was great. That said, it was a slight aberration on how many they lost early in the year and they've gotten back to what they should be.

I never said, "don't worry about being 30-45 after 75 games." I just said that they were clearly way better than people were overreacting about.

Was it?

That's my point. If Weeks isn't terrible for three whole months or if the bullpen wasn't a complete joke, basically if they played to their career norms, we're not out of the playoffs looking in. We're also not selling at the deadline, we're possibly adding.

So when people say come in off the ledge, everything will work its way out in the end, I really find it patronizing because games in April and May count more than they do in August and September. Things don't 'even out'.

Weeks is going to end up having a terrible year. So is Axford and most of the bullpen. There's no 'I told you so' to be had. They were bad and they likely cost the Brewers a shot in the post season.

No, it's all the bullpen.

Everyone is the same or better as last year after 162. The bullpen will never recover to that. So yes, it matters, but it's because the bullpen was SO bad that we couldn't recover.

Guys like Weeks, Aramis, etc...who cares when they're good? Not that I'd buy at the deadline when they are struggling, but it's a pretty damn good bet they'll finish as they did.

Games 1-75 matter, but I more think of it as games 1-162 matter. The entire offense, defense, and most of the starting staff did their job in 162 games just as they did last year. The bullpen regressed. What difference does it make when they do it? They did exactly their job. I don't get your argument. Those games mattered, just like the rest of them. They put up the same production.

Last year, your argument is, what, "Games 1-6, 10-14, 37-45, 67-73, 110-124, etc." matter? What does it matter if Weeks blows for games 1-50 or he blows for the combination of 50 games over the season?

I think the bullpen played over their heads, but in the end, the offense was the same offense. Even when we sucked in games 1-75 or whatever, the offense wasn't even that bad given Weeks'/Aramis' struggles.

It only matters on the trading deadline, which I'm fine with. If the bullpen didn't blow, we'd have been in "wait" mode and still would have Zack. To be honest, I'm still happy, because I'm not even sure he'd be pitching us back into this thing. Whoever is pitching in his place is probably like 7-1 in terms of team wins/losses.

[ReasonablySober]

No, it's also on Weeks, who is having and will have had an absolutely terrible season. The man is last among qualified 2B in WAR.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, he was bad defensively, apparently. Didn't know his defense was that bad.

Actually had almost nothing to do with his bat, though. Depending on how he finishes it'll be a down year, but his wOBA isn't atrocious.

He's at what, a 1.8 WAR right now? Even if he had his .360 wOBA that he's put up the last few years, he'd be at probably a 2.5 WAR. It's all on whatever that -17.4 fld pertains to. That is probably calculated with UZR, right? That dragged him way down from his usual 5 or 6 score.

[ReasonablySober]

I can't believe we're even discussing this. He had a .586 OPS through the first two months. He 'rebounded' in June to the tune of a .653 OPS. That's half the season he was **** awful. Love what he's done since, but make no mistake about it. He had a **** season.

[Kerb Hohl]

I can't believe we're even discussing this. He had a .586 OPS through the first two months. He 'rebounded' in June to the tune of a .653 OPS. That's half the season he was **** awful. There's no rebounding from that.

Except he almost has rebounded from that. What number am I missing that says he hasn't? His WAR value is not good because of the fielding aspect.

Question, which player is better?

One that is "consistent" and helps win games 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50...etc. for helping out on about 30 games for you, or one that is on fire and wins games 110-140 for you but is also known to produce year-by-year?

I value some form of consistency, but I don't know why Weeks coming on late and doing it in bunches this season (strictly on offense) means that "games 1-75" have invalidated his season?

If Weeks theoretically finishes hot and ends with his career norm of about a .775 OPS, offensively speaking, why are you saying "games 1-75 matter, too." If he finishes that hot, he will have played the main role in us going like 32-8 down the stretch.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm also not specifically arguing Weeks with my quotes there. I said that guys like Aramis, Yovani, etc. would return to career norms. And they did.

If I said the offense would be better than 2011, the starters would be slightly downgraded from 2011, and the defense is by most accounts better through 162, what would you think? Oh, by the way, the bullpen went from awesome to horrendous.

The offense encountered bad stretches last year. The first 10 games I think they struggled, games 40-50, games 110-120 (I'm making some of these up). They HAD to have struggled to be worse than this year for a few stretches. Why are you saying "games 1-75 matter" when it's a 162 game season?

The end of the story is that the bullpen was horrendous and the starting staff took a minor step (but not large enough) back in 2012 from 2011. That's it. Over 162 games. I don't know why guys deciding to struggle for 30 game stretches instead of 10 game stretches matters.

[ReasonablySober]

If you base expectations on his career average, then cool. I'll base mine on his last few seasons where he was well north of an .800 OPS.

[Kerb Hohl]

If you base expectations on his career average, then cool. I'll base mine on his last few seasons where he was well north of an .800 OPS.

Yeah, I looked at that too.

Look, I also said that Weeks struggled so badly (I know you didn't read the books that I quoted a few posts ago in their entirety) that it would be hard for him to recover.

I said guys like Weeks will return to being Weeks and I believe specifically said he won't hit his recent season or career averages because of serious struggles. Aramis will recover. Yovani will recover. This entire board and state wasn't standing on the edge of the cliff, but there were a ton of overreactions from the early 40 game sample. I was giving myself (and as humanrefutation noted) a virtual pat on the back for being dead on in that it's baseball, and over 162 these guys will get back to where they need to be (outside of the bullpen).

You're right, Weeks isn't going to be the same guy over 162 for us as he was in previous years. That said, LuCroy was awesome, Braun was even better, etc. so the offense STILL isn't a problem because as I said, everyone else was going to put up their standard season.

The posts I had were speaking to those that were saying that Aramis was a bad signing, Gallardo/Greinke and everyone else struggling wouldn't recover, and that sort of thing needed to step back. The post before that, somebody was jumping on the Mets bandwagon because they were like 35-28 or something.

The entire gist of my post was that the team would recover, and even though you may be right that Weeks was so awful that he will not return to his 2009-2011 helpfulness over the full season, none of that matters. All I was saying was that this team was much better than the bridge-jumpers thought it was when we were 25-32 or whatever we were.

[ReasonablySober]

I have no earthly idea what you're talking about when you say none of it matters. We're not in the playoffs at this moment because guys have shat the bed this season.

[Kerb Hohl]

I have no earthly idea what you're talking about when you say none of it matters. We're not in the playoffs at this moment because guys have shat the bed this season.

Yes. The bullpen. As I stated in the post.

As I said, my post was in response to those freaking out about Aramis, Weeks (being a minor league player), Gallardo, Greinke who were at the time struggling in fear that we'd catch teams playing above their head. The point was that at that point, when we weren't that out of it, that those guys would return to form, though I wasn't sure if the bullpen would ever.

I think we're arguing a few different things here. Yes, games 1-75 matter in the total of 162 just as 75 random games do. Weeks is having a below-norm season and the bullpen sucks. My post was about Weeks returning to below-norm from horrendous and everyone else returning to form or better than it. Which they did. I was "win now" the whole time while people weren't which is why I brought this up, because Bern was saying it's too bad we didn't start this stretch a few games earlier.