FVBrewerFan

depends, if you're building defensive putouts and stats, you would need to document some things It already happens regularly with IF shifts. Moving SS to right side of IF is hard enough, but some teams put 3B over to 2B position in shallow OF. That's real fun. But easy way is to indicate position of player then I put where play was made in parentheses. For example, groudout to 3Bman playing at 2B would be 6(4)-3. I'm sure everyone was a system, but I found this to be pretty easy yet more accurate.

I've been saying for a while I wouldn't be surprised if some of these guys go late into April. It's a risk for both the players and the teams, and nobody wants to blink first apparently. In the meantime, I expect these transaction/rumor threads to reach epic levels- especially if even one reporter mentions Braun's name again ; )

It's sarcasm on top of his sarcasm. So double sarcasm. The cancel each other out. (My apologies to those who don't see that commercial 50 times a day.)

And 2020 will be interesting if two or more of Braun, Cain, and Arrieta at $60MM+ are offering little to nothing by then.

I agree with this idea and think it's silly they force kids to go to college for basketball. Nobody is forcing them to go to college. They could go overseas, or even go to an academy like IMG for a year. But I agree, NBA should change the rule to going into the draft right of HS or wait 3 years. G League is more developed these days, so a lot of these guys could start their career there. The elite guys would go right to the NBA roster, as they should. Either way, they get paid. NCAA needs to loosen up on the rules a bit for dinners and things like that. Even programs that are trying to comply get burned by some of these minor details. Beyond that, no pay. I mean, they could even pay a token amount but that wouldn't stop anything. Not when you're getting $100,000 and that's only what we know about. All you can do is come down hard when there's a flat-out violation. Any coach that is involved or even knows about payments being made should be banned from NCAA for life.

I would tend to agree with you, although I would like to see Yelich's arm in RF before making any final judgment. But yea, I would have to believe Yelich is probably a better RF than Santana overall. But the real issue is that Yelich is elite in LF, just average in RF. That's why ideal scenario would be Phillips in RF. Hopefully we'll see that in the not too distant future when the logjam is cleared and Phillips shows his bat can play. I wouldn't mind Braun in RF again, he has a good arm. But I think they feel teaching him how to play 1B is enough of a challenge, without asking him to get comfortable in RF again at the same time.

If throwing was the only skill needed, I would agree with you.

Strong arm in RF is a big deal, it also cuts down on tag-ups from 2B. Nobody ever said Yelich couldn't play RF, heck so could Khris Davis. But it's not ideal. Yelich would be better than Santana in RF btw, simply because he can, you know, catch the ball.

Yea, I hit against women's softball pitchers in college. That was no fun, they can really bring it! Rising fastball is a weird thing to hit. That said, the mound is closer. There's a reason there hasn't been a woman in MLB. Of course, I wouldn't be able to get MLB hitters out either.

Yeah! Women are inferior and can only get one out! GOOD INSULT! I believe the inference is man vs boy....not woman. A woman couldn't get one out, just keeping it real.

Yes, except things almost never go according to plan. This would be the plan if all five players are healthy the entire season. That's not likely to happen. That said, if it does work out this way that's the way it goes. I rather do it this way than give away Santana for far less than what he's "worth" just to make things easier to manage.

I agree with this post 100%. You don't acquire Cain and Yelich without a change in philosophy regarding defensive value. If they wanted to have an outfield of mashers, they would have kept Braun in LF, Santana in RF and Broxton/Brinson in CF. But as it stands now, I think the people that are pencilling Santana into the lineup are jumping the gun. I still think he's the first one to go, and I have a feeling we aren't going to be super happy with the return on him. I'm guessing he'll net a decent bullpen piece or 2B, and probably a borderline Top 100 prospect. Similar to the return on Souza, even though Santana is younger, cheaper, and better in my opinion. I don't doubt that Stearns has probably been close several times to pulling the trigger on a deal with Santana, but for whatever reason they've fallen through. I speculate that he was probably in talks with the Diamondbacks to send Santana there for Drury and maybe Banda, but perhaps decided that wasn't enough. Keep an eye on the corner OF injury list. Santana will be in demand if a big name gets hurt. I agree Santana doesn't fit the type of player they want (which is why Stearns and his former boss traded him in the first place.) That said, as long as they still have him I don't think he's riding the bench, nor should he. As the roster stands, the alternative is Braun who isn't exactly a Gold Glover out there. My guess is they've been trying to move Santana even before this off-season. So, it just may be the case that Stearns hasn't seen an offer that's nearly enough for a young, cost controlled .880ish bat. He'll need to decide whether he wants to continue to be patient, or lower his demands and move on. When you look at it, keeping him around for another year isn't the worst thing in the world. After these for OF, what do you have? Broxton, another guy who strikes out a ton and slugging heavy OPS. Phillips...you want strikeouts? You got em. And I'm a big Phillips fan, just not sure if he's ready. So with Braun' limited availability it's not all bad to have Sunday around, weaknesses and all.

After hundreds of pages talking about trades, is it a surprise Stearns is trying to trade an OF? Only factor that matters is will someone offer enough.

No, sorry, by QS I didn't necessarily mean the QS Stat. If he could go 5.1 or 5.2 and give up 2 ER, that's still a QS to me. Very few pitchers avg over 6 innings anymore. And no, I would not expect him to have a .95 WHIP. Finally, I haven't mentioned this yet, but injuries play a role too. If a couple starters or potential starters have arm issues (even if they want to just be conservative and cautious) that changes everything too.

Yes. Look at the dumpster fire starts from the likes of Milone and Guerra last season. If you can get 10 quality starts as opposed to 10 crappy starts, of course that would be a boost to your playoff chances. And there are way to limit his innings. As you already said, his spot would be skipped often enough if they wanted to go that route. He could DL a couple times with "arm fatigue." I get his clock would start sooner, I just don't think they are concerned with that as much as we are here. If they really believe Burnes is ready and a clear better option that Wilkerson, Gallardo, etc. I'm sure they would strongly consider rolling with Burnes. (And I'll add my disclaimer every post about Burnes that yes, I do think there's a very small chance this happens.) Personal thing with me, I just cringe at words like never, always, zero chance.

Good call Briggs. I was going to say Williams, but don't be surprised if Ramirez makes a big impact at some point this season. What a great story if that happens.

Perez's versatility is obviously his greatest strength. Problem is, as the roster stands today that versatility isn't needed anywhere near as much as last year. For starters, there should be no reason with him ever to play the OF. There's already 4 FT starters there with 3 spots. Already have two 2B, and either one of them can play SS/3B here and there. (Which is all that would be needed for those positions.) No, there's still emergencies where someone is hurt for a longer period of time, but I'm not sure you make a roster decision based on that. I do still expect they'll keep him, I just don't want to see them invent too many starts for him- especially if it means taking Yelich, Cain, Santana, Shaw out of the line-up to do it.

They did, depending on how you look at it. They could have waited until early 2017 to bring him up instead of the end of a lost season in 2016. If they would have done it that way he would have 6 years left.

Someone was asking a simple question, your 2nd sentence is really unnecessary.

Arcia was brought up late in 2016, started the clock in a lost season. Stearns has always said that won't be the determining factor to bring a player up. If the Gallardos and Wilkersons of the world look rather meh, and Burnes is really commanding out there, they will at least discuss bringing him up right away. If they truly want to compete, you need the best. If that means starting his click early, oh well. Again, I'm saying there's a very small chance but it's not impossible.

With Burnes, slight chance he won't have to wait for mid season. Could earn a spot in ST

Same thing we're likely to do every year. Hope that results on the field surpass what's on paper. The Brewers are likely to never look like one of the best 1-2 teams in February/March. Now it's Cubs, Dodgers, Nats. Down the road, it may be the Cards, DBacks, Braves, Mets....who knows. That's ok. If they can build a really good team and sustain it, then they will at least be in the hunt every year. Lots of things can happen then. Key injuries/bad performance by other contenders, better performance from our own players, and always the option of picking up firepower at the break. Plus, the Brewers are still way too difficult to project. Yelich/Cain help projections on offense but you still have Arcia, Pina, and Villar/2B who are really difficult to project. Even guys like Shaw, Thames, Santana. In fact, do we even know what we'll get out of Braun? Pitching is even tougher to project. Davies/Chacin you pretty much know what you're getting, after that it gets real tough. And the BP isn't any easier. But they were never going to be as good as those other teams on paper this year, even if they do sign a Cobb or Arrietta. That's depressing. It is if you look at it that way. I see it more as dealing with reality. The big teams can take on massive salaries, and will always look better on paper. It's been that way for decades now so shouldn't really be a surprise. But be optimistic! Think Royals and Indians in the recent past- it is possible to be good enough year in/ year out to make to and even win the WS.

Same thing we're likely to do every year. Hope that results on the field surpass what's on paper. The Brewers are likely to never look like one of the best 1-2 teams in February/March. Now it's Cubs, Dodgers, Nats. Down the road, it may be the Cards, DBacks, Braves, Mets....who knows. That's ok. If they can build a really good team and sustain it, then they will at least be in the hunt every year. Lots of things can happen then. Key injuries/bad performance by other contenders, better performance from our own players, and always the option of picking up firepower at the break. Plus, the Brewers are still way too difficult to project. Yelich/Cain help projections on offense but you still have Arcia, Pina, and Villar/2B who are really difficult to project. Even guys like Shaw, Thames, Santana. In fact, do we even know what we'll get out of Braun? Pitching is even tougher to project. Davies/Chacin you pretty much know what you're getting, after that it gets real tough. And the BP isn't any easier. But they were never going to be as good as those other teams on paper this year, even if they do sign a Cobb or Arrietta.

They need at minimum 15 days (3 starts). But ideally three weeks. I imagine they would be doing that on their own? You don't need to be at a ST site to do that.

These incentive offers are always what fans want, but why would a player take a deal like that when they'll eventually get a deal where they're guaranteed that much? Only way I see incentives working is if big market team offers "x" and the Brewers offer the exact same deal PLUS incentives.