LouisEly

Could this be considered the equivalent of giving Toussaint a $10M signing bonus? Obviously Toussaint doesn't get the money, but in essence they "signed" him for $10M. With the #1 overall pick slot value being around $8.5M, I don't know that this is a good deal. Toussaint was the #16th overall pick with a slot value of around $2.6M. Seems like a big overpay for a prospect who may or may not pan out. To put in perspective, what if the Brewers traded Jed Bradley and Lohse for a 26-year-old utility player? You'd be happy, or at the least, not be upset, right? What's the difference between the two deals? Bradley has been given time to fail, Toussaint has not.

Should only have been a solo HR - the ump missed strike three on Barnes. Blackmon should have been leading off the sixth. That being said, I'm getting pretty sick of seeing Parra swing at everything in the dirt and at his shoes inside with runners in scoring position.

Jorge Ortega too!

In 2011, when Liriano had a 5.09 ERA in 26 starts, he was making $4.3M. In 2012, when Liriano had a 5.31 ERA and was relegated to the bullpen after 17 starts and traded to the White Sox, he was making $5.5M. No, he wasn't making pennies then, and because they traded him at his lowest point, I think it is a very valid comparison because Minnesota sold low to dump salary. And I also think that MIN would much rather still have him than Eduardo Escobar and the since released Pedro Hernandez.

We are comparing them because they are the same age, Liriano is pitching very well, and like Garza he went through a rough patch (but it lasted much longer). Some here have been advocating for just dumping Garza. Might not be you, but some are.

Speaking of the Pirates, who thought Francisco Liriano was washed up after his 2011 and 2012 seasons? Apparently everyone, as the Pirates signed him for $1M. That's why you don't give up on Garza after 1/3rd of a bad season.

TheCrew, you allude to a really important dilemma when it comes to player development and that is the balance between pitching and fielding development within games. With young guys, especially HS picks, you don't want to give up on them at a premium position too early, but if they struggle defensively that hurts the pitching development. Where do you draw the line? I have no idea. I just hope that in practice Neuhaus is taking a lot of reps at 3B or SS, because I would hate to give up on a left-hand bat at SS or 3B less than two years out of HS.

I can't believe how many ground balls the Royals have hit in this series that have just squeaked through, if even that, for base hits. Fiers got two ground balls and a pop up before the Royals scored a run in the 3rd; three ground balls with one run scored, and if Infante's weak grounder is three feet left or right of where he hit it Ramirez or Segura throws him out and the Royals have one run. Then in the fifth Moustakas bleeds another one through, Cain triples him in, and then Morales bleeds one through. Six runs on two hard-hit balls. Unbelievable.

Like someone said earlier, Wang only has two options left - one was used this year - and he does not look like he will be ready to be a major league pitcher in three years. What's the difference if the Brewers lose him now or in 2018? While I agree that Schafer would have been preferable, we can hope it signals a number of things: 1) Keeping Clark because they are trying to trade Lind 2) Keeping Schafer because they value defense 3) They are at least getting some feelers about Broxton and Cotts (BTW, Cotts has been pitching great - the two ER vs. KC were fluke/not his fault, as IIRC there were cheap bloop hits involved and a poor decision to play the infield in; even including that outing over his last 10 appearances covering 11.2 innings he has a 1.61 ERA, 3 BB, 15 K, and for the season has a .574 OPS-A vs. LHH) Some other facts: 1) Perez is 24 and in the majors, Wang is 23 and in A-ball 2) Every team has at least three catchers on the 40-man roster 3) You cannot DFA/release a player on the DL - big time collective bargaining issue. I think the only way they can release him is to buy out his entire contract (that being said, it might be the better move - the old "sunk cost" thing)

Why sell at their lowest value? Why not wait six weeks (with Lohse) or another year with Garza to see if they turn it around? What do they stand to lose? Once again, the Brewers get burned by bringing the infield in. I wonder if they are keeping track of the outcomes of bringing the infield in, because it has burned them in back-to-back games. Seems like it rarely works.

Loss of first and second round picks for three years, loss of competitive balance pick for at least five years, plus a fine of at least $10M. I could easily see banning them from the postseason this year; no better message to send to teams about espionage than the team with the best record in baseball sitting at home in October. Doesn't matter if it is low-tech espionage (doesn't matter how high or low-tech PED usage is when players are suspended), the fact that they even attempted it is grounds for a severe penalty.

I struggle with Lohse. You look at his stats and see bad. Watching the game last night, I only saw one squared-up ball hit off of him - the HR to Cain. A HBP, three singles, and a sac fly in the first; IIRC, the first run happened because Gomez was going toward 2B because Escobar was running on the pitch, but if he had been in his original position it would have been a ground out at the minimum, possible double play. In the 5th it was a walk and then the HR. Two extra base hits in five innings, and one of them was stranded. The Brewers had two extra base hits in the 9th inning alone, and Lind's line out in the 9th was hit harder than anything in the Royal's first inning. Is that bad, or is that dumb luck? The numbers are the numbers, and maybe he isn't good enough to miss bats anymore. I wonder if it is just bad luck, but the sample is getting bigger. I'd be pessimistic if he were giving up lots of extra base hits, but he's not. Bottom line, still a month-and-a-half to turn it around, possibly longer as he may pass through waivers in August.

How many of the Royals base hits in their scoring innings were squared up, two? Cain's HR and Gordon's single in the 6th. I think Gomez gets to at least one of the bloopers in the 6th, which gets Cotts out of the inning unscathed. Pure luck that they scored eight runs, should have been three at most.

You're half right. They let them do what they've been doing, but they have an eye on making adjustments their second year. They focus on getting the guys adjusted to playing every day and how to prepare/practice for a season of that their first year.

[sarcasm]Well, thanks for the compliments MrTPlush. I appreciate you coming up with some ideas of your own instead of just criticizing someone else's ideas. I also appreciate you noting my comment that, "The actual values are arbitrary and the least important part."[/sarcasm] I believe splitterpfj mentioned the exact issues I was addressing - his sixth paragraph addressed exactly what I was getting at with the third suggestion - kids going to JUCO to get back in the draft sooner, only sign for X amount or go to college. Otherwise how do you stop that circus from happening? Like I said, maybe it isn't forcing them to turn pro if they are drafted in the top three rounds, maybe it's holding their rights for 3.5 years. But the key is all of the things combined - if they declare for the draft, and the drafting team holds their rights or the player has to go pro, and there is a minimum value - then it is much more fair for both sides. Also, how many kids drafted after the third round make the majors anyway? Many of those who have were given signing bonuses equal to a top-3 round pick, so in essence they were top 3 round picks. End that circus so that the best kids go in the top 3 rounds. If there is no minimum signing amount and a kid has to declare for the draft, then teams hold all the leverage. If you have to declare, then there has to be something in place to ensure you get a minimum amount or can go back to school so that you have some leverage. The NBA has guaranteed contracts for first round picks, and the NFL has four-year contracts with minimum base salaries for draft picks (and typically guaranteed money for top-2 round picks). You have to have some type of guaranteed minimum in place. Remember, in the NBA kids have to declare early but if kids don't hire an agent they can go back to school, regardless of whether they are drafted or not. If they hire an agent and don't get drafted... too bad, they lose their college eligibility. With the NBA draft being only two rounds, and so few pro jobs available in the NBA, how is that fair to kids? In the NFL there are a lot more jobs (63 per team - 53-man active roster plus 10-man practice squad), and injuries create many more job openings, even though there is no minor league, so draft picks have a much greater chance of making the team.

I think that if I were teaching a kid to pitch, I would try to find as much video of Nolan Ryan as I could as say, copy that exactly.

I know this is a hot topic for some around here, particularly splitterftj, and I came up with a few ideas. The first thing is, the more I thought about it, the more complicated it gets. You just can't paint a broad stroke that treats all HS, juco, and college players the same way, and it might not be fair to. Second, the more complicated something is, the less you will be able to "sell" people on the idea of it. Simple = believable = sells. I think you have to keep the pool; otherwise you have to have a designated value for each slot/round with no variance. These are just the first things that come to mind: 1) Establish a slot value minimum - this is the most important step, as without this nothing else I think works. Not having a minimum creates too much uncertainty for both sides. The actual values are arbitrary and the least important part, but there is a method to the madness - some of these will come into play later: Rounds 1-3: 80% of slot value, plus $200K for college for HS seniors if they don't make the majors Rounds 4-10: 70% of slot value Rounds 11-20: $75,000 Rounds 21-30: $50,000 Rounds 31-40: $25,000 (can probably eliminate these rounds) Bonuses >$100K after the 10th round still count against the pool Remember, this is the minimum, could be more as long as they don't go over the pool limit. But no more using college seniors as pawns. This should help increase the likelihood that the better players go earlier because you have to pay a minimum amount. 2) HS and juco players have to opt-in; college juniors have to opt-out - this was the toughest one. I don't think everyone should have to opt-in, as that would create chaos in scouting departments - how much time do you spend scouting someone if you don't know if he's going to opt-in? Given the leverage that teams have on college seniors, I think it would be best to have all juniors (three years post-high school) automatically eligible; if they want to finish school, they have to opt-out. Maybe it's a junior year or age-21 automatically eligible. You would also have to have a reasonable opt-in cutoff date, such as April 15th, to give teams time to scout players who they know will be eligible. Now for HS kids... you have to have some measures in place to protect them from themselves. Teenagers aren't known for making the best decisions (they say the human brain isn't fully developed until age 25, and attribute that to poor decision-making by teenagers). But... they are the hardest to scout and project. One scout may feel a kid is a 2nd/3rd round pick, but other scouts (or crosscheckers... or scouting directors) may feel differently. What do you do if a kid thinks he's going to be a 2nd/3rd round pick, but doesn't end up going until the 12th round? He thought he was going to get $600K and that was enough to bypass college, but now he's looking at $75-100K? Should he be forced to turn pro? 3) Those drafted in the first three rounds have to turn pro; HS kids drafted in the 4th round or later can go to college - by setting the minimum at 80% of slot value for rounds 1-3, it ensures a minimum signing bonus. At the least, someone drafted at the end of the 3rd round will get a minimum of $438K (plus $200K for college). If that isn't good enough to turn pro, then don't opt into the draft. Again, teenagers don't make the best decisions, and it's hard to project HS players. So if a player thinks he'll go in the first three rounds but doesn't, I think it's fair that he should have options. You can also say that if they are forced to turn pro, teams will automatically offer them 80% because they have the leverage. That's true; and that's why it gets set at a high %. Maybe it's 90%. But this also can create extra pool money that can help sign kids that get drafted after the 3rd round. And if HS kids can go back to college, it helps ensure that more than the minimum is offered to those HS kids. Maybe they don't have to turn pro, but a team holds that player's rights for 3.5 years (at slot value) if they are drafted in the first three rounds. Maybe it's the first 3 rounds, plus anyone picked in the 4th round and offered >100% of slot (still at least $400K). There's also nothing stopping a kid from saying, "it will take $X to sign me". Teams will then know what round to slot the kid in, if he's worth taking at that spot, and if they need to allocate extra pool money from other picks and plan accordingly. These three things won't solve everything that is wrong, and I don't know that there is anything that could (that is reasonably simple). But by having slot minimums, making HS/juco players opt-in, and making those drafted in the top 3 rounds go pro (or hold their rights for 3.5 years), I think it will go a long way towards ensuring that the best players are picked in the early rounds and that almost all players drafted will be signed.

Too bad he had to throw so many extra pitches because of the decision to play the infield in and because of Maldy's errors/bad throws.

Yeah, would be nice if they had a minimum slot value and something around declaring for the draft or having to go pro if you are offered a certain minimum signing bonus. Unfortunately it's a game with a lot of tradition and thus will not make a lot of changes in a short period of time. But think about where the game was as recently as 10 years ago and where it is now - PED testing/policy, draft bonus pool, compensation for unsigned draft picks, competitive balance rounds, qualifying offers for free agents, replay... the game has probably made more changes in the last 10 years than the previous 100 combined.

[sarcasm]Nope, just release him, he's washed up. Will be lucky just to get any salary relief.[/sarcasm]

Here's a dumb question. I've seen some articles/posts/press releases in the past that have said the Brewers offered $X for college, and the way I read that it is on top of their signing bonus. What are the rules around offering kids money for college in conjunction with their signing bonus? I'm sure there has to be a limit on it, but I thought I read once that the Brewers gave someone recently $240K for college with their signing (might have been one of the first three picks last year).

If you don't have any kids (or don't have them with you), check out the Power & Light district downtown. There is a boutique hotel a few blocks away - Hotel Phillips - that I think is owned by the same ownership group as the Pfister Hotel. The rooms are small, but you can get really good deals there through hotel sites and blind booking sites (Priceline, Hotwire, etc.) because they are independent/not part of a big chain. If you like beer, hit the Flying Saucer Draught Emporium.

bill hALL, I see your point. However, 70% of pitchers are right-handed, and of those platoon partners you reference, how many of them can play all three OF positions? Being left-handed and having the ability to play all three OF positions above-average defensively drives his value higher than players with similar offensive production.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/26066708/ "The signing bonuses for a team's selections in the first 10 rounds, plus any bonus greater than $100,000 for a player taken after the 10th round, will apply toward the bonus-pool total." The way that I understand this, if a team under-spends on it's first 10-round picks compared to the total pool available it can use the amount not spent on players drafted after the 10th round. For example, the Brewers total pool is $7.743M. They can go over that by up to 5% - which would be the $387,190 that Eye Black referenced. However... if they only spend $7M of the $7.743M bonus pool on their first 10-round picks, they can use the unspent $743K on picks after the 10th round. In addition, the first $100K of signing bonus of picks after the 10th round is exempt from the pool. In that scenario, the Brewers could spend up to $1.23M on a pick after the 10th round - $743K left over from the first 10-rounds, $387K for the max overage, plus the $100K limit exempt from the bonus pool. EDIT: It's unlikely that the Brewers will have $743K left over - that was just an example for illustration purposes. But if they have $400K left over, then they could spend $887K on a player drafted after the 10th round.

The Astros, Royals, and Rangers could use another starter. Brewers might have to pick up some salary with the Astros or Royals, but I could see a 3-team deal with them. Ramirez is a notorious slow-starter; for his career, his highest OPS months have been June, July, and August so I'd be inclined to give him a few more weeks to boost his value. He could get hurt, but so could a 3B on another team creating more demand for his services.