Fear The Chorizo

now put up about a 7 spot

not fooling any lefthanded hitters - and when he does the ump doesn't ring him up

If Burnes is still in the game, I'd like to see the 1st pitch go behind Bellinger - or move his feet with a down and in slider. too bad if he aimed for those spots it'd probably wind up right down the middle again right now.

Aguilar belongs in about the 6 or 7 spot when he does play, so the guy who just dropped a bomb can hit cleanup where he belongs!

Corbin needs a changeup - badly. Without it lefties are just going to tee off on his stuff. You can also tell that by trying to be too fine with the pitches he has, he's pressing.

He's juicing on bad pitching and high altitude to start the year - 4 of his HRs are against the Dbacks, 1 against SF, 2 at CO, and 1 against Burnes. He's still got the same holes in his swing that led to the crazy strikeout totals if pitchers actually work to those spots

Burnes needs a changeup or a curve ball, something offspeed. And while I'm not advocating for just intentionally hitting guys, he really needs to work inside more consistently to both righty and lefty hitters - with misses being off the plate inside. Just looking at the Dodger hitters' approaches, they're mostly standing right over the inside corner of the plate - so basically anything even on the outside corner is a meatball. Gotta take that half of the plate back - I'd rather see him hit a guy an inning than give up a HR an inning.

Get 'em on any way you can, and blast them in...atta way Hernan!

Burnes needs to find that in-between location for all his pitches - not middle/middle, not 1 foot off the plate. His stuff is plenty good to be a really good starting pitcher without having to be perfect on location, but he's got to work more consistently on the fringes. holy cow, what a play by Arcia! And then more middle/middle to the guy you just can't do that to on the Dodgers...sheesh

Random tinfoil hat-related questions - during a players' strike, do the longterm guaranteed contracts still get paid to players even though there aren't games played? And, are pre-arbitration or arbitration-eligible players still paid if there isn't a season? Do those players accrue service time during a strike despite not having games? Depending on the answers to those questions, it might make quite a bit more sense for current pre-arbitration players to sign onto longterm extensions now, particularly if their initial foray into salary arbitration would line up after the current CBA expires.

Doesn't have to be injury that leads to a player bursting onto the scene with seemingly superstar potential to wind up being 'meh' or worse well before they ever reach free agency. Some can still have very long MLB careers but never realize their lofty potential. It's tough to come up with a list because the # of sure things that appear ready to earn a superstar contract is endless, but a vast majority of those players aren't consistent enough due to either injury or just regression to reach that level. here are just a couple examples off the top of my head. Rickie Weeks (he still did pretty well financially due in large part to the initial extension he signed with the Brewers, but I'd argue those wrist and ankle injuries severely hampered what his career could have been) Delmon Young (1st overall pick in the same draft as Weeks, out of baseball after 9 years with a total earnings of ~$25M) Grady Sizemore (nice 10 year career hampered in his prime due to injuries and never truly cashed in - $35M in total earnings) I actually view Sizemore's initial extension with the Indians (6 yrs, $24M after 1 full MLB season, buying out 2 FA years) as a pretty good comp to Albies. Sizemore's deal initially looked like a steal and was roundly criticized for being too team friendly. Then he dealt with a ton of injuries that basically ended his career as a fulltime player and the contract wound up giving him the financial security he otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Between Acuna's and Albies' extensions, I'd guess that one of these deals will go down as a sweet deal for the team, and one will go down as a sweet deal for the player.

I am sure it is nice to get a hefty cut of these extensions if you are the agents...but you must wonder if it is really worth it when you negotiated, what is widely considered, a pretty terrible deal. Actually widely considered the wort deal ever for a player. John Lucroy's agent says "hold my beer". Luc must of been another one of those situations where the Latin American player is taken advantage of due to the language barrier In all seriousness, Luc will have earned $6M less over his entire 12 year MLB career than what Albies' $35M extension pays him through his late 20's. And are we considering this the absolute worst deal ever when our best player and reigning MVP is earning under $10M in his age 27 season? Albies basically guaranteed himself the same total earnings Yelich will make by the time they both reach 30 even if the Braves pick up both of those two extremely team-friendly options, and he got that after playing in the majors for 1 season + a 2017 cup of coffee and didn't have to win a MVP or silver slugger to earn that contract. Albies had a 0.305 OBP last season with an OPS in the mid-700s - he's good, but is he really a 9 figure talent?

I'm envisioning Mark A heading to his local payday loan branch in a dollar store strip mall asking for a quick spot so he can sign a 7th inning guy right now.. maybe they can take out a reverse mortgage on miller park, too.

Thank you - that's a mic drop post that nails it. I'd add that regardless of franchise valuations or fan support, the brewers organization remains the smallest mlb market - which is a huge deal for realizing huge increases in tv revenue that are the biggest factors for some team's rapidly climbing revenues. The fact that the brewers consistenly arent among the lowest team payrolls across mlb despite their market size disadvantage is testament to the influence a rabid fan base can have on operating revenue and to Mark A. for likely putting a larger percentage of team revenues to player payroll than most other ballclubs.

If he keeps progressing he'll get brought up before Memorial Day...not sure if that qualifies as a long time or not, but I think that's the realistic scenario barring any other setbacks. In the meantime I think they would be fine rolling with the youngsters to get them all 6-7 starts to see if there's an obvious move to make. Despite the pessimism, I still think Anderson is a viable starting option this year for extended stretches, too.

Out of the 3 young starters, Woodruff has the longest leash, IMO. I think with Peralta's occasional control issues he may remain as a starter but get sent to AAA instead of rotting in the Brewers' pen as a long man. Burnes is sort of in between - I think he'd do just fine moving back to the pen, but you got to give him more starts, too. Hopefully Nelson gets up in a few weeks and can hold down one of these rotation spots. All three have really good arm talent - but you have to be realistic that the odds were slim to none all three would be able to just be good starters from jump street in 2019 and not have growing pains (some of which might lead to a demotion/role change)

wow ump...at least be consistent

I keep seeing this idea that the bullpen had all these studs and was lights out all year in 2018. That is simply not true. They were in a very similar situation as they are now in April and May last year. Burnes didn't show up till mid season, and Woodruff wasn't inserted in the pen until August. Knebel didn't come back and pitch well until later in the year. Hader and JJ were good all year, but the pen asa whole wasn't nails until August last year. At this point last year we figured Knebel's hamstring wasn't attached at all, Albers was routinely used in high leverage situations, Burnes couldn't get anyone out in CO Springs, Peralta was still a complete MLB unknown, and we were all complaining the starters couldn't get through 6IP to spell a pen that was certain to burn out....MLB seasons are loooong. ump is doing hitters zero favors tonight - lots of swings and misses at pitches well out of the zone due in part to quite a few balls being called strikes.

If that were what you went by, you better get on the trade Huira train pretty fast as he's been pretty awful to start his time in AAA. These young kids have ups and downs. We see that even when they get to the MLB. Overreaction one way or the other is just generally not good practice. After tonight's game, Hiura's AAA OPS is over 1.000...

You’re applying theory of fairly liquid assets to ownership in an entity that a select few can purchase. A house has a readily available market. So does that artwork, or even that building. How many people can truly afford to buy a 46 billion dollar franchise like the Yankees? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? You may well be right, but I think it’s dangerous to universally apply a theory like this without actually knowing it’s true. Far too much talking in absolutes in this thread without actually knowing real numbers and mechanisms for my liking. I don't want to be a blowhard know-it-all, but I would think collateral is collateral. And I can't believe that he couldn't find a lender willing to lend money for other projects. Why would money earmarked for new concession stands and videoboards be any different than money earmarked for a staff ace? I'd be interested knowing whether MLB has any rules concerning how an organization can/cannot be used as an asset when incurring debt. When it comes to the lending collateral comparisons between objects (concessions/videoboards) and players, there may be something to providing an asset like Miller Park (whose value would be improved by those objects) that would be easy for a lender to accept, whereas just saying "hey our franchise quadrupled in value over the past 15 years, give us money to sign a veteran starter" might not pass legal muster for lending $. What technically would be the collateral for a loan to provide a player contract, if in theory the organization wouldn't honor the terms of the loan for whatever reason? An infintessimal ownership stake based on a snapshot valuation that isn't liquid? Rights to whatever player signs that contract to become a bank teller?

The return of Nelson will inevitably send of of those 3 back to the bullpen. I agree that it's too early to draw any conclusions on what they need to do with their pitching staff until we've got a better idea on what Nelson/Jeffress are going to be able to provide to the staff and how the guys currently in roles they'll be taking will be used. btw, listening to the Angels' booth is just painful

From all indications last season, the Brewers in 2018 either had a very small profit or possibly a loss. Throw in the $60+ million for Maryvale. We're the only team spending on our spring training facility. The brewers operating income was 8th in all of baseball at 66 mil, no loss or small profit there. After factoring in payment of many bottom line expenses that aren't included in the operating income amount, that $66M wouldn't look nearly as healthy

Typically minority ownership's most tangible value is getting a millionaire's foot in the door of the exclusive majority owners club. I believe minority stakes are bought and sold much more frequently based on team valuations, which if done wisely can lead to rapid gains in wealth and position them to one day become a majority owner. I think that's how quite a few majority owners got involved in professional sports franchises. For them, Forbes' valuation lists have much closer to tangible value...it's almost like taking a trial run at owning a team, getting into that biz's network, and getting plenty of perks (lixury suites, player interactions, etc)

Jim, I believe you are one of the smartest posters on this site and I usually agree with most of what you post. I also understand that you have said many times that you don't necessarily think they should do what you have illustrated, but that they could. So, maybe we really are not that far apart on this subject. However, just to be clear. Attanasio has not realized or made any return yet on his investment. It's all on paper. Sports teams values seem to always go up and not down. So it does appear that his investment is safe and he will eventually get a nice return. However, nothing in life is guaranteed. There is no guarantee that the Brewers will be worth $1 Billion 5, 10, 20 years from now or whenever he decides to cash out. I have zero expectation for him to leverage his investment gain to date in order to aquire high contract players. Not to mention, acquiring such players does not always pay off. Not to mention the fact Mark A. has repeatedly stated his desire for team ownership to stay in their family, meaning if he wants the Attanasio name to remain the majority owner that he never will cash in that investment by selling the team. Make no mistake, increasing payroll to the point of operating at a fiscal loss isn't as simple as Mark A. just taking out his checkbook. I think this year's payroll is largely due to their comparitively low team payrolls in 2015 and 2016, which allowed them to bank extra profits for use now. Entirely due to past years' operating profitability, not taking on debt based off the franchise valuation as collateral.

The franchise valuations and discussion about a team's ability to increase payroll should be kept entirely separate, because they are actually independent from one another. Rich owners like the Ballmer example will spend silly money to acquire an asset like a pro sports franchise, but not to fund said franchise's operations. Player payroll limits are driven by the operating revenues of all sports teams. Sometimes there are restrictions put into place by the league they are in (salary caps/floors, etc). In the case of MLB, the luxury tax threshold and increasing penalties for consecutive years payroll exceeds it have curtailed persistent huge market team spending on player payroll, while their built-in revenue stream advantages would have normally allowed for ever increasing budgets. For a team like the Brewers, their valuation means absolutely zero in terms of what their operating revenue streams are and what portion of that revenue can be dedicated to MLB player payroll. Saying that because their franchise is valued over $1B means they can always take out a loan to increase spending on contracts is a terrible way to run a business - which is why that just doesn't happen. From time to time owners will allow an organization to operate at a short term loss to add payroll, but they're not taking on debt to add players. They take on debt to partially fund stadiums or other capital/infrastructure improvements that ultimately improve the organization's valuation.