Fear The Chorizo

Can't believe he was able to get the better part of 3-4 seasons pitching with a partial tear...hoping for a good surgery and effective recovery. Now, get some clarification on Jeffress' and Nelson's progress before going bonkers bringing more arms in.

I could see the response to the brewers offer if it was a straight 2 year/$20M or $10M AAV. That's insulting after giving a top 5 catcher $20M for 1 year, while Kimbrel is probably top 4 in baseball for closers. Now if the Brewers were doing a similar deal to Grandal, then I think Kimbrel should have taken it as that's likely what he will eventually sign for. That tells me (if true) that the Brewers really weren't serious about signing Kimbrel. Kimbrel isn't going to sign for that little over multiple years. He can wait for the contender who loses multiple bullpen arms to come calling - it happens almost every year. Grandal playing 120+ games at catcher and providing offense to his career norms is at least twice as valuable to a ballclub in terms of actual wins on the field compared to what the very best closer in baseball can provide over 1 season (appearing in roughly 1/2 as many games and racking up ~45 saves over 65 IP). If a Brewers' 2 yr, $20M offer truly is insulting, then what about the other 29 teams who have apparently offered his camp either nothing or a less palatable deal? What's kind of insulting is starting at $100M and expecting your phone to start ringing off the hook from GMs chomping at the bit to pay that much - only to hear crickets for 3 months and then counter with that same amount to seemingly the first offer you get of any substance. Oh, and the Brewers appear to be said contender who have lost multiple bullpen arms (to both injury and this year's starting rotation) that came calling...

Agreed - only thing I'd add is I would've been telling my agent about 2 weeks into spring training that they had a week to get a deal done, not wait all the way until now. I see no way how 30-31 year old FA pitchers benefit from trying to wait out a market to this degree that obviously doesn't price them in the same stratosphere as what their current representation is demanding. Trains have left the station and these guys are stuck arguing at the ticket counter over seat assignments. When I read that article early winter about Kimbrel's agent throwing out him being the 1st $100M reliever I about fell off my chair - if that was their actual counter to a Brewers' 2 yr $20M offer in mid March, that is hysterically poor representation.

What if you could get a 30 years old Kimbrel for 1 year THIS year at 18 mil? Nope, wouldn't do that deal. Especially considering you're not getting kimbrel for that full season that's already started. If it takes more than 12M for a 1 yr deal, best of luck to kimbrel this season elsewhere.

There has never been close to the same level of quality pitching depth in the brewers' organization as there is right now - not even close. DS has turned this club into a pitching revelation - throwing $15m per year for a few years of a great but aging closer who has been ridden pretty hard is the antithesis of how we got to this point, regardless of the current ailments to jeffress and knebel. I was on the fence about signing him, but unless it's for way under what I think he will wind up getting, I say hard pass!

LOL...161 more of these, please!

I mean....my goodness

I've always thought the opening day radar guns get a bit juiced, but he's just throwing high 90's gas right down the middle and they have zero chance...

And, ignore.... I hope they sign kimbrel, but won't be terribly upset if they lose out and his contract is for multiple years at a price tag that would have made 99 percent of people here cringe for a fa reliever just a couple months ago.

I'd be shocked if Kimbrel hasn't picked up a baseball while he's been trying to get signed this spring. For a reliever, it wouldn't take many MLB spring training appearances to be ready to go on a MLB roster. If Jeffress opens the season on the DL, that spot could easily be filled by Kimbrel - even if it's another week before he'd sign a deal with the Brewers. that all being said, I'd still be pretty surprised to see Kimbrel join the Brewers - I'd be pumped, but surprised. Signing him would not be a reactionary move to minor bullpen injuries - it would be a legit effort to solidify the 9th inning with a guy who can pitch multiple days in a row, thus freeing up Hader/Knebel/Jeffress and others to pitch in high-leverage points earlier in the game.

I have the feeling the Cubs will really regret trading this guy away. Time will tell. I've had that feeling since the day the Quintana trade went down...and even Cease has outperformed what I thought he could become as a pitching prospect. Barring injury, Jimenez is going to be a perennial all star. Trading Gleyber Torres to get Aroldis to solidify their pen en route to a monumental World Series win for the Cubs will amount to a painful but worthwhile sacrifice...trading Jimenez and Cease to acquire what amounts to a mid-rotation starter on a team-friendly contract will go down as a complete blunder of a trade for Theo and company.

I sort of get the point - but it almost reeks of the Sox appearing to throw money at somebody because they lost out on both Harper and Machado. I know their payroll heading into 2019 was peanuts, and it's not like this deal actually boosts it at all, but at least it makes some headlines for them? Honestly, let the kid have a few MLB at bats before opening up the guaranteed checkbook - and I'm a big advocate of both clubs and players taking contract extensions early to surpass arbitration and a couple FA years if it gives them financial securitty.

When cream of the crop talents are signing longterm contract extensions paying them market value during what should be their prime production years instead of taking the arbitration process year to year to reach free agency, the system is actually working as it should be. What we are seeing this offseason is the death of the notion that the best way to maximize a great player's earning capacity through his career is getting to free agency as soon as possible and at all costs. Boras and his approach is part of what's wrong with the financial structure of MLB, and I think we'll continue to see that approach go the way of the dinosaur for the game's best players. Teams have proven they are more than willing to pay market value for their own when those players are willing to sign deals that pay them through their actual prime years of production and extend their time with a team beyond the initial 6 year window. In a way, free agency in MLB should be similar to what it realistically is in the NFL - the very best players rarely ever reach true free agency until they're long in the tooth, but it's a good avenue for good veteran players to continue their careers beyond their primes, and for the occasional stud to cash in big if their original club doesn't have the financial means or desire to make it happen with an initial contract extension. Guys like Kris Bryant have to be wondering what they heck is going on right now...and Boras is probably like:

but collusion!!!! Loud Noises!!!! Great for Trout and great for the Angels - Trout has operated under the anti-Boras approach for star players by signing contract extensions with their parent club years before reaching free agency. Taking that approach, Trout has earned roughly $80M as a big league player to date, and now guarantees himself a total career earnings over half a billion (with a B!) dollars. Conversely, Harper has earned roughly $50M as a big league player to date despite what is essentially the same amount of big league service time, with a guaranteed career earnings of $380M despite being on the open market for anyone to sign this offseason at what is believed to be the start of his prime. Granted, there's only 1 Mike Trout - but from a financial perspective I think these two are very similar given that Harper could've gotten a very similar extension to Trout's initial one back in 2015 following Harper's MVP season.

Another side of this that needs to be thought through is how pinch hitters are now managed. Knowing a reliever starting an inning has to face at least three hitters really gives an opposing manager the edge in playing platoon advantages with pinch hitters - particularly in high leverage spots late in games.

Why does this point keep getting repeated. It's not true. The extra time is almost entirely from time between pitches and extra pitching changes. Commercial breaks haven't gotten longer. Why did you neglect to include the 2nd part of this sentence that includes pace of individual at bats as one of the primary reasons for increased game lengths in your quote? And if I was a betting man I'd put my house on betting the total time spent in commercials during 9 inning baseball games played in 1970 was indeed lower than in 2018.

expand the strike zone and look for ways to expand the amount of foul territory on MLB stadium playing surfaces - If you replace 2-3 pop/flyball fouls that land 2-3 rows deep in the stands with outs per game, you probably can shave off 5 minutes of gametime right away. we're talking about the MLB average game time increasing roughly 30 minutes over the past 50 years, almost entirely due to commercial breaks for TV ($revenue$ to fund the sport), and game-wide changes to how its most central and repeated event - pitcher vs hitter at bats - is approached both offensively and defensively. Hitters strive to see more pitches and worry less about striking out than ever before - pitchers prioritize Ks more than ever before, too. That simple change in approach leads to high pitch count ABs that in turn lead to longer gametimes. What is the time MLB needs to reach for it to not die as a sport? I'm totally fine with it taking 3 hours on average to get through 9 innings - there are still games played that are much shorter and ones that take much longer. It's the beauty of a game that doesn't have a clock. I really struggle when this is brought up as a reason youngsters don't watch baseball, when you consider the average NFL game time is 3 hrs 15 minutes to play an hour of gametime, and it only consists of roughly 15 minutes of actual game play. The NBA game takes roughly 2hrs 15 minutes to play 48 game minutes with a mostly running clock and much quicker quarter/halftime breaks than the NFL.

That's pretty much how LOOGYs and specialists are already used - so no need for the rule. Even when a reliever opens an inning, it normally takes them facing 2-3 batters before they're in a jam and the manager makes the call to the pen to try and get out of an inning with a specialist - so again, no need for the rule. This 3 batter minimum with exceptions of mid-inning pitching change rule pretty much reeks of making a rulechange to say you're doing something, but in reality you're doing just a little more than nothing. And some of the potential repercussions, like a LOOGY being brought in mid-inning to get out of a jam only to walk a LH hitter or give up a hit followed by him having to face a stud RH hitter, are going to lead to longer gametimes.

We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose. So the 3 batter minimum would only apply to starters and any relievers beginning an inning? That is pretty much already standard practice, even for "openers". I guess that rule would eliminate what the Brewers did to start Game 5 of the NLCS by running a "starter" out for one batter, but it's very rare for the one out specialists to start an inning and get pulled mid-inning already. If it's ok to yank a pitcher mid inning before he reaches his 3 batter minimum, what happens if a LOOGY/specialist is brought in to close out an inning for 1 batter and the next two opponent hitters are another lefty and a RH slugger nobody would want him to face? Does the manager have the option to remove him from the game mid-inning after facing only 1 batter, but if he runs him back out to start the next half inning he'll then be forced to face two more batters to reach his minimum - then still have to make a mid-inning pitching change? It just seems like a cluster of unintended consequences. I also fully expect feigned injuries by pitchers to circumvent the rule in certain situations - prompting mid-inning changes where by rule the replacement pitcher is allowed plenty of time to come in and warm up. If they implement the rule, it's gotta be a 3 batter minimum per pitcher regardless of the time he's brought into the game - otherwise there will be so many wacky exceptions and situational allowances that there won't be a point to the rule in the first place.

I'm ok with everything but that 3 batter minimum nonsense....there are just so many reasons not to mess with it, and I think if part of their intent implementing it is to reduce game times, they will quickly realize it will actually lengthen them. I'd be interested in getting the managers' takes on this rule - there can't be too many that are happy about it. Not to mention LOOGYS. And unless the DH is implemented in the NL to go along with this move, it's a really stupid idea that will put bats in the hands of middle/late game relievers in crunch time. If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?

It's largely Mid-March clickbait leading up to opening day...Yankees with nearly half their roster (9), Bos/Hou 7, LAD/CLE/Nats/Mets! 6, Cubs/Phils/Rox 5...that's 62 out of the 100 best MLB players from just a third of the league. Regardless of organizations, there are quite a few veteran players scattered across this list where their name might still be top 100 but their performance (recent and projected) are no longer close to being held in that regard. These lists would be much easier to generate if they split pitchers and position players up and ran two top 50s. Sure it's possible Vlad Jr is a top 20 player after this year - it's also possible that he turns in a nice ROY season but is nowhere near a top 100 player...and it's possible he flops or deals with a myriad of injuries that 250 lb baseball players incur. My biggest beef with it is that they picked just him from the entire prospect list, when players like Tatis, Jimenez, and others could just as easily wind up being top 50 MLB talents once they are in The Show - and they are on the same verge of opening 2019 as MLB players.

when half of a NFL free agency thread is about whether or not to cut an over-the hill TE currently on your roster and confusion about what the cap ramifications would be, the team you root for had a very slow 1st official day of improving their roster via FA. Somebody remind Gutenkurst that he's not a MLB GM and it's pointless to try and collude!

That's a point I've been trying to keep in mind when all the discussion about where a team's payroll could be considering of how much money all of MLB's owners are supposedly printing with exploding league revenues. I always like to look at the Packers - essentially the only team required to show their financial books due to being "publicly owned" for comparison's sake. The Packers have the luxury of playing in a league with a well-established salary cap structure and extensive revenue sharing, huge revenues from TV/advertising contracts, a national following to maximize ticket sales and merchandise revenue, and are located in our backyard small market. They just had a record annual revenues in 2017, but also had a record level of expenses, generating a ~$35 Million dollar profit. The Packers' player payroll hit was much lower than 50% of their total operation expenses, too. For an NFL team like the packers who operate with an established payroll structure to only have the ability of adding ~$35 Million in player salary if the salary cap were to evaporate before they weren't profitable speaks volumes - particularly when comparing them to the Brewers, who are at significant market disadvantages financially with most of their competition, don't operate in a league with established player payroll caps/limits, and still have 40 man roster + ~6 minor league affiliates and associated players/personnel to manage. IMO, it is foolish to think MLB owners/management are colluding with one another when they essentially all play by their own financial sets of rules with player payroll and operating expenses. The advent of statistical data analysis coupled with the attempt to remove PEDs from the game that allowed good players to artificially extend their primes well into their 30s have reset a player's typical prime production years back to their mid 20's/early 30's. That just so happens to set right at the last couple years of salary arbitration plus the first couple years of FA for most players, and GMs have definitely shied away from offering prime level production to players in long term contracts that extend well beyond age 32-33 seasons. That's not collusion, that's just the market making common sense. To fully balance things out, however, I do believe the current salary arbitration system that was essentially fortified during the steroid era's heyday needs to be slightly adjusted. I think removing 1 year of pre-arbitration from the 6 years of team control and replacing it with a restricted FA year would go a long way to shifting the % of dollars paid to players in their prime years instead of paying for past performance - I also think this strategy may help reduce teams from stockpiling MLB-ready prospects in the minors to try and shoot for contending in short windows before rebuilding. If there's a restricted free agent year, teams with a pile of good players under the same length of team control would risk losing a couple right when their window to contend would otherwise be opened the widest due to salary constraints if other organizations make offers they can't match. I think this would lead to more teams getting top prospects to the majors when they are ready instead of searching for excuses to keep them in the minors to try and get that age 28 or 29 MLB season under salary arbitration control.

I saw Hiura last spring and I'm looking forward to seeing him again when I'm down there in another week. It doesn't take detailed analytics or a lifetime of scouting or watching hundreds of his ABs (although I've seen literally hundreds of guys come and go with the Brewers over the years) to realize that he's a special talent. Some very few are a cut above and you know it when you see it. It's his hands that are special...they get to the hitting zone like lightening, which allows Hiura to let the pitch get to him a bit more before he's got to commit to swinging...with how under control his lower half is, he can hit with authority to all fields despite his relatively average physical stature with those hands. the sound of the ball off his bat is just different!

If the owners and players union are honest with themselves, it shouldn't be too difficult to sleuth out where this whole collusion narrative was first ginned up. Unless you are a superstar, being a boras client is becoming less and less of a good thing for players. There have been quite a few recent examples of good veteran players getting screwed who listened to him too much. There are definitely great agents and agencies, but it's becoming very obvious that there are too many terrible and/or overly self-serving ones, too.