Fear The Chorizo

In the minors, be it full-season A or AAA, they can control things better with Nelson. Maybe April in Appleton, May with the Missions, and with the Crew in June. He shakes all the rust off in the minors, and that covers enough of the season to buy an extra year of team control. Not to mention how quickly this plan of action would prompt a grievance filed by Nelson's team and the players' union. It's one thing to leave him in extended spring training to buy a few more weeks to get his pitch count and arm strength up, but all indications are that he's in a similar spot in his conditioning that other pitchers are. While teams have the right to use minor league options as a way of retaining roster depth, a healthy Nelson anything close to his 2017 vintage is this team's best starter and it's not even close. "shaking the rust off" is one thing, but that's far from intentionally holding him in the minors for 2/3rd of the season to try and squeeze an extra year of control out of him. If he's healthy I'd rather find out as early in the season as possible whether he's going to be effective...why waste 3 months of bullets in A or AAA? Plus, if he falls on his face early you might have an easier time justifying sending him down to the minors for an extended period after seeing the MLB results. I've heard this same approach discussed about Davies, and at times Anderson if I'm not mistaken...to me that's leaning way too much on the young pitchers assuming they'll be lights out and injury free - plus it's a surefire way to tick off a big part of your clubhouse. If they truly find themselves with too many pitchers to avoid roster shenanigans with their more veteran arms, I'd rather they make a trade or two to thin the mid-rotation starter herd than dole out minor league options to major league-caliber talent.

I read this as "active limit" means you can expand your roster to 40, but only 28 can be active for a particular game. I could be 100% wrong, but that was my first impression. That would keep the union happy (more jobs) and address the issue of 37 pitching changes per game. In theory. If that's the case, then you could make all but 1 starter inactive and still have a 13 man bullpen, given the 14 pitcher limit after Sept 1. I'm totally fine with that - that would result in having a pretty thin position player bench relatively speaking in September, particularly if a game were to go into extras. If that 'active limit' is something that can be adjusted from game to game, I think the Brewers can still take advantage of their roster depth from spots 26-40. Getting that limit down to a game by game total that sets both teams on equal footing makes sense. I always thought it was silly for one team in September to be playing a game with ~28 guys on their lineup card when the opposite dugout had 35.

I guess that depends on your definition of "back." I'll say he's back when his velo returns to where it was pre-injury, then he needs to stay there consistently. Once he does that, still needs to show he doesn't have any set-backs and can get MLB hitters out consistently. It's just going to be impossible to really say Nelson's "back", given the fact that he was an extremely ho-hum MLB starter until 2017 when he seemingly put it all together for ~4 months. While I understand the above line of thinking, I don't think it's realistic to compare anything Nelson does in 2019 to when he was at his best in 2017. If he's healthy and taking the ball every 5th day, that's about all the Brewers can hope for - he may be similar to what he was for that fleeting breakout he had in 2017, or he may revert back to being a ho-hum bottom of the rotation starter...regardless, his performance needs to be viewed with the perspective that he's pitching with a different shoulder than he had at any earlier point in his career - for better or worse, that's just the reality of it.

It's sorta a knock that he took a 25.4mil AAV deal over the 10/300 supposedly offered by the Nats. 330>300 right? From what I've read, about $100 Million of the Nats' offer was incredibly deferred - like still paying Harper a few million here and there when he was approaching 60 yrs old. the assumed $30M AAV for the Nats' offer is bogus - in reality it was more of a $20M AAV plus a nice pension sweetener down the road.

Unless the Phillies move their headquarters outside of Philadelphia proper, Bryce will get his paychecks from a company within Philly city limits and will therefore be required to foot that city's wage tax and pay Penn state taxes...although it wouldn't surprise me that part of Philly's draw to Harper was its proximity to DC, where he's undoubtedly developed a local social circle and is comfortable living in that part of the east coast during the baseball season. $330 Million guaranteed would make me comfortable living in Siberia for 6 months out of the year, who am I kidding!

I think the only person that needs to worry about repercussions should be the CEO of the company who manufactures that crappy chair - that thing crumbled and tipped over like it was made out of wet paper... looked like some sort of an argument over a phone that led to two very unathletic, middle aged people looking silly in public - kind of like a poorly designed trust fall exercise. wouldn't surprise me in the least if his wife wants it to go away more than him because of whatever was the specific reason the phone was being fought over.

For what it is worth, PA state income tax is a flat 3ish percent, regardless of income level, while CA has a base rate of 7.25 percent and a top marginal rate of over 12 percent....just comparing CA's base rate to PA at a $25M annual salary, it's a $1M plus annual savings for Harper to get his paychecks from a pennsylvania workplace. He is already used to living on the east coast half the year, moving from DC area to philly is actually a cost savings, too...not that he really needs it anymore!

I've heard the Nats' offer included a heap of deferred money until Harper would've been a senior citizen, like 1/3rd of the deal's purported $300M value. It was an offer the Nats knew they could make and have Harper/Boras decline it outright so they could say "hey, we tried!". That being said, couldn't he have signed this deal like 4 months ago?

Yes, but I'm sure some people are now worried that Nelson's 2017 shoulder injury has led to him losing the ability to pitch in cleats, and it's a sign of an extended DL stint or minor league assignment to Helena to remember how to walk...he should have just retired in September 2017 Stearns/CC probably didn't specify because I think they have a sense of humor and enjoy the ill-informed speculation...plus it's great having someone stumbling off a mound being the most significant injury story thus far in camp

It is going to be fun watching Ray have a monster year...I don't care that there are apparently at least 200 other better prospects - dude looks the part

Is it terrible to think we have a decent top 6? We have 6 Top 100 caliber prospects whether they have a Top 100 in front of their name or not. They're good I'd take the current top 10 prospects in the system at this stage in their development over recent top 10 brewer prospect lists that had their system "ranked" higher a few years ago.

I don't see why not. The list is predictive & there is a very good chance that VGJ is a top 100 player in baseball this year. I remember FanGraphs did a Franchise Player draft back in 2011 & Carson Cistulli got absolutely roasted for picking Mike Trout at #3 when he had yet to play a game above AA. Turns out he should have gone #1, I also remember similar sentiments for mark prior, justin upton, jay bruce, byron buxton, and dozens of other highly regarded prospects who failed to live up to the HOF level hype before they reached the majors. There is only 1 mike trout...kudos to cistulli for mining that nugget when he did, but using trout as any example for comparison as a prospect is pretty foolish. I think the list in general is ok, but any top 100 in a league of 30 teams that tries to include both hitters and pitchers is going to leave off a bunch of deserving names.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/foul-balls-are-the-pace-of-play-problem-nobodys-talking-about/?addata=espn:mlb:index I thought this was very interesting, and is often an overlooked aspect of the Pace of Play debate...the combination of pitching getting more difficult to hit and the shrinking size of MLB foul territories have led to significant increases of foul balls that don't result in outs. When coupled with the concerns of fan safety in recent years, one would think MLB should be open to expanding foul ground in ballparks, particularly down the lines. In most stadiums, foul ground is negligible down the lines, and there are easily 5-6 foul fly balls/pop ups hit on average each game that wind up landing in the first 3-4 rows of the stands instead of being caught as outs in the field of play. I'd think that each one of those instances adds 2 minutes to the time of a game, not to mention the added time any foul ball adds to an at bat regardless of its outcome. Anyone know of a good resource to search average 9 inning game times by stadium by year? I think it would be interesting to gauge that compared to foul ground territory, and see if there's a correlation between the two that is independent of other park factors/home team roster talent level.

Exactly - it's not like adding a DH to the NL suddenly gives 14-16 more MLB player jobs to the league - the NL's 25 man rosters would simply adjust and some of those fringy utility guys who are glove-first players will get kicked to the curb. Bringing a DH to the NL should be viewed as a means to improve pitcher health and further bolster offense, not as a way to increase veteran FA opportunities.

I'm much more of the opinion that it's the agents with premier clients that are doing the most damage in recent offseasons - Machado's deal is exactly in line with what many predictions had him signing for back in late October 2018. Why does it take almost 4 months for a contract to get agreed to? Harper will sign a similar deal with a slightly higher AAV soon, too. The best players still get paid, the difference now seems to be the agents can't just expect the Yankees, Red Sox, and crazy old owners on their death beds to get into bidding wars from day 1 of free agency. Some of that has to be luxury tax-related, whether the players' union and agents want to admit it or not. If I'm a huge market team, every once in a while I'd want to get payroll below certain thresholds to keep that luxury tax money fire manageable over the long haul. Holding the FA market hostage with the biggest names just gives these agents like Boras more opportunities to get in front of a microphone and cry poor, pushing the narrative towards a CBA conflict and blaming these greedy, penny-pinching owners for not paying everyone with a glove in their duffle bag $100M. The biggest names still get paid and as MM's deal shows still get long term commitments, but this tact of signing in late February absolutely kills the mid tier FA market for the vets who could otherwise find multi-year deals at market value if the more talented FAs signed earlier in free agency. IMO, one solution for this would be to have a more structured offseason schedule for free agency to get the big names signed earlier and allow for an extended mid-tier market to develop for teams that missed out on the perceived best FA options - for example, under the current system the marquee FAs tend to be the ones who were given a qualifying offer but rejected it. I would like to see a deadline when interested teams have to provide their offers to these particular FAs, with a subsequent deadline for them to agree to a deal - and have both of those deadlines occur before December 31. In the event a deadline passes where a marquee free agent doesn't sign a contract, he goes back to his previous club under a 1-yr deal that matches the previously rejected qualifying offer - that club could then keep him for the following season at that price or trade his rights to a different team. Regardless of the team this "restricted FA" would wind up with, they'd have until Opening Day to structure a contract extension - otherwise they play the season at the QO rate and become a totally unrestricted FA the following offseason.

My thoughts exactly...in pressure moments down the stretch and postseason, he was walking the lefties he was acquired to get out or giving up hard contact. Read he has been seeing a precipitous velo drop over the past few years on all his pitches, too. He was solid at times after the brewers traded for him, but pitched small in big moments...not at all upet about Cedeno becoming a Cub

Correct - it was the atrocious run of 1st round draft picks that gutted quality in the system post 2008 (Lawrie, Odorizzi, and Fredericksen were all picked in the top 40 in 2008) 2009 - Arnett and Heckathorn (year Trout went 1 pick before the Brewers' spot) 2010 - Covey - his health issues cost the Brewers a top 15 pick that season since he didn't sign (same year Harper, Machado, Sale, Grandal, Harvey, and Pomeranz were drafted ahead of the Brewers' spot, and guys like Yelich, Foltynewicz, Aaron Sanchez, and Syndergaard were available at #14) 2011 - Jungmann and Bradley - extra 1st rounder for not signing Covey amounted to squat 2012 - Coulter, Roache, and Haniger 2013 - no 1st rounder 2014 - Modeiros 2015 - Grisham & Kirby 7 drafts, 11 selections, 0 prospects who even sniffed a top 50 prospect ranking at any point in their development.

I know, right? I'd be shocked if he signs for less than 8 years. I still would predict 10 years though. I'd be shocked if it didn't include a buyout/player option after a couple years that would give Harper the option to go back into the FA market before he turns 30 - which would line up to right after a new CBA would go into effect. He'll sign a longterm deal but it won't be close to the AAV he and Boras have been advocating for since the day he was drafted - I expect it to be similar to how the Arrieta deal was set up, only having those options triggered after 3 or 4 seasons instead of 2. So technically, it may wind up being a shorter term deal if the team signing him is willing to pay close to $40M per year for the first few years knowing full well Harper will re-enter FA well before years 5-8 or 5-10 kick in.

Sure, but remember Brinson and Phillips graduated from the prospect list as well. Losing those two along with Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff is a big hit to take. That's kind of my point with regards to the questions I had, though - and the Brewers didn't lose Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff...they turned out to be really good and performed very well at the MLB level. Brinson was lost in order to get last year's NL MVP, and Brinson looks like he needs awhile before he's making all star teams any time soon. Prospects like Harrison and Diaz had some helium heading into 2018, but they treaded water at best in the Marlins' system. Phillips' performance when given opportunities over the past couple seasons leaves me missing his corny laugh more than his on-field performance. I get why the Brewers' system got dinged in ratings circles for trading away and/or graduating many of their advanced level prospects from what was a mid-upper tier system a couple seasons ago...but I maintain that as a whole the combination of their farm system and pre-arbitration MLB players has more talent right now than it did the past few years when their system was rated higher. Systems like the Cardinals are rated higher because they can keep putting Reyes at the top of their list, when in reality it's just potential that will have a very hard time being realized because he's their version of Mark Prior in terms of pitching health. Once you get beyond the top 3-5 systems (Padres, Braves, Rays, White Sox), I think spots 6-25 are quite subjective, particularly when certain organizations' systems are rated higher primarily due to one marquee player in it.

This is the same type of signing Miley was last year - a guy with a good mlb track record years ago who has struggled recently, prompting him to try to retool his pitch repertoire in hopes of remaining a big leaguer. Boom or bust type move with zero longterm risk...why not?

Honest questions - seems like in general the brewers' system is being regarded as "rebuilding" largely due to all the trades made using prospects over the past calendar year, starting with the yelich trade. Would milwaukee's system be ranked more in the middle or even upper tier if prospects/young mlbers like diaz, brinson, ortiz, yamamoto, harrison, lara, Phillips, etc were still around? And given what their largely disappointing 2018 seasons showed, should the system have been rated higher just because more minor league bodies werent shipped out for mlb talent? Would the brewers' system be ranked higher if pitchers like burnes, peralta, and in part woodruff just stayed down in the minors instead of proving to be solid mlb conributers to a team 1 game from reaching the world series?? I think one area that current scouting services and organizational talent evaluators have to this point failed to assess is the overall value of roster spots 26-40 on teams' 40 man rosters. Those spots rarely contain a team's blue chip prospects, because once those guys are ready for mlb they typically go straight to the 25 man gameday roster. However, spots 26-40 can provide a good number of mlb wins if they are utilized effectively by a gm who mines mlb talent from areas that aren't considered avenues to acquire prospects.

+1 I am a daily lurker logging in for the first time in maybe years to agree with this. Anyone actually bothered by this change needs to sit down and take a deep breath. This overall seems like something done to try and divert attention from other concerns currently harped on across MLB when there aren't daily games to distract fans and reporters. It's alot easier to debate the merits of making what amounts to pointless term changes with no regard to context than it is to tackle the current gripes of the players' union with free agency/player compensation. Can't wait for the first beat writer to inadvertently say a player is headed to the Disabled List and have them branded as hating wounded veterans. Times change. Remember when it was socially acceptable to say the "R" word? To put it in a sentence, those Cub fans are a bunch for R-words. You mean "Ricketts"?

I think it really helps the Pats to play in a dumpster fire of a division - Jets, Dolphins, and Bills? When you basically guarantee the Pats at least 7 wins a year and a division title before every season starts, it just really enhances their opportunities to be consistently great. I also feel like, overall, the AFC has been consistently mediocre or boneheaded outside of NE and the Steelers (prior to their skill position player drama). It seems like the NFC organizations overall are much better at rebuilding/retooling rosters to avoid extended periods of being awful. That starts with most of the teams in the NFC having pretty darn good to great QBs. I don't really understand the idea that the Patriot's dynasty is because their division sucks. It does, but that only gets you to the playoffs. You still have to beat really good teams to get to and win the Super Bowl. True, for the most part...although I'd argue they've had some pretty easy/fortunate paths to get out of the AFC. Take this year, they get San Diego at home in the cold a week after the chargers had to fly across the country to Baltimore and win, then they play at KC in a bad weather game, which took most of the athleticism advantage the chiefs had away from them. Last year they had to beat Blake bortles in Foxborough to get to the super bowl. Their division almost all but guarantees them a first round postseason bye and 1 home game to reach the AFC title game. That's a big deal in what is supposed to be a parity-riddled league.

"bullpen" is too offensive - I'm going to write Manfred and request them change it to free range reliever sanctuary

Strike outs will now be termed "rests in the dugout while opting not to promenade to first base." Disabled list can be misconstrued only by people with too much time on their hands to think about really pointless things.