Fear The Chorizo

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 really wonder if the biggest part of the FA angst in recent offseasons stems from the fact that Boras' and other premier agents' model of operations isn't sustainable, and he's essentially throwing a hissy fit about it trying to move the goal posts of the next CBA for MLB. Boras typically has the most talented FAs each offseason, and when big market teams think they have a shot at signing them they'll shy away from making middle/lower tier FA signings at those positions of perceived need until they're sure they aren't signing the marquee option(s). When the marquee options lead and insist on sticking to outlandish initial offers (10 yrs, $400M for example), it's not collusion for large market teams to not jump out of their shoes to immediately schedule meetings/negotiations. Because of that, months go by until Boras has had enough microphones in front of him to complain about it before his clients eventually get signed, all the while impacting the market for mid and lower tier FAs. There's always been a huge disparity in payroll between huge and small market teams in MLB - in fact that chasm has actually narrowed substantially in recent years relative to the league during the FA era. Some of it is the luxury tax - not that the hugest markets can't afford to routinely pay it, their baseball people just know there's plenty of ways to field a really good team while occasionally dropping payroll for a year or two so that penalty isn't just burning up too much of their revenues for nothing.

I wish the NBA game would foul guys out after 5, not 6. Call me crazy, but I also kind of want to eliminate the 3 point shot - Id be very interested seeing how offenses would adjust to disincentivize a roster full of guys that can shoot from the half court line but can't play any defense.

1 - No way...I'm guessing this is a proposed rule change to try and shorten game lengths - I'd argue this may actually make games longer. Relievers facing 1-2 batters happens maybe 2-3 times through the course of an entire game - imposing a 3 batter minimum would probably lead to more frequent intentional walks, or ABs where relievers pitch around a hitter with intent on walking him unless the hitter wants to get himself out by swinging at garbage. I'd assume this also only gets implemented if both leagues have a DH - otherwise there are pitchers spot in the order ?s, say for example a reliever is brought in to get out of an inning, but a double switch isn't possible and the pitchers' spot in the order is due up 2nd in their half of the inning - we'd get to see relievers hitting in late game situation so they can face the next 1-2 required batters the next time their team takes the field? How is the 9th inning handled? If there is 1 or 2 outs and a "closer" is struggling, a manager can't bring another reliever in to finish the game off because they wouldn't necessarily be able to face 3 hitters? 2 - I'm ok with getting the NL a DH - however I'd lean towards waiting to implement until the next CBA begins - that gives NL teams plenty of time to plan for that role on their rosters. Definitely not something to implement before this year starts, 2020 at earliest. 3 - I'd like to keep it as two separate trade deadlines, but move the non-waiver deadline to July 1 (closer to the true MLB season halfway point), then have the waiver deadline on July 31 or Aug 7. I think there'd be too many moving parts to have all trades happen by one deadline. 4 - I think there are so many instances where a pitch clock could be reset and not enough instances where imposing one would actually speed pace of play - I'm indifferent overall to it as long as we don't get managers/pitchers constantly motioning to umps to restart the clock like what NFL teams do with the play clock...seems like one more thing to quibble about that has nothing to do with actual baseball. 5 - If the NL adds a DH, then I'm ok with a 26-man MLB roster...however, no 12 pitcher maximum, and every game can only have 25 guys on the lineup card (meaning there would typically be the prior game's starter listed as the 26th guy able to remain on the MLB roster but ineligible to play that game...could be any player though depending on circumstances) 6 - Leave the draft alone 7 - Do a study, but then do nothing about lowering the mound 8 - Ok, I guess

Prefacing this with my opinion that there's no way either Harper or Machado take a 1 year deal - and even if they did I'd highly doubt they'd go to the Brewers... However, between the two I think adding Machado to this roster would be the best move in a "go for it" type approach. As much as I detest Machado's antics from last postseason, the Brewers were in on acquiring him via trade, so there's obvious interest. Also, signing him to a 1 year FA deal could make their lineup options awesome. He could play 3B against lefty pitching, and would be a SS or 2B in name only against righties, with Arcia serving as the primary defender in all the shifting alignments. That also provides tons of cover for Hiura to get acclimated in AAA through 2019, and be called up only if he's lighting the world on fire. Versus lefties: Aguilar 1B Perez 2B Arcia SS] Machado 3B Braun LF Cain CF Yelich RF Grandal/Pina C Against Righties: Thames 1B Machado/Spangenberg 2B Arcia SS/Machado Shaw 3B Gamel/Braun LF Cain CF Yelich RF Grandal C

The top 2 players dont have offers from 27 plus clubs. You dont see evidence If this is your line of evidence for collusion, then it's not even worth hearing your other points. You are probably posting this on the absolute last team's fan message board that would take it seriously. Why would the brewers make a longterm offer of $30+ M for Harper when they already have the highest opening day payroll they've ever had? Particularly when almost half of that payroll is already dedicated to their starting 3 OF, one of which just won the MVP of the league and plays the same position as Harper??? Not to mention 2 of the three current brewer outfielders have been better than Harper the last 2+ seasons. Seriously.

I absolutely agree. The Players Union should be deciding what Harper gets paid—not owners. I’m all for giving a bigger chunk to the players as a whole. I think they get about 55% now, although I could be wrong, and I’d like that increased to 60% of the gross revenue. But in no way can I support teams determining how much to pay the players, the players should have complete control over that. I also think the Union should determine the length of all contracts and eventually which players go to what teams. What? You must really want baseball to miss a few seasons if that's the position you want the players to take. I'm all for the players to fight for getting younger players paid more earlier in their careers - figure out a system where guys are making the most money during their primes, not after them. That helps both owners and players overall. One way is to reduce years of team control...another way may be to replace 1-2 arbitration years with players becoming restricted free agents prior to becoming unrestricted ones - similar to how the NFL operates with transitioning rookie deals to free agency. There might be rules with how teams could structure restricted fa offers (for instance, limiting the # of years to 5 or 6, including a player opt out clause after three years in case a player wants to test the market, perhaps the parent club could retain the player by either matching the offer or paying the player 10% more than the offer's AAV for the next year instead of playing the arbitration game, etc). This could get players a better chance at a life altering contract, while giving their parent club the opportunity to keep them

My guess is by the end of this thread, there won't be any more people who are either pro players or pro owners...but there probably will be alot more people who are anti agents

The problem with the constant hand-wringing over "x" veteran FAs remain unsigned by February, or whatever date people want to throw around is - what if a vast majority of them aren't the "great" caliber of talent that deserves to be paid a mint to keep being a baseball player well into their 30s? What if many teams actually do have better in-house options that are younger? Are they supposed to just sign veteran FAs to contracts because they're out there, and then force younger and potentially more talented players to stay in the minors and wait their turn to start their MLB careers? I firmly believe that years of team control need to be reduced, both at the MLB level (6 to 5, by reducing a year of arbitration), and at the minor league level (reducing #years a team can keep a guy in the minors if they were drafted/signed out of college, for example). But players can't have it both ways - they can't cry collusion when they are griping young talented prospects are held back to maximize team control through their prime while also griping that good to average veteran FAs aren't signing longterm contracts that would otherwise give fewer MLB jobs to the talented youngsters. Baseball has always been a young man's game - aside from the truly transcendent talents, you don't see productive players into their late 30's/40's. The PED era largely clouded that distinction at a time when MLB revenues soared pre-luxury tax, and organizations went bananas throwing $ around and exploding payrolls while still not focusing on farm system development (i.e., "homegrown talent" to build an entire MLB roster wasn't considered a realistic strategy to winning a title). In 1998, the highest payroll in the league was $71 Million dollars. By 2005, just 7 seasons later, the Yankees' payroll eclipsed the $200 Million dollar mark. That's a crazy increase, and it was largely driven by how many quality veteran players were deserving of big dollar deals well into their 30s and even 40s...gosh, I wonder how all of a sudden the whole league was full of "late bloomers". With at least a reasonably effective drug testing program in place for a generation across MLB (remember, they basically tested for nothing until after the Mitchell report), MLB GMs have largely appeared to adjust their FA spending habits to the game's best production coming from younger players again in recent years - the premier guys largely still get the contract value on a per year basis that reflects market values, as long as they're not greedily looking for an absurdly high # of years with only player friendly opt-out clauses. It's the FAs that are essentially replaceable by younger, cheaper players that are getting burned by the current system. That's not collusion, that's just the changing financial landscape of the game.

1. I don't like the Cubs' organization depth beyond their 25 man roster compared to the Brewers or Cards 2. I also think there is more concern with their pitching staff than the Brewers and Cards - they may have more names but they are also older, more injury-riddled, and much more expensive If you look at the division on paper and limit it to the expected 25 man opening day roster, then yes - the Cubs are probably still the favorite. But, if you expand the comparison to include teams' 40 man rosters and look at where individual players are in terms of their career arcs (particularly pitching), then aside from their payroll the Cubs are absolutely not the clear favorite for 2019. The Brewers won the division last year, meaning the Cubs tied the Brewers after 162 - they are a talented but flawed team that could win this division, but the Cubs aren't a team head and shoulders above the Brewers or Cardinals.

I'm okay with a Chacin, Woodruff, Peralta, Burnes, Anderson rotation... they're the five healthiest guys. Nelson and Davies missed a lot of time, and have the options to have them start in San Antonio to get back into the routine. I keep seeing this - what happens when Nelson and Davies are fully healthy then? Do the Brewers then burn options on the other guys and play musical starting pitchers for whole season? If everyone is healthy and performing they are going to have to come up with some creative DL excuses. If the younger guys (Burnes, Woodruff, Peralta) are all performing well, it's going to look really bad to option one of them back to AAA to make room for a more veteran starter - particularly Davies. That's why I think if he's healthy in Spring Training, Davies is going to get traded. I know there is some flexibility with shifting a couple younger guys between the pen, rotation, and AAA - but you can only fit so many established MLB arms on a 25 man roster.

Chacin, Miley...they got their NLCS game 6 and 7 starters last offseason. Stearns also had an offer out to Darvish, although who knows how realistic it was. Stearns got starting pitching that performed well for them, he just didn't get the name guys that suffocate the offseason chatter rooms. I get your point overall, though. I think the inhouse options look very good - but they have to add a lefty starter, imo. Given the questioning Stearns got for adding 2 OFs last winter to a roster supposedly loaded with them, I fully expect at least one more starter to be brought in since there seems to be plenty of depth in that area this offseason.

Miley gave the brewers 80 major league innings during the 2018 regular season. He was great in the playoffs but also was given the quick hook to avoid the 3rd time through a batting order. Bummer he didn't come back but at that price, I think the reason he's not is because the brewers are shooting for someone much better that can potentially give them twice as many innings in 2019, if not more. You can't sign everyone

As Ennder pointed out, it's not like we've been saying they are going to crater back to where they were when theo and company took over (now that they are acting like a huge market team, a complete teardown is unlikely). It's simply that most of the moves they have made since winning the WS haven't improved their chances to win short term while drastically thinning out their organizational depth they developed over 4-5 painful years of building. Their trade for quintana cost them Jimenez and Cease, and it didn't move the needle on the mlb team nearly enough. They looked like a juggernaut for the next 5-7 years after their WS win, but most of their pitching moves since then have been bad and several of their young position players have been underwhelming compared to what they were projected to become.

Fixed that for you. Unless David Stearns is a BF.net member..... I think he was last offseason, then got banned for trolling - I seem to remember a bio article talking about that crazy sleeve tatoo he got right out of high school, scripted "High Heat"...think he got it on his 19th birthday.

Peralta (starter) Guerra (starter/pen) Houser (pen/starter) Nelson (starter) Suter (starter, but rehabbing TJ surgery) Supak (starter) Diplan (pen/starter) Davies (starter) Anderson (starter) Woodruff (starter/pen) Burnes (starter/pen) Wilkerson (starter/pen) Chacin (starter) That's 13 pitchers on the 40 man right now that are capable of starting games for the Brewers in 2019 - I get having more depth than what anyone thinks is necessary in the pitching department, but any future moves for adding a SP to this roster are going to result in removing one of the above names from the organization. And it won't be as simple as just sending Wilkerson/Houser/Diplan out to pasture or tossing Suter onto the 60 day DL - if they are adding a significant MLB pitcher, then one of their current veteran arms slated to contribute prominently at the MLB level will need to go. IMO that means Davies or Anderson, maybe Guerra. Totally fine with that if the guy coming in is a significant upgrade in talent and the value is right. IMO Stearns' biggest strength as a GM is building good pitching depth across the 40 man roster without blowing up the budget - getting good pitching without having to pay close to the market price for it has allowed the Brewers to spend elsewhere to improve their talent level. Regardless of how Nelson performs in 2019, I think the one thing the staff as a whole could use is a rotation anchor they can routinely count on giving them 6+ IP - it makes it so much easier to lean on heavier bullpen use with other starters. Whether that starter is acquired via FA or trade, I think it's just a matter of when, not if, a deal happens before opening day.

All I was trying to point out is that any further moves to add to the roster will come with the need to make other moves to make room. I don't think we need two more starters, one quality guy could really help, especially if he is lefthanded. Also keep in mind that Hiura isn't currently on the 40 man...so one of those expendable type spots is probably already earmarked for when he may get called up. It's great to have lots of pitchers with options remaining, but relying on using them to keep guys around when they are proven mlb pitchers (Davies, nelson, anderson, and the younger guys) walks a very fine line between maintaining depth and ticking guys off. Even with the current roster, I think they should look to trade an arm or two for prospects before opening day.

If you get both, then two have to go currently on the 40 man roster...who are the two we essentially trade for less than top value or outright release for nothing?

The thing is, there are quite a few teams that played the Orioles over Machado's stint there that can point to their own 'REALLY' bad stretches they witnessed 1st hand, too. The silence from around the rest of the league following Yelich's Game 4 postgame comment of Machado being a dirty player was awfully deafening.

You think any other fan base would have a conniption like ours did if their team changed the name of the stadium? Yes, but not any that follow a team whose current stadium was originally built any time after 1930. I don't see the point of being too worked up about it, most fans will still call it Miller Park no matter who pays to slap their name on it.

Brewers 93 Cardinals 88 Cubs 85 Reds 82 Pirates 74 The Cubs could still go out and win 100+ games if all their talent stays healthy and performs up to career norms/expectations, but recent history suggests they are just as likely to take a big step back in a more competitive division with an expensive but very questionable pitching staff - not to mention what appears to be some organizational friction building due to a combo of the Addison Russell situation, player/coaches relationships, and less than expected results following significant trades and FA signings that have thinned out their minor league system and apparently handcuffed their MLB payroll flexibility. If Bryant doesn't return to MVP-level form, they are in trouble. The Cards and Reds probably made the biggest improvements from bringing in talent via trade/FA, but I feel like the Brewers actually have the most complete 40 man roster in the division, which IMO is more important than having the most talented 25 man MLB gameday roster with how the game is evolving.

He's tumbled down the rankings since he was basically first drafted. A starting pitching prospect who has yet to log 100 IP in a season after 5 years of development stops becoming a starting pitching prospect. He's got talent, but the combo of nagging injuries and seemingly poor conditioning/body type are red flags that can't be ignored. I know many posters really wished he was still in the Brewers' organization, but he simply got passed by too many other pitchers currently on the 40 man roster. Baltimore should actually give him a decent shot at realizing his potential to be a MLB pitcher, hoping for Ortiz that he can put it together - it just wasn't going to happen fast enough as a member of the Brewers.

Are there any of the other teams who won their division in 2018 projected to not win their division in 2019? Let alone go from 1st to last in their division?? Once you factor in the recent adjustment for fangraphs projections of being biased negative by at least 15 wins, the brewers probably fall right where they should in terms of a 90ish win team projection in a very competitive yet hardly wart-free division

The combo of what they have to play 2b is far better than what they had on opening day 2018...and that's without Hiura taking a 40 man roster spot, something that will happen sometime in 2019 if he is deserving of a callup. They have upgraded at 2b this offseason, many just don't realize it yet.

Seems low. I cant say I know anything about the 19 guys ahead of him, though. It is, but that's fine...there aren't 10 guys on that list I'd rather have than Hiura, which is pretty good following his 1st full season in the minors. It would be nice if we'd have a few more to join him, but honestly there are several teams that shouldn't have any prospects listed in the top 100 but mlb.com probably felt like they had to be inclusive of the whole league for clickbait.