Fear The Chorizo

We also need to remember this is hiura's 1st pro spring training - majors or minors...if he even comes close to looking the part, it's a huge plus.

I am still waiting to see how they are going to clear up this positional traffic jam, though. It will most likely get cleared up by the end of Spring training, and even if it doesn't the Brewers aren't out on a plank and forced to do something yet. No point in making a marginal move/trade to balance out the roster now, make sure all these guys are healthy for your own benefit going into the season - if one gets hurt you have obvious depth and can prolong a roster move beyond April 1. If they all stay healthy, there will inevitably be teams looking for a corner OF/corner IF option that can also DH to either fill a MLB roster gap of their own caused by injury, or to upgrade a roster spot while keeping a better prospect option who isn't quite ready down in the minors to start the year. IF Braun proves to be serviceable at 1B, then Aguilar will be moved, ideally for something that looks like the Lind package a few years ago. I also think they could make no moves before opening day and sort out the roster at some point between then and the deadline with a trade for pitching. Santana's bat is valuable enough to the Brewers to not just trade him off for anything just because they have a pile of corner OF options that are much better defensively. It's a shame he can't play 1st, though...

The box score I'm looking at Do yourself a favor and stop looking at spring training box scores, especially in games before March... they are always wrong and most times are lucky to identify all the at bats properly with all the substitutions going on - forget having accurate stats within individual ABs as far as pitches seen.

I feel like every couple years we all think that there are suddenly going to be too many young power bullpen arm options for the Brewers - in the past I think much of it was wishful thinking for mid-20's arms who couldn't cut it as starters and were running out of minor league organization control. At least now the group that's getting our hopes up are a combination of young & talented enough or talented enough but injury-marred, with Hader leading the group. My hope is that Hader doesn't have overly high expectations put on him - he was electric last season for sure, but most of his appearances came against hitters who saw him the first time...I feel like he'll have some struggles at times this year, but he'll still be a huge plus in the pen. We can't as fans expect him to be Andrew Miller based on only 3 months of MLB level dominance - especially when he was really protected roughly the 1st half of that stretch.

At this stage in Spring Training, the games are still the least important aspect about getting ready - especially for veterans. There are still multiple practice/training sessions going on for everyone at camp, and I'd argue Braun's time learning 1B is much better spent at this point on a practice field taking a ton of reps compared to logging 3 innings of a game out there. If they are serious about him playing significant innings at 1B, we'll see him plenty there during the 2nd half of spring training.

I don't like intentionally holding a pitcher back in the minor leagues that's definitely ready to contribute at the MLB level solely for picking up an extra year of team control 6 years later, particularly in the case of a pitcher drafted out of college who already has proven to have solid command of his pitches. Pitching health is so fickle - if you've got an arm that's proven ready for the show, they should be in the show. I'm not saying Burnes is 100% ready right now, but if at the end of spring training he's obviously one of the best starting pitcher options on the roster, you'd have to think they'll get him up quickly. That said, we've gotta remember he's not even on the 40 man roster yet, so if they want him up early there will need to be some roster shuffling to make that happen - there are still plenty of guys on the 40 man who I wouldn't mind simply being outrighted so that by no means is a huge hindrance at this point. He shouldn't have a huge innings limit crunch, as he was just under 150IP last season - he could easily take on the #5 role and have starts skipped on occasion to keep him in that 160-175IP range.

Ilitch isn't around to buy Boras' snake oil anymore, either. Anytime an agent tries to use Verlander as a comp, hang up the phone...Verlander will be going to the HOF, and once his career ends he'll be viewed even more favorably for how great and unique a pitcher he was during this era. He's been in the majors for 12 full seasons, and has eclipsed 200 IP in 10 of them. At the time of his "slide", Verlander had logged roughly 2000 MLB regular season innings. Arrieta has logged 1/2 that total. Arrieta's dominance really only occurred from 2nd half 2014 through 1st half 2016 - but he was still really good in the 2016 postseason. The innings load caught up to him - I still view him as an elite pitcher, but his innings need to stay between that 180-200 mark if a team is going to have him in their rotation for the next 4-5 seasons. Arrieta did have a unicorn season in 2015 and was dominant for large parts of 2016...but he nor just about anyone is close to Verlander as a RH starting pitcher in terms of dominance and longevity. Right now the only pitcher going that is getting into the conversation is Mad Max.

With regard to Arrieta, it almost feels like the Brewers could be competing against themselves to sign him unless the Nationals want to get nuts. Boras has been hunting for a big market or crazy owner club to at least kick the tires on him and drive up his price, but Ilitch isn't alive anymore to give him his annual outlandish asking price for his top FA pitcher. No way is Arrieta the type of pitcher for any team to offer a short term deal worth more than his annual value, and if I'm him I'd refuse to sign it anyway. What if he blows up in year 1 of a 2yr deal and gets injured? Yeah, he gets say 60 million over a 2 year deal, but then likely nothing or a series of small 1 year deals thereafter - pushing to sign a 5 year deal for less dollars per year ($110-$130 Mil range) and greater overall value is the better option for this stage of his career, particularly if he can get a deal that includes a player opt-out clause early enough in the deal if the market will bear one last big payday for him if he reverts back anywhere near 2015-2016 Jake. Clubs looking to skirt luxury tax penalties and retain draft choices are hampering his market, along with his initial contract demands due more to "prestige" than a prolonged body of work...I keep thinking of the movie StepBrothers..."Prestige Worldwide!"

honestly the remaining free agents aren't going to want their option year to be next offseason, when better players at their positions will be the focus of the mountains of $ big market teams will be throwing around. For the remaining "big 3" starters still on the market, I can see where they may want an opt out after year 2 of a 4-5 year deal for a chance at one more big payday in their early 30's. If the Brewers can get Arrieta to accept a 5yr $110-115Million deal that's $25M per season the 1st two years with a player option after year 2, I think it'd make good sense for both sides. A player like Walker needs his last payday this offseason, so he's simply going to go for the highest overall contract value. If the Brewers try to sign him, I'd rather it be like a 3-yr deal for a bit less annual cost but more $ overall. Walker seems like his skills would transition well to a platoon/pH role as he ages. And leave catcher as is on this roster for now.

yes indeed. Sometimes it's worth it to run out for 5 seconds to discuss a pitch selection in a critical moment - I want to get rid of mound visits being abused when a pitcher can just shake his head and wait for the next sign from the catcher. A 5 second visit still gets the hitter out of the box, pitcher/catcher still need to run back to their positions, and the whole buildup to executing a pitch that could lead to a baseball play still gets reset. Another thing to consider for the argument about potentially crossing up a catcher due to trying hard to disguise signs when a runner's on second. With just a little planning and communication in the dugout, teams can totally mess with opponents presumed to have stolen signs - all they need to do is have a plan for a specific pitch (say fastball, outer half) for a batter with a 2 strike count the next time a runner's on 2nd, then run through a dummy sign sequence that would legitimately indicate the pitch would be a slider or offspeed offering that would undoubtedly leave the zone if it started in the same location a fastball would. If a hitter is completely caught off-guard and watches a hittable 3rd strike fastball coast by, you know the opponent probably has your signs. If they put a good swing on that pitch, you know you're probably being too paranoid.

Gosh I would love to see what Kirby can do if he stays healthy...his time in the minors could be brief

I think so...I'd be interested in looking at more than just archer's stat rates in these departments to see if he's an outlier or if many other good pitchers saw this happen. Look at the league wide trend to adjust swing launch angles and throw caution to the wind over striking out over recent years for your answer. There was a huge increase league wide in hrs over the past two seasons that happened to occur at the same time archer's hr rate also increased (along with a ton of good pitchers with a large body of work to compare year over year rates) archers k rate has also progressively increased, not due to better stuff per se, but due to a league wide change in approach. When he gets hit he gives up some hrs, but he still misses a ton of bats - his 2017 numbers were skewed lower due to a couple blow up starts, including one in early Sept where he missed a start or was pushed back afterwards due to fatigue, I believe. Frankly, my concern with archer isn't over last year's stats, it's the concern of late season arm fatigue that could be a precursor to significant injury. Bottom line, who has been the rays opening day starter since price left? Archer or cobb? That tells you how they viewed those arms in terms if who was better. Stating that cobb would've overtaken archer had he not gotten injured a bunch of times is the reason archer is more valuable.

Since one of my most lasting memories of the last two postseasons is the ridiculous frequency of mound visits by catchers, not the cubs winning a title or the last two great 7 game world series, it's a problem that needed to be addressed before it carried even further into regular season games. It will be a time saver, but even more importantly it will benefit pace of play - there are already plenty of stoppages built into the game. Get on the same page in the dugout pregame or between innings. Have 3-4 sets of pitching signs/indicators to use and rotate them by inning depending on how frequently runners are on 2nd to even try to steal them and relay info back to the dugou or hitter. You know what's worse than a catcher getting crossed up? A hitter looking for a curveball based on an incorrect stolen sign by a runner at 2nd, and instead getting an inside fastball that he's forcing himself not to react to because it will break over the plate instead of drilling him in the hands or head. That will be the last time they ever look towards a runner at 2nd for help. And they aren't taking it down to 0...there are 6 opportunities for coaches and players to still run out there. If a guy is tipping his pitches, to me that's worth 1 trip to tell him. If it takes 7 trips to keep telling him he's tipping pitches he's probably coming out of the game because he can't get anyone out.

I think you trade for archer and sign arrieta - then watch this board implode before realizing the brewers would have the division's best rotation even without Nelson in the mix.

Contreras of the cubs already stating he'd rather pay the fines than follow the new rule...he's probably the biggest culprit of them all when it comes to this. Will be interesting to see if he follows through and mlb tells umps that pitchers start getting automatically yanked every time he strays over 6 visits - which at his rate would be by inning number 3...

Hamels has been on my radar ever since it was obvious that archer's trade asking price was astronomical...if healthy, I'd want to target him at the trade deadline

I'm not sure on average mound visits per game, but something needs to be done to rein it in. It does seem more pronounced in postseason games, but playoffs are often precursors to what happens in regular season action - I remember game 1 of the 2016 NLCS saw the Dodgers make NINE mound visits in the bottom of the 8th inning alone, one during every Cub plate appearance that half inning.

I think the best approach for this roster as currently constructed is to sign one of the remaining difference making starters to improve the rotation, sort out the last few spots in the bullpen/AAA rotation depth with the Williams/Gallardo/Suter/Woodruff/Houser/Peralta options (regardless the pen will be many times better than it was opening day last year), allow spring training to figure out where Broxton gets flipped to based on other teams' injuries/needs, and go into opening day with hopefully a healthy group of position players that make a much more formidable offense than last year's Brewers. Come trade deadline, if they're off to a solid start, re-evaluate how to improve the roster once you've had more time to see where Nelson is at, what Villar you're getting at 2B, etc. Lots can happen between now and the trade deadline - if this year's Brewer team falls on its face, they actually have quite a few tradeable assets other teams may be willing to deal legit prospects for. If they are in the hunt, they have plenty of ammo/depth to use for acquiring impact MLB talent at the deadline - and there will likely be more teams looking to sell than looking to buy considering the current MLB landscape, with a handful of superteams/handful of obvious rebuilds/a bunch of teams caught in the middle who aren't going to publicly say they're not interested in contending in 2018 before the season even starts. Teams like Toronto, SF, Texas, Detroit, Seattle, Baltimore, KC, NY Mets, Pitt are all going to be sellers on top of other obvious candidates. I'm on board with either Cobb or Arrieta at this point, as both would be this team's best starter for at least the 1st half of the contract they'd sign. Lynn I'm not sold on. As long as whatever pitcher they get signs to a tradeable contract for a veteran starter, it doesn't really cripple the Brewers' payroll or flexibility should they need an abrupt change of course 2-3 seasons from now...after all, we're not talking about paying $10-15 Mil per to fill out the rotation with a #4-5 starter, we're in the $15-$20 Mil per range (give or take) to bring in someone who'd probably get penciled in for opening day if they sign relatively soon.

Pretty sure that's not the intent, but that would actually be kinda funny...channeling Bull Durham right now - "Curveball!" turns to batter, "And when you speak of me, speak well!"

I am in no way taking credit away from the players. There are always mental lapses throughout the season whether a player thinks there are 2 outs instead of one, 3 balls instead of 2, or forgetting there was a runner on first and not turning a double play. Those meetings are just to make sure everybody knows the situation and to make sure it is executed properly. Especially if it is late in the game. so when players hold up 1 or 2 fingers for how many outs there are after a play, the umpire gives the count after each pitch/50 scoreboards across the field have it available for 40,000 fans to see, and players get ~30 seconds between each pitch to survey who's on what base, they still need someone to call timeout and tell them all that stuff again? That seems like taking credit away from the players... commercial breaks happen between innings breaks or pitching changes - they're supposed to last exactly as long as the inning breaks take. Discussing shortening those breaks is something that could happen too - I for one have been a proponent of setting up something like staying with the game broadcast from the 7th inning stretch on, and having non-stop coverage be provided by 1 or a group of advertisers - similar to what they already do near the end of some playoff games. There seems to be most of the pitching changes happening then, and staying with the broadcast or having ads run on a split screen would probably allow mlb to shorten those breaks without impacting revenue or the quality of play.

They already have that, and frankly this rule wouldn't change it for the better or worse. 6 stoppages provide ample in-game opportunities over 9 innings without requiring a pitching change for a coach/player to call time and go over things on the mound, or still do the traditional "walk on eggshells" to give a reliever a few extra pitches. what's gotten out of hand IMO is the constant catcher/infielder visits to the mound that wind up leading to an ump walking out to break it up. There's already 18 designed stoppages of play between half innings for 98% of what gets discussed on the mound to get sorted out amongst players in the dugout or clubhouse without interrupting pace of play. I think there's already a rule loosely in place that only allows for 1 coaching visit per inning or perhaps even per pitcher before the 2nd coaching visit results in an automatic pitching change.

I believe it would require the pitcher to be removed from the game, based on how the rule is worded.

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season. there's already bench coaches sending out signs/signals for defensive alignments basically every batter, and managers/bench coaches routinely send signs out to the field to put on different bunt coverages/plays - to think that the only way a team can get on the same page is for a coach to huddle them all up on the mound to talk to them is not giving players near enough credit. Besides, wouldn't it be likely more effective for a team to put a play on without stopping the game to huddle in the middle of the field for the opponent and everyone else to watch them meet? If they really had to have a late inning meeting of the minds on the field, simple answer - don't have your catcher saunter out 6 times earlier in the game on his own, you'd still have one of those "time out" requests available to use.

The ones I hate, and almost always automatically occur, are when the 1st time a runner reaches 2nd base while any pitcher is in the game - it's almost an automatic run out to the mound by the catcher to confer about their pitch signs. In the case of a reliever coming into the game with a runner already there it's almost comical to watch him come in from the bullpen - confer with the coach/catcher when he takes the ball from them to warm up, complete his warmups, then the batter gets announced and he takes his stretch before the catcher calls time again and then runs out to discuss the signs because they forgot to do so during the pitching change. I mean, they can't sort this stuff out before the game, between 1/2 innings, or in the bullpen when they're just throwing seeds? I hope this does away with a lot of the 1/2 trips, when the ball bounces in the dirt and time gets called briefly for the catcher to pick up the ball and get a different one to the pitcher - so many times where the pitcher meets him 20' in front of the plate and the two walk back to the mound together before the catcher actually jogs back behind the dish.

The unfortunate part about MLB having to impose this rule is that baseball rules actually give umpires the authority on whether to grant time outs like this already - basically if an ump feels like too many of these are happening they're completely allowed to not grant time and force a catcher to stay behind the dish where he belongs. Collegiately, I played in games on several occasions where umps basically put an end to these mound visits after a few innings by warning both teams' benches and stating that the next time he grants time/mound visit will only be when the skipper requests it and a pitching change gets made. This sort of in-game time management should've already been happening without needing a rule.