danzig6767

I don't have any big issue with closer and 7th/8th inning fairly set roles. The only issue i have is some teams overpaying for the 9th inning guy when getting three outs in the 8th inning of a 1-2 run lead are just as important. Take say Wade Davis in KC. He's been as or more important to success of the Royals dominant pen as Holland has been, but Holland has gotten the more glamorous and financially important save stats because he pitches the 9th inning of close games instead of the 8th. If i was GM of a legit contender team with very large revenue streams, i wouldn't mind much paying say 7-10 million on a non-long term deal for a really good veteran closer if we didn't have an internal younger and cheaper option. If i'm GM though of a lower revenue team, i'd have to have a really good team with no younger and cheaper option before i'd pay a closer over say 5 million per. If i'm GM of a rebuilding team, no chance at all would i pay anyone veteran closer money.

Even very sabermetric inclined GM's like Epstein and Beane tried bullpen by committee approaches in the past as you bring up and many others for awhile have, with no set defined closer/roles overall in the pen and when things blew up in their faces, both gave up on it and either signed closers and/or found closers inside their organization, and still do so today. Maybe someday another GM will try that bullpen by committee approach again vs mostly set roles for late in close games, but if even very sabermetric inclined GM's pass on that plan for their bullpen, it could be awhile before we see it tried again.

My view on closers has long been that they are overpaid when it's a veteran long time closer, but for teams who are a legit contender and/or clearly in the playoff race, if you don't have an effective closer, it can be crushing to those type of teams. On bad or below average teams, closers being effective or not is largely irrelevant except maybe team morale if your closer blows a lot of games. Baseball has been changing for awhile now as pretty much all teams limit the innings of their starters, even elite ones and in turn put quite a bit more importance on the back end of their bullpens. Because of that, teams who don't have effective 7th/8th/9th inning guys in their bullpen, it can badly hurt the hopes of their teams and on the flip side, more and more teams are having success without a great rotation, but instead just a solid one that is offset by a great bullpen. Those type of pitching staffs have also had success in the playoffs by having dominant bullpens. Given the extremely high cost of upper tier starters once they near free agency and beyond, along with how hard they can be to develop in general, i think quite a few teams are seeing the cost/benefit of trying to put together a top notch bullpen. When i watch games today, it's amazing how many good and even weaker teams have at least 3-4 guys in their pens with an ERA number slightly above 3 or under 3, good to great WHIP numbers, good to great K/9, and good to great K/BB numbers. So that old agenda of try to work counts so as to get into the bullpens/get the starter out of the game earlier is often a negative today unless a great starter is on the mound. Instead, getting the starter out by say only six innings will often mean having to face multiple one inning specialists out of the bullpen with better to far better stats than the starter leaving the game.

The NFL has only banned those type of over the top pre-planned celebrations in the end zone where guys like Owens were pulling markers out of their socks. There was merit in doing so because some receivers were just taking those things to far, but there are no silly codes where other players and teams get all bent out of shape over how a player celebrates a big play. NBA attendance overall has never been higher and TV ratings have been good, especially for the playoffs. Higher than MLB playoffs ratings. As for supposedly everyone hating older white guys, i think that's you making a leap which isn't there. I like or love most older white guys i know, even if to me some are a little to grumpy over certain things.

Except comparing pro sports to an office job is like comparing apples to coconuts. Pro sports is entertainment. I don't have walk up music when I go to my desk. There are not video boards around my office to keep onlookers distracted between calls. We don't have mascots race around the office 2/3rds of the way through the day. We also don't do this at the end of a good day. If my memory is correct, the Giants held a grudge for a long time over that fun celebration, throwing at Fielder and making negative comments about it "not being a professional way" to celebrate a walk off win, as if it was done to disrespect the Giants vs simply having some fun. That is such a prime example of the nonsense of these silly codes way to many in baseball have. Supposedly having fun after a walk off homer is bad, but intentionally throwing a baseball at batters multiple times is just an acceptable part of the game.

How fun would it be to be a Toronto fan right now. That team just flat out mashes offensively and now their pitching is pretty good. If they only score 5-6 runs in a game, it's almost an off day for that offense.

Gomez grew up and learned how to play baseball in a country and culture where showing emotion while playing was common place. This is generally frowned upon in America, however. Nothing about this is controversial or racism. It is fact. That some players, coaches, media, fans, etc. get their panties in a bunch when a player show emotions such as excitement or frustration in ways that are non-confrontational or not derogatory to opponents or umpires is stupid. Yea, a lot of people are taking the race/nationality aspect of this the wrong way. White sports fans who get bothered by athletes who often are black/Latin that are flamboyant on the field/court of professional sports or whatever term that wants to be used doesn't have to then mean they are racist for feeling bothered, just that it seems more often the case that white fans are bothered by flamboyant athletes for whatever the reason. I do think this will change in time given it's generally older/aging sports fans who are more bothered by flamboyant athletes than younger sports fans are. Baseball though i do wonder about more than other sports. It's 2015 and yet it's still accepted as common practice for a pitcher to drill a batter for say looking at his homer for 3 seconds instead of 2. Or drill the next batter who didn't do anything. Get bent out of shape if a batter in their eyes runs to slow or fast around the bases after a home run. The Cardinals nonsense over the Brewers untucking the jerseys when Mike Cameron was a Brewer. The Giants ridiculous holding a grudge for years over that fun Brewers bowling pins celebrations after a Fielder walk off homer. There should be a very big difference between stuff like when Nyger Morgan at times would get over the top silly in trying way to hard to consistently draw attention to himself and some emotional players showing it immediately after a good or bad play by them, but to often some baseball players and managers can't seem to distinguish between the two, so we still have dumb incidents like that one between the Astros and Yankees where the Yankee bench got mad over what should have been nothing.

I wonder if it's because the season is so long with so few off days that everyone is just cranky and wound too tight. I don't buy that. An NBA season is an 82 game grind and for the most part, players and fans of that sport don't get all bent out of shape over a wide range of perceived slights. For some reason this is unique to baseball and won't go away. Why does anyone care if say a batter admires a long bomb he hits for a few seconds? Or flips his bat? Steals a base up 5-6-7 runs? A pitcher gets really excited over a big K? Even worse when a manager orders a pitcher to hit a batter over one of these stupid slights or a pitcher decides to do this on their own. Baseball is the only major sport which allows something that potentially dangerous over such minor issues. If a player excessively acts like an idiot, it should be up to his manager and teammates to make that player change, not the other team throwing a baseball at him 90 plus miles per hour.

The reality is though that regardless if it's baseball, basketball, or football, it's mostly older white sports fans who complain about what they perceive as overly exuberant behavior by athletes, who often are black or hispanic. That's not socalled playing a race card, just the way it is even if that doesn't make someone a racist to feel that way. So while race certainly is some factor, age might be the biggest. At family gatherings on both sides over the years where sports often are on TV, it's almost been my older family members/friends of family who complain about what they perceive as "showboating" and sometimes with racial commentary, while i hear that far less from guys say under 30 to 40. For me, i have zero issue with most of this kind of stuff by athletes. The only times it gets silly for me is when in football some guys celebrate like crazy after doing little more than making a nothing special tackle or picking off a pass thrown right to them, even if their teams are losing by a lot. In baseball though, the sport has long gone about suppressing personality out of the game so well that it's extremely rare where a player does something that bothers me besides pitchers throwing basically a rock at batters over silly perceived slights. If i ran baseball, i'd strongly jack up penalties for any situation where i felt pitchers intentionally hit batters. Walking up to a player and sucker punching him over a perceived slight would draw a huge penalty, yet often little happens when a pitcher intentionally throws a rock hard ball 90mph or faster at another player.

Yea, usually when a guy only throws a 88-90mph fastball, they tend to be more of a Lohse command type of pitcher who gets outs more via weakly hit balls than Fiers who keeps up his high K totals. So many people kept believing it had to be from his funky delivery and thus once hitters see him a few times, those high strikeout totals would crater, but it's hard to find evidence that is the case. Hitters who have faced Fiers multiple times still swing and miss often, for whastever the reason, especially on that high riding fastball that they just can't lay off of. I'm still plenty fine with the trade though. While i do believe Fiers will continue being a very solid starting pitcher, the Brewers play in the best division in baseball and so now is the perfect time to rebuild. Trading Gomez who had no long term future here and a starter on the wrong age of the curve made perfect sense.

If ARod breaks the record, i'm going to yawn just like i did when Bonds broke it. In fact, i wonder how much ARod even wants to break the record, especially if it were to happen on the road where that would likely be a very awkward situation with as many or more boos than cheering. Regardless of how big his ego may be, he has to know how tainted breaking that record would be viewed by so many baseball fans. What a waste. Had Bonds and ARod not not chosen to jack themselves up with steroids, both likely would have been respected as among the greats to ever play the game, even if they may not have reached historic records. Instead, now both are viewed as the poster child's of roided up cheats along with McGwire.

Throwing hard is a good thing, but big league hitters see mid-90's fastballs all of the time, so command of all pitches is hugely important. That's why there will always be a bunch of guys who don't throw as hard as others with a 95mph fastball, but are more productive simply because they command their pitches better. A 95mph fastball in bad location will often get hit harder than a 90mph fastball on the corners, even more so if the guy with the bigger fastball lacks consistent command of his secondary pitches.

A bit nitpicky, but the guy that'd get bumped to DH would be Davis. Santana's athleticism & arm have to put him a clear level above Khrush on defense. Yea, from what i've read, Santana could be a plus defender at one of the corner spots. Maybe the new GM will shop Davis in the offseason.

What exactly do you mean in saying that you are waiting for the bottom to drop out with Fiers? Obviously his no-hitter was an aberration, but he's a very solid MLB starting pitcher. A starting pitcher has to have talent to average a K per inning over 360 plus innings. Over those same 360 innings, he has a 3.66 ERA and solid 1.24 WHIP. Fiers will never be a front of the rotation ace, but i can easily envision him having at least a couple of more years as a starting pitcher with an ERA in that 3.25-3.75 range, which would have pretty damn good value given he will be under team control until 2019. He doesn't possess a 95mph fastball, but Fiers does show that you don't have to have a power arm to be a productive starting pitcher and also that he'll end up having a more productive career than quite a few more hyped power pitchers who just never could put the command together with their big fastball to consistently get big league hitters out.

I wouldn't go that far, but for a guy who can throw as hard as he does consistently through the course of a game, his below average strikeout numbers considering his velocity just goes to show how important command always has been and always will be when it comes to facing big league hitters. We had two former Brewers in Estrada and Fiers who threw only in the 88-90 range, yet were able to strikeout more batters both because they had better command overall and secondary pitches they could count on to get swings and misses. Obviously you'd rather any pitcher could throw 95-98 consistently vs 88-90, but big league hitters see high velocity so often tat if those pitches are left over the plate a lot, they'll get hit hard and especially if hitter isn't concerned much about secondary pitches.

Yea, Davis has decent enough range in left, but that's the only position he can play. One rule which i think everyone should follow/agree on is that the two positions which a team should never try moving mediocre defenders into are shortstop and centerfield. Sure, i can get say trying to move a poor range SS to secondbase. See if a good hitting but a clearly below average thirdbaseman can cut it at first. Try and see if a struggling corner infielder can make the move to a corner outfield spot so long as that guy has athletic ability, as happened with Braun. When it comes to center and shortstop though, these are to important of defensive positions to bother even wasting time thinking about moving guys over who lack the athletic gifts and innate instincts needed to avoid being a liability at such key positions. A guy playing either of those two positions who are well below average defensively will have to be nearly elite offensively just to come out around net even overall, but then you'd be wasting that player's hitting gift.

I don't buy that the Brewers can't be competitive for the top young GM talent. General managers make pocket change in the grand scheme of a baseball team's overall budget. If the Brewers end up really liking a certain guy, throw some extra money at him to make sure you get the guy you want. A GM is arguably the most important person in a MLB franchise. Throwing say an extra million per year in an offer is nothing in a team budget with revenues near or over 200 million. Bad signings blow 10 of millions. Plus, there are only a very limited number of available GM jobs out there and if an unproven guy turns down a job hoping for a better one, things could change and he may never land one of those GM jobs.

This is where Attanasio is so key. He has to be willing to look at where the Brewers stand compared to the rest of the division and use it as a time to rebuild correctly, while accepting that losing quite a few games will likely result.Whether he'll accept that is the biggest question to me.

Yea, what a bizarre thread for someone to start. Why didn't the original poster just post this in the already active Davis thread vs starting this goofy one with a title talking about trading players we own in both instances? Who would you have connections to? By making it an already Brewers prospects and you're buying with them. I felt opinions would be more harsh. If you're arguing Santana/Hader side. Vs me finding a prospect like Tampa's Daniel Robertson and saying Tampa offers him and former 1st rd pick Mikie Mahtook up for Davis. It becomes easy to fight for Davis because those look like garbage prospects, a top 100 SS prospect that Milwaukee doesn't need. No Pitching. And Tampa considering money and who's playing LF could actually be a decent Khris Davis landing place. That is Tampa's #5 and #15 prospect while Santana and Hader are Brewers #4 and #15 prospects. We're Brewer fans and Tampa's offer is just not enough...I'm sure TPlush wants Blake Snell at minimum. Truth is Tampa's offer is very close to equal to the Santana/Hader package. Partly because that Pedigree type prospect talk. Both of Tampa's selections were end of 1st round picks. Just need a little time/grooming maybe to reach their 1st rd talent potential? But I'm guessing ranking the packages would go Santana/Hader, Davis, and then Robertson/Mahtook and that package isn't even close for Davis while Santana/Hader are an overpay. Both include 1 top 100 prospect for Davis. Why start a new thread vs just posting this in the Davis thread instead? As for what Davis is truly worth, it's impossible to know unless one of us were actually a real GM and shopped Davis around the league for prospects. You think he's worth less than others here do. That happens with all kinds of players. Every team would place their own value in Davis and if some were interested, the amount they'd offer in return would not only vary, what the Brewers thought of players offered could easily differ from what the team offering thought of those prospects. That's why for as much fun as it is for fans to try and come up with pretend trades for players, the reality is that we don't really know how exactly other teams view the value of our players. Everyone is purely guessing and nothing more.

Yea, what a bizarre thread for someone to start. Why didn't the original poster just post this in the already active Davis thread vs starting this goofy one with a title talking about trading players we own in both instances?

The Royals this year are interesting as they have used mediocre starters to go with an awesome defense and bullpen. Very true, but getting Cueto was important. While teams have been advancing far in the playoffs without a great rotation, i do think playoff teams generally need at least one really reliable starter and they were lacking that.

Putting up zeros is what matters, but how many teams have that kind of bullpen? Furthermore I won't be convinced that building a bullpen over a rotation is a solid strategy. That's something which happens more by accident or in the case of the Cardinals a couple of years ago they didn't want to pay with prospects to acquire a starter so they went out and got relievers instead. It's a strategy that works in spots, but isn't something to build around or rely on year in and year out. I'll never make any case based on outliers or the best possible case scenario, impact starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball and the Brewers haven't had it. I wasn't saying at all that i don't want the Brewers to develop high quality young pitching through the minors in hopes of having a really good rotation. Only a complete idiot wouldn't care about wanting to see that happen. My only point was to you saying in that post earlier that teams need great starting pitching to advance far in the playoffs when there are multiple examples in recent history which showed otherwise. Teams have made it to the World Series in a wide variety of fashions and great starting pitching was far from being the most common reason why. The Cardinals and Red Sox used offense and their bullpens as their biggest keys. The Royals defense, speed, timely hits, and a great pen. Come the playoffs and managers only using three starters a lot of the time, they can and do use their bullpens in ways teams in the past often just didn't do. Go look at many good teams today who have 3-4-5 guys in the bullpen who have sub-3 ERA and good to great WHIP, K/9, K/BB numbers. What the Cardinals did in 2011, Boston in 2013, and the Royals last year with their bullpens, it's no longer the aberration and closer to the norm in the playoffs where the good teams tend have a very good bullpen and thus managers today are quicker to turn to that pen. It's so much more of a specialized game today and even more so in the playoffs than the regular season. In the regular season, you need a good rotation more to make it through the grind of 162 games. Hard to make the playoffs without at least a really solid rotation. Can't burn out a bullpen either. Come the playoffs today though, a really good bullpen with 8-9 guys available to a thinking manager, it can cover for less than great starting pitching. Hell, for all of the hype about Toronto landing Tulo/Price, upgrades to their pen has been just as important in their 10 game winning streak and maybe if they get to the World Series.

I don't buy that it''s required anymore that teams need dominant starting pitching to advance in the playoffs. I 2011, the year you hated the Brewers team which got to the NLCS, the Cardinals won the title largely on the backs of their offense and bullpen throughout the playoffs. Their starting pitching often struggled a lot. Last year the Royals also rode a great bullpen, defense, and speed to the World Series in the playoffs. Their starting pitching wasn't anything special. It took Bumgarner having an all-time special run to keep KC from winning a title. Hell, old man Jake Peavy was the Giants game two starter. The 2013 Red Sox finished middle of the pack in pitching. Yea Lester was really good in the playoffs, but outside of him, they got their ring mostly via offense and their bullpen. Lackey did have a nice start or two, but he wasn't exactly a stud ace. Kershaw is a lock HOF stud, but whether it's just been fluke or bad luck, he's yet to be the shut down ace in the playoffs as he's been in the regular season. Maybe this year will be different for him and i hope it is so he doesn't get some choker label. Baseball has changed over the last 5-10 years, especially in how teams use their starters and bullpens. Some teams get into the playoffs with just a solid rotation, but have a great bullpen and are able to advance by getting just enough from their starters to keep the game close for a bevy of sub-3 ERA bullpen arms to enter the game. With off days in the playoffs and managers no longer having to worry as much about over using their best relievers, it's often worse for an offense to get the starter out of the game. FWIW, i'm not saying teams wouldn't prefer having say Kershaw and Greinke as the Dodgers do for playoff series, but it's been shown of late that so long as a team has at least one really productive starter, another who is decent, and a great bullpen, they can get to the World Series. You get in these 5 and 7 game series, especially the 5 game series, things can get so random as to why one team wins and loses. A great bullpen can win a series. Some timely hits, even by unexpected guys. A top notch pen has become near as important or as important to playoff success as good starters are.

Glad to see this is happening. The important question now is whether Attanasio will let the new GM set the direction without the owner continuing to play a quasi-GM role himself.

Come on man, try being more realistic. Wren will be extremely lucky to ever step foot in a real major league game, much less have a reasonably long MLB career as Davis likely will. Same for most prospects in the range of Wren, so Davis has plenty more value than that. He certainly has his share of flaws, but a guy who can post a career .787 OPS over three seasons and who is currently very cheap, there is value in that for for some big league clubs. The money aspect can't just be ignored given money factors into every decision a team makes and the value a player has in relation to the paycheck. If a team can get roughly league average production out of a player making pocket change, it adds to that player's value. One problem the Brewers obviously could face though if they shopped Davis in the offseason is that he really can only play left because of his arm. That limits potential suitors of teams who may already have a guy in left who shouldn't be moved to right either, as Davis can't be. There easily could be a potential match this offseason if hypothetically the Brewers wanted to give Santana the job in left and also a power needy team with limited funds asked about Davis. A prospect in the 50-100ish range wouldn't be some major overpay for a proven major league player in his likely prime years who will make make table scraps next season and under team control for three seasons.