bill hAll Star

I truly thought the [likely] loss was the end. You lose a winnable game and crush your bullpen for the series. 12:25 AM CT: well, I won’t be wasting any more time watching baseball at night this summer/fall which is honestly kinda nice. I’m done. 12:40 AM CT: they’re alive but I’m questioning my life as to why I’m still watching Jordan Lyles and the last gasp. 12:45 AM CT: that was the coolest thing I’ve ever seen. I’m back in.

One minor note - Davies was optioned to Single-A. Also likely to keep him nearby to come back right on or around Sept 1.

1) At this point I feel like they have something against Woodruff. 2) It is a race for a postseason spot. You want someone experienced and considered more stable. Woodruff has little experience and can't afford growing pains. He is a guy you would rather give a shot towards the start of the season...not with 5 starts to give. 3) Why not start Woodruff and have Matt Harvey waiting in the bullpen or other way around? It's not an either/or.

What one of the 5,000 examples to you want? Teams are always throwing away money in different forms. I mean Eric Hosmer got $144mil from a rebuilding team that paid him just to spend money. We are talking about $1mil, probably even less because someone has to take his spot on the roster. It is meaningless to them either way. The money is nothing and what we were willing to offer was probably worse than a bag of baseballs because paying a MiLB player costs more [sarcasm](barely)[/sarcasm]. It was such a pointless move either way it was probably more valuable to waste our time and make sure they don't help us get better. I agree with both sides. $1 million is very insignificant to an MLB owner. However, in every other situation you discuss, even if shortsighted or with stupid intentions, signing Feliz for a year or Hosmer to a giant contract gives you perceived value or trade value in the upcoming full season, several seasons, or playoff stretch that you are a part of. The Reds get literally nothing from this other than "positive momentum."

I can't tell if Krall is saving face for an ownership decision "don't let the Brewers force us to bend!" or he really thinks that.

I think they can, but then they lose the right to revoke the waivers and have no leverage in trade discussions at all. Correct. If he's placed on waivers tomorrow and the Brewers claim him, he's a Brewer.

The Reds can put him back on waivers but they'd be forced to give him away if anyone claimed. So, tin foil hat, we force him to pitch against the Cubs and have a *wink wink nod nod* agreement with the Reds that we'll claim him again tomorrow since they were just going to give him away anyways. Probably not but just an idea.

Who knows what Mark was willing to pay but I'd have to imagine that the Reds owner is living a hell of a life to light a million dollars on fire because you don't want to be lowballed in a trade offer. Of course those tweets may be final minute posturing.

I would find it weird and probably vindictive if the Reds hung onto Harvey. There is no reason for it, at the very least I'm sure ownership would like to save $1 million and the Reds would prefer to let a younger guy pitch a few games down the stretch. I suspect Riggleman is part of the posturing...I bet Harvey's bags are already packed Don't know. They just posted their lineup for today and he's in it. Seems pretty far to take the posturing for someone who is going to bring back a nothing burger anyway if dealt. The Reds have: A. Almost zero motivation not to give him away for almost nothing to the Brewers. Save your owner a million bucks. B. Almost zero reason not to at least try to posture/hold out for more. Both sides probably know that this deal should get done at 12:30 CT or so and that it probably will involve the Brewers paying $500k-$1M and giving back either absolutely nothing or some single A player that has a .05% chance of making it to the majors. But the Reds might as well try to extract more. They also have no reason not to do that.

97-98 MPH Harvey is a Cy Young candidate. 95 MPH Harvey is a #4 starter. 93 MPH Harvey can't crack the Mets' rotation. Right now, we think we have 95 MPH Harvey and he's given me a more reliable sample over Brandon Woodruff to be in the back end of our rotation over Woodruff (who also can be used plenty in the final month). I'd imagine that given the fact we are in a standoff between the 2 that Stearns is offering a nothing prospect and we'd eat the million bucks or maybe less. If he was offering more, the deal probably would've gotten done a month ago and would probably already be done today.

It's just another arm in the mix of the 40 man bullpen ball strategy...and maybe Stearns was also posturing a bit about Peralta. Maybe they'd prefer him to be a 2-3 inning option out of the pen to limit his innings and Stearns was posturing a bit given that they may be negotiating for Gio or Matt Harvey.

Miley should pretty much always be starting. If we went the 4 route, it would be those first 4 with Peralta/Guerra/Davies in long relief. And yes I would agree most starters would be on extremely short leashes. Miley is good, but if we faced the Cardinals I'd probably go with Peralta or Guerra and just deal with the mismatch of Carpenter. I guess adding Matt Adams does muddy that decision up. To be fair, Miley is getting righties out much better this year - but I could see a scenario where I'd rather start a different righty maybe. Facing the Cardinals, I'd even consider opening the game with Dan Jennings and then going to Peralta or Guerra *ducks for napalm fire*

I think with Harvey you could do something like a 4-man rotation with all of the off days: Chacin Anderson Harvey Miley/Peralta/Davies depending on matchup In the 3rd inning if you're down 3-1 and you have the leadoff hitter on 2B, you can pinch hit for Wade Miley (this is September) with 1 of your 10 bench players and have one of Davies, Lyles, Peralta potentially go 3 innings (or even more if the game gets out of hand in either direction).

It's not a debate about whether they're a potentially great team this year though. It's about the fact that they could have built a dynasty and instead made a bunch of impulsive moves for a very marginal uptick in their chances of winning a title now. On paper, that's arguably one of the most talented teams this century. Raise your hand if you predicted Darvish, Quintana, Rizzo, and Bryant to combine for less than 5 WAR this year. They should have over 15. And yet they still have the best record in the NL. Nobody is (or should be) saying that they don't have a really talented roster right now. But that's just the thing - why pay so much salary and/or prospects for some of the guys they've gotten when you would have probably won the Central without them? It's mind-numbingly stupid. They're going on their 4th consecutive playoff appearance, have made the last 3 NLCS's and won a World Series. That's basically a dynasty already by baseball standards. They will likely be the favorites to come out of the NL this year and they return their whole roster next year except Justin Wilson. I think they're set up just fine for the foreseeable future and have plenty of money to spend for Harper and then can trade some of their other guys that he bumps out of the positional player rotation for a starter. I don't know, I think they're set up pretty good for a while yet (they also just spent the most, or near most money on international free agents this last period so they likely will have a guy or two emerge from there). They get a new TV deal in the next 2 years I believe as well. At some point you have to give up worrying about prospect rankings and actually go and try to win baseball games. I will add to this that, yes, the Chapman and Quintana moves (as well as several smaller ones) will be seen as losses very likely. The Chapman one was obviously motivated by desperation to win a World Series for the first time in over a century. So maybe there is an alternate where the Cubs make neither move, still win in 2016, and look like they may have a run of 12 division titles in 15 years and 5 World Series with Torres and Eloy also in their core. There might also be an alternate one where they lose the 2016 WS by not making that trade and maybe still 1 or even 0 later but have a very good regular season team for 10-15 years. Now, of course ideally you'd probably take Eloy, Cease, and Torres back among a few other shortsighted moves and just pray that you get 1 WS (or probably a lot more) if you're a Cubs fan but the Cubs may be able to buy several high profile players in 4-5 years anyways. That doesn't make up for those potential losses but it helps. There's obviously also the real life impact here. Ownership and Theo both probably want to win now given lifespan of ownership and career span of Theo. It's somewhat akin to Bears fans in thinking that Packers fans are going to take them down (let's not let this go down the path of Packers moves, they arguably took the patient/future road and that is what actually kinda burned them) but in the end, the Packers still had Rodgers. In the end, the Cubs still have Bryant/Rizzo/Baez/etc. for 5+ more years probably (yes, they have varying contract control and prime ages left) and the Cubs also still have way more resources even with $25 million/year lit on fire right now...but even if the Brewers do it right, they have to do everything right to be better than the Cubs...even 4 or 5 years from now. I definitely see some paths to the Cubs beginning to really crumble in 2 years and fully collapsing in 4 but I think realistically they've got 3-4 more good/great years and then a handful that they can patch together for 2-3 if they so choose.

Phillips is following the Brinson path of struggling mightily to put the bat on the ball after a solid 3 game stretch @ the White Sox when he first came up. A .188 average and .585 OPS with KC (that includes his 4/13, 1 HR, 2 2B stretch @CWS). Since that nice little CWS series, he is 8/49 with 2 2B, 1 3B, 0 HR, 5 BB, and 22 Ks. Lopez has given up 7 runs in 9.2 innings. You obviously cheer for a seemingly good guy like Phillips but also some struggles do help as a Brewers fan ease the percieved cost of a rental. Obviously a long way to go.

Frankly after both Jeffress and Hamels, the Rangers' pitching coach isn't looking too good. Throw Matt Moore into there. Now, I was the guy throwing up flags when people discussed the Brewers acquiring Moore in the offseason because he's terrible away from San Francisco and not the guy we thought he was in Tampa anymore...but I did not think Moore would be a 7.01 ERA guy, even in the tough pitching conditions of Arlington.

Gotcha...yeah, wasn't trying to really debate it just wondering if my Reds knowledge was just missing a player. It's kinda crazy that Scooter is probably a more dangerous hitter as it stands today.

Scooter is in the lineup. Suarez is out. Who am I missing? Or are you inferring Votto, who is on the DL?

No Suarez. The Vegas line (-265) seemed crazy to me with Peralta being iffy but with Suarez out I can kinda buy it.

I think you're kinda convincing yourself that those teams always did the "every single expensive player" route as much as they did back in the day and that it's a terrible thing to have a 1-2 year down window. Yes, there will be less 7 year/$230 million deals these days but these teams can still bully their way with shorter-term purchases. Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees that have built an army of young stud players from 1-2 years of trading away their last dynasty and a short tank can still just hammer the free agent market to fill any and all gaps in their roster. They can compete for a 5-10 year window, take 2 years off if they finally end up holding the bag on some older players, and start it all over again. We obviously differ on where the line is. I think it's usually gonna be more than just a couple down years when you screw up. There's also no guarantee whatsoever that you'll be able to replenish your farm before during those down years. The Yankees, Cubs, and Dodgers all drafted well, but they can't necessarily expect to repeat that success. We know that comes and goes, and they won't have great draft picks or pool money. I just think the whole "big markets get to do whatever they want" attitude is completely overblown. Every time I've argued this, I've acknowledged that the big markets will generally have longer good cycles and shorter down cycles, but there's absolutely nothing stopping a team like the Brewers from being the better team for several years at a time or more if they're making smarter moves. The Angels, Rangers, Tigers, and Mets have spent a ton of money and neglected to add much talent from their own system over the last decade too, and there's nothing stopping the Cubs or Yankees from ending up like them if they're not careful. Other than the Angels, the other 3 teams have all made a World Series appearance recently, the Rangers and Tigers having a pretty extended window. Throw the Giants in there who have overspent a bit as well and have gotten some really good results with maybe overextending it after a while. Of course there's always going to be 25-50% of the larger markets in a downturn at any time. The problem is that doesn't matter too much to the Brewers. There are always going to be 2 or 3 NL large markets with a dominant team in the NL and 5-6 in the league at large. The Red Sox, Yankees, probably Dodgers, probably Cubs all have probably 3 more years on this window. Maybe Sale/Bryant/Rizzo/DiDi/Severino/Judge/Kershaw/etc. either walk or regress soon...but all of those teams will have a lot of money to spend in 2020 or 2021 probably extending at least a decent team at the end of these runs.

Seems like something somebody says when they get dumped while dating, to make themselves feel better. Chicago North has enough money to do whatever they want, so if their A and AA teams suck, it doesn't mean the Brewers will be winning anything at the MLB level. Even the Yankees and Dodgers know they have to avoid severe luxury tax penalties to field a sustainably good team. Look how the Dodgers had to get Tampa Bay's GM to clean up the mess they made when Magic first bought a share of the team. At least the Dodgers stopped themselves before they traded guys like Seager and Bellinger though. Unfortunately for their fans, the Cubs did not. Again, you don't just acquire every expensive veteran in sight and expect to have a good team anymore. Big markets still have a significant advantage, but not nearly as much as they did a decade ago. Without PED's, those rentals and free agents aren't good values anymore. Sometimes they're even worse than scrap heap guys (see Chatwood and Darvish vs. Guerra and Miley). I think you're kinda convincing yourself that those teams always did the "every single expensive player" route as much as they did back in the day and that it's a terrible thing to have a 1-2 year down window. Yes, there will be less 7 year/$230 million deals these days but these teams can still bully their way with shorter-term purchases. Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Yankees that have built an army of young stud players from 1-2 years of trading away their last dynasty and a short tank can still just hammer the free agent market to fill any and all gaps in their roster. They can compete for a 5-10 year window, take 2 years off if they finally end up holding the bag on some older players, and start it all over again.

Last I read, Bryant had a pain free batting session the other day. I'd imagine he's back around Sept 1. And I think a lot of GMs are jumping on the 2B defense not being a huge deal thing.

Well, for one, he has only played for about 2 months - he was hurt for a long time. His bat is coming around over the past 3 weeks, though.

When Bryant returns: Against lefties, bench bat. Against RHP, Baez plays SS, Murphy at 2B. So who is the current Cub active roster player to go back to AAA to make room for Murphy right now while Bryant is still on the DL? And I don't think this move gets made unless the Cubs know they're not getting a healthy Bryant back soon. Wouldn't surprise me to see Murphy/Bote in a 3B platoon with the other serving as a primary bench bat. I don't think this moves their needle all that much, if at all. Russell has been a bit banged up so probably will just milk a DL stint until Sept 1.

Even the Yankees learned over the last decade that you can't just give away the farm and throw money at everyone and expect to be anything more than mediocre eventually. And how did their unlimited resources work for them 10 years ago? Remember Soriano and all those other terrible contracts? Oh yeah, that 1 year the Yankees missed the playoffs really taught them. EDIT: I guess they missed the playoffs in '14/'15 as well, but they're back. The Red Sox are on pace for one of the best records ever and they're sitting on like $60 million of useless money this year. The big markets have smart GMs but that doesn't mean they can't just spend their way to success, either. As for the Cubs and the "how did Soriano and all of those other terrible contracts work out?" - they had more success than a long-tanked/cultivated Brewers farm system. Probably didn't get the bang for their buck but they still had a good 3 year window while the Brewers barely made the playoffs once and finally won a division but sold their farm to do so.