bill hAll Star

These comments really remind me that I think 2007/2008 were the most lucid memories because I remember every single heartbreaking loss. That June 29, 2007 loss to the Cubs and the July 3, 2008 loss to the D-Backs were very memorable to me. I don't think last night's registered at all for me. If we were 1 game back it might have, but I've had the feeling that we have no chance at the division and I think I'd have been getting very emotionally invested if we won Thursday and Friday and it may have even took Saturday to make me feel there is a chance...then maybe this breaks my heart a bit. Bonus: Sunday, August 3, 2014 @STL. Duke/Jeffress blew the game after Garza held on through 6 with a 2-0 lead. Maybe it was just because I was focused on that game in a season where I didn't have a ton of time to follow, but it felt like that was the series vs. St. Louis where if the Brewers held on and had a great series I would really start believing in stealing the division. They botched the series on the final day from being a feel good 2-1 series win. Of course, we actually played well for 2 more weeks after that loss with the Cards also predictably remaining hot right along with the Brewers and then the wheels came completely off. They had another one in September that had the exact same 3-2 loss chokejob against St. Louis but I think at that point the wheels had already fallen off.

Yeah, I don't really have an opinion on who was used in the 10th and it likely could have been done a bit better. Guerra might have been better but they must know something that we don't on him. Or Hughes. That makes some sense. I guess most would say Jeffress should have taken off immediately no matter what, but you could also say in the split second decision in one's brain, a chopper like that probably seemed like the second baseman's ball. So maybe he sat there for an extra .5 seconds before he realized and that did him in.

No, Counsell played almost all of it correctly. I do understand that the Cubs series is huge so maybe you'd break convention, but you pitch your best relievers first and worry about it later. Same thing with bench play. We have the benefit of hindsight to know that the Wednesday game was blown even with our "good pitchers" but imagine these 2 scenarios: 1. The Brewers blow Wednesday night with Torres and Drake, late, "saving" their bullpen for the Cubs. The Brewers then lose 10-2 on Thursday and win 9-1 on Friday so their bullpen gets rest anyways. Now take a look at that Wednesday game. Can you imagine the backlash of hindsight on Wednesday's game? 2. Walker is thrown out on a very close sac fly with a chance to win last night's game but Perez probably would've scored from 3rd. Sogard is barely unable to make a play on Baez's tying hit which Arcia could have made (we saw Arcia barely miss it, but if the ball was hit a foot to the left it's a play Arcia makes and Sogard doesn't). You do everything you can to win the game when the chance is there and you worry about the rest later. In both of those cases. The only questionable calls were leaving Thames to hit against a lefty (it ended up working) and putting Walker in at 1B. I'm assuming it's because he's a more agile 1B than Thames, but his lack of experience ended up doing us in. Only Buck Showalter lives in the 80s or 90s with conventions of "saving" players for situations that probably will not even happen since you're forfeiting a close game to try to play for something later in the game or season that probably won't even happen.

I could be looking at the wrong thing here, but it seems like his velocity is up this year pretty much across the board. There may be some up-and-down in his velocity due to him going to the bullpen briefly and then coming back to starting, but it looks to me like all of his pitches have an uptick in velocity. Might explain the lack of command. Maybe he tried to shift strategy this year and throw harder and deal with command/lack of going deep into a game later.

I think the issue with xFIP, etc. on Chatwood is 2 things: 1. xFIP/FIP and the like are very useful but are slightly unfair to groundball pitchers. 2. Whatever home field normalization that xFIP gives to Coors - it's not enough for Chatwood. He's either had terrible luck for 4-5 seasons or he truly just has pitches that do not do well in Coors. All of that makes him an imperfect pitcher that needs a good defense behind him and limits him in some environments, but the assumption was that maybe he'd be cheap depth. We can choose somebody on a relatively short contract to "overpay" to take a risk on a la Thames/Feliz or just plug a hole with an overpaid, yet good player like Walker. We've got about 2 years to do that. That opportunity goes away after that. I think if Chatwood comes at a good value he might be worth the risk to churn out a fairly cheap #3 starter that has the skillset of Zack Godley with maybe a little bit less ability to strike batters out. If Nelson is basically done or we can assume a few injuries next season, I'd much rather try Chatwood than to trot Jungmann or Suter out there but maybe that's just me. I'd love to have the latter-mentioned players as even more depth.

I don't think Chatwood will cost all the way up to $40 million. Pitching, by nature, is just more expensive. I'd say I'd be more comfortable with a 3 year, $25 million deal. It's true that he has a lot of innings at more of pitcher parks. That does sharpen the splits of their players given that they are in a division that has some pitchers parks.

Sorry but this doesn't come off well. Of course, if we toss $40 mil to this guy people are going to question it because he really hasn't earned it on the field. He may pan out to being a very good pitcher away from Coors Field but its far from definite. Paying a guy that is a question mark $40mil when you have in-house options for league minimum should get the fans talking. Eric Thames hadn't "earned it" either. Take almost any hitter that mashed at Coors and they got a lot worse elsewhere. Of course Chatwood hasn't "earned it" in a full season where he isn't pitching in a situation that is very bad for him 50% of the time. Look at what Tulowitzki has done (yes, he's getting older) away from Coors. Look at what Coors did to Morneau, Reynolds, and Cuddyer in the twilight of their careers. The casual baseball fan does not understand these things. Nelson (???) Anderson Hader (?) Woodruff Davies __________________________________________ Suter - meh Garza - Maybe one final year as a garbage collector/spot starter/trade bait Guerra - They're not very confident in him right now Wilkerson - Everyone's been pretty skeptical Who else am I missing? You generally want 7 or 8 good MLB pitchers. There are some guys like Burnes coming up but might not be the time yet. If Nelson is fine and they believe that Hader is ready for the rotation, then I'm good with rolling with those 5 and hoping that we can get some help from the lower list. The weird thing is that due to team control issues and options issues, we may be losing some of those guys unless we stash them in the bullpen. Suddenly you're an injury away from scraping the MLB dumpster for pitching by May. I think that Chatwood can be a good MLB starter. The Brewers' brass isn't using guys like Jungmann right now, it tells us that they're pretty sure that Jungmann and the like cannot be a MLB mainstay. If Stearns thinks Chatwood is a good rotation piece at the right price, this is akin to bringing in Thames even though we had Cooper in the system. Or continuing to give guys other than Wren a chance in the majors. Sometimes you take a risk and pay for the guy with MLB talent instead of giving the AAAA superstar a shot.

I've been the guy beating the Chatwood drum all season and will be all offseason. 2 hurdles: 1. The league is pretty woke so I wonder if he really will come at much less $ than he's worth. We're sitting here as baseball fans who are pretty in-depth and we definitely know more than our friend at the bar that casually follows baseball, but obviously I would think a handful or probably almost all teams see Chatwood's splits and will go after him accordingly. 2. It's a relatively small issue, but you have to be prepared for the PR backlash of signing a guy with a fairly high ERA to a $30-40 million dollar contract. Fans won't understand it, obviously. That's mostly just an annoyance of me as a fan but you're going to get a bunch of people calling Stearns an idiot and people will turn on him if he struggles early.

Unfortunately, unless a bunch of our young players are flops, the time to spend big money is the next 2-3 years. There won't be money available for larger-contract external free agents starting in about 2020.

Bumgarner - No way would that happen Moore - Ever since he's stopped throwing his slider, he's no better than Matt Garza in his current state. We're going on 3 years now of Moore not being a good pitcher. #5 starter at best when you take him out of his pitcher-friendly ballpark. No thanks. Stroman - Won't be worth his price, IMO. I was only making an attempt to look at the solid rotational pieces currently owned by bad or rebuilding ball clubs. Aaron Nola from the Phillies or Urena from the Marlins would be great upper rotation trade candidates as well. Also Cobb or Archer from Tampa Bay, or Jason Vargas from KC would be fits. Nola would be a great "get", but would cost a lot, if he is even available. But he is young and controllable for several seasons, and would provide the #1-2 upside that would put the team in pennant contention. I get what you're saying that you're just kinda hand-waving and saying, "we will trade for a good controllable pitcher" but I'll continue to nitpick the examples like a jerk. The Phillies probably won't trade their upper rotation guys like Nola as they're just getting out of their rebuild, they hope. Cobb is a free agent. We can sign him but it may take 5 years of commitment. Vargas is again Matt Garza in a cloak of first half 2017 luck. Urena, maybe. They may be hesitant to trade a guy that just is starting to "figure it out" with the tools he has. Archer will be expensive. I think this all points to the fact that there won't be a ton of obvious candidates to go out and acquire.

Bumgarner - No way would that happen Moore - Ever since he's stopped throwing his slider, he's no better than Matt Garza in his current state. We're going on 3 years now of Moore not being a good pitcher. #5 starter at best when you take him out of his pitcher-friendly ballpark. No thanks. Stroman - Won't be worth his price, IMO.

You participated in that 3 page argument with me on the Nelson thread. Throwing a bullpen game at this point of the season is optimal and whether it works or not, this is the right thing to do. Wilkerson can be there to be the garbage collector if we are up 5 or down 5 (hopefully not) or if for some reason a bunch of the relievers throw scoreless innings but rack up a ton of pitches/pitching changes early. We don't need a starter in the traditional sense right now. No need to save the bullpen with expanded rosters and only 3 weeks left...and Wilkerson, while he's been great in AA, is definitely in that class of pitcher that you worry might be a AAAA type guy that gets blown up in the majors. You put him in the game and he loads the bases in the 2nd inning and it's over. Jeffress could also do that, but the numbers back up offenses having a harder time scoring when you can play matchups for the entire game. I'd have been fine if Wilkerson got the start with the expectation of only 2-3 innings pending game flow or a very quick hook...but if you're doing the smart thing and playing a bullpen game here, you can really start with anybody that you want. It's not at all the same argument, Wilkerson is not Nelson. It's very likely bullpen could give us better quality than an unknown like Wilkerson. I feel like it was fringe pointless to bring him up if they weren't going to start him. I guess my main thought process is that I thought Wilkerson was brought up to spot start a couple times, it seems weird that he isn't. Unless of course they have zero intention of using Garza/Guerra again this season barring an extreme blowout and want more pitching depth. Fair enough. We're getting to the point where it's only 3 weeks. If Wilkerson misses out on 8 innings in Biloxi, is that the end of the world for his future development? At this point you might as well have all hands on deck in the majors. There likely will be a blowout or two where some of those guys will get used. The other idea is similar to the playoffs strategy. Pitch your bullpen options backwards (best pitchers first). The Brewers will continue pushing more chips on the table by throwing heavy bullpen games where they use their best relievers earlier and even with expanded rosters, they are pitching their better pitchers more out of the pen knowing that they have fallback options. If you keep needing to do it and it keeps working, then you just live with the fact that you've played optimally for a long period of time and you have to maybe rely on your next option of Wilkerson to throw 4 innings in the middle of a close game if said bullpen strategy has burned the rest of your pen a little bit.

You participated in that 3 page argument with me on the Nelson thread. Throwing a bullpen game at this point of the season is optimal and whether it works or not, this is the right thing to do. Wilkerson can be there to be the garbage collector if we are up 5 or down 5 (hopefully not) or if for some reason a bunch of the relievers throw scoreless innings but rack up a ton of pitches/pitching changes early. We don't need a starter in the traditional sense right now. No need to save the bullpen with expanded rosters and only 3 weeks left...and Wilkerson, while he's been great in AA, is definitely in that class of pitcher that you worry might be a AAAA type guy that gets blown up in the majors. You put him in the game and he loads the bases in the 2nd inning and it's over. Jeffress could also do that, but the numbers back up offenses having a harder time scoring when you can play matchups for the entire game. I'd have been fine if Wilkerson got the start with the expectation of only 2-3 innings pending game flow or a very quick hook...but if you're doing the smart thing and playing a bullpen game here, you can really start with anybody that you want.

Looks like we're 1/1 in bullpen games :-)

I'll spare this board going too much further after this one, but it really isn't so silly. The odds are not as different as you think. It's easy to say, "Jimmy Nelson, he's our stud pitcher and I just come to expect a good 6 or 7 innings." He's given up 7 runs, 9 runs, 5 runs, and had about 6 or 7 appearances where he only went 5-6 innings and gave up 4 runs or 5 innings and 3 runs. Sure, he's given up 0-2 runs in 6+ innings in about half of his starts, but he also has his bad games. If you don't think that there are relatively good odds that Garza, Guerra, and a mix of the bullpen playing matchups have the chance to give up 1 or 2 runs over 6-7 innings with also chance of giving up 4 runs in 5 innings in 1/3 to 1/2 of their "starts" just like Jimmy Nelson, I don't know what to tell you. Guerra has struggled a bit more in the first inning of work but in general is good his first time around the order and Garza is good first time around. Factor in that you can play matchups and there isn't a huge dropoff for the final 3 weeks. And again, in terms of just trying to win the game, you could always get ahead 7-0 and just let your starter (Jungmann for example) roll and still win the game if he gives up 4 runs in 5 innings. Or maybe Jungmann gives up 6 runs early but the Brewers scored 0 anyways meaning that there was no difference in game result from what Nelson would've done.

Guerra and Garza both are good when facing the first time around the order. Guerra can throw harder as well knowing he's going less innings. Both of those guys have a ~.650 OPS against them if it's the first time a batter is seeing them in a game. We're close to an agreement here, but given matchups and batters only seeing some of the lesser starting pitchers once, I think the odds of a well-pitched game are pretty good. Even if you think that cobbled together mix-and-match game is "slightly worse" than Nelson, given that we'll know whether or not to trot out good pitchers given gameflow, and other things like always getting a pinch-hitter...we may be talking about the difference of 3 or 4 runs given up for the rest of the season. A handful of runs difference could be massive if it comes down to losing to the Cubs by 1 game, but odds are that a small difference like that will not make the difference in making the playoffs or not and basically all I came in here to do was to dump some water on the "we lost arguably our best pitcher -- season over because of that" fire. Losing Jimmy Nelson for an entire season is catostrophic. Losing him for September where you have expanded rosters so you can pitch a full bullpen game is a very, very small issue if played correctly. Especially given that our playoff odds are pretty low already.

Sure, but you run the same risk of Jimmy Nelson giving up 3 runs in any given inning even if on the whole he gives up 3 runs in 7 innings (many would say that's basically what you'd expect out of him). Say Garza comes in and throws 2 shutout innings (again, he's fine for the first time around the order). Barnes comes in and gives up 2 runs in an inning, Swarzak gives up 0, Hader goes 2 scoreless, Torres gives up 1 run, Hughes gives up 0, Knebel gives up 0. That's the same thing as Nelson giving up 3 runs over 7 innings and Swarzak/Knebel shutting the door, which I think most would agree is the expected/good scenario out of Nelson. Right, but then you have to roll the dice again and again. It's not like if one gets hit the next one won't, especially if they get handed a mess to deal with on the bases. Don't get me wrong, I totally get what you're saying and it could totally happen, especially just for one or two starts. But I just wouldn't call it likely or as trustworthy as just rolling with the guy who's been solid all year other than like 3 games. Like someone else I think just said, one would guest their approach will be a combo of what you're saying along with normal starting. As in they'll have a normal starter but hopefully have an extremely short rope with them and be ready to go your route if/when needed. The next two days should be very bullpen heavy, but with a day off Thursday it should be ok to use everyone up. Your 2nd paragraph I agree with and is basically what I'm saying. If Counsell has Guerra start (totally fine with it) and has him pitch out of a bases loaded jam at 45 pitches in a 0-0 game in the 3rd inning, he should be fired. I'd even say consider bringing in a new pitcher if 1 or 2 guys get on base at that point of the game. As for the probabilities of runs given up. I don't know how many other ways to say this really, but every inning Jimmy Nelson throws, the probability of him giving up x runs is essentially the same as the aggregate of Barnes, Hader, Hughes, Swarzak, etc. giving up x runs. Assuming Nelson is pitching 110-120 pitches so he doesn't get the same luxury the bullpen does of throwing harder or facing matchups, the probability of Hader against a crop of lefties giving up a run or more is lower than Nelson giving up a run or more. However, I'd slightly lean Jimmy Nelson facing lower batting order righties over an inning of Hughes in that case. However, aggregate all of those probabilities and you have roughly Jimmy Nelson. There is also a probability that Nelson gives up 3-4 runs in an inning that is not being factored in. Jimmy Nelson is basically 7 independently thrown pretty good right-handed relievers for an inning each. Nelson can falter in any inning (he has many times this season) just like "you have to rely on the next guy not to screw up." You're "rolling the dice again and again" every inning you throw Nelson out there.

For 3 or 4 games, a cobbled together bullpen game is extremely likely to produce about the same results as a "good" pitcher that Nelson is. Now, the Brewers' bullpen is not as deep so I'd lean towards slightly worse but I don't understand why some of you guys are laughing me off. I'd never do it for the bulk of a season but I think 2 innings of Garza + the bullpen would allow 3-4 earned runs over 9 innings if you gave it a large sample of games which...is what Jimmy Nelson + 2-3 innings of bullpen would give you. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to throw Hader in in the 4th inning when Votto, good righty such as Duvall, Scooter, and Schebler come up? Nelson is a very good pitcher but I'd rather have Hader in that situation. No, I don't think it's crazy for a short time frame like this. But I see two problems. One, you are burning up an outing from Hader and others automatically. It's go time, but you still need to be careful with how often you trot Hader out there. Swarzak can't pitch every single day either. So, when you know going in you'll have to use these guys, that's one other game you won't be able to use them. Also, whenever you go with the Johnny Wholestaff approach, the more relievers you use, odds are one of them will have a bad night. And with this offense, one bad inning is all it may take. Yes, you might be locking yourself into throwing Hader or Swarzak, but it's not as much as you'd think since you can play matchups and gameflow. Maybe you don't need Hader. Maybe you let Wilkerson or Guerra go for a few innings in the middle and they don't allow baserunners or they do in their 3rd inning of work but Swarzak shuts the door so you don't need Hader. Maybe your offense blows up so you can use your 2nd tier of bullpen guys to hold on. Agree, and this is what I'm suggesting. If you get up 7-1, let Garza roll. If you're down 5-1, go with your lesser bullpen or throw Garza/Wilkerson to the wolves for 4 more innings.

Sure, but you run the same risk of Jimmy Nelson giving up 3 runs in any given inning even if on the whole he gives up 3 runs in 7 innings (many would say that's basically what you'd expect out of him). Say Garza comes in and throws 2 shutout innings (again, he's fine for the first time around the order). Barnes comes in and gives up 2 runs in an inning, Swarzak gives up 0, Hader goes 2 scoreless, Torres gives up 1 run, Hughes gives up 0, Knebel gives up 0. That's the same thing as Nelson giving up 3 runs over 7 innings and Swarzak/Knebel shutting the door, which I think most would agree is the expected/good scenario out of Nelson.

Nelson's ERA this year is 3.50. The bullpen's ERA is 4.00, but that is factoring in Wily Peralta and other guys that would never pitch in one of these games inflating it. Hader, Knebel, Hughes, Swarzak, and even having to go to Torres for an inning definitely equals a 3.50 ERA or better. Maybe those guys have a slightly deflated ERA due to them letting inherited runners from the starters score and it not counting, but that bullpen game definitely can equate to Jimmy Nelson for 3-4 starts. For 3 or 4 games, a cobbled together bullpen game is extremely likely to produce about the same results as a "good" pitcher that Nelson is. Now, the Brewers' bullpen is not as deep so I'd lean towards slightly worse but I don't understand why some of you guys are laughing me off. I'd never do it for the bulk of a season but I think 2 innings of Garza + the bullpen would allow 3-4 earned runs over 9 innings if you gave it a large sample of games which...is what Jimmy Nelson + 2-3 innings of bullpen would give you. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to throw Hader in in the 4th inning when Votto, good righty such as Duvall, Scooter, and Schebler come up? Nelson is a very good pitcher but I'd rather have Hader in that situation. You also get the advantage of basically having a DH all game and getting to pick-and-choose how you want to play it. Get up 7-1? Let Garza keep going and see if you can hold on for the win. Garza gets blown up early? Throw him to the wolves for 5 innings or let Wilkerson eat 5 innings no matter how many runs he gives up. Close lead? Now you pitch backwards with your best reliever/best matchups as you would in the playoffs.

I don't think you fully read my post. Of course the pitchers we have left are way worse than Nelson. However, 3 or 4 games where we pitch Garza for 2 innings and then throw 6 or 7 relief pitchers probably cobbles together a low ERA. That would burn a bullpen during the season but there is almost zero downside of it at this point of the season and we get to basically have a DH with pinch-hitting for the pitcher every time around. As for the playoffs, yeah, shifting the rotation up one peg hurts. Anderson/Davies/Woodruff is "fine" and probably not much worse than Nelson/Anderson/Davies and using Woodruff for the 1 time we'd need a 4th starter in the playoffs. Again, start Suter and play a bullpen game and it doesn't hurt that much. If we make the playoffs, I'd rather have Nelson + the full bullpen ready instead of a "bullpen game" but when playing with house money at that point it's not going to kill me and it may still work out in our favor. Oh I read your post and I get it. We have the quantity of arms to be able to pitch a bunch of guys 2 innings a piece and not be overworked, that's the crux of your point. The part I'm not with you on, is you seem fairly certain that guys like Guerra/Garza/Jeffress/etc are likely to put together a low ERA and pitch to a similar quality that Jimmy would give us in 6-7 innings. It is probably more likely than not that Guerra allows at least 1 HR in 2-3 innings of work. People seem very convinced that Garza is a sure thing to buzz through an order once, but he's been hit around in the 1st and 2nd inning often enough this season. And in your type of game, you are probably looking at having to use at least one of Drake/Torres at some point. Enough said. The extra offense from PH twice likely doesn't make up for the extra runs those guys give up compared to Jimmy. If you play matchups correctly it should work out pretty well. Start with some of your better relievers (depending on where the other team is in the batting order) and work backwards. If you get ahead 9-1 in the 3rd inning, let Garza keep pitching or if you've already dipped into the pen, let Wilkerson or Guerra go long. Our bullpen depth isn't great which makes this less of a slam dunk, but the difference is generally going to be minimal between Nelson and a cobbled together set of relievers. Garza's splits, time through the order (OPS against): 1st time: .655 2nd time: .860 3rd time: .994 I'd take 2-3 innings of .655 OPS against. That's not a ton worse than Jimmy Nelson offers. I'd say just start Hader or Taylor Williams knowing that they're only going 2 innings or so, but just logistically, Garza has always started out the game, etc. and you have the benefit of letting him go 5 or 6 innings if you explode offensively in the 2nd inning or something like that. How many times around an opposing team sees a pitcher is a big deal. Even Nelson isn't great the 2nd and 3rd time around. Optimally, you'd never really let your pitcher go more than once or twice around. Of course keeping a bullpen alive through 162 games you can't do that...but there is almost no downside in September except for that fact that you probably know that you're going to burn a few innings of Hader, Swarzak, etc. in a given game instead of saving them a bit for games that are tied or you have a small lead.

I see your point on Nelson, but the quality of pitching we will see for 6-7 innings for the 3-4 turns he'd have remaining is far different with Nelson than a grab bag of Garza/Guerra/Jungmann/Wilkerson/Jeffress. It's nice having extra arms to allow for quick hooks, but I'd rather those guys get paid to have a dance contest in the bullpen than throwing meaningful pitches. And that doesn't even consider any postseason potential. Davies/Anderson were pitching anyway. Woodruff(who's still very young) would have been our 4. Now he's going to be relied on to be our 3rd pitcher in any postseason game...and we really don't have a 4th one. And you don't get expanded rosters in playoffs. That also doesn't consider the risk that Nelson doesn't return fully to form from the injury. Shoulder injuries are worrisome to say the least. I don't think you fully read my post. Of course the pitchers we have left are way worse than Nelson. However, 3 or 4 games where we pitch Garza for 2 innings and then throw 6 or 7 relief pitchers probably cobbles together a low ERA. That would burn a bullpen during the season but there is almost zero downside of it at this point of the season and we get to basically have a DH with pinch-hitting for the pitcher every time around. As for the playoffs, yeah, shifting the rotation up one peg hurts. Anderson/Davies/Woodruff is "fine" and probably not much worse than Nelson/Anderson/Davies and using Woodruff for the 1 time we'd need a 4th starter in the playoffs. Again, start Suter and play a bullpen game the 1 time we need a 4th starter and it doesn't hurt that much. If we make the playoffs, I'd rather have Nelson + the full bullpen ready instead of a "bullpen game" but when playing with house money at that point it's not going to kill me and it may still work out in our favor.

Guerra's velocity has been back since returning. He was hitting 95 in both his relief outings. Question for him is getting ahead so he can use his out pitch. Garza was on a short leash his last start and still allowed 6 runs. It wasn't quick enough. He did fine the first time around the order (check the splits, he's fine first time around), a couple guys got on, and then Craig Counsell let him pitch to Joey Votto, Scott Schebler, Adam Duvall, etc. I don't know if I said it in a game thread here but I was definitely yelling it on Twitter, etc...Counsell should have come out and gotten him in the 3rd when the Reds got a guy on base and the meat of the order (most being lefties) were due up.

The solution is pretty easy. Garza (or honestly name a pitcher we have not already in the rotation, I don't care) can have his spot and basically Counsell can have the hook ready at any sign of trouble after the 2nd inning. Garza is fine for the 1st time around in the batting order this season. We don't need to have a "starter" in the truest sense at this point in the season. We've got expanded rosters until we make the playoffs and in the playoffs will barely need a 4th starter -- if we do, a bullpen game is fine and we're playing with house money at that point. If Counsell lets lower-velocity Guerra, AAAA Jungmann, or declining Garza take the rotation spot and pitches them like it's May 25th (let them pitch through a jam, get to 100 pitches) then he deserves to be flamed. We've got like 3 or 4 turns in the rotation left. Why would we not do this? It would be silly to worry about who the "starter" is. Just pitch bullpen games with the expanded roster. My hot take is that Nelson's injury barely hurts us [for this season]. It is a terrible loss for a full season. We can effectively pitch a bullpen game and get a "DH" with expanded rosters pinch hitting almost every time the pitcher slot comes around.

Verlander the last 3 or 4 seasons really ramps up his stuff in the 2nd half and is dominant. I would have loved to basically absorb the contract. Giving up good prospects and absorbing the contract...no.