Oxy

As a non-lover of dogs, this made me think... I should stop thinking so much.

What is the Brewers record for consecutive games with a home run?

Shawn Green and Carlos Delgado?

Ha! The Blue Jays announcers said Pillar missed an out by 6 inches.

I guarantee we will vastly improve upon our .250 winning percentage... Unfortunately, the next time we will be within 2 games of .500 and only 1.5 games back from 1st place will likely be opening day 2018.

This is a good post, but it's even better coming from "YoungGeezy1" (I don't know you, and I have no problem with your handle, I just think it's funny)

Of course. But those players have zero connection to the city of Atlanta, with a huge connection to the city of Milwaukee and its fans. I'm arguing the city connection is more important than the franchise, and to me it's not close. Should the LA Rams invite Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner for a number retiring ceremony so they can get a big round of applause for a bunch of fans that never cheered for them? Bring a Vlad Guerrero to Washington where he never played? Retire Ray Allen's number as an Oklahoma City Thunder? All the same franchises. EDIT: Also with this logic Hank Aaron's number should not be retired as a Brewer. He was just a hall of famer from another franchise who played out his career with the Brewers. Just like Trevor Hoffman. A-What?

Then eliminate mid-inning pitching changes. For all games. Whoever starts the inning has to finish it unless he gets injured. Offense should increase, late inning lead changes should happen more frequently and it cuts out a lot of the boring time.

If it was football the records would range from 10 - 6 and 6 - 10. In a normal year it would range from 9 - 7 to 7 - 9. Which is why baseball is the greatest live sporting event. Even if you are a fan of the worst team in the league, you can go to some random Tuesday night game against the best team in the league and have a decent chance of seeing a victory.

I keep going back and forth on this one. I kind of enjoy it when the catcher sets up for a ball a half an inch off the outside corner, doesn't move his mitt the width of a glove lace and the Ump calls it a strike. When the pitcher makes his pitch like that, there are certain times when I think it should be rewarded.

Again, those stats are meaningless in a vacuum. If a runner starts at second and gets thrown out at home by 10 feet after a single hit to the left of Khris Davis in the top of the 11th in a 6-6 game with two outs, Tyler Thornburg on deck (after only pitching 1/3 of an inning) and Aroldis Chapman on the mound and no bench bats left, I'd still consider that a good risk to take. Of course, that is an extreme example, but for something that only happens around 20 times a year it wouldn't be that surprising to find out that they were good risks to take. We still have no idea how many runs were scored because risks were taken--and even further, how many games were won because that specific risk was taken. Rickey Henderson led the league in being caught stealing 5 times. EDIT: I'm not necessarily saying that everybody is wrong here, I'm just saying that in this case using season long stats like this are meaningless, and that everybody is biased toward remembering the OUTS and not the times the relay throw was 10 feet up the line and our guy walked across the plate when a good throw would have had him out by a mile. EDIT #2: Keep in mind that in order for the risk to be worth it with 2 outs, something like for every 5 guys thrown out by 10 feet, only ONCE does a throw have to be well offline where the runner scores (This varies greatly depending upon matchups)

Excellent post. I have no problem with 3rd outs being made at the plate as long as it is a close play. Putting the pressure on the defense to make a play is a good thing, and if the likelihood that they make a perfect play is less likely than our next batter driving in the guy from third with 2 outs, then the right decision was made.

I can't see the game tonight. All I know is 6-5 lefty throwing a no-hitter in his MLB debut. Sounds good to me.

Is there any chance that Jeffress IS the PTBNL? Or is that against the rules?

It seems like this could be very advantageous in the AL. If you've got a decent hitting pitcher, co-start him with a guy who throws with the opposite arm who you DH for. The two of them should be able get through 9 innings very easily, each almost exclusively having only R-R or L-L matchups, each likely throwing less than 100 pitches.

You are. Quantity isn't going to get Archer or Teheran. They are asking for multiple top prospects, especially Atlanta. IIRC, they requested both Yoan Moncada and Andrew Benintendi from Boston. Archer's price isn't much different. The package you proposed isn't anywhere near enough to get those done. Saying it's easy to get an ace is just unbelievably inaccurate. Stearns is doing it right for our market. You stock the system and keep replenishing it so you always have ammo down the line when you're ready for a shot. If we rush this, we'll just be the mediocre franchise we've been the last decade outside of 1 or 2 seasons. You know how we got Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, etc? We were awful and were fortunate to pick high enough to land those types of talent. It's nowhere near as easy as you're trying to suggest. I never said it was easy, but at some point the sheer quantity has to balance out the trade, especially when 7/10 of my "quantity" side of the proposal were 1st or 2nd round draft picks. That should be a lot of upside, no? It is more of a curiosity of mine about internet rankings and the draft/scouting industry,which I think has perpetuated itself beyond it's usefulness. If people want to trade for Gallo so bad, I'd say that we should turn the tables and try to get good 25 and 26 year old players ( a la Archer and Teheran) and trade our 21 and 22 year old 1st round draft picks, who I think are getting an unearned boost because people want them to be better than they actually are in order to justify their rankings. Again, perhaps I'm wrong. (Also, the best thing about this site IS its focus on young players, scouting and development....sometimes it just kind of shocks me just how pervasive this sentiment has become)

You are So, you would or you wouldn't take the 10 for 2 deal I proposed? EDIT: I responded too soon, as you soon elaborated.

I feel like this should happen more often.

I understand that this thread has gone off the rails with stupid hypotheticals, and I am partly to blame with my trade proposal. Still, I kind of feel like my Brewer fandom has gone off the rails the last couple of years or so with equally ridiculous hypotheticals about rebuilding a farm system that is being highly rated by internet dorks. With very few actual results on the field to show for it! Like the MINOR LEAGUE field, not the MLB ballclub.

If only we could have traded Gamel and Parra and Peralta at the equivalent times we traded LaPorta (and to a lesser extent Lawrie, Escobar and Odorizzi) (....okay, this post pushed it a little too far, considering the careers of guys like Cruz, Lucroy, Brantley, and Cain) The point is that prospects are AT LEAST as risky as FA signings (at least if you have the pocketbook and capspace). And I'd say that high draft pick toolsy guys are the most over-rated prospects of all, and thus we should trade them if they don't work out somewhat quickly in their first few minor league years.

Say we traded Madeiros, Clark, Harrison, Gatewood, Phillips, Woodruff and Lopez for Archer and Teheran. A. Is that a reasonable trade? B. Would any of you be disappointed? For good measure, throw in Roache, Coulter, and Taylor. That's 10 of our somewhat prized prospects. If I am Stearns, I would do this deal in a heartbeat, and yet I I actually think this SHOULD be very doable according to the way prospects seems to be valued. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Honestly now, who is the most valuable player on the trade market--Jean Segura, Jonathan Villar, or Orlando Arcia? Villar. Your point? My point is that it doesnt necessarily have to be a long drawn out process of acquiring as many 19 year old talents as possible. It only takes a 1 or 2 guys to really turn it around quickly, and those guys might be 23 or 24 or 25, and maybe even a 29 year old FA signing (gasp).

The Brewers need to start drafting better too. When your first round picks are Arnett, Jungmann, Bradley, Coulter, Roache and Medeiros you've got issues. I still have hope for Medeiros, along with Clark and Ray but we can't have so many first round busts. And the saddest thing is that most of them aren't injury related. The players just aren't good enough. Yep. Gatewood and Harrison are in there too. Those two and Madeiros still have a couple years, but that's what we said about Roache and Coulter and Taylor two years ago. Since then, we've acquired something like 18 OFers who immediately jumped above them in the MLB pipeline and weren't that much older. Still, I have hope. It only takes one or two of those guys to turn it around and be decent to change a lot of the current perception of bad drafting.

Honestly now, who is the most valuable player on the trade market--Jean Segura, Jonathan Villar, or Orlando Arcia?

Really? What would it take to trade for Julio Teheren and Chris Archer? Seriously?