sheethead

xFIP is experimental and FIP is flawed (which is why xFIP has been invented). Neither are measuring results, and both rely on constants. If 40 IP of John Smoltz this year has not led you to conclude he has nothing left (for this year anyway), then I would safely assume nothing will. Edit: I take xFIP and FIP as decent barometers for players in their prime and with constant variables. I don't feel either are valuable for extremely young or extremely old players with large swings in constants. I wouldn't use this stat to compare a 40+ year-old coming off season ending surgury to a third year major leaguer entering his prime. Its not fair to either. And I saw Smoltz pitch 4 of his 8 games this year. He looks done, mentally and physically.

With all due respect, the thought of this scenario makes me ill. Weathers and Coffey as 8/9 inning guys, no thanks.

Sure it could be, but so could: FIP and xFIP totals for this season: Smoltz: 4.96 - 4.36 which was your argument for him.

somewhere between $6-8 wouldn't be overpaying he made $6m this year so I doubt he would accept anything lower than $6m. This I don't get. As with Cameron, why do aging, downside veterans deserve a raise? Injury risk is greater, production decline is likely. Why pay more for a 37 year-old catcher (CFer) then when he was 36? Its bass ackwards.

With a 1.7 WHIP and 8 HRs given up in 40 innings this year, along with his decrease in velocity and inability to get left-handed hitters out, Smoltz is no better than a DiFelice in the pen at this point.

I am a baseball fan first, but the system in place in MLB handcuffs GMs of certain teams far more than the system in place in the NFL handcuffs GMs of similar markets. MLB will never get there due to the impossibility of shared broadcast rights. It is what it is.

Because he has nothing left, that's why.

Small market MLB teams don't really overpay free agents, large market teams have to overpay to get guys usually. Injuries play a larger role in the NFL than MLB as well. There is a "small market tax" to get get free agents. Its a reverse discounting that occurs, whether it can be quantified or not. Look at the 2008 vs 2007 packers as an example, the 2008 squad was probably a better team but the luck went the opposite way for the two teams and ended up with incredibly different records when both were probably around .500 teams. Do you really believe that? Look at the stats, much like you do in baseball, and you may think otherwise. The defense could not stop anybody last year, and that was the difference. It usually is in the NFL.

And if Tom Brady were to become a free agent in football the amount the Lions would have to pay him would do the same thing because they would have to blow more competitive teams offers out of the water to make him go there. Now imagine if the New York Giants could sign Tom Brady for whatever money anyone else could afford plus some without affecting their bottom line or ability to sign Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald. Then they can still go after another 2 or 3 top free agents, still draft players, and have access to overseas players that no body else has access to. I could never get on board with saying the NFL would be better with the Giants beating up on a patsy AFL team every year than the way it is now. The NFL has it right, and is entertaining for 85% of franchises year in and year out. MLB is what it is, a handful of teams that get to play by a different set of circumstances than most teams, and another handful of teams that are handcuffed to the point of not being competitive for two decades at a time. The only perceived balance is created by teams catching lightning in a bottle with young players once in a while, but the overall model precludes a competitive league top to bottom.

The NBA is a different animal, because you only need one impact player to be competitive. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, etc. have made their respective teams competitive. If James goes to NY guess what, they are contenders. The NBA is the most individualized team sport there is. As for MLB, take the 8 playoff spots and decrease that number by 1 or 2, because the Red Sox and/or Yankees are shoo-ins year in and year out. There will never be balance as long as some teams control their own broadcasting rights. Its not fair to say there is balance when one team can spend $200+ million a year on payroll while others are struggling to hit $60-70 million. They all get farm systems and draft picks, but some teams get to cherry pick others for their best farmed players. That system is not going to produce balance. Yeah, 16 game schedule vs 162 game. Robust minor league system compared to a cap system that puts most of the money into the starters and leaves most teams with little depth and every year a few random players are picked up off the streets to fill in for injured guys. I could see how it would be confusing. If you would have put it this way in the first place it would have made sense. But you said: Players move around too much, too many mediocre teams, season is decided by lucky bounces and injuries more than other sports. To top all that off the more popular/better teams still have all the advantages since they get to sign players for less where the crappy teams have to overpay to get people to come play for them. All of those descriptions refer as much to MLB as they do to the NFL with the exception of the "lucky bounces," which I would argue is not even close to how NFL seasons are decided. Maybe a game here or there, but I disagree teams make it to the playoffs because of a lucky bounce any more than a team could make it to the playoffs in MLB with a lucky bounce or bad call.

I doubt anyone would bet their house on the Brewers not making the playoffs I would. Can you find me someone to bet? I would love to have two houses.

Players move around too much, too many mediocre teams, season is decided by lucky bounces and injuries more than other sports. To top all that off the more popular/better teams still have all the advantages since they get to sign players for less where the crappy teams have to overpay to get people to come play for them. I couldn't tell if you were talking about baseball or football here.

I'm going with no. They don't have the make-up to go on a huge run at this time. The hitters are all trying to hit bombs and guessing for their pitch. Too many called third strikes, no plate protection, no contact hitting when down in the count or with runners in scoring position. Not enough pitching goes without saying. I am hoping for a .500 finish, and at this time that might seem to be a stretch.

JJ Hardy... I don't think this guy could be disappointing me any more this year. So FRUSTRATING!! Macha playing with fire leaving Villy out there for another inning.

Norris just hit 98 mph. Sixth round pick in 2006. Can we get one please?

That didn't take long to remind me the Brewers don't have enough pitching.

Well now that hell is frozen over, now what?

BS keeps giving me reasons to tune him out. "Four games is nothing." Now I sort of see what he means, but four games back is not nothing. It is four games back.

The moment the Suppan contract expires, I hope they pull a fleet of Brinks trucks up to Prince's house and dump off extension money. I wouldn't be opposed to feeding Suppan to Fielder to settle his uncontrollable rage and aggression. Win win... Prince would be full, and the Brewers could stop paying Suppan.

He would be an asset in the bullpen, as long as he doesn't see a left-handed hitter.

Didn't Wise make a perfect game saving catch a couple weeks ago? Pods can play until late inning substitution.

Can´t wait until he´s no longer a Brewer. A team loaded with pacifists is not the answer. Prince has fire, and I see it as controlled. Anger management issues? See Milton Bradley.

How much do you think we could get for Racine? I doubt it would be enough to cover the stadium. I thought we could throw in Janesville, but now I would assume we would have to pay Illinois to take Janesville off our hands.

Swindle DFA; Colome up. Meh. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/52672482.html

I wasn't trying to condescending, rather I was pointing out the circular nature of talking about trading franchise-type players. If everyone is tradeable (including Braun and Yo if the offer is appropriate, right?) then why talk about trading these types of players. I think it would be outrageous for Melvin to consider trading Prince before the calendar strikes 2011, unless it would net a load so big it would make the Vikings deal for Herschel Walker look good. The only one that makes Prince look like a ticking time bomb is Anthony Witrado. I neither saw, nor heard any ticking on Tuesday.