Thurston Fluff

Given the way Ortiz has been playing lately I'm not so sure it would be an easy call. We'd definitely make that trade if all it costs us was a lottery ticket. We'd also make the trade for Skubal if that's all it costs us. Both are about as realistic.

True but adding in negotiations with the IOC would significantly complicate CBA talks .

Hockey isn't the same as baseball. The temptation to win it all by using a pitcher on short rest or too many innings would have significant impacts on a team trying to win a pennant. Would you want team USA using Miz for 9 innings then pitching again for a few inning three days later so team USA could win gold?

The other thing he routinely says when he trades for a young reliever is he views them as a starter. Maybe that's because it's always true. It may also be true that every GM in the NFL got the guy they wanted in the draft.

This seems like a trade that doesn't really have much downside. The only downside would be the potential whomever we remove from the 40 man ends up going on to contribute to another team down the road and we get nothing from the two we picked up. I don't think this will prohibit any other deals. I seriously doubt they'd have made this deal if they felt they were interested in someone better that will now be cost prohibitive. What we get is someone who could eat a few innings even if he sucks while doing it and a little back of the bullpen depth. The benefit of doing so well up to now allows a couple game cushion to try something like this. I doubt they're going to risk too many games if either one of them implodes early on. They aren't going to patiently wait for them to figure it out like they are Sproat.

The Brewers don't operate on the one magical year theory. They did under Melvin which culminated in 2011. It got us as far as the current way does. Minus 5 division titles and seven fewer playoff appearances. There is no such thing as a magical year until it happens. The only way to have one is to put yourself in position to have one as many times as possible.

I hope cash the Astros had to give us to take him was worth it.

I don't know about this. I think the reason they didn't give guys like Rom or Woodford more innings is they weren't good enough. If they think Stallings can be more than just a mop up guy then they'd just give him more innings and give some of the others more of a break. If they don't view him as anyhting other than a mop up guy then why would they care if he goes a week without pitching? You don't sacrifice a good pitcher so an crappy one can eat a few innings now and then in a blowout. That's what Bauers is for.😁

Why would they sign him to play a roll Stallings just showed he might be able to handle? A minor league contract seems a lot more likely to me. Signing him to a major league contract means he has to stay on both the 40 man and 26 man roster. That's losing a lot of flexibility for someone who hasn't be good for quite a while. While we might have a 40 man spot opening with Woody wouldn't it make more sense to save it in case we need it for a trade? I just don't see the upside of losing the roster flexibility and money just because he was good here for a year or so once upon a time. I do see the upside of a minor league contract for someone who was good here once upon a time.

that's what purposely acquiring more starting pitching depth does for you. Ditto for the Cubs. Had they spent the same money they did on Bregman for a couple journeymen starters and get two other starters for what they traded to get Cabrera they'd be in a hell of a lot better shape now too.

The Cards used as many pitchers in game one as the Brewers did in both games. What makes that even better is they have two games left against them. Usually when you wipe out a pen in a double header it's the next opponent who gets the benefit.

In order for your claim the Brewers type of offense specifically is weak to elite pitching you'd not only have to show the Brewers struggle against elite pitching. You'd also have to show they struggle more than teams who have a power driven offense. I don't know if it is or not but I'm not the one claiming it is.

I wasn't talking specifically about the Dodgers. I was talking about our type of offense facing great pitchers in general. People are placing way too much weight in a single series where the offense played like crap. That the Brewers played so poorly in a single series is not indicative how how much further behind the Dodgers they are nor how poorly built the offense is for postseason play. If you're going to say it is you have to come up with more than anecdotal evidence. Especially in a thread started that showed just how much the team who is supposedly so far ahead of us struggled before breaking through.

If it was just about facing better pitching in the playoffs being kryptonite to our style of offense wouldn't it show up when facing them in the regular season? Anecdotally, Paul Skenes probably doesn't think so but it would take a comprehensive analysis to know for sure. Is there any study someone can point to showing we perform worse against great pitching than other types of offense? Personally, I think a team that scores runs all year is as likely to score runs in the playoffs regardless of the way they scored said run.