I don't care what the team expects. Nor would I read too much into that salary as them expecting him to perform at an above league average level. I'm saying I don't think we should be counting on him being anything close to what he was. It would be far better to plan on him being closer to Jimmy Nelson and be pleasantly surprised than count on him being the late August early September version of Ashby and having to figure out an alternative during the season if he isn't. That some are thinking he could do that as a starter no less is a recipe for disappointment.
Ashby also isn't starting and has put in an entire season of facing live batters in games. Shoulders are not elbows. Just assuming he's going to be anywhere near what he was without seeing him pitch to a single batter sounds like a recipe for disaster. Counting on his returning to even average is not the best way to build a starting staff. I think it's best to view anything he gives us as a bonus not something we should be relying on.
Given what we just saw Ashby go through I'm not expecting Woodruff to provide us with anything close to what he gave us in the past. If he can give us some late season relief help I'd be more than happy. He may come back to something resembling himself at some point but I doubt it will be next season as a starter.
I get the sentiment. I also think there's an argument to be made some teams match up better against certain teams. I think timing is key to that. Getting the worst match up right away might actually be better. It's easier to beat a better team in a three game series than seven. That might be why the worst team win more often than they should on paper.
I don't think that's exclusive to us. Given relief pitching is the most volatile position in baseball combined with by definition small sample sizes to determine success it should come as no surprise.
That assumes the Brewers would be as good without Ortiz and with Burnes. Obviously Burnes would be better than whomever replaced him but given how productive our pitching has been is the difference between them as significant as the difference between who the Brewers would have playing third if we didn't have Ortiz? Sometimes the fit matters more than the individual.
On the Fox post game show Saturday they mentioned how little talk the Brewers were getting for how good they've been. It lasted about ten seconds then they moved on to talk about something else. They are one of the most overlooked great stories in baseball and have been all year. Hell they could win the World Series this season and all people would talk about is how the Dodgers and Yankees blew it.
It might technically be full but given Yelich is out for the year it's not really full. If there's one bright spot in Yelich's injury is it saves a DFA.
I heard the radio today that the Braves pitching staff have (maybe had now?) the best ERA in the NL. Sweeping them by 3-2, 1-0, 2-1 would have been great. To take beat down a respectable staff like that is down right impressive.
That's my question. I read in the JS that he experienced a flareup leading up to the all-star break. How is the heck does he not know better than to play in a meaningless game when he not only knows he has a troublesome back but also was experiencing a flareup? That's on him.