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.
If a team wants a guy they'd be willing to trade a lottery ticket to make sure they got them. LosisELy pointed out multiple teams that might be interested. If one of them wants to make a minor move that doesn't upset their farm too much that is exactly the type of move you make. Given a lot of teams are on the fringe one would imagine the moves they'd make would also be on the fringe. While it wouldn't make sense to make a big splash on a rental for an outside shot it would make sense to make a small move on a player and see what happens.
To your point that losing clubs are unlikely to take on payroll that's just not true. Teams often take on payroll to facilitate a trade. That's especially true for non impact players and/or rentals. What they don't want is an average player with no future on the team staying on the team the whole season and get nothing for them. Given those players are less in demand they have fewer options. Thus if evening out the money is not prohibitive.