Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Thurston Fluff

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,797

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Thurston Fluff

  1. Thurston Fluff
    I think he'd be a guy who could be used as an innings eater who would allow us to skip a start or two from some of the younger guys. We could use that. It would also give us a chance to see if Sproat can be a little more effective in relief. If he can turn into a Patrick type reliever it would be a nice boost going forward and another legit weapon in the playoffs. If not at least we'll know and we get the workload relief we'll probably need for the young pitchers to be effective in October.
  2. Thurston Fluff
    Whatever he did last season in the playoffs has zero relevance to what can be expected out of him this year in the playoffs. Jeff Suppan won NLCS MVP. People see a name they recognize and that he has some success in the playoffs and think "needle mover!!!". The reality is he's a 35 year old pitcher with an ERA+ that says he's league average. That's not a bad move for the Cubs at all. They don't have a great farm system so this might have been the best they could realistically do without totally wiping out the system. It wouldn't have been a terrible move for the Brewers either. We could use a league average innings eater. It's also possible he does catch fire and help the Cubs make a deep playoff run. The same thing happened in 2006 with Jeff Suppan. But it isn't likely. Nor would it be worth trading for him based on it. My point is his name recognition and past playoff performance make him seem like a much bigger catch than he really is.
  3. Thurston Fluff
    He did. It wasn't a major trade but it was a someone. He's a name people recognize. He had success once upon a time. He's a veteran with "playoff experience" so he's obviously going to do well in the playoffs again. If we were sellers and someone traded for Yelich people would be talking about how that team was willing to go for it by getting a needle mover.
  4. Thurston Fluff
    The difference isn't risk aversion. It's what risk looks like in each organization is different. The Dodgers can lose every prospect and still not have to worry about how they'll field a winning team down the road. They don't have to worry about maintaining fan interest by having a homegrown star come up from their minors. They don't have to push prospects through the system because they're needed in the majors. They can afford to string out a prospect's timeline so they control them as long as possible. They don't have to add a player who's still a year or two away from needing to be placed on the 40 man because he's needed in the majors. They can keep them in the minors until they run out of options. All of those things keeps their farm strong but has less to do with being better than it is being rich enough to do fill their roster with high priced free agents. Their prospects are not as important to the team's future as they are to the Brewers. Teams that can do that see the value in their prospects as what they can help the team get to win now. If the Brewers did that the cost to future teams would be significantly higher than it is for the Dodgers.
  5. Thurston Fluff
    It always made more sense for the Dodgers to pay what ever it costs than the Brewers. The Dodgers have a lot of money going to aging players they'll have to deal with soon. They'll likely be doing so in a system less favorable to high payroll teams going forward. They're trying to win three consecutive WS before the proverbial poop hits the fan. The brewers are on the other side of things. Their window is just starting to open. They have a crap load of talent just starting to hit their prime and more coming up in the next year or so. Having said all that I'm not sure it changes out chances all that much. It was always going to take a hot streak and some luck. That hasn't changed.
  6. Thurston Fluff
    It's a lot easier to do when you can stash them in the minors because you can buy better players for your major league roster. Chourio, Pratt, Henderson, Sproat, and Patrick would all probably still be in AAA if we could spend the kind of money the Dodgers have.
  7. Thurston Fluff
    This seems like a trade made at the deadline but not a deadline trade. If one views it that way it makes sense. We shuffled couple bottom of the roster types. That happens pretty regularly. Obviously the the fans thought more of Yoho than the team did. The fans saw the next air bender while the team saw a mediocre reliever who had control problems. North Shore will be sadder to see him go than the team will.
  8. Thurston Fluff
    The money owed both of them would fit into the cash over prospects strategy the Brewers used in the past. In a way the money owed is a bonus not a detriment.
  9. Thurston Fluff
    He should not be taking up playing time to any of them. Nor would he. He might get a few starts over Brett Wichrowski. Even then, a few starts in august wouldn't be preventing Wichrowshi from developing into a major league pitcher.
  10. Thurston Fluff
    I think Woodfruff shows what an veteran with diminishing stuff can do if they can place the ball where they want. The only risk is it would take a spot in AAA that a young player might have used to develop. I don't think our AAA pitching staff is 100% full of actual major league prospects.
  11. Thurston Fluff
    Like others have said, this was a creative way to get another long term pitcher without losing another prospect. Whatever he gave us was a bonus. I'm sure they hoped it would be more than this but I doubt they were counting on it. He did eat up a couple innings that would have had to go to more important players in his 12 day stint. So there is that. It will be interesting to see what Stallings can give us.
  12. Thurston Fluff
    If anyone said that's good enough when the model fails with regularity they should not be taken seriously. Once a model is considered "good enough" and no longer tries to improve it becomes obsolete. I don't think anyone tries to build an inaccurate model. Nor do I think anyone should just ignore something their model fails at and expect to be taken seriously. You're always supposed to be trying to get more accurate. It's one thing to ignore an outlier season. Quite another when the same outlier happens regularly over a decade by the same team. That's no longer a coincidental outlier. That's a team that's telling you you're missing something. When that happens you either adjust for it or admit you haven't got an accurate model.
  13. Thurston Fluff
    Political predictions rely on polls. Polls are known to have accuracy issues.How they pick random people to poll, one demographic being less inclined to take the poll than another, people who lie, vague or misunderstood questions, questions that require a black or white responses that doesn't account for a more nuanced answer to name a few. Which is what pollsters try to adjust for. Baseball uses numbers from past performance. Much less ambiguity. All I'm saying is they could add one more cold hard fact. Calculate the variance of past performance against the model used to assess future performance then use it in your next projection.
  14. Thurston Fluff
    You don't have to figure out what the Brewers are doing. You just have to take an average the model misses by over a set period of time and adjust it accordingly. It's just adding another stat to account for variables that are not accounted for in the model.
  15. Thurston Fluff
    If the goal is to predict an outcome shouldn't the model be secondary to accuracy? Instead of sticking to the model that doesn't work why not find one that does for this team? I get not changing everything for everyone who has a outlier season or two. When it gets to the point where you acknowledge one team almost always does then it's time to for a change in approach. Players have to adjust when opponents figure them out. Maybe the analysts should do the same.
  16. Thurston Fluff
    Chourio just had a brain fart. The situation called for him to challenge it even if it was a foot outside. Overall I think the system was designed to overturn really bad calls and help get umpires back to the actual zone if they start to lose it in a specific area. What it seems to be turning into a debates about a fraction of an inch. Part of that is umps really aren't making terrible calls as often as we thought. Another part is the system is working to prevent umps from having a bad spot in the zone.
  17. 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.
  18. Thurston Fluff
    True but adding in negotiations with the IOC would significantly complicate CBA talks .
  19. Thurston Fluff
    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?
  20. Thurston Fluff
    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.
  21. Thurston Fluff
    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.
  22. Thurston Fluff
    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.
  23. Thurston Fluff
    I hope cash the Astros had to give us to take him was worth it.
  24. Thurston Fluff
    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.😁
  25. Thurston Fluff
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...