Playing Catch

They really do. Just no consistency.

As hypothetical trades go, I like this one.

I agree with this. I have this feeling like some team will give him a four year deal with an opt-out.

Just a note to say that teams can't MAKE a guy sign in January. Lots of players wait to sign because their agents recommend waiting for bigger and better contracts/situations. For all we know, the Brewers currently have the best offer on the table for any number of guys, but those guys are hoping some other team offers a bigger deal, or another team is closer to family, or closer to the beach, or the nightclubs. It bothers me when people act like these players are just playing cards that one needs to purchase and take home. The players decide when to sign, not the teams.

I'm not too worried about the leadership part, as Wahl, Chucky, Max and the coaching staff I believe can keep the team focused as needed. I agree about the consistency part, but I think that is coming. I think tomorrow's game will be a good test for this, as well. They are good enough to beat Nebraska by double-digits, but Nebraska has been tough at times this season. A loss or a close win, and I too, will be concerned about consistency, but I'm feeling more of a 78-65 victory, with a pretty decent lead for much of the 2nd half.

I agree that the acronym is kind of silly. I was just trying to say that if Misiorowski isn't a prospect that fits your projection as a TOR arm, there must not be many (any?) prospects across all of MLB that do.

If MLB can't sell hope to fans, the small-revenue teams have to move to a larger revenue-generating situation. It behooves Brewer fans to be concerned about competitive balance, because without it, they would ultimately leave because the Brewers wouldn't sell enough tickets.

I think the competitive balance in baseball has been pretty good in my lifetime. I happen to believe it is better for the sport if the Yankees and the Dodgers are perennially contenders. But I'm also of the opinion that this level of competitive balance is not assured to continue. As Oxy mentioned, comparing two sports can lead to false equivalencies, but ONE of the reasons the NASL failed was due to the little teams going bankrupt trying to keep up with the New York Cosmos. One could say that was simply bad management, but if you aren't competitive, it is far more difficult to sell tickets. And in baseball, the turnstiles drive revenue more than TV contracts, at least in smaller markets. There's lots of good articles about the demise of the NASL, if you are interested, just Google them.

And sure... the little guys may not care about it either, so long as they are making money. But the issue that could happen is small-revenue teams losing fan interest to the degree that they are no longer making money... THAT'S why the small-revenue clubs need to be able to at least "look" like they can compete.

This won't happen in my lifetime, but I've long wondered about this before. I think I would enjoy a tiered system that included promotion/relegation like International soccer. MLB could even expand to say, 45 markets. Add Las Vegas, add Charlotte and Nashville, add two more teams to New York and LA. Bring back Montreal! With this said, this would be a bad deal for the big hitters, who end up subsidizing the sport. This is why soccer clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid are trying to form a "Super League" that would not include past performance as criteria for future participation. I didn't follow the last negotiations, but I'm presuming that the "give" on the part of MLB was higher pay/accommodations for minor leaguers and probably a raise to the minimum salaries(?) But yeah, the players couldn't care less about competitive balance, and neither do the big spenders. In the next CBA the small-revenue teams will need to stick together to avoid losing a year of team control without some other form of "competitive balancing" measures.

According to this article from 2021, he was sitting 95-97 at one point... Big Stuff Depth Arms Trevor Megill, RHP Dakota Chalmers, RHP Bryan Hudson, LHP Darius Valdez, RHP Craig Brooks, RHP Megill is a mid-90s/slider depth reliever. Chalmers has three plus pitches and 20 control. Valdez, acquired before the season from San Diego, will touch 102, but he’s in Mauricio Cabrera land. Hudson gained nearly 10 mph of fastball velo and went from sitting 87-90 to 95-97. He’s a 3 athlete without an impact secondary. Brooks’ fastball — 92-96 with plus spin — garnered an 18% swinging strike rate in 2019.

TNSTAAPP The Brewers seem to be an organization that believes this (i.e. they don't usually spend a lot of draft capital or Intnl spending on pitchers -- Misiorowski perhaps being the exception), therefore they just stockpile arms, arms, and more arms in the hopes of turning the into pitchers. Seems to be working.

As an organizational strategy, in that division, the O's need to stockpile talent. I haven't looked, but I would imagine that even if they've got guys would have to be rostered on the 40-man, they have options. No reason to trade them until they know they will lose them.

I considered that as well, but honestly, I'm not worried about 3 pt% at all. In any given game, the Badgers have got 6 guys (including Ess-dog) that I have no problem with shooting a 3. Now if they were reliant on hitting 3's to win games, then the percentage would be a bigger concern fo me.

Perhaps more than any other topic over the years, this one has derailed the most threads, so I thought I would start a topic. There is no debating that the big clubs dominate free agency and collect stars like baseball cards. But there are some that believe this only has a small effect on the competitiveness of the league, and some that feel like the Brewers will never compete for a World Series. I have a number of thoughts on the topic, and I think there is more nuance and subtlety to the issue than is often acknowledged. I think that while it is true that being a top spender doesn't ensure a World Series -- or even a playoff birth, I think that if the situation isn't resolved in the next CBA, the Brewers, and other small-revenue teams that have had recent success, will begin to struggle to convince fans that they can compete for championships. There are a number of factors that have allowed fans of small-revenue teams to feel hopeful each spring. But will that continue? If the Brewers played in the same division as the Dodgers, Braves, or Mets, would we feel as optimistic about competing for a playoff birth? If the union is able to cut team control down to 5 seasons, instead of 6, will the Brewers be able to compete? Is this system fair to the players, or just an artificial way to allow small-revenue teams to compete? Does MLB need a salary cap and revenue sharing? Are super-teams actually good for MLB? Is competitive balance overrated? Would a draconian NFL-style salary cap and parity water down baseball too much?

All the usual caveats to this comment apply, but this team is looking like they could be special. I think they continue to get better, and are starting to develop that confidence and trust in themselves and their teammates. I'm not sure what their biggest weakness is. Don't get me wrong, there are teams that are better than the Badgers in one facet or another, but this is perhaps as well-rounded a team as I can remember. Crowl has really taken a step, in my eyes. He's beginning to look like a guy that can be a reserve big in the NBA. Storr has looked like an NBA player. All the other guys are playing their roles perfectly. One can imagine all of the starting 5 as candidates for All-B1G, save for maybe Klesmit, who may make All-D team. This is gunna be a fun season.

Who's taking the over on the O/U of 0.5 Frantrums tonight?

I think a lot of the issues we witnessed this season come down to the change in schemes/philosophies, and not having personnel that fit said schemes. The Mordecai/Allen injuries were really problematic, too, as there just was a lack of star power on both sides of the ball. I mean, how many pros were on the roster this season? They simply were not very talented, and many of the players were recruited and developed in order to play in totally opposite styles, the holdover OL and LBs in particular. I think that fact, too, is why many of us have reservations about Fickell/Longo/Tressel. There is a collective unease, particluarly with the 40+ crowd, going away from the Wisconsin identity. I still support the decisions that were made, but they also make me really nervous. I terms of short yardage failures, I'm baffled by any playcall that features a lot of horizontal movement, like yesterday's first-and-goal-from-the-one playcall. Very frustruating. If you are going shotgun, you simply must either pass or run up the gut. You just CAN'T lose yardage in that spot. With that complaint in mind, I think the game management/playcalling stuff is basically what fans talk about when they are disappointed in the result. Winning cures a lot of mismanagement issues. (I realize that those two things are connected, I'm just saying that teams that win also do stupid things).

I'd love to sign Paxton. I like the idea of short-term guys that have had star-power in the past. I just mentioned in the other thread that I'd like Tim Anderson for the same reason.

There's a lot of ways they could go. Two players that intrigue me because they are most likely short-term, low-risk investments are Tim Anderson and Sean Manaea. Anderson is especially interesting due to his potential reward.

Yep. It's the same reason why teams, like the Brewers, tend to prefer college players.

I'm of the belief that catchers need as much seasoning as possible before promotion. I'm in no hurry to get Quero up to the big squad. Even if he's raking in AAA, I would prefer the Brewers wait until '25 to debut him. There are just so many quality catching prospects that fizzle when they hit MLB.

Admittedly, I was never a big Avina guy due to the swing and miss, and I really disliked the Bauers trade, but I have to believe that in a pool of 100 professional scouts, perhaps 3 or 4 would agree with this.

I'm probably forgetting some obvious example, but I can't remember the Brewers having any success with DSL pitchers since who? Wily Peralta? edit to add: Or teenage pitchers from anywhere, I suppose.

I think the thing most people are having a hard time with, myself included, is determining the quality of prospect that Crow represents. Superficially, it looks bad -- TJ, short, soft-tosser, Rule 5 candidate, #28 prospect for Mets (now #25 for Brewers), two-for-one, etc. But after peeling back the layers, it seems like Crow was a target. A guy the Brewers truly believe in as a future mainstay of the Brewers rotation -- and a guy with some helium that w/o the Tommy John, would have been 40-manned by the Mets or traded for more than what the Brewers just gave up. A prospect with a pretty similar "look" as Gasser. Trading Houser and Taylor for a Gasser clone, I think, would make everyone feel pretty comfortable with the trade.