Playing Catch

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.

I wonder if the logic is that another team's prospect is more of a known quantity (quality?) than a comp pick.

I'm surprised people wouldn't like Festa and Prielipp. I think that would be a sound baseline for a Burnes trade. I agree though, that unless they will be getting back 2024 pitching, there's no point of taking back Polanco. Although one could just turn around and trade Polanco for something else, I suppose.

It's been a couple of hours, and this thread is already outstanding. I was initially pretty disappointed, and of course, after some background on Crow, I feel better about the return... While not a contributor this season, he profiles as a pretty sure bet (presuming health -- a big presumption), as a big league starter, as he was demonstrating both high-floor, and high-ceiling stuff before the injury (which certainly needs to be considered). If he's already throwing 3 MLB-quality pitches for strikes, his floor is probably close to an Adrian Houser, or like league-average backend starter, and with some ceiling too, considering these "double-plus" scouting reports on his pitchers. A pretty similar scouting report as Gasser, albeit from the right side, and with TJ. We all know the value of "controllable" starting pitching, based on our collective belief in Peralta's value. This looks like the Brewers are taking a risk that Crow turns into a legit MLB starter... those don't come cheap unless you trade for them BEFORE they are legit MLB starters. I find it hilarious that the posters that think the FO is terrible and simply looking out for "Montgomery Burns" Attansio's interests, also believe that rostering their beloved mid-rotation starter and 4th OFer represent is the path toward what? Free spenders? World Series contenders? Does their collective loss "move the needle" in the opposite direction? I ALSO think it's funny when those of us that defend the organization most of the time are unconcerned about the loss of consistent, league-average production with nothing to show for it on the big league team. In a vacuum, this move ABSOLUTELY makes the Brewers a lesser team in '24, and it certainly smacks of cutting salary corners. Good thing this move didn't happen in a vacuum. IMHO, this has more to do with 40-man space than dollars. Or, rather, it has to do with dollars-per-40-man spot, future value versus present value, and looking for the best possible return for these guys. I think it signals that Taylor wasn't going to play, and that they had their heart set on trading Houser. I'm worried about losing Houser. I thought TTaylor had more value. I'm nervous about prospects recovering from TJ (especially soft-tossers). I'm thrilled that Crow's scouting report has some exciting aspects.

If he compares to Jeferson Quero at that age, wouldn't that suggest he's only getting $10,000-$50,000? IIRC, Quero was highly regarded soon after signing, but not necessarily before.

Kind of off-topic, but are we past the point of needing to worry about other teams raiding our scouting department?

Is anyone else tired of the Dodgers? I feel like the rest of the league should just boycott dealing with them. Let their top prospects rot, pick them off one-by-one in the rule 5 draft. I'm at the point where if it's the Dodgers or no one, I'm keeping Burnes out of spite.

My first thought was also skepticism of the source. But since I'm here... Boston has been laying in the weeds a couple of seasons now. They are EXACTLY the type of team that needs to get involved to create a feeding frenzy. And while I can't speak to the current regime's status/reputation, the club has a history of doing big things.

Yeah. I was eyeballing Hoskins back in August, and it just seems, that with each passing day, more and more teams are interested in him. I suspect he's gunna get a much bigger deal than his on-field worth.

Do any of them look to be top-half of MLB defenders at short? If not, I worry none of them will have the stick necessary to make up for it, save for perhaps EBJ, and opinions on him are so disparate.

I think this deal draws posters' ire because it represents the issue of competitive balance in baseball. For many years, this has existed, but there IS a theoretical limit as to how much more disparity baseball fans will accept before we stop wasting our time. I'm not sure we've hit that limit yet, as the Brewers have continued to remain competitive in spite of the wealth disparity. Yesterday on MLBTV someone was musing on where Yamamoto would sign, asking, "Does he want to join a "super-team,"?" in reference to the Dodgers. I don't believe it will be good for the league in the long term to have "super-teams".