SoCalBrewfan

Yup, minor leaguers not on a 40-man roster are not in the MLBPA, and their working conditions are not part of this negotiation; it's disingenuous to blame players for not working on their behalf when it's literally against the rules. This plays out in other ways as well. You'll notice, for example, that no major league player is featured in a story on MLB.com, but there are plenty on prospects who are not yet on rosters. Pushing to expand membership of minor leaguers could well be a goal in a better world, but you have to assume that would be vigorously opposed by the owners. (Incidentally, it seems to me that the owners have used MLB.com as a propaganda arm after years of trying to build it up as at least somewhat impartial journalism. They aren't even pretending to cover the lockout impartially.)

MLBPA doesn't care about competitive balance. Their sole goal is to make sure their members get paid as early as possible as much as possible. That's it. I'm not convinced that the owners writ large do, either. (Some might, likely those who feel they are at a disadvantage but still try to win.) I think it's a thing they say to justify attempting to pocket a greater share of the sports' earnings. I think a lot of Brewers fans see this through the lens of a small market fan and are more pro-owner than average, but I don't actually believe that the ownership groups in places like Boston or LA really give two hoots about competitive balance. Manfred has done a good job of keeping the owners on one page from a negotiating perspective, despite potentially divergent interests, but I think they are basically all motivated by greed and ego rather than any sense of fair play or economic justice.

I am truly baffled by this question. To me there's a simple answer that is morals/values based: I want a fair competition, to the extent that this is possible, so that the winner is determined by baseball things and not which team happens to have a rich owner or big TV contract. Fair, to me, means every team has more or less the same boundary conditions and then it's up to them to plan and execute. Would I feel the same were I a Dodgers or Yankees fan? I would like to think so. Sure, the fans I know seem to overlook this, but wouldn't you rather win because you were smarter and better, and not just because your daddy had a lot of money? Who wants to see Alabama vs. Beloit College in football? Who wants to see Mike Tyson fight Pee Wee Herman? I mean, maybe it's momentarily fun for the Tyson fans, and then gives rise to the occasional underdog moment. Personally though I would much rather see the team that builds smarter and has a better plan win, rather than the team that routinely signs the best free agents and has $20M players as utility guys just because they have way more money than anyone else. The NFL does a pretty good job, I think; there are small-market teams that are consistently good, like Green Bay or Pittsburgh, because they draft and develop and have good coaching. (Getting a good QB obviously helps a lot, but that's not exactly a secret, nor is it limited to the richest teams.) There are mechanisms like the draft order and schedule that provide some advantages to teams who finished poorly, so there's some hope to the franchises who are in a losing cycle. With the right management and some high picks, you can rebuild and compete again. Detroit or Jacksonville fans aren't thinking their team is hopeless because they don't have the payroll....it's hopeless because they made bad choices and at least there's a fix for that. (This can be true in baseball but to a much much lesser extent...what hope do Pirates fans have?) Meanwhile, the big market teams can't just throw money at problems, so you see, say, the New York teams flailing because they have to play on a somewhat level playing field and apparently aren't up to the task at the moment.

Wow, Mitchell at #4, talk about a big dropper. Apparently there was something in that AA performance beyond the basic hitting statistics that scouts did not like at all. I think they explained the chat (re Hedbert, also) that dropping doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on a player since there was a combination of improvement (Ashby) and new talent added to the system (Frelick, Black). That said, Mitchell missed quite a bit of time and scouts seem to believe that his swing is not well matched to his talent, difficult to reach his power in game or some such. As you note his AA numbers look pretty terrible, but the Brewers recently tend to push a lot of guys up the system to levels where they struggle. A chatter asked about Small vs Ashby, as well. If you didn't read the chat, you should...many of your concerns came up. Due to his lack of pop in the bat, I don't see Turang as being a top 100 player anymore, likely falling just outside that ranking (probably in the 125-150 area). There can be a lot of value in a middle infielder who has plus defense, gets on base, and is good on the basepaths. I mean, Nicky Lopez was a 4 win player with a .378 SLG. (Whether he sustains that is another question.) There are a lot of big bats at shortstop these days, but historically the profile that Turang brings can play, and it helps that he's just turned 22 and has half a season of AAA already...he's been pushed aggressively so his offense hasn't had much time to develop. In comparison, Mitchell is older and struggled quite a bit more in AA. Frelick is five months younger and hit a brick wall in A+. Both of them have promise but they are oddly similar to Turang, lot of value in their defense, more likely to shine in OBP than SLG, still young enough to dream. I cling to the suggestion I read that Mitchell was the biggest steal in the draft his year, so would probably have him higher, but they all have some weaknesses to go with their strengths. Also, the ranking itself is generally less significant that the rating, and I think Mitchell, Frelick, Turang are considered to be similar FV players so you could probably pick any order you want. That said, as a long time prospect optimist, I have to say I think the system has a lot of warts and is deserving of its low ranking, at least for the moment. I like Mitchell and Frelick better than, say, Brinson and Harrison, but we don't have a lot of power bats in the upper minors and the pitching is really thin. The biggest hope I have is that the very young international kids (Hedbert, Hendry Mendez, Chourio, Quero, Garcia) come through, but most of those guys are a long way from the show. Aside from Ashby, I think I'd be ok seeing any of the top listed guys traded, assuming a good return of course.

I honestly am starting to wonder whether the blame for ST should go beyond the special teams coach. I mean, it's essentially a constant over the last few years, with different special teams coaches, and I start to think there is some impact of roster construction and preparation that goes beyond who the latest disposable coordinator might be. Dedicated return guys sure seem to be an afterthought. Are roster spots going to dedicated ST players, are they prioritized in late draft picks and UDFAs? I thought Oren Burks was on the team mostly for ST, but I wonder whether some of the guys are on those units as developmental pieces at their main position rather than having any particular ST value.

We just need to up the payroll so he's a smaller part of it I mean, we had a $103M opening day payroll in 2014 (link below). It hardly seems a stretch that in the midst of a competitive window, eight years later, we should be able to top that. https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/milwaukee-brewers/

If it were me I'd be reluctant to lock in the apparent negative value of that contract right now, in the hopes that Yelich can return to some higher level of productivity. You might think that's a slim hope, but as noted above it's hardly unprecedented for a player to have a lost season or two but then right the ship. Right now, if you deal him, that paper loss becomes a real one; as others have said you empty the farm system or take on a different bad contract, and you have nothing to show for it. I get that there are sunk costs, but I also don't think it's set in stone that Yelich will never be good again. If he rebounds somewhat, not to MVP levels but to something like Marlins Yelich level, the contract is not the liability it once was. Still not great, but with every passing year, the remaining years and dollars decrease and contracts around the league continue to increase. It remains to be seen of course, but there have been, what, five or six $24M+ AAV contracts in the pre-lockout burst? With probably at least a few more to come. Twenty million doesn't go as far as it used to...

The difference being that Avisail Garcia is universally beloved on here and just signed a 3/$60M contract Are either of these things true? I'm with turbo in the skepticism of the first part. And 4/$53M is what I've seen reported, and the difference between $20M/year and $13.25M/year is substantial. Look, I think it's a decent acquisition, but it's also important to have some objectivity. And to argue in good faith; I think exactly one person said 'garbage' and that person went on to explain that it's not that Renfroe has no value, it's that the Red Sox were ready to move on and get what they could for a player that they didn't have a role for. Also, someone asked above whether a 0.8 difference in projected WAR could be worth $5M...well, yes, the objective analysis of free agent contracts suggest that it's actually a bit more. Of course Garcia's WAR are necessarily going to be more costly because of his ability to negotiate on the open market...but even on the open market I'd expect he'd get more. Garcia's projection must have huge error bars, though...I am cautiously glad we didn't sign him to that deal.

Renfroe is ok, brings RH power to a team that needed some, but he has more than a few warts. His OBP is just bad. Even his career year in that respect, he only managed .315. Dude makes a lot of outs. His recent defense is adequate but not spectacular, seemingly declining, and despite his great throwing arm he apparently throws more than his share away, leading the league in outfield errors three times I think? You don't want him in CF regularly at this point, and it's likely that our OF defense right now is worse than it was in 2021. (To be fair, he was really good in San Diego with the glove, so perhaps there is some upside there? Or maybe subtle park effects?) He's a year younger than Bradley but both are at the point where aging curves start to diminish player value. We tend to think of Verlander or Nelson Cruz, but at 30 most players are well past their peak and losing value. It's slower at first, and some players are so good that even a drop from peak is still worth a lot. For a player that is around league average at their peak, those drops, which get steeper as age increases, can mean that a guy who was an ok starter is suddenly very replaceable. Also it's kind of unpredictable, like the old Hemingway quote about bankruptcy: it happens gradually, then suddenly. So, we have a RH power guy with middling defense in a corner, who doesn't get on base, likely no remaining upside and some decline expected. We've seen the market be pretty soft for one-dimensional corner bats of late...these players tend to get overrated by some fans and media types but the free agent and trade market suggests that major league GMs don't value them as highly. I wouldn't call him garbage. Things could break well for him, and the Brewers, and he hits 40 homers, ups his walks to have an average OBP and solid defense....that's a really valuable player. But if he slumps with the bat, he doesn't have a lot to offer, whereas Bradley (not that I want him back) has the defense to be a plus player even when hitting like a backup infielder. Contractual control is ok, we get two Arby years, could easily move on next year if desired, but not a long term value. Overall OK trade, has a good chance to address some issues, probably wouldn't warrant this much discussion if this were a regular offseason, but no way I would call it genius.

Could be they resign Curtiss to a minor league deal while he rehabs and they did this to preserve flexibility. I thought they liked him pretty well, but who knows...

I think the days of paying a 1st year MLB $250k are now gone. Probably going to cost $1m or more. A bit of a derail, but the major league minimum salary is already $570K and the average is >$4M. An average roster is thus well over $100M (since there are 26 actives plus often a few hefty salaries on the IL). The minimum being $200K is almost literally 20 years ago. I think it's important to remember this as we all tend to fix our sense of how much things cost at some point in our life and then stop adjusting. It might seem like $10M is big money but that puts a guy in the top _120_ annual salaries.

Sure, we need one or more corner bats. But criticizing a good but smaller move because it isn't that, in November, is just silly. (This is directed far upthread, not at you.) And the notion that only a big bat moves the needle is also silly, or that all the moving of the needle has to come in a single big signing or trade. The Brewers do have the advantage of having big obvious weaknesses so that seems like it should make the process a little clearer, but having watched this for many years, I half expect our big adds to be a middle infielder and a starting pitcher. I also just think needle mover is silly sports media cliche talk that substitutes for thoughtful analysis. The talking heads on ESPN or something say, whoa, Phillies got a real needle mover, and then the Phillies are bad because that needle mover doesn't fix enough holes and yay, the team has a couple of four to five win players but still stinks.

I honestly think the notion of 'needle-mover' is horse hockey. Assuming what is meant by that is, only the big moves matter....rather, Stearns seems to believe that all those incremental improvements on the fringes add up. If you have a fourth and fifth outfielder who are better than replacement level, those runs count; same with the bullpen, a sixth starter, or a Jace type backup who can get on base and fill in at several positions when needed. That is especially true with the way Counsell uses the roster, and when you factor in injuries. So the question is not Brosseau vs Castellanos, it's Brosseau vs Pablo Reyes or Tim Lopes, and that seems like a clear improvement. Of course, identifying which weakness can most easily be turned into a strength is a valid strategy, in keeping with all of the above. But every offseason we see teams that make big so-called needle-mover deals get winter praise, only to fizzle when the games start. I do think it is very likely that Reifert will pitch in the majors, so there is a cost here. Still, considering the little they invested in him as an UDFA, it's spinning straw into gold. Well, maybe gold is an overstatement...spinning straw into something useful but less flashy, like stainless steel?

CHC might be too high.

The Brewers have done a great job pulling bullpen arms seemingly out of thin air. Many of the key relievers down the stretch weren't on the radar, or even on the team at all, a year ago. Still, I think that strategy benefits from having a couple of proven anchor guys at the back end, and there aren't a lot of blue chip hard throwers in the high minors right now aside from Ashby. They might have enough starter depth to use some of them (Small, for one) in the 'pen of course, which I can't believe I'm actually saying about the Brewers. (Remember when we were so strapped for pitchers that they called Zimmermann back from his fishing camp? All those years ago...) At the same time I have to wonder sometimes whether moving on from Hader might also let the team be more flexible in using the best reliever in the 8th inning or whatever, based on matchups and game situations. I think Stearns has expressed the philosophy that closers are best traded in season to maximize value, and I more than half expect him to hold Hader until a deadline deal 2022 or '23 and get something crazy for him. The salary is of course a growing issue and a lot will depend on how much budget they decide they have.

It's kind of crazy how small the differences can be in playoff baseball, this series came down to a few at bats here and there. Sure, on the macro level the lack of offense was a factor, but it wouldn't have taken much to go differently for us to win. Suter would have pitched for sure and was probably our best weapon to neutralize those lefty bats that made such a difference...sadly Norris was execrable and surely not in consideration as a replacement. Ashby will be good for this team down the road but that was a big stage for a young guy. It's hard to point to a moment where DWilliams would have mattered, but shortening the game has been Counsell's strategy all year and he was without key tools in that strategy for this series. I am disappointed, to be sure, and will be probably be nauseated by whoever is the champion at this point...I'll almost have to root for the Braves tbh since the other choices all suck. But heck, the playoffs are hard...look at TBR and their amazing season ended by the ugly Red Sox, and either the Giants or Dodgers who will have it end soon. All that momentum StLouis was supposed to have didn't help them much vs the Dodgers. As the disappointment fades, and heck even now, this has been a fun team to watch for me. I like the pitching and defense, and the team as a whole seemed like a likable bunch. I'm excited to watch Adames, and to see Urias develop more, and sincerely hope there is help on the way for them. Considering how little we got from the offense they started the year with, it was amazing to get as far as we did.

is there a contending team that is going to give up an AS bat in return for a SP? I feel like there's a poster on some other team web site saying the exact opposite...why would the Brewers, as a contending team, give up a AS starter for a bat? Any trade with our big 3 starters or Hader is going to be a big deal, and the Brewers have to feel like their window is open now in a way that it may not be for quite some time, so the return will be an astronomical haul of prospect value that can be repackaged per MrTPlush and/or players who can be immediate first-division starters at the major league level. It might honestly be hard to get commensurate value back in, say, a Burnes or Woodruff deal for that reason. Look for established starters who play the same positions as big time prospects (like Adames) or available free agents, I guess...so a team would, say, sign Castellanos after he opts out and then trade their OF stud to us.

The odds of winning 20 in a row are obviously not high. Conveniently, twenty consecutive fair coins flipping heads is a one in a million outcome. (Nice mnemonic when you think about what one in a million really means.) But...the last ten don't matter any more for predicting...when ten previous heads are already in the books, now they just need ten straight heads. That is down to one in a thousand. (Again, assuming a 50-50 fair coin...whether this coin is fair is an exercise for the reader.). Having both ten straight heads for them and ten straight tails for them...it's back to a one in a million. Of course, if it is the hated Cardinals in September with the Brewers' best season on the line? All bets, as they say, are off.

I think it's a matter of, in today's NFL, you have to make choices...the salary cap etc mean you can't do everything well. So the brain trust (such as it is) has said, this is a passing league, we're going to use resources for the passing game. (Both offense and defense, I think, though investments of late on the offensive side might make you question that.) So they've invested in DBs and edge rushers, and left the interior to Kenny Clark and a bunch of scrubs (relatively speaking...some of those guys are promising and/or do a thing or two well but have other weaknesses). Sure, a team that can run the ball will gash us all day long, but if our offense is doing what it generally does, opponents aren't in a position to run, and the pass defense can ignore that threat. This seems to work most of the time, until it doesn't. When it doesn't, it looks ugly. I am not endorsing or rejecting this, necessarily, but I think that's the team building plan.

I'm other end of the state I think, near Twin Cities, bitterly divided sports loyalties in those border areas. I even grew up outside of town, where 'town' was a booming metropolis of under 1000 at the time, just north of I-94. But even then it was changing from farm country to outlying bedroom communities for St Paul though, and I hardly recognize parts of the area now.

Don't tell my neighbors or students, but I am secretly hoping that LA hosts one of those flawed teams in a one game playoff, and the baseball deities proclaim that someone like Votto or Grisham will go nuts and leave the Dodgers a smoking and despairing crater of overindulgent luxury tax agony. Then said flawed team can go back to being mortal and flawed and the remainder of the playoffs can continue with a slightly more level playing field. That doesn't seem super likely right now, though. And I have to be careful what I wish for lest the Cardinals get their seemingly every decade or so dose of ridiculous luck and get hot at just the right moment...

On the one hand, I don't like hot takes and emotional responses that come from frustration. On the other hand, WHY DID I RUIN A PERFECTLY GOOD SUNDAY WATCHING THIS TEAM NOT SHOW UP IN ALL THE WAYS EVERY PACKER FAN HAS COME TO EXPECT ?!

Every discussion of how good our pitching is should include this information. The front office set out to put an outstanding defense out there, it seems, and despite some hiccups on the left side of the infield, it's worked pretty well. I said in another thread that we weren't losing much in FA, and someone rightly pointed out that Garcia is likely to be gone. In addition to his offense this year, his defense has been really good, even enough that he saved the team by putting in some key innings in CF last year.

I know the thread has moved on, and rightly so, but it's not at all accurate to say that 95% is statistical certainty. Assuming the assumptions in your model continue to hold true (which is in itself an enormous assumption), there's still that one time in 20 you hit the 5% outcome. One in 20 is distinctly not the same as never, which is arguably related to the so-called reproducibility crisis in some fields...and the source of many long arguments about what, for example, a p value actually means. In this case, models have to make assumptions about many things and unforeseen events (Covid outbreak, major injury to key player(s), etc) can change the model quickly. I mean, what is the true talent level of, say, Cedric Mullins or Akil Baddoo? (or Keston Hiura!) Is it the same as it was on April 1? Modelers of course work hard to make their models accurate and I imagine that the sims used in these models are both frequently updated and set up to include outlier outcomes, but they are, in the end, just models. This year, San Diego had playoff odds at FanGraphs as high as 98%. On July 23, Atlanta was 7% and San Diego was at 94.4%. If Atlanta does make the playoffs and San Diego doesn't, what does that mean? Whether a fan feels comfortable saying that a 95% probability being a sure thing is another thing of course, and we obviously all have different thresholds for worrying and uncertainty. But I don't think a modeler or statistician (and I know people in both these categories) would ever say that 95% means 'statistically over.' I'm sure there are Padres fans feeling that pain most keenly right now.

IP are absolutely related to value, the rate stats tell you plenty but the denominator matters as well. That's the whole point of WAR and similar stats. A starter who can put up 180 innings of league average pitching is a very valuable player. Like many things in life, of course, getting clean comparisons is tricky, so voters (and rating systems) have to balance fewer better innings vs more but less successful innings. Or not, I suppose, some would just go with gut feeling or who had the most wins.