KeithStone53151

If it addressed that necessity, then it's a superior strategy. There's no reason to believe starters are regularly going to go 7 innings because people have figured out that the more complicated strategy of selective bullpen use and specialists has worked better. Those that understand it will implement it and be successful. Those that are stuck in their ways who can't understand or accept that the standards have changed will survive only as long as their bosses don't understand the changes either (see: Baker, Dusty). I guess what I was primarily getting at is you are still better off having the Kershaw/Bumgarner caliber pitcher and having them go 7-8 innings than having a worse starter and 2 good bullpen arms cover those same 7-8 innings. It's just those pitchers are becoming less and less common...and more evenly spread amongst all 30 teams. Hence, teams adapted and learned bullpen arms will be more effective than a starter his 3rd time through an order.

Why? If people devised a superior strategy that made this a thing of the past, what can you do? I think the superior strategy thing came up more out of necessity than it being superior. The Bumgarners/Kershaws/Sales of the world trump the bullpen strategy. I would guess part of the problem is that all 30 teams have a real shot of retaining these ace caliber pitchers at least through their primes, so it's not as common for a team like the Yankees or Red Sox to get their hands on 2-3 of the top 10 arms in the league consistently that they can easily ride deep into the playoffs.

Getting Panik allows the Marlins to trade Gordon and further offset salary and acquire talent, or to flip Panik for more minor league talent. I imagine the former is more likely. Beede and Shaw are very good prospects, though all of the yankees top 5 are better to varying degrees. Maybe it would be more like 2 of their top 5, not 3...at least to top the Giants offer. But there's also no guarantee that the Giants offer is the best one on the table...or that other teams don't see that offer and try to counter. I can't imagine the Dodgers letting Stanton go to the Giants without putting up a fight. Panik doesn't matter that much since this is somewhat of a lost year for the Marlins and Panik is kinda just a guy. Shaw and Beede are decent prospects. Not elite by any means. The Yankees' top 5 probably has more higher ceiling guys. Regardless, the point stands that Heyman's suggestion is realistic for the Yankees. Panik's greatest value comes from a decent coverage option allowing the Marlins to easily trade Gordon and his contract for value. Filling 2b with Yadiel Rivera would get tremendous backlash, but Panik has some name value and is a pretty solid 2nd division starter.

I would be open to adding Stroman in the right deal. I think I try to avoid trading Brinson as noted. We would get Stroman for 3 years and he's entering his age 27 season. His numbers would probably improve significantly going from AL east and the hitter friendly environment to the NL. Trading Harrison could be selling high, unless he really has turned a corner and is on his way to being a star. If the Blue Jays are dangling, it's very safe to assume the Brewers have at least checked in.

Hammel is different than Fiers or Fister, he's been underrated for some time in my opinion. He at least has a bit of upside left. I still think we can aim a bit higher to fill the 5th spot. And you really should consider Woodruff/Hader being the 2 guys filling out the back end of the rotation. They are more unknown and while they are certainly talented enough to pitch somewhere in the 3s or better, there's a wide variance on what they will do. And I fundamentally don't agree with signing a bad pitcher and justifying it by saying "well he's our number 5". Talk of Fister/Fiers is exactly that. You can sugarcoat it by trying to say "well if they have a good year they'll probably post 4.2-4.5 ERA", but that's not a formula for winning. We should be aiming higher than that in general, and we kinda have to considering we don't really have an ace and I'd argue we don't have a strong #2 SP either(unless Hader starts fulfilling his potential). Davies is a back end starter that's been playing up and getting mid-rotation results. Anderson was a back end guy until his velocity uptick and is probably a mid-rotation guy if he can maintain it. We can be very successful with a rotation full of guys that post quality starts more often than not and a shutdown bullpen, along with an above average offense and solid D. That's how we were so successful last year. Our struggles came when Nelson went down and Garza's smoke and mirrors stopped posting mid-rotation results.

We shouldn't be approaching a SP pitcher with the mentality "which pitcher can we get to put up an upper 4's ERA for the cheapest?". With how good the team was last year and the firepower we have to work with(payroll and prospects), we should be aiming for a higher quality player than that. Fiers, Fister, Hammel...we might as well keep Garza or roll out Wilkerson if we are going to aim that low. I don't mind bringing those guys in on a minor league deal that stipulates $3-4 million if they make the team, but we shouldn't be trading for them or taking on a significant guaranteed salary.

Maybe Fiers would be a nice cheap buy low option if Stearns feels like he has a reasonable or better chance of bouncing back to the low-mid 4s. That type of ERA will definitely keep us in game. I find it really interesting that he went away from the fastball so much. I remember his bread and butter being high fastball/curveball combo. One upside to a guy like Fiers is we won't be obligated to start him if he isn't getting the job done.

I went maybe 5 or 6 years ago for spring training. Went to the game against the Athletics on the road and a home game. The Athletics complex is definitely newer and very nice, but I definitely liked the Maryvale location better. I had premium seats for the away game, I think I paid $40 apiece with fees for a few rows behind home plate. The Maryvale game I just got tickets 8 or 9 rows up by 1st base for $15 or so I think. I know you can do lawn or other super cheap options at stadiums for like $5 apiece if you are super cheap and don't care about being close. As noted above, Maryvale is best in the area by far for access to players/coaches...but I definitely recommend trying out another stadium or two if you plan on catching more than one or two games.

Getting Panik allows the Marlins to trade Gordon and further offset salary and acquire talent, or to flip Panik for more minor league talent. I imagine the former is more likely. Beede and Shaw are very good prospects, though all of the yankees top 5 are better to varying degrees. Maybe it would be more like 2 of their top 5, not 3...at least to top the Giants offer. But there's also no guarantee that the Giants offer is the best one on the table...or that other teams don't see that offer and try to counter. I can't imagine the Dodgers letting Stanton go to the Giants without putting up a fight.

I guess I don't see the 'east coast bias' thing here. Yes, he probably is hoping the Yankee-related news helps with his clicks. But I don't see it as 'bias' or anything. In reality, the Yankees are probably the biggest force in baseball. He says that they have spoken to the Marlins about Stanton. I mean, should he NOT report what he has heard? To speculate how a deal would work isn't outrageous. Ultimately, Heyman is just saying that if the Yankees are serious about Stanton, they need to move some salaries in the deal - which means they include better prospects in the return as well. He mentions 'some combination of Jacoby Ellsbury, Chase Headley and maybe Brett Gardner' would need to be involved. And he stresses that Ellsbury (who's owed around $90M over the next four years) is hard to move because of his no-trade deal. That leaves Gardner (who is not a 'bad' contract) and Headley - who are due $24.5M next year - plus a $2M buyout for Gardner. Taking back $25M in salaries in 2018 might be too much for Florida, but there are ways to mitigate that. It's not hard to see Florida being able to flip Gardner (and unload his salary) for something decent. Headley would be tougher. But even if you're left covering only $5-8M or whatever of those two salaries - it might work for Florida. I acknowledge that people will write stuff that gets themselves coverage - and that the coast markets, which are bigger, tend to get more written about their teams - but to just say everything is 'east coast bias' just seems to be stretching it. Heyman covered the Yankees as a beat writer for a long time. He has interest, sources and a following from that market. If he really got wind that the Yankees are asking about Stanton - he's foolish not to report it. Reporting it is fine, I'm sure the Yankees have checked in. Outlining how a deal could work absolutely makes sense as well. But that to me isn't really what he's doing. He's outlining how a deal could work from the Yankees perspective only, in a manner that makes absolutely no sense for the Marlins. I'd bet every dime I have that the Yankees aren't unloading multiple of those bad contracts on the Marlins in a Stanton deal unless the Marlins get an absolute kings ransom in prospects. I'm talking 3 of their top 5 plus sweeteners MINIMUM. And even still, I'm not so sure the Marlins want to deal with a team trying to dump bad contracts on them when there are at least a few other teams reportedly offering good prospects for Stanton without trying to dump bad contracts on them. If he doesn't want to appear biased, he should approach an article like this from both viewpoints rather than the one favoring the big market. I can admittedly get a bit over-reactionary when it comes to big market bias. It's probably not as bad as I make it out to be, but it bugs me and I try to shine a light on it when I see it. I don't see haudricourt making ridiculous trade proposals in his articles, and he's actually a Brewers beat writer and not at a national level quite like Heyman.

Now this I'd be on board with. For a 32 year old coming off a mid-5s ERA, I would absolutely do this. So would a lot of teams though I assume.

If Quintana does not recover a bit or Lester does not, you could be right. I think you're severely underrating Contreras, Baez, Rizzo, Happ, Bryant, Almora, Schwarber, Russell. Not all of them are MVP candidates, but that's a very very good team all smack dab in the middle of their primes right now. They may not be the top World Series contender due to lack of ace pitching at this point, but I'd put them as the division favorite for each of the next 4 years, pending the Brewers and maybe Cards roster makeup going forward. Obviously plenty can change halfway through that span of time. They can just overpay for pitching. It'll still be an Achilles heel, but it'll be good enough to get them to the playoffs each year. We've seen this before, a team full of star players without enough good pitching. I feel like this club is following a very similar track to the 2008-2012 brewers. Star players across the board, but not enough pitching. They even have 2 stars that shine brighter than all the rest. Having all those great position players is all well and good, but pitching wins championships. If Lester and Quintana don't return to at least mid-rotation form...it doesn't really matter who else they get, this team won't make the playoffs even next year. But even with decent performances from those guys, they need at least one more good pitcher to be considered a division favorite.

I don't understand why the Dodgers aren't making this move. Stanton's rumored #1 choice is Los Angeles and the Dodgers have the $$ and the prospects to do the deal. A trade of Alex Verdugo, Yadier Alvarez, Brandon McCarthy ($11.5m salary expires after 2018), and Hyun-Jin Ryu ($7.8m salary expires after 2018) makes all the sense in the world for them. Dodgers have an outstanding OF of Stanton-Taylor-Puig with Pederson as the fourth. Dodgers can afford to lose Verdugo because he doesn't have a place to play. Marlins get two top prospects and the salary relief while taking on two expiring contracts. If I am a Dodger fan, I want them to make this move yesterday. The move to the Dodgers definitely makes sense, I'm not sure they need to give up quite that much to get it done though. Aside from that, a lineup of Taylor, Seager, Turner, Stanton, Bellinger, Forsythe, Puig, Grandal...my goodness

I have zero confidence we will be able to count on Nelson this season, in any way... It would be prudent on our part to go into the season with no plans of Nelson being in the rotation. If he comes back, so be it, there are always injuries to others, etc. I don't want to derail the thread too much but has there been more to come out on his recovery from surgery that makes it a longer process than originally thought? I was under the impression that it wasn't a full year type of a process but I could be way off base with it. I think a lot of people(myself included) are generally pessimistic due to it being a shoulder injury. Shoulder injuries are tougher to come back from than elbow injuries. He almost certainly will be able to return to pitching, but will he be the same guy? If he loses any range of motion, he's pretty much done. I'd like to think Stearns and co have a pretty good idea of the time frame for him to pitch again, but they have no reason to share that.

Maybe if Reds include Gennett in the deal and take Villar. Seriously, do you really want to help a division rival down the road by overpaying for a relief pitcher? Bad enough that they have Cubs and Cardinals to contend with for the foreseeable future. Who said anything about over paying - I would give up something good( as he is entering him prime and under control for until 2021, but not great Iglesias would be out 2nd best RP if we got him He actually might be our best. He's incredible. I think the cost is going to be insane, think Ken Giles return. We should definitely make a call and inquire, but I'm not sure I want to give up what I think it will take to land him.

I'm pretty sure Braun is on record saying he'd only approve a trade to the Dodgers. And even then, the Brewers are turning a corner and look competitive. He might not want to be traded at all at this point. Everyone loves him here, it wouldn't be nearly the same anywhere else...regardless of how good he plays.

Exactly. And they don't want a second one. Putting $50M into a pair of aging players isn't the best strategy. They might be saving up for Harper or Keuchel. Otherwise, something like this might be their best chance. They've got a 4 year window right now. Basically all of their offensive core will be a free agent after 2021 and some of them like Rizzo, you're not sure that you even want to retain. I'm not sure it's Arrieta, but I'd imagine they spend big on pitching this year or next. The only other thing I can think that they're doing is they think signing 2 middle-priced pitchers is better since their pitching depth is thin. Their payroll is projected at $130 million right now. They have to worry about rising arbitration costs over the next few years, but they've boxed themselves into this window. They'll spend big, IMO. The only other way I see them going forward is a major trade overhaul. The major trade overhaul probably makes the most sense. But I noted before, they'll have to pretty much operate flawlessly on the trade front to get proper value for a couple young major leaguers that they can turn into a quality arm or two. Your 4 year window is very generous in my opinion, I think we all hope I'm right on that aspect

If Stanton, as has been reported, has already said no to a possible Red Sox deal because he wants to be on the west coast, why would he approve a deal to the Yankees? Because New York is further west than Boston? I get really tired of writers like Heyman who think the baseball world ends at the Appalachians. Another good point. As far as strictly going to a winner, I think the Red Sox are better positioned to win now(especially with Stanton) than the Yankees.

I'm not very confident in him bouncing back from a 5+ ERA. His command got worse last year, gave up way too many HR. I'm not sure I'd want him in the rotation if he were free. We have guys in house that can post a 5+ ERA, I'd rather aim a bit higher.

Corey Hart was more "toolsy" than Brinson in the minors. He had excellent speed and was a more prolific and efficient base-stealer, for example. It's an ominous comparison because of their similar builds and nagging injuries at a young age. You're remembering 2010+ Hart, after some knee problems robbed him of his speed. Hardy was an elite defensive ss so he was probably pretty close as a prospect as well. Brinson is not on par with guys like Braun, Fielder, Weeks, or Gallardo as a prospect. He's pretty ordinary as far as a team's #1 prospect goes, and he's an rhb outfielder which is the least needed role in the entire organization by far. I like building from within but there's a limit to how many of these guys can ever be long-time Brewers and I'm hoping the most favorable trade possible to reduce the logjam. That might not involve Brinson, but chances are it will. Of course it depends on the trade. I didn't want Gray, for example, so obviously I'm not just out here yelling "trade Brinson now!" But I think there will be some trade options out there that are well worth it, and I hope the Brewers are able to make a massive upgrade somewhere by trading a few prospects without losing any prospects at positions (or in age cohorts) of organizational need. Hart might have been better on the bases and probably had a better hit tool, but Brinson has more power and is the far superior defender. Hart projected to be an above average corner guy which shifted to below average with his knee issues sapping his speed. Brinson projects plus in CF, much higher on the defensive spectrum. I think Brinson is a bit better of a prospect than Hart and Hardy, but I'll agree he's not approaching the Braun/Fielder group of blue chip stars. Trading Brinson in the right deal is one thing, many seem eager to basically issue a mandate that we must trade Brinson in a package for the best player he can get us this offseason. Talking about trading him for Gray or Archer makes that fairly clear. I'm not concerned about PT for Braun/Santana/Brinson/Phillips. There will be plenty to go around if they rotate, will also be much easier to give guys a couple days off if they get dinged up. And might point about him having even a decent major league season boosting his value immensely still stands. Obviously there's risk if he has a terrible year, but I'd rather stay the course and try to win with our players.

https://www.fanragsports.com/heyman-yankees-must-get-creative-if-they-want-stanton/ Who's ready for some east coast bias. So now according to Heyman, the Yankees could target Stanton...but would require the Marlins to take back a bunch of bad contracts? Why? That makes literally zero sense for the Marlins unless the prospect return is absolutely enormous. I'd bet at least a handful of teams would take the contract and give up a couple mid-level prospects at minimum. In his dreamworld, this deal could happen apparently. Yeah, ok Jon. Usually trades have to make sense to both sides to actually happen...

Do you guys have similar concerns for Harrison, Ortiz, Grisham(Clark), Ray, etc? Do you want to trade all of those guys because they got hurt once or twice? It's not like Brinson blew out a knee or hurt a wrist like Weeks to the point that he'll never be the same. He's played roughly 100 game each of the last 3 seasons. The injuries he's had have been simple muscle strains, these types of things happen to plenty of good players. If that's your only reasoning, it's absolutely terrible reasoning to trade away a top prospect. He injures his hamstrings over and over again, and that's not a good sign at his age. It could be a sign of a biomechanics issue or something like that. You're dismissing it too easily. Furthermore, just because he's by far the best prospect the Brewers have had in years doesn't mean he's actually a really good one; it just means their minor league system sucked for a long time. He's no better than Hardy or Hart as a prospect IMO, and frankly his k% in the minors is a bit of a concern too. I don't always subscribe to the idea of keeping all your prospects and always building from within. It just depends on the players and the circumstances. One mantra I do subscribe to is selling high as much as possible, and the only thing that consistently trumps that is realistic chances at a world series berth. I do think trading Brinson would be selling high while simultaneously increasing their chances at a ws, and there is an organizational depth/needs argument for trading him as well. I wouldn't have supported Brinson for Sonny Gray, but Yelich is a much better value than Gray, all things considered. I can understand k rate concerns and trying to sell high. I just don't agree and am not overly concerned with the k rate. As far as selling high, brinson would have immensely more value if he had even a decent season in the majors. If he could post a 750 or better ops with plus defense and 20 sb, his value sky rockets. I also don't subscribe to the window theory, which is what trading prospects for established players tends to lead to. I'm aiming for consistently competitive which is what building around your own prospects can lead to if you do it right. I think brinson is a better caliber prospect than those guys. He's more toolsy and more athletic than either of them could dream of being. His upside is world's above both as well, while coming with a bit more risk. I tend to agree yelich is better value than gray, but my preferred route is building from within. I also don't buy the Marlins are seriously considering trading yelich. I believe he hurt a different hamstring each time, and it was twice. Also had a quad and shoulder injury. None of those injuries are long term concerns, maybe if it was the same hammy 3 times I'd be mildly more concerned.

Cubs aren't interested because of the Lester and Heyward contracts already on their books, and they plan to go after Harper when he becomes available. Then there is the huge money it will take to keep Rizzo and Bryant in a few years. It certainly appears the Cubs are approaching some difficult decisions. No farm whatsoever, young talented players approaching arbitration, and significant holes in their roster. These types of things are why it's critical not to overextend yourself and maintain flexibility. They pretty much need to perfectly allocate their surplus value at the mlb level and payroll dollars to extend their window a few more years. It can be done, but there's very little room for error. If they make one more big mistake on a free agent or trade away a Happ/Baez/Schwarber for a guy that doesn't work out, that could mean serious trouble for the cubbies.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or shake my head. The Brewers don't have that much money, so they can't spend that kind of money. This isn't a situation of "the owners won't make as much money," this is a situation of purposefully losing $30M+ on an annual basis, driving the franchise to bankruptcy. The other owners would force Attanasio to sell the franchise if he did something like that. I could maybe...maybe imagine Mark going to $130-140 2 years in a row before letting payroll sink back to the low $100s if he really wanted to go for it. However, all of the stuff to come together right now to make it work probably won't happen. My issue is that those trades are not realistic. Even on a high dollar, 1 year deal, I'm not sure CC is coming here. He might get 2/$25 from someone. We'd have to unload the farm for the listed trades. The "+" in those would equate to half of the farm system. For 2018, if we made all of the moves listed, we'd have about $50 million before all of those guys join the roster when you factor out Villar, Thames, Vogt, and a few minimum contracts no longer needed from the $65 million projection that cot's has right now. Yelich - 7, Hernandez 4.5, Abreu 17, Darvish 25 (slightly backloaded), CC 13.5, Lucroy 10, Swarzak 5. That'll get you to around $130. 2019 would be a challenge. Yeah, CC's deal is gone in this scenario, but you'd have a lot of arbitration raises to have a hard time staying under $140/150. I don't think he'd get such negative comments if he tried to defend his position as you have. The "it's not my money, spend it" comment is....yeah. Might as well suggest trading Brinson/Ortiz/Burnes/Hiura for Trout and sign Kershaw/Harper in 2018. It's all pure nonsense once you make such an asinine comment.

We're at a projected payroll right now of around $65.5M. You'd drop around $7M and add around $79.4M in salary, putting us somewhere around $138M in payroll in 2018, and that would go up substantially in the next few seasons with arby raises. There's no way we could do that. Like other posters have said. Not my money. Spend it. That's a world series team right there. We can make a further trade come July if we want to sure up the pen or rotation even further. Let us all know when you come back from dream land and want to make a reasonable projection of what the Brewers can actually do with their spending versus what you think they should do because "who cares, not my money". That up there, is pure nonsense...and that's about as kindly as I can put it. Might as well recommend in 2018 we sign both Harper and Machado because "it's not your money".