QuevedosTongue

The wording in the article is a little ambiguous, but I read that as 2.3M if he makes the team with an additional 1.5M possible in incentives. And a March 28th opt out. So, if the Brewers want him they pay, if not he gets to walk.

I'm so tired of this argument, not to mention that deGrom didn't say anything other than that he felt undervalued by the organization. At a little over $600,000 in 2016 he is way undervalued by somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million this season. It's painful for a guy like deGrom, who wasn't a high draft pick and received a $95,000 signing bonus in 2010. So, for the guy who isn't a bonus baby the system sucks. In an industry awash in money deGrom has pitched since 2010 and earned somewhat less than $1,000,000. Yes that's more than I'll ever make, but I'm not one of the best pitchers in the world, so that kind of money isn't there for me. But if I was one of the top pitchers in the game for a season and a half and wasn't getting paid, I would probably be a little pissy about it as well. I don't blame teams for paying players that way, as it's working within the agreed on system. But for a guy like deGrom, the system sucks.

I am hoping Hansen personally, but regardless I don't think their ability to sign Pint or not will effect their decision. I also think if he really does want to pass up $5mil he will make that known well in advance to draft day. It would be very very unprofessional of him not to. I don't think he passes up the money if drafted Top 5 though...it just won't happen. I know he says how much he wants to play college ball, but it is all just a show. Much like an elite freshman in NCAAB talking about if they are returning next year...no they are leaving. I think the Brewers are pretty safe drafting him at #5...anything past that may be concerning for a team though. I would have agreed on Hansen 2 weeks ago, but he looks like a mess so far, with serious control problems and possible injury issues. I can't imagine he's on their radar at #5 right now, although that could obviously change if he shows his 1st 2 outings were an aberration.

In the day and age of super slow-mo in HD, and endless GIFs and embedded video, it's important to get the call right or become a joke of a league. And if hitters would stay in the box and pitchers would just get the ball, get the sign, and pitch the pace of game would be fine.

Look like Tarzan, hit like Jane? That's mostly a joke, but Reed does need to show more pop this year. Outside of an early season hot streak in AA he just didn't hit for much pop. If he can start driving the ball he could put himself in the long-term picture in Milwaukee. As it stands now he looks more like a 4th OF.

I really doubt that if a team or two has strong interest in Smith, that they first need to see how he does in spring before making an offer. He's already proven the kind of stuff he has in real games. Yeah, but I was thinking more in terms of what the opposition will think they can deal for him. We all know that spring stats are meaningless, but people still look at them as meaningful for some reason. If he's lights out early in the spring and someone asks about him, there won't be a lowball offer. If Smith is shaky early, Stearns may get an offer, but not one he likes. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I don't think he gets dealt in the spring if he gets knocked around 3 or 4 times.

Gregmag, you are probably right on all accounts. But the reality is they are paying him a few million bucks this year, so they are going to try to get something out of him. And he's not blocking somebody like Arcia, it's a former prospect who has failed at the MLB level (Middlebrooks) and a current prospect who was awful last season (Cecchini). I really don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that none of the 3 are the likely future 3B in Milwaukee.

I think it's all about roster math at this point. Hill has a spot on the 40-man and they are paying him a bunch of money. Middlebrooks is a NRI, Cecchini has options available. Right now there is really only one bench spot open, the other 4 are Maldonado (or other backup C), Walsh (Rule 5), Liriano (no options), Flores (no options). After that it's a decison between Yadiel Rivera (because he can play SS) or somebody else if Stearns thinks one of the other players on the roster can play a respectable SS. I don't think any of the others can, so that pretty much sets the bench.

Yes. When I posted my 2016 bullpen, it wasn't necessarily the 7 best RPs, but the most likely to be in the pen to open the season. Pena almost certainly will be, as he is out of options where others aren't. Jones was picked in the Rule 5 draft because there's something they like about him. I assume that, in a season in which results count for virtually nothing, he will make the team and get a lot of chances to pitch. He may develop a vague injury so they can stash him on the DL while they try to develop him, otherwise I'm fairly certain he'll make the team out of spring training.

I'm thinking that Smith will be dealt before the season starts if he pitches really well in spring training. Somebody will have an injury and need that arm. And I assume a 7-man bullpen. So......Smith, Jeffress, Knebel, Blazek, Thornburg, Zack Jones (Rule 5 pick), Ariel Pena (no options) If Smith is gone then someone like Jimenez or Boyer come into play.

Except that there are a myriad of reasons why the true talent level might not be properly measured in wins in a given year. Look, I get what you're saying in that we can talk all we want about talent level and expected results, but the bottom line is wins. And, to a certain extent that is correct. But to say wins are all that matters is false. What if a team won 90 games but they had 2 middle of the order hitters who had BABIPs 15% higher than normal and those players subsequently hit better than normal with RISP? What if 2 SPs had significantly higher strand rates than normal? Or significantly fewer fly balls go for HRs than normal? Those are just a couple circumstances that can change outcomes. I think the point is that predictive models have value because they try to strip all the random events out and show what a team is likely to do in a given year. Now, because players aren't robots and some get hurt, or outperform the predictions, or underperform the predictions, or have certain outcomes that are outliers (but not repeatable) teams (and players) don't perform as predicted. That is why it's important to understand the underlying talent level. Let's use this season as an example. Everything that I've seen says the Brewers' win total will be somewhere in the high 60s. Suppose a lot of things break their way: Braun hits like it's 2010, Santana puts up a line better than 2015 Khris Davis, Nieuwenhuis gets on a hot streak that lasts all year and crushes RHP, Lucroy plays like 2014, Peralta and Garza pitch like it's 2014, and the bullpen of Knebel, Blazek, and Smith look like the NL Central version of the Royals. That team would win a lot more games than predicted. But would it realistically be sustainable? Would that be the baseline that we could expect in 2017? If you think so then you become the Brewers of 2015, who don't recognize that the team was, in reality, closer to the August/September 2014 version than the April/May/June/July 2014 version. But, if you recognize that several players all played above their true talent level, for whatever reason, you know that 'a few tweaks' to the roster won't put them into the playoffs.

The team could use another shooter, which Novak is, but I don't know how you play that guy when defense has been so inconsistent for Milwaukee all year. He really can't guard anyone.

I will quote Rogers Hornsby on this....... "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." 'Nuff said.

Today Buster discredited Rosenthal's article as 'missing the point' of what the concerns are around MLB. He goes on to say that teams like Milwaukee are doing exactly what they should be under the current rules. The issue that is being discussed, per Buster, is the fact that, right now, there is no incentive to try to be incrementally better. I tend to agree with him here. It just seems to me that the goal in sports should be to win as many games as possible. That said, I don't know what MLB could do to create incentives to win a few more games for a team that has essentially no chance to make the playoffs.

This is exactly how I feel about the deal. Nothing against Davis, I just feel like last year was more like his peak, as opposed to a step on the path to superstardom. Or a step towards being a better player. He wasn't even worth 1 WAR last year. So, to me, this is dealing a slightly-better-than-replacement-level player at his peak, which is a good thing.

Well, it is a side effect, but it's also about saving dollars on the big league team and being bad, thereby giving the team a larger pool of money to spend in the draft. If it wasn't about that, why wouldn't Milwaukee have made all these deals, but also spent some money to bring in players that might make them better? Part of it is giving someone like Santana a shot to play, but otherwise they have doled out minimum wage deals to flawed/failed young players that are nothing more than roster filler. They may get lucky on one or two of the guys on the roster this season realizing their talent but, realistically, none of the players they've brought in to play 1B, 2B, SS, 3B or C will be around in 2018, most won't be around next year. Milwaukee needs a CF, yet they aren't in play on Dexter Fowler. You can say it's because of the draft compensation, but I don't think they'd be signing him even if the draft compensation went away. Now, I'm not advocating for anything like signing moderately better players just to squeeze out a few wins. I think the Brewers are doing what they have to do to build something sustainable. When 24 MLB teams are basically a farm system for the other 6, the low end revenue teams have to go this route.

In the last 10 years teams have lost 100 games 12 times. That includes teams like Pittsburgh, Washington, and Houston who are all pretty good right now. The odds say the Brewers won't lose 100, but even if they do we can still appreciate that there is a plan to get better. Given how bad they were last year, I don't understand the people who think they shouldn't have made drastic changes.

After reading Buster Olney ring the 'tanking' alarm after the Davis deal I have thought quite a bit about what would fix 'tanking', or what would make the incentive to go 'scorched earth' to rebuild less. And I can't find an answer. The only real thing that might stop teams (and I stress might) from going the way of the Brewers would be a salary floor (meaning they'd have to spend money on big league players) coupled with a draft in which the order is completely random each year. The real issue with this is that attendance is no longer driving the revenue for teams, television is. TV contracts are signed for multiple years, so teams know what kind of cash they'll be taking in before the season starts. Now, attendance dollars aren't meaningless, but they're certainly not as meaningful as they were 20 years ago. Seriously, does anyone have an idea what might cause a team like Milwaukee to sign a veteran for more money to squeeze out a couple more wins? I can't see it.

This was prior to the Khris Davis deal, but at ESPN David Schoenfield is going through the exercise of ranking the teams going into the season. He has the Brewers ranked 26th, ahead of Cincinnati, Philly, Atlanta and the Rockies. Also, Buster Olney is really beating the 'tanking' drum again, crapping on Milwaukee after the Davis deal.

Just curious what the opinions are here. I don't think he's untradeable at all. Why? 1. Still a solid producer, if not at the level he was 4 years ago. 2. The contract is not that big anymore, I believe it has fallen out of the top 50 in average annual payout. 3. In my opinion he's not tainted to the extent others believe. His PED violations are ancient history at this point. I would love it if Braun got off to a hot start and the Brewers ponied up some money to deal him as long as they get somebody with upside in return. If they dump him just to dump the contract, without getting reasonable prospect(s) in return, I'll be disappointed. Of course, he needs to produce similar to last season (or better) to hope for that.

Braun got caught, but didn't test positive 3 times in a calendar year. Only 1 positive test and that result was thrown out (still positive though). Mejia tested positive 3 times in less than 12 months. So, you can classify Braun as an idiot, but Mejia has taken it to a whole new level.

I can't imagine it would be any different. Now I'm interested in Santana. I think he's going to be Khris Davis II, with new and improved defense. A lot of swing and miss though. I really don't think this deal makes the team any worse this year. Am I wrong?

No kidding. In an era where almost nobody gets caught, this guy fails 3 times in a year. He should be banned for stupidity.

I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet................. CATCHING WOAH SOLVDD!!!!!

I don't think it has anything to do with his character. It's about leverage in a business situation. With teams on his no-trade list he has that leverage. He would be silly not to use it. We all know he doesn't want to play for a crappy team and maybe that's enough for him to want out of Milwaukee to go anywhere. But, like anyone else, he's about maximizing his wage as well, so I don't think it's as easy as saying, "He wants out, he'll go anywhere even if it's a team on the no-trade list." Of course, we don't know the teams on the no-trade list (unless we do and I missed it), so it's purely a guess right now.