OnTheBlack

I can't imagine they're giving up on him as a starter. He's already nearing his high in IP(90 last year). I wonder if he's a guy they might try out as a reliever in September to see if he can help us and if his stuff can play up in shorter stints? But your guess was my guess when I saw that.

Not sure what the payout will end up being on the Lind deal, but it looks like it could be pretty good so far. Anyway, I really like how easy Aguilar looks up there, he's got good discipline, he seldom looks like he's trying to do too much. I've made this comp about a half dozen times, but he reminds me of Jose Abreu. But there's really no reason to do much of anything right now. I still like Thames...though I wonder a bit if he's a little bothered by some type of core injury because he just doesn't look as explosive as he did and his bat looks so much slower than it did early in the year. He's still really disciplined as a hitter and he draws a lot of walks.

I think I'd probably take Anderson. I was completely off on him. I didn't think he was anything more than a 4th or 5th pitcher and likely a long man who made spot starts on a good team. Then I read a couple articles in which people were talking about him, one in which Fangraphs writes 10 bold predictions that I've quoted on here before that Anderson would "finally" pitch like a #2 pitcher(something similar to that). Obviously neither is a true ace, but Anderson was more in line with one and has 4 pitches that he can throw with good command when he's right. I definitely wouldn't sign either to deals at this point though unless they both take really team friendly deals.

Yeah, it's absolutely nothing like that. I think that comment is about as relevant to this discussion as people talking about what would happen to them in their jobs if they made the same mistakes. These are the best in the world. Most people using the argument are not at the same level in their profession and their profession(speaking generally) are not a comparable level of difficulty. And hitting the ball deep into the OF is absolutely NOTHING like a pitcher getting a pitch just off the plate a strike because he's been able to command the ball regularly and hit his spots and a catcher is able to frame a pitch well. I think there's a group of people who like the game, enjoy the game but who think that virtually everything about the game should be driven by a computer. I'll leave it at this. I love the game. I probably played 700 games in my life(give or take) and I've hated the umps at time. I've caught pitchers who have pitched in the big leagues and this is just my opinion, but this game doesn't need to be called by robots. I find the idea just impossible to wrap my head around. Those who dismiss and laugh at the "human element" I just don't get it. Baseball is a game of error. You do what you can and do the best you can. You don't make it a video game with real players. I've already said I think they went too far with some of the new rules they've implemented with instant replay. And I've never considered myself an old school type of guy. I do know for a fact that the guys playing the game do not want a robot calling balls and strikes. Edit-I should only speak for the players I've known or discussed it with and that's a very small group relative to the entire MLBPA. I don't think this could even come close to passing the Players Union.

And maybe you should also tip your hat to the pitchers IF you get a swing at a pitch 1 inch off the plate, or if you get a called strike because you've been hitting your spots all game. This would be the biggest change in the history of baseball. Integration changed the level of talent in the game....advanced metrics have slightly changed the way the game is played. This would fundamentally change the way the game unlike anything ever before. And if you like offense, I suppose you'd like this because you'd likely never see another season like Kershaw has put up recently.

True, but are we ready for robot strike calls on big breaking balls that look rather low (or high)? We are at least ready for some sort of call assistance. It doesn't have to be pure computerized. It is just sad that the viewers get help knowing whether it is a strike or a ball yet the people actually calling the plays do not. Every game I watch as 4 or 5 completely clear cut strikes or balls are missed, you could at least assist them with those clear cut cases. That's a never ending slippery slope that leads to the type of replays that I already cited that I think are ridiculous and an unintended consequences of the new replay rules. This would literally ruin the game for me. Moreso than a few missed calls a game.

That's good to hear, but I just don't know what to make of any of Bickford's velocity reports. The fact that he was hitting the mid 90's regularly before being drafted 10th by the Jays before negotiations broke down without any reason given combined with the fact that he was suspended 80 games for PED use and that his velocity has varied his entire career, it just doesn't seem like we got the hard throwing middle of the rotation or high leverage reliever we had hoped. And here are the comments made by the Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos when talking about the reason why he didn't sign(this was just a year after they were unable to reach an agreement with Tyler Beede in the 1st round, something that was strictly because of the signing bonus. Anthopoulos was trying to respond to questions about the teams decision making. Does this at least raise the possibility that MAYBE the Jays got a positive test from Bickford or that he refused a test? I try not to jump to wild conclusions and still hold out hope he can be a nice part of the future, but it seems like there's at least valid reasons to question that he'll be able to get his velocity back to where it once was without any help. I guess we can hope that he still has some projection left, because from what I did see of him, he had a lot of movement on his fastball and really nice command of it.

That's awesome to hear. You want to give everyone a chance to prove that they can't be a starter before moving them to the pen normally, but he's a guy that if he's really back...and his numbers would suggest that, as does what you're saying, it would seem like he could be a BP arm next year. Maybe even be a long reliever for us. With the potential rotation we could throw out there at some point in the near future, we could have multiple young arms who we don't want to put too much stress on. It'd be nice if he could carve out a role in that capacity before hopefully becoming a high leverage 7th/8th inning guy.

I've seen his numbers this year and they look good, I was just wondering if anyone has personally seen him throw and what he looks like compared to before his injuries. Has he gotten all of his velocity and movement back. I got a chance to watch him quite a bit what seems like a decade ago now and thought he looked like a future 7th/8th inning guy or even a #3 if he could improve his change just a bit. So curious to hear how he's doing after missing two full seasons.

These hitters aren't blind. They can see infielders shifted to one side of the infield. If it was easy for them to just hit the ball away from where fielders are shifted, they would do it nearly every time and bat .500 plus. It's far from easy. Take Joey Votto for example. He's as professional of a hitter as anyone in the game, yet when he's at the plate there is a dramatic shift for him because he's a pull hitter. I'm sure it annoys Votto that hits on the right side get stolen away from him because it's flooded with defenders, but it is what it is. He's a pull hitter and not out of being stubborn. I actually don't agree. I do think it's because Votto is stubborn. He's one of the most stubborn hitters in the game. He absolutely refuses to expand the zone which is obviously one of the thing that makes him so good, but he also isn't trying to become some slap hitter dumping the ball into left field. But if he does that, he's also going to have to sacrifice a lot of his power. I don't think the shift is going anywhere because...well people are just smarter. There is more information. You put your players where the hitter is most likely to hit the ball. And I don't think the type of hitters who are capable of beating the shift are willing to go from putting up Votto like stats to putting up Tony Gwynn like stats.

I think it's important with 2K's to just try to fight the ball off and look to take it the other way. What ends up happening if you teach that is if the pitcher makes a mistake, you're going to instinctively jump on it anyway. You can't really think about it before the at bat, so when I see a guy like Broxton swinging out of his shoes with 2 strikes, it looks to me like he's guessing and hoping he gets that. That's just how I approached it at a much lower level and how I think the hitters approach should be. As for how important or detrimental I think strikeouts are, for the most part an out is an out.

Umps have pretty much always had that. And I think 9 out of 10 actually is a good standard...especially when the majority of those 10 pct are pitches that are borderline calls. It's not like you see a ball over a guys head or a foot outside being called a strike very often.

It's not "an always part of the game" reason for me, I just think it takes too much nuance out of the game. You're taking away from that pitcher who keeps hitting his spots, moving the ball around in the zone and then gets that strike call just outside the zone. I get some people don't like that, but I think that's a part of the game, the matchup between the pitcher and hitter I want to see preserved. Having someone watch a screen, relay down the call and then have the Ump repeat said call would make the game a lot less fun for me. I already think they review certain plays they shouldn't. For example, when a guy slides into a base and does a popslide. If the Ump can't see his toe come a quarter inch off the bag for a split second, that shouldn't be an out. I think replay should be just for the basics. Where did the ball hit, did he beat the throw, the tag...did the runner avoid the tag, did the OF'er trap the ball. That's pretty much it IMO.

Of course they are, but not to the extent that Broxton is. I do believe there IS some value in how you get to those year end numbers. .191 .276 .324 March/April .067/.176/.133 15 games in July before being sent down. I think the valley's are too much for a team that wants to be competitive. I don't expect everyone to be Travis Shaw like consistent, but you can't play months at a time with a guy who puts up pitcher like numbers. At least he's playing great D in CF while he's struggling as badly as he does.

I could see why people might have thought he could have developed into that 3-4 years ago. Even now he looks the part of a good RF'er a good portion of the time...he shows decent range and a good enough arm. And then he just makes these totally egregious mistakes that make him look like a High Schooler out there. I get that line drives hit right at you are hard. But man, it's like once a week he just totally blows a play. Anyway, with regard to Broxton, if he can finish up on a hot streak, I hope they shop him while his value is high. I think it's gonna take Brinson a while to adjust at the plate at the big league level..we might have to put up with a full year of him struggling before he figures it out. But I think if you want a legitimate contender, you need consistency. He's just way too up and down. I was incredibly high on him coming into the year. But I just don't see how you can get by with one of your key players disappearing for 6 weeks at a time...even if he gets red hot for other stretches. Those ridiculous swings play on second tier teams. Like Geoff Jenkins was for the Brewers but worse.

Please. The other 3 coming back were a soon to be 27 year old who gives a crap reliever with a 4.57 FIP in the majors, a 24 year old outfielder with 11 extra base hits and .663 OPS in AAA this year and an infielder hitting .217/.309/.461 in AA this year. I would trade those three for Ortiz in a second and when you consider Brinson and Mejia are basically a wash as prospects, that makes the Rangers package far more valuable and I'm not even including Cordell in this. Yeah, none of the other three prospects were particularly interesting. I don't see how where the teams farm systems might rank if this had happened means anything and I don't think Jeffress was ever going to get anywhere near the return that Smith, a dominant lefty with a much higher K rate got, or Thornburg who was also far more dominant and who the Red Sox didn't really give up anyone they valued much at the time. Obviously it looks ridiculous in retrospect. The only reason I said I'm starting to wonder if the Indians trade would have been better is because if Mejia ends up reaching his ceiling he'll be the most valuable player in the trade. I'm also not particularly high on Brinson. Not top 15 prospect high anyway. I think he's gonna struggle for a while before he starts to hit. The potential Indians trade is at least looking closer to the Rangers trade as long as Mejia continues to play so well at such a young age in AA at such an important position.

Yes, the Brewers missed out. Every week I hear a Tribe fan thanking the heavens that Lucroy decline te deal (although many were saying that this season as Lucroy struggled in Texas). Had Lucroy accepted the deal, 3 others (besides Mejia) were coming to Milwaukee. Also - it took Lucroy AND Jeffries to get that package from Texas (when good relievers were drawing premium prices). I will forever be curious on 2 things: 1) what Jeffries ALONE could have netted in a trade (with Texas or another team last season) 2) if the W. Smith deal with SF got altered to include Susac since Mejia had not been acquired. Jeffress And we got 2 current top 100 prospects in the Rangers deal. Personally, catching prospects, especially those in the low minors as Mejia was at the time, don't excite me. Way too much unpredictability with them and if they can't stick behind the plate you generally end up with a mediocre bat limited to playing a big time offensive position. Catching prospects excite me kinda like pitching prospects. You know most probably won't pan out, but if they do, then it's that much more exciting because of the value of the position. You're also talking about at the time. I'm saying right now. Right now I'm STARTING to wonder if we missed out. He's not dominating Double A, and he's got the ability to stick behind the plate. But so did Angel Salome.

That was my assumption. Something minor, but something that an extra day off could help... HA! Stop trying to get in an arguement and congrats on a random guess at an out of the blue minor issue. LOL....try to get in an argument? I don't think I disagreed with anyone. I said I could see what both sides were saying and was happy to get the win. Seems like your overly sensitive of your criticism of CC. I had no strong opinion either way. Pitch Knebel make sure you get the W, don't pitch him because he's been overworked and he threw 2 innings yesterday. I didn't disagree with any point of view, was just happy to see them win and made an educated guess as to why he wouldn't pitch Swarzak....so...I'm sorry? It was a grievous mistake and I will try to be better in the future!

They definitely got some big names back for Sale in particular. Both have huge potential, but both also seem to be boom or bust type guys. Koepech looked good in the futures game, but more like a reliever. Honeywell I think it was...the TB pitcher. He looked like the best future big leaguer to me. He kinda reminded me of Halladay. The way he attacked and the way his fastball had that late movement. Another thing that stands out to me is that Mejia who we'd have gotten from the Indians if Lucroy would have accepted that trade. I know Brinson is rated ahead of him and we got a better return outside of just those top two, OF'ers don't excite me like catchers do(for obvious reasons) and I think Brinson is gonna take a while to adjust to big league baseball where as Mejia just keeps on killing it. I was pretty confident that we got lucky with Luc declining the Cleveland trade at the time and even earlier this year...but I'm starting to wonder if we missed out on a better trade.

I was there also...and I remember it(not as well as you obviously) as being a totally benign play. It just looked like Koskie dove backward...but that would make more sense if he also got hit by Hall. At the time I was baffled as to how that could have caused his career to end. After dealing with concussions myself...it makes plenty of sense. It's usually not the big one that gets you...at least not the first big one. You get through the big ones because more attention is paid to them(at least was). The more minor ones you kinda ignore and work through.

Its a lot of wear for back to back days.... But explain 2 ip for Barnes when Swarzak hasn't pitched this series??? Andrew Gruman tweet Counsell says Anthony Swarzak was unavailable today due to neck stiffness. That was my assumption. Something minor, but something that an extra day off could help...

Its a lot of wear for back to back days.... But explain 2 ip for Barnes when Swarzak hasn't pitched this series??? Wait, so when he answers the question you initially asked about Knebel with a reasonable answer, you come back and complain about something else and then ask HIM to answer why CC didn't throw someone else? Maybe Swarzak's got a tight hammy, a blister...any little thing...who knows. But Barnes pitched well. They won. You can always question things, but I think the game and BP was handled reasonably well...

I would tend to agree with you, but I can certainly see why others would look at this as an oppurtunity to give a guy who's been worked hard this year two days of rest, especially after pitching 2 innings last night. To me, given the way the Brewers have been going, I wanted to make sure we got the W and go into an off-day with a winning streak(albeit just a 2 game streak).

Ahh....people should take things with a grain of salt. He's lived around here for 50 some years. Like I said, I've done stupid things. And my memory of my calm and cool and respectful demeanor could have been a little skewed...maybe I came off like I was trying to puff out my chest. I probably shouldn't label him anything after two late night/early morning meetings in bars. I will say, he did have GREAT taste in women at the time

My experience with Gantner couldn't have been more different. He was first-class in every way. I'm not here to bury Gantner. I just think the number thing is a silly anomaly. But it's also ranked about 5 billion on the list of important things. Just brought it up to pass time on create some conversation on a lazy Sunday. LOL...I am. No, it's entirely possible I just ran into him on a night where he went waaaay overboard drinking and acted like a fool...it's certainly happened to me. And I'm guessing there are people who have a negative opinion of me based on a few meetings. He may be a great guy when he's not drinking and he may not drink that much. Those just happen to be the only situations I see him in. And then I contrast that with Auggie who is very conscientious of how he presents himself to people given that he's known in the area and that could color my opinion more than it should. I don't believe it does, but if people knew when they were wrong they'd stop being wrong!