CrewFanBrewMan69

Waiting until the end of March is maybe to wait out if there’s injuries that could up his market. If Santana has a setback with the Twins, the Phillies think they are closer with how guys look in spring, any of the Nats guys, any of the Mets guys, Cardinals guys, Red Sox, Dodgers guys get hurt and probably a few more teams all could come calling. But also agree it puts him behind things in terms of being ready and acquainted with the team.

Keon, Suter, Aguilar for Cotton, Lowrie and a prospect would be intriguing

My biggest problem or fear with having all of Williams, Woodruff, Suter, etc make the team out of camp is it likely means 1-2 of Miley, Gallardo and Guerra are cut. That provides a potential depth problem down the road in event of injuries, young guys hitting innings limits, guys sucking, regression, Jimmy not coming back, etc. having Woodruff or Sutter start in the minors and 2-3 of Gallardo, Gerra, Miley make the OD roster help hedge against that a bit. This especially makes sense if none of them show you there is a discernible talent gap.

So past results shouldn’t be considered when trying to determine how good a pitcher will be? I kind of understand your point but it’s foolish not to look at how good a player has been in the past. Obviously someone can make adjustments but if he’s been flat out bad for three or four years it’s likely that he’s just not that good. Yeah, I mean past results should almost always be the first thing to look at to judge how a guy will do moving forward (obviously outside of making sure he's healthy). But that's the starting point, good or bad of what he's done once you see what he's done that's where you look to see if he's been bad is it fixable with mechanics, sequencing, eliminating a pitch, using a pitch more, etc. if he's been good can he continue these things reasonably well as he ages, can he sustain a velo drop and still be successful or can you reasonably project his velo can stick or his movement sticks, does he do things that don't lead you to believe they are outliers/variance/etc. A lot of people just get caught up in that the only thing people look at these days are stats (I will admit I do this myself) but scouting/eye test still plays a major role in MLB. It may have shifted how, when, where and why it's used but the most successful FO's use a blend of stats/analytics and scouting. Hate to use the Cubs so much as an example but look at the things their FO says, they use scouting just as much as ever it's just tailored differently now that incorporates the stats to analyze players or the stats are the starting point to go and scout a guy. Theo has ben on record saying they employ more scouts now than they had before he took over. The scout isn't a dying thing like so many people seem to think they just are being re-calibrated and FO's aren't running teams just using spreadsheets and computers with no human element.

It’s ST but that Mikolas guy the Cardinals signed back from Japan or Korea (forget which one) has been an absolute bum in his 2 starts. Usually wouldn’t read much in to it but as a guy who hasn’t pitched in MLB in a few years and was bad when he was last here and now his first time back he’s sucked in both outings, they have to be worried a bit.

FIP isn’t perfect but it’s better than ERA for valuing a guy in the bigger picture/projecting moving forward. FIP has it’s blind spots and that’s why there’s certain profiles of pitchers that can often beat it, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad metric to evaluate pitchers. There absolutely is luck and weird sequencing events. I’d also argue there really isn’t clutch, if you’re good you’re generally going to perform, if you’re not, you’re not. But given luck and small sample sizes (like postseason stats) things can get skewed.

If only there were other statistics than ERA. Wake me when fip wins a ball game... or when you get bonus points for Ks. FIP wins and loses a lot of ball games considering it’s the things a pitcher actually controls

Never a big fan of committing more money/years to pitchers than needed when they are already under control for awhile, especially relief pitchers. Also factor in the unique ability the Brewers seem to have to find these closers to come out of nowhere and be elite for 1-2 years then completely blow up. I could be talked in to a trade for Knebel now or else just ride it out through the controlled years, no interest in extending and guaranteeing any more money than needed.

It’s not so much losing the 4th round pick, it’s losing the money tied to the pick. The difference in keeping that pick/money vs not could be the difference between being able to afford a over slot better player early on vs just taking a guy we know will sign for slot or under slot.

That’s fair. I just don’t expect him to be anywhere near a sub 4 ERA pitcher this year if he’s just thrown in the rotation. If he’s protected a bit as a piggy back guy, not allowed to face orders 3rd time through, long relief, spot starts vs a team with optimal splits, etc... sure. But if he’s just given 20-25+ starts I expect a mid-high 4s ERA as his floor and probably worse.

I know that’s what happened last year but to expect Suter to be in the Anderson/Davies tier again this year is a bit optimistic/delusional

Well it lets players get closer to their actual worth at their prime years and would shift FA to paying more towards actual value/expected future value/performance as opposed to FA being for paying dudes for past performance. Reducing arbitration years is fine but that really hurts the small market teams since all the good FAs will go to big markets/teams that can afford them.

It's really not a bad idea if they really feel "tanking" is a problem, for me personally I do not think it's a problem and if it's the route teams want to go fine. Baseball can be a weird sport and teams can end up having bad seasons/no chance to win even if their intent isn't to tank from the start of the year, it seems like a way that can unfairly punish a team(s) that has a rash of injuries or poor performance. Last year I don't think the Giants, Tigers, Mets, Jays, Orioles, Pirates, Marlins and Rangers were really trying to tank yet you have the 2 worst teams in the league in that group and the other 6 finished in the bottom 14.

Yeah I just don’t see that. You’re friend/co-worker is being a bit obtuse to their situation. Like I said above, their rotation is set and solid and they have enough depth and Cobb (or signing Cobb and putting Chatwood in the bullpen just makes no sense). They also are only $12 million or so below the luxury tax level, something they for sure want to stay below for next offseason with arbitration raises and to make a run at Harper (I think he’s going to end up there) so they aren’t a repeat offender going in to next offseason but instead can go over starting next year, which they are more than capable of being able to handle.

Yeah unless there’s a drastic injury (they still would probably just put Montgomery in the rotation or sign a lesser FA like Hellickson or whatever) or decided to go a 6-man rotation I don’t get why the Cubs would be in at all at this point. Lester/Hendricks/Darvish/Quintana/Chatwood is set and all those guys are better than Cobb except maybe Chatwood but if he plays up to his road/outside of Coors splits at worst he’s even value. Plus they have Montgomery and some AAAA guys like Tseng/Butler/Mills/Alzolay/that dude with the weird Z last name and Drew Smyly rehabbing for SP depth. They are pretty set.

How so? Players would have a plan ahead of time as to when they would switch with certain players at the plate. I highly doubt this would add even 1 second to the game. If a guy is moving from 1B to the OF or left and right fielders are going to be switching based on the hitter in the middle of an inning, that’s going to take time. Would negate any of the nominal gains made by limiting mound visits. I also was being facetious if that wasn’t picked up on. I don’t care for any pace of play changes like mound visit limits or this shifting adding time. It’s a unique idea and I don’t care if it adds a few minutes a game.

PACE OF PLAY!!!! Having OF shift around between batters will add potential minutes to the game

Agree. Raising salaries by 10-25% during arbitration years seems to be the most logical thing here. It makes the most sense to be the change that accomplishes the players goal(s) and not doing anything drastic like making FA come sooner (would hurt small markets most), going to hard caps/floors, etc. Maybe also add in that even though arbitration to players is going up 10-25% in real money only 80% (or some portion) of the salary of arbitration players counts towards the LT. Give teams a break/incentive for homegrown guys and a reason to pay them through arbitration.

Nightengale seems like a hack to me, but hopefully he's right on this.

Yelich absolutely could play RF, and likely would be a plus defender there, if needed or wanted. Just because he hasn’t played there doesn’t mean he’s incapable of it.

Yeah it’s crazy, I get betting on yourself but I think it was a big mistake not taking an extension from the Cubs any of the last 3 offseason (which they were reported to offer him one each offseason).

Not picking on you personally, but Arrieta stinks in Baltimore and goes to Chicago and becomes a star who people want to sign as a FA; however, Anderson goes from ARI to MIL, has a very good year and a half stretch, but "overachieved" and is due for regression. Why are players on other teams who improve later in their career stars who we want, but when Brewers improve they overachieve and are due for regression? Arrieta was 26/27 when he came to the Cubs and took off, Anderson was 29/30 when he did it here. Plus Arrieta lacks the injury history Anderson has/had and Arrieta always had premium stuff and the Orioles are notorious for screwing up their pitching prospects (they literally wouldn’t let Arrieta throw his cutter). Anderson’s stuff was always kinda average but last year he had the velo bump out of nowhere. Arrieta didn’t see the stuff uptick with the Cubs, the stuff/velo was already there it was just tinkered with/refined. Think they are a bit different scenarios and the Anderson regression worry is warranted, imo. This isn’t a reason to go get Arrieta now, his stuff has fallen back down with age/innings. But there were more things to buy in to his rise being a bit more real or sustainable for the reasons I mentioned above and a lot of those same reasons aren’t there to necessarily believe in Anderson keeping it up.

Thank you for the info and that certainly is promising. I just have my doubts (even though it's not the same as usual for pitchers) that he ever comes back as good as he was last year given shoulder injury history with pitchers.

*AS IT STANDS TODAY* AL East: Red Sox AL Central: Indians AL West: Astros WC1: Yanks WC2: Angels NL East: Nats NL Central: Cubs NL West: Giants WC1: D’Backs WC2: Dodgers For playoffs flip a coin or something since it’s all mostly random, but I’ll predict a Cubs-Red Sox WS. NL West was the hardest division for me to pick everything else I think is gonna be mostly chalk. I don’t think the Dodgers are being talked about enough as a team that falls. Their pitching is held together by duck tape and bubblegum and they have some regression guys on offense.

Someone around here mentioned in a post awhile back that a labrum injury the way he hurt it or that it was a different type of labrum injury that is different than if he hurt it while throwing. Hope that made sense and I wish I remember who posted it. I mean the fact that Jimmy is already throwing is an indicator that it might be healing and maybe not as bad as originally thought to be. Fair enough, but I mean Mark Prior use to always “be throwing” and “looking good” “feeling good” coming back from shoulder stuff and then he never did. And his initial shoulder injury was of the non-throwing type. It was a collision with Marcus Giles and 2B that flipped him and he landed on his shoulder.