monty57

To me, outlawing shifts would be like the NFL outlawing nickel packages. Imagine how much the scoring would go up if the defenses would just stop trying to do their best to stop the other team from scoring.

Baseball is a business. Divisions allow for geographically close teams to form a rivalry and increase fan interest in the games. Like it or not, AmFam has more seats sold during a Cub series than they do for most other series. Even over the next few years when the Cubs are likely to be down and the Brewers should be playoff hopefuls, I'll still love seeing the Brewers beat the Cubs more than I'll love seeing them win a random interleague game. Take away the divisions, and you will take away rivalries. This may not matter on a spreadsheet where every game is the same, but from the viewpoint of most fans, and from the viewpoint of a business trying to get fans into the seats, that's a big deal. So, under no circumstance do I see the league getting rid of divisions just so the #1 Wild Card team is treated "more fairly." As I said in an earlier post, as long as there are divisions, there are going to be stronger and weaker divisions, so some team is going to be "cheated" and some team is going to "sneak in" every year. If it's really that big of an injustice, then they should go back to one Wild Card team, but again I'll repeat myself... the purpose of the second Wild Card team is to keep more teams in the race so that more fans retain interest and continue to spend money on baseball during the final months of the season. It's probably not going away. There is not enough time to play a multi-game series for the Wild Card. Just having one game for each league (played on different nights to maximize TV viewership/revenue) is "unfair" to the division leaders, as they have to wait nearly a week between games. It's even more unfair to teams that wrap up their division early enough that they can line up their rotations instead of teams that have to fight to the last game and start the playoffs without their aces being rested up. So, it's pretty evident that whatever they do, it will be "unfair" to someone. Playoffs bring in a lot of money, and the owners would love to expand the playoffs further and further. I kind of like the playoffs being just for the teams that won in the regular season, so I don't want them expanded any further.

he's in AZ to rehab to get ready for the ws. not for punishment. Yes, if he has any intentions of pitching in a game as critical as the World Series, he'd need to get some action against live hitters. The Arizona facility would be the place for that.

I would argue just the opposite. The team that won 106 games in the regular season and has the 2nd best record in ALL of baseball is playing one game against a team that won 90 games to determine their fate. On top of that, if they win, then they go on to play the team with the best record instead of reranking based on regular season records. Seems to me like the regular season really is not being prioritized at all. They didn't win 16 more games than the Cards because of an "unbalanced" schedule where they play teams in their division more. In fact, I would argue that they would have won more games if they were in the East or Central. The West is clearly the strongest division in the NL. I'm not shedding any tears for LA and I also think having WC teams is great. In fact I have issues with the current financial structure in MLB and big market TV contracts, but that's a different discussion. I'm trying to look at it objectively and I think a team with the 2nd best record in baseball deserves more than a 1 game playoff. Saying that it "evens out" over the years seems like an admission that it is sometimes not fair to certain teams. So, why not attempt to fix it or make it better rather than assuming it will all even out. Again, 3 games is not perfect either, but it's so much better than 1 game. At least then you have to show some pitching depth. Yes, that would probably require shortening the regular season, but I think its worth it. If the goal is to make the regular season "count more," then we they would have to go back to two divisions (East & West), or maybe even just one division in each league (one AL, one NL), with the winner of the division playing in the World Series. There will always be stronger divisions and weaker divisions, so as long as we have divisions (and expanded playoffs) some teams will get "robbed" while others will "sneak in." There is no perfect playoff format, but there is cold and snow as the year goes on so the playoffs can't really get any longer than they are unless the season is shortened.

The biggest reason for the second Wild Card team is to keep more cities excited about baseball in September. Without the second WC team, the Dodgers/Giants would have run away with the Wild Card spot very early, so a team like the Cardinals may have sold at the deadline rather than feeling they had a chance. I'm sure the MLB made a lot more money by having some extra teams playing for that second WC spot than they would have made without the second WC spot. I'd rather just have one WC spot, but for the reason mentioned above I don't see the league dropping the second spot. As it stands, the Brewers (and everyone else) have to wait almost a week before their first game. Players are used to their routine, so this can really throw them off. A three or five game Wild Card series would make this much worse. You'd probably have teams bringing up their AAA teams just to play some scrimmages between the end of the season and the first round of playoffs just to keep them sharp. When you also throw in that they're currently playing World Series games in freezing temperatures and snow, I'm out on adding any more playoff teams / rounds to the current structure.

Good post. Sums it up pretty well for me. Only quibble is the K-Rod part. I never wanted that piece of garbage on this team, let alone 3 different times. I hated rooting for him from the word go. At this point, I think of Williams as a good person who did something stupid, whereas K-Rod (along with Chapman and many others) are bad people who were cheered on because of their physical talents. Unless something else comes out of this, and I don't think it will, I will gladly cheer for Williams again. I just hope he can recover quickly and completely.

After an initial period of shock and anger, I've taken a deep breath and will try to look at it objectively. What Williams did is stupid. He knows it, management knows it, his teammates know it, and the fans know it. He hurt his team and has probably hurt his relations with the fans and some of his teammates. The team "punished" him by making him talk to the reporters and face public humiliation. His teammates have the chance to voice their opinions when they get to decide who gets to share in the playoff money. After that, unless he has hurt his relationship with his teammates so much that they won't play with him (which is doubtful), then the team should not look to trade him. He is young, talented, and has a lot of team control remaining. They are going to lose Hader at some point over the next couple of years, and he is the heir apparent. Replacing him would be very costly at a time in which the Brewers likely won't have much to spend in either payroll space or "prospect capital." If anything, this could cause the team to re-think offering an extension (if they were contemplating doing so), but he's too valuable long-term to trade him over this incident. As to the fans, well... they welcomed K-Rod, a serial wife beater, with open arms. I'd guess that if Williams comes back and continues to perform at a high level, this will go down in history along with falling suitcases, sharp salad tongs, and untearable phone books, but it won't have fans "calling for his head." Beyond that, I hope that there is nothing too seriously wrong in his personal life. He could have a sick family member or something else that we don't know about. His team and teammates will know this, and hopefully they can help. In a perfect scenario, he will make it back for the World Series, get some big outs, and be on the field hugging his teammates as a World Champion. I'll trust that he'll know better than to punch any more walls :-)

Yes, if someone is going to sign a bad deal, I'd rather it be the Cardinals, Cubs, or anyone else than the Brewers. Even if the deals Burnes and Woodruff sign won't be "bad" by MLB standards, if they keep pitching the way they are, they are likely going to be far too expensive for the Brewers. Like it or not, we already have Yelich's contract on the books and it doesn't look like anyone will take that off our hands. I don't think it's likely that we could spend around $50,000,000 per year on two players, much less $75,000,000 per year on three players. Maybe, if the situation was right and we had a lot of pre-arby guys, we could have two $25,000,000 players on the roster in the same year, but we couldn't sustain it for the duration of a long-term deal. We get one "shiny toy" at a time. It was Braun, now it's Yelich. Everyone else has to be lower priced, which makes it very important that we keep a strong farm that can continually pump out useful MLB players. If we're really going to be honest, this is why Burnes and Woodruff will probably have to be traded during their arby years. In today's game, superstars are getting $20,000,000+ in their final arby year, so we probably won't be able to afford our guys even while we still have team control over them. And that's if the current arby/pre-arby system (that the players association hates) makes it through the new CBA and continues on.

No kidding. If the Cards knock out LA/SF in the one game play-in I expect a re-structuring of the playoff system immediately. But if the tables were turned and one of us small markets got burned it would just be "That's baseball" “Us small markets”? You certainly can’t be suggesting that the Cardinals and Brewers are in the same category of “small market”. The geographic scope of the Cardinals fan base results in broadcast revenues that far outpace the Brewers’. If the Cardinals are small market, the Brewers are micro market. I'd say the Cardinals playing winning baseball for 100 years while the Seligs mismanaged the Brewers has resulted in broadcast revenues that far outpace the Brewers'. If the Brewers continue to operate a well-run franchise that can win games, their fanbase will continue to increase, and their broadcast revenues will continue to rise. Selig should be thanked for bringing baseball back to Milwaukee. I just wish he'd have sold the team in the late 80's or early 90's when he realized that he was overmatched in the era of big free agent contracts. Thankfully, Attanasio has done a wonderful job making the Brewers relevant again.

This post screams "I really don't like Lauer" He's good. But if I had to throw one of them against a top team in a do or die game, I'd feel obligated to go with the higher ceiling guy, whom I think is Peralta. Although right now, I concede that Lauer does feel less likely to have an implosion game. Isn't it nice to think that we're arguing over which of our good pitchers is better instead of which of the question marks in the rotation will be the least bad? We have five guys who are deserving of playoff starts. Woody and Burnes are obvious starts, and with the years Peralta, Houser and Lauer have had, they would be in the playoff rotation of most teams that have ever been in the playoffs. Heck, Ashby is probably a better choice than a lot of our past rotation pieces. We get to use solid starting options as backups in case one of our guys has a bad outing, so however Counsell chooses to manage the pitching staff, it sets us up nicely. Playoffs are always a bit of a crapshoot, but I like going in with a solid pitching staff. That seems more of a "sure thing" than when we've gone in with a slugging offense and questionable pitching.

I don't have any interest in seeing the Giants and Dodgers come down to the wire. If there's a Game 163, the Dodgers are going to win. Just let the Giants run away with it and guarantee that one of the Dodgers or Cardinals is going home immediately. Preferably the Dodgers, but the Cardinals would be a nice consolation prize. This is where I am. With a 2 game lead and 6 home games remaining the Giants control their own destiny and can banish the Dodgers to the wild card game. I hope they win out. While I agree with this, it makes me think that the Giants have to be one of the least respected teams ever. They have basically led their division start to finish this year, playing them would mean we'd lose home field advantage, and yet everyone wants them to win so that we don't have to face the Dodgers, or even the Cardinals. I get it, but they're looking like the Rodney Dangerfield of baseball teams.

Agree with your first line. As to Houser, I think he could be used along with Suter as the multi-inning reliever. In the playoffs, starters are often pulled at the first sign of trouble, so having two guys (one LH, one RH) who can enter in the 4th or 5th and pitch a few innings is a big help. But, making him the "7th inning guy" has some merit as well, as it could really shorten the game if he could be lights out in that role. It might depend on Counsell's philosophy with the starters... will he let them work through some problems in a playoff game, or will he give them a quick hook?

Lauer is pretty dang close to a fourth ace at this point. He's been nails for the vast majority of the season, but especially in the second half. He 100% deserves a playoff rotation spot. The crazy thing is, so does Houser. What a terrific problem to have. Yes, other than Anderson, whatever guy(s) we push to the bullpen for the playoffs would be near the top of most rotations in baseball. That's a great thing to have, and even better to know they have some good arms coming up and everyone (except Anderson) should be back next year. One thing to look at in the Lauer vs Houser debate is that one is left-handed and one is right-handed, so who we're playing may help determine who gets a start and who's in the pen.

I agree. I mentioned earlier that this offseason they should treat Hader just like they did last year. Put him on the market with a high price tag. If someone is willing to pay it, great. If not, then they play 2022 with Hader as the closer. Assuming he's not traded, then next offseason will be the one where they are more pressured to trade him, as they would only have him for one more year. I personally don't think that they'd get that much more for trading him this offseason than next offseason, so as long as they can afford his contract, I don't see a lot of pressure to trade him. Therefore, they'd need to get a huge return for him in order for him to be traded this offseason. However, with their stated goal of remaining continually competitive, I don't think that they will hold their star players (Hader, Burnes, Woodruff, Adames, etc.) to free agency, as that would mean they would be willing to suffer through a long, painful rebuild. I don't believe that's the plan. Rather, I think they'll look for moves like the Gomez trade, where they can flip their star players for a package that brings back some young MLB-ready talent as well as some good minor league prospects, thereby remaining competitive at the MLB level, while strengthening their farm for the future. But, I think that we should be pretty "safe" this offseason, with most of our guys (not including "rentals" like Escobar) coming back for another round next year.

True. However, if you are serious about maintaining continued success over the long term, which is what Attanasio and Stearns have repeatedly stated as their goal, then they will eventually trade away star players rather than have them leave for nothing in free agency.

Absolutely. This year, only two Brewer hitters (Urias and Garcia) have the required 3.1 PAs per game needed to qualify for anything. I can't even sort the Brewers by OPS on their own site to get a basic overview of how everyone is doing because almost no one has enough PAs. It seems that Stearns could fill a roster with eight outfielders and five catchers and Counsell would find a way to get them all playing time while winning games.

I agree. The most realistic scenario I can think of would be to try to eke out one additional season of Burnes by guaranteeing the salary through his arby years. He still has some injury risk before he hits the big payday, and he's young enough that he could still get a monster deal if he gives up one year of free agency for a guaranteed deal now. I don't expect it to happen, but it's at least feasible.

Any time I see the Brewers celebrating, it's a good thing.

I saw frelick play twice with th T-Rats and he looked completely overmatched. Good OF, but struggled to get to 91-92 mph fastballs and anything that broke. I would want to see a lot more of him to put him anywhere close to Mitchell's value. Frelick is 21, Mitchell is 23. That's a lot of development time. I talked to a couple of scouts at a recent minor league game, and they both really like Frelick and were surprised he fell to the Brewers. If things went a little differently at the draft, they have first-hand knowledge that he would have went at least 5-6 spots before the Brewers' pick. Hopefully, Frelick will be about ready for the majors by the time he's around Mitchell's current age, and hopefully Mitchell is already making a mark at the MLB level by then. Give him a little time to get adjusted and I think the Brewers and their fans will be happy to have him. But that's not to knock Mitchell. He could be a special talent, and I hope to see some All Star seasons out of him. We'll just have $29,000,000 in salary blocking his path to CF in the majors next year so we might have to wait a little longer to see him.

Good points. I can't imagine the stress GM's (or "Presidents of Baseball Operations") are under. Even when you've set up a team with a legitimate World Series shot and most of your core under control for multiple seasons, there are still a lot of big decisions to be made.

Yes, the Cardinals have ruined too many Brewer playoff hopes. We owe them a few.

Some notable SP AAV contracts: Gerritt Cole - $36,000,000 Stephen Strasburg - $35,000,000 Zack Wheeler - $23,600,000 Hyun-Jin Ryu - $20,000,000 Trevor Bauer - $34,000,000 Kershaw - $31,000,000 Scherzer - $34,603,480 I understand that Woodruff has some arby years remaining, but the way he's been pitching the past couple of seasons, he has to be eyeing a $30,000,000 free agent contract, and he ought to be getting some pretty hefty arby increases over the next few seasons. At his age, he knows he'll only get one shot at a big free agent contract, so I highly doubt that 8-years / $120M would be enticing enough for him, especially if you're deferring much of the pay out over twenty years. That AAV is $15,000,000, and he'll probably be making that much or more in years three and four of arby.

Yeah, who knows how things will work out, but if the extra rest means that our starters are stronger in the playoffs, I'll gladly take better odds of World Series trophy over better odds for a Cy Young award.

I doubt that either will be extended, but I'd think that Burnes' age would make him the more likely to extend. Woodruff knows that he'll get one shot at a big deal when his arby days are through, and if he extends he may miss that chance. Burnes could feasibly extend a couple of additional years with the Brewers, limiting his risk that he may get hurt over the next few years and miss out on a big money deal, and still have time to sign a bid, multi-year free agent deal. I say that I doubt that either will be extended because I think that the Brewers probably offered an extension to Burnes and Woodruff around the time they extended Peralta. I just can't imagine that they extended Peralta without putting the offer out to all of them. Since they declined the extension when they were at the early stages of pre-arby, I doubt that they'd extend now that they're on the verge of making really big, "set for life" kind of money. Most of the risk is gone for them, so they might as well try to make as much as they can.

Well said. There are a wide range of opinions on the direction the team should go, but he's the one who has to sail the ship. I would love to be able to keep the current guys together as long as possible, but at the same time I'd hate to go into a decade-long rebuild after losing a massive amount of talent in one offseason without getting something in return. This board is fun for theorizing what we think may be the best move. Stearns actually has to do this in real life. I'm glad it's him and not me, and I'm excited to see what he does. As to Hader, we have him for two more years, so my opinion is that this offseason Stearns can do exactly what he did last year. Tell everyone he's available for a big price tag and see if anyone bites. If not, then we have him one more year. As long as the team can afford him, keeping him or trading him this offseason is kind of a win-win proposition. It's the next offseason that the Brewers may be a little more pressured to trade him or risk losing him for nothing. One thought is whether it might be better to offer contracts to Boxberger and Strickland, who are both FAs at the end of the season. You could probably have both of them for less than Hader costs, so if it came down to one or the other, would you rather keep Boxberger and Strickland, with Williams closing (and get whatever you get from trading Hader), or lose Boxberger and Strickland but hold onto Hader?