monty57

The article I read says that the players still have to sign off on the health protocols and the arrival date, but it sounded like they are expecting that to happen. They can still file a grievance about anything going on if they choose to.

I'm happy we're getting a DH, as I've thought we should have one for a long time. But, can someone explain to me how having a DH will help prevent a player from getting COVID? Seems more like something the league wanted to get implemented, so they're using COVID as a cover to get it put in place.

It was a negotiation by the Commissioner and the head of the union, not an offer from the owners, and certainly not "all the demands of the owners." If the owners agreed to the deal and the players did not, then it seems that the Commissioner understands his constituency better than the head of the union understands his. As far as "doing good going forward," I wouldn't think it gives the union boss much credibility when he negotiates one-on-one with the Commissioner and the players reject it. That makes him look weak.

I thought Selig wanted expansion, and doing so meant that one AL team would have to go to the NL. "No DH" may have been his battle cry, but I figured it was that someone needed to make the move, so he volunteered the Brewers. He may not have been a competitive owner, but he knew how to play politics and get the public to believe what he was selling. Must be the used car dealer in him.

I think this thing is as much about service time as it is anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I heard that if the season isn't played, the players will accrue one year's service time. However if games are played, the players will only accrue as much service time as there are games played. Hence, the Commissioner's statement that games will be played. Players want/need to get paid, and the owners aren't giving up a full year's service time. The owners are probably losing money in every scenario, so they have figured that their best-case scenario is to play 50 games, which should give them an extra year of "control" over young players (not sure how it would effect veterans on guaranteed contracts), while losing the least amount of money. The only way it could get better for them is if players agree to lower salaries for additional games played. Players are losing a lot of money as well. Many players will probably lose their homes if they don't get paid this year. Their best case was to play enough games to get them a full season's service time (I believe that was 114 games), so that's why they threw that number out there. They'd like to play as many games as possible, but only at full salary. From a financial standpoint, they would probably be better off as a whole (and certainly the younger players) if they took some per-game cut but played more games. However, from a bargaining standpoint, they don't want to look like they're caving to the owners. In short, both sides would probably be better off with >50 games played at a lowered salary level, but both sides have drawn the line in the sand for future bargaining position. If neither side is planning on moving, then I wish they would just announce the 50-game season. That they haven't done that already gives me some hope that we might end up with a longer season, but I'm not counting on it. If the lawyers would leave the room, we'd already be playing baseball. However, the lawyers run baseball from both sides of the table. At the end of the day, they're the only ones who are coming out financially ahead this season.

I agree to a point. If the decision for some owners is "play baseball and go bankrupt, or not play this season and lose some money," then it technically is "about money," but it's really about survival. I don't want Attanasio to sign off on a deal that would end the Brewers, or one that would force him to sell the team. Any deal will probably have to work out that the owners won't lose more money by playing the games than they lose by not playing the games. Meanwhile, the players will lose a lot of money if the season isn't played. Many of them (especially the younger guys) probably won't be able to pay all of their bills without their expected income. Therefore, I agree that both sides have incentive to sign a deal, but "just being about money" is a big thing. No business is designed to lose all their revenues for an extended period, and many thousands of businesses around the country are going to be out of business when this is all said and done. They'll probably lose money either way, but owners have to be sure that they are still around at the end of the year.

I haven't been following this, but the article linked by RoCoBrewFan says "but the league said that agreement also left the door open for further financial negotiations if the games were to be played with no fans in attendance." If true, then they aren't "going back on a deal," they simply following the wording of the deal they had, which puts them into more negotiations. I generally take anything said publicly in these negotiations with a grain of salt, but a while back the owners said they would lose $4 billion if games were played with no fans in the stands. I'd have to believe that would cause some teams to go into bankruptcy, as I can't imagine teams like the Brewers could afford to lose over $100,000,000 in a season. If that is indeed the case, they would probably be better off just not playing the season and resuming play "as normal" in 2021. Of course, if they do this then there would probably be a lot of players who would file for bankruptcy, so there is some reason for both sides to want to work out a deal. I don't really look at anyone as "the bad guy." A lot of money is being lost by a lot of people this year, and sports leagues and players are included in this. I hope they can work something out. I'd like to see baseball, and I think it would be good for the country's morale.

That sums it up pretty well. Braun was only considered for 1B because they have four starting-caliber OF. He'd probably be pretty bad defensively at first. Braun at DH, with occasional starts in the OF to rest other players lets the Brewers keep his bat in the lineup while improving their defense.

The home stadium shift from the earlier considerations of AZ/FL/TX did interest me. Is it a thing where the combination of heat, time zones, and finding optimal TV times make it difficult? Or are they desperate to gamble that there could be a point where late season could let them have 10%-25% capacity? Maybe it could come as a counter proposal to the owners', but just don't see how the players in particular would strongly prefer to be playing in New York vs. Florida or Milwaukee vs. Arizona under the current circumstances. I wonder how much the states complained about the "play all games in Arizona" plan, as the players pay income tax based on the state in which they play. Big tax states like NY, California, IL & WI would lose a lot of tax money if the games were played elsewhere.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the Brewers should upset their younger base by making them call the ticket office rather than simply updating their online policy page and allowing them to process their refund electronically?

I'm not complaining, and I don't have any tickets to refund. I just said that I can see why people would be angry with the team. I think it would be good customer service from the team to clearly state that ticket holders can either receive a refund or get a credit for future games. That's what all the other teams are doing. A lot of people, particularly younger people, don't want to talk on the phone. They prefer to do everything electronically. (I'm in the financial services industry, and this is a bit of a pain, since our industry is slow to adapt and still relies heavily on phone conversations or in-person meetings. I'll call people, and they will text me rather than answering the phone.) Also, as I mentioned earlier, season ticket holders have a personal rep, but most ticket holders do not. The thought of calling a "big business" isn't pleasant, as it usually entails dealing with a non-user-friendly voice mail system. Calling a business is usually a last resort for many people. I'd say the easy fix would be for the Brewers to change the link on their front page. It goes to a McCalvy article, which contains a link to the old policy. Just make a link to the updated policy. Simple.

Most people who buy tickets don't have a personal rep to call like season/group ticket holders do. The Brewers website still says: "Single Game Tickets: Any regular price or discounted single-game ticket buyers will receive credit for game tickets and parking passes to purchase any 2020 or 2021 season Brewers home game. Fans who purchased tickets at Miller Park using cash can bring their tickets to the Miller Park Box Office for exchange options when the ticket office reopens for business." No mention of a refund, just the ability to get credit towards 2020 or 2021 games. I have tickets for July to six other parks. I'm still hopeful that I'll get to go to the games, but just in case, I checked the teams' policies. The Nationals still haven't announced anything, so they're dropping the ball, but Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Boston, and Cincinnati have all stated that they would offer refunds or credit right on their website. Fans shouldn't have to call the ticket office to complain in order to get a refund, it should be stated directly on their site. The Brewers still need to change their site to offer the refund, and I can see why people are upset when all they are offered on the site are credits.

I agree that it's a bad idea for the Brewers to not offer a refund. I hate to say it, but they are really screwing their fans by only offering the credit. I have a July East Coast trip planned with the family, going to six different parks. I'm still clinging onto hope that the games will happen, but it's good to see that the teams are offering a refund if the games aren't played. There's no way I would use a credit for a future game. By the way, Boston is by far the best run ticket office I dealt with. They were the first on sale, easiest to manage, and they are sending an email to all ticket holders so the fans don't even have to visit the site or call the ticket office for their refund.

At this point, MLB doesn't know what's going on with the season, so while it sucks for fans (myself included) who have a lot of money paid out in tickets, it's probably prudent for the league to consider the games "postponed" until they have some certainty. While it may not seem likely, it is still possible that they have games in July, August, September with fans in the stands. It is also possible that some games, especially those against division rivals, could be made up. Unfortunately, this could go on for a while, as no one knows how things are going to progress. At some point a decision will have to be made, but for now most of America doesn't even know when they'll get their next haircut, so I don't expect a decision to officially cancel the games to happen too soon. As far as a lawsuit goes, that could tie up the money for years and would probably end up in a class action with the attorneys getting half the proceeds that should go back to the fans. I'm sure there are a lot of law firms licking their chops over that thought, but it might not be the best outcome for the fans or the league.

I downloaded OOTP to do my own sim, doing the same "unemployed GM" as Joseph. I'm 6-5, but the Pythag says I should be 4-7. Started out terrible, but have come back to win the last four. Offense is being held up by Cain and Narvaez and is sitting 10th in the NL in Runs Scored. Yelich has 11 BB in 47 PA, but only hitting .200. Pitching hasn't been very good outside of Woodruff and Houser in the rotation and Hader, Burnes and Phelps in the 'pen. Overall 12th in the NL in Runs Allowed. Big surprise was that they DFA'd Anderson after his first start, when he went 6 innings and gave up 2 runs. Had Lindblom in the 'pen, and moved him to the rotation when they jettisoned Anderson. Signed Carlos Torres for the 'pen. They made a ton of minor league moves in today's off day, releasing 16 players and signing 16 new guys to minor league deals.

I split JosephC and JackNicholson1974's simulated seasons into new threads. I'm enjoying this, so thanks to everyone who is posting their results here.

My family has planned (and paid for) a two-week trip in July, seeing six games in six different cities. I'd be upset if they change the schedule in order to save divisional match-ups. I'm assuming that they will just keep the existing schedule and start the season when they can, making up as many games as possible on off days and potentially extending the end of the season by a week or so. It's easier for them to refund/exchange a few games at the beginning of the season than it would be to make up a new schedule and have to refund/exchange every ticket that has been bought. As mtrebs said, that would be a logistical nightmare.

The Lauer news would seemingly contradict this statement. Yeah, I don't get why someone would hate depth. It's pretty likely that all of the seven guys competing for the rotation will get MLB starts this year. It's also pretty likely that at least one of them will under-perform, so it's good to have capable replacements.

...and this is why it's important to have good options in AAA who are already stretched out. There will be injuries over the course of the season, so I'm glad we have depth. Before this occurred, I hoped we'd go with Woodruff, Anderson, Lindblom, Houser, and Peralta in the MLB rotation, with Lauer and Burnes starting in AAA. I'd rather not have an injured pitcher, but barring other injuries, I think this solidifies the rotation. Lauer will rehab in AAA, and if someone is pitching poorly and he's pitching well in AAA, then he can replace the under-performer when he's healthy and ready. If everyone in the rotation is pitching well, then we can keep Lauer and Burnes in AAA until they're needed. It's not always about "best arm," things like contracts, service time, and maintaining depth also come into play when constructing the MLB roster.

Fair enough but you can say that for every player on the 25 and also say that for any scrubby upgrade they get for next to nothing at the trade deadline. Lyles and Pom were worth a mint by that logic and they didn't get much of a return at the trade deadline. I agree, and that's why teams in the playoff hunt are willing to give up future value (prospects) in order to gain that short-term marginal upgrade while teams out of the playoff hunt are willing to give up the "extra WAR" in the current year in order to gain that future value. The "extra WAR" is valuable to the winning team, and not very valuable to the losing team. In regard to Lyles and Pom, no one would have guessed that they would be as productive as they were. If so, they would have required a lot more to acquire. They have been paid in retrospect this offseason, and we'll see if a good half-season continues into their new deals. All players, and especially relievers, have a very wide variance in a small sample size. Guys with strong track records are going to be more expensive at the deadline, as they are more likely to produce solid results, but even they can have a bad few months and make the GM look foolish for trading for them.

Exactly. Some players want to maximize their total dollars, and they should look for an agent who is good at that. Some players care more about security, and they should look for an agent who is good at that. Peralta sounds like the latter, and said that it wasn't a tough decision at all for him to take the early extension, even realizing that he might be leaving some money on the table. At the end of the day, the agent works for the player. They really act as a fiduciary, so they need to make decisions based on the player's wants and needs, not their own financial interests. I've had some limited experience as an adviser to pro athletes. With the number of stories out there about players getting screwed over by their agents/advisers and ending up bankrupt, leagues are giving players more education early in their careers, and from my limited experience agents do seem to care about their clients. I'd guess that Peralta's agents aren't really "upset" about this. They may have advised him to wait a while to take an extension, but I'm sure they are happy for him.

They traded for him, so I'll guess that they have seen him play before and liked something about him. They just extended Peralta, who doesn't have a tremendous MLB track record, so the precedence is there for signing promising young players even if they haven't yet had a lot fo MLB success. I'll disagree with your premise on why a team signs pre-arby players to long-term extensions. It is done because you get a significant price break in return for transferring risk from the player to the team. At a Peralta-style extension, even if Urias only maxes out as a utility guy, the team isn't out that much money, and if he plays to his potential, they have gotten a steal of a deal. These are the type of deals that can generate tremendous value for a team, both while the player is playing for you, and if they ever decide to trade him away.

Imo there is no way Lauer sees the minors. He'll be in the pen (if not starting) and used frequently when other starters get shelled. A lefty that can go multiple innings and start is invaluable, especially in the NLC. That won't change in the future, so if you can get an extra year's service time (while keeping him stretched out as a starter) by starting him in the minors, that may be more valuable than sticking him in the pen this year. Whoever doesn't win one of the opening day rotation spots will be the first guy called on as an injury replacement until Burnes proves himself. I'd rather that person be stretched out in AAA instead of calling someone from the pen who will only be able to go 3-4 innings for his first few starts. Regardless, having "too many" starting pitchers is a good problem for the Brewers to have.

If Peralta and Houser are used as starting pitchers, the "log jam" consists of putting Burnes and Lauer in AAA to start the season. That puts them about eight deep for starters if you include Suter who will be in the MLB pen. That's about what a team should expect to need to get through a normal MLB season, and it gives us some insurance if one of our "question marks" doesn't perform. If you trade someone, then you are dependent on everyone to pitch well, and any injuries could mean that guys like Zack Brown or Supak may need to be counted on even if they aren't ready. You should always listen to offers, but I wouldn't be in any rush to trade away starting pitching at this point.

The Peralta extension makes things interesting. As much as I wanted him as a starter, I thought he was destined for the pen until they extended him. Now I think there's a good chance that he starts the year in the rotation, which means that Lauer could be the odd man out. In the long-term, things look fairly bright with Woodruff (5 years of control), Peralta (recent extension), Lindblom (3 year deal), and Houser (5 years of control) in the MLB rotation for the foreseeable future, Lauer and Burnes heading up our AAA rotation and guys like Ashby and Small making their way through the minors. For this year, the pen would be weakened without Peralta, but we have some necessary rotation depth with the aforementioned Lauer and Burnes in AAA and Suter sitting in the pen ready to get stretched out if necessary. That's eight guys deep even before we get guys like Zack Brown and Trey Supak.