monty57

Just a couple of garbage answers from Counsell. Young players need to play. They're not going to figure anything out by sitting on the bench. They need to actually experience tough pitching and then make adjustments to it. I alluded to this earlier, but young players can learn that they're not entitled to anything, and they have to earn playing time. I went to the Timber Rattler games when they played in Beloit with Santana on rehab assignment. He dogged everything. Yes, he was playing in A ball, but I lost a lot of respect for him. He is a talented player, but if he's going to do things like getting picked off for a double play on a line-out because he's jogging back to the base, or not giving full effort on defense, then he's going to find himself on the bench.

Very good points being made here. I would make a small adjustment to it: if a SOLID deal comes along for dealing Wily, TAKE IT!!!! This offseason the FA pitching market is quite limited so people willing to deal pitching away should get greater than normal value. If another team is looking at the 2nd half of Wily and thinking he has turned it around, they might be willing to deal for Wily now, not once he struggles again (if he struggles) during the 2017 season. Oh, absolutely. I think the Brewers will look to trade a pitcher, but won't be pressed into doing something. The most likely candidate should be Garza, with the team eating some salary in order to get something back, but if someone is enamored with Peralta's second half and is willing to pay up for him, then by all means take it. I just don't expect that to happen.

Peralta's best shot of helping the Brewers will be to have him start the season in the rotation. After some time in the minors, he came back and dominated. If he can continue pitching well through the first half of 2017, he would be a good trade candidate. If he starts the season in the rotation and stinks up the joint, then we can chalk up the second half of 2016 as a fluke and move on from Wily, but we should give him the shot to see if he re-discovered something in his time in the minors and can be the pitcher we all hoped he'd be.

i do not agree, his mentality managing is to play to win instead of developing talent. For example why was kirk nieuwenhuis playing every day while Domingo Santana riding the bench, one is not in the long term future of the team and one is a big maybe. I understand you need to play to win, but when a team in rebuilding you need a manager to embrace this while still trying to win. The GM and owner need to worry about the future of the franchise. The manager needs to worry about winning with what he's given. I know this is a very limited experience, but I watched Santana when he was on rehab in Beloit, and he looked like he could use a bit of an attitude adjustment. Sitting a young, "entitled" player on the bench can be just as important to his development as having him on the field.

But yet billions of dollars are being spent on sports. I think this is just something people like to complain about while they're sitting around watching and discussing sports. The NFL needs to find a workable solutions for how to handle concussions without losing their fan base. Other than that, professional sports will be around longer than any of us.

Good. I think he's a good fit for the team and what they're trying to accomplish.

Agree. Everyone knows who he is as a player. His questions were injury, PED and age. He stayed relatively healthy last season, so as far as the injury concern, that could only be hurt by holding onto him. The PED concerns were years ago, and he has played well since, limiting the concerns that he was only good because of PEDs. No one can do anything about age, but he will be a day older for every day we hold onto him. Braun probably still has a couple of seasons before age really starts to hit him, but we don't want to be left holding the "hot potato" when age does start to take it's effect on him. As to the Red Sox, it really just depends on how much Braun wants to be out of Milwaukee and onto a winner. If he's willing to drop the no-trade clause, then a big money team with good prospects (like the Red Sox) would make sense. Stearns had just better be absolutely certain he's willing to accept the trade, because another Lucroy-to-Cleveland situation could make him look foolish.

Right now, we are nowhere near having producers with the bat coming up like Rizzo or Kris Bryant To be fair, the Cubs didn't have Rizzo in their system until they traded for him when he was in AAA, and I don't think they gave up too much to get him. We do have the #1 or 2 rated farm in the league, so we have talent, both in pitching and position players. We'll have to see how those players progress, but we have a lot of talent in the system.

Except the goal is to have an ace. I hope we can produce our own Chatwood/Parker. If we can't there will be no need for an ace. Sorry, not Parker - he's been a walking injury and recently his arm blew up and he's been non-tendered. Shame on me for just giving the list a quick glance and then typing a post. I don't want us to throw a huge contract to someone like Arrieta, as we'd be singing him for too much of our payroll until he's in his late 30's/early 40's. Whoever signs him will be sorry they did. Probably the same thing for a Tyson Ross, although he'll probably be cheaper and for less years then Arrieta. I also don't want us to empty out the farm trading for an ace. Why (for instance) trade away Ortiz and Bickford for two years of an ace when Ortiz and Bickford could be 40% of our rotation, even if neither ends up being a "true ace." As Splitter said, there are many ways of getting your star players. It's hard to compare what "could be" with a rotation boasting three Cy Young-caliber guys at the top of the rotation, but only two years ago everyone was saying the Cubs wouldn't have enough pitching to be good, as all their prospects were position players. They landed Arrieta in a minor deal after Baltimore gave up on him, and got Hendricks from Texas in the Dempster deal. Their only major FA signing was Lester, who may be their third best pitcher. Lackey is an aging middle-of-the rotation guy, so that was kind of a Lohse/Garza type signing, although they were smart enough to only sign him for two years. We've already made some seemingly good deals in this "rebuild," and therefore we have some young pitching talent at the MLB level, and more in the minors. I think we have the makings of a strong rotation, and getting a solid pitcher hitting FA in his late 20's (like Chatwood or maybe Matt Moore), could give us a rotation that's strong enough to compete. If there were a good option to get a "true ace" who is still in his prime when he hits free agency, then I'd say they could take a shot (although someone with deep pockets could make it hard for the Brewers to get him). However, without that guy available, don't do something you'll regret like signing a 32-year-old to a 6-8-year deal.

I think we could do it, but I don't think I'd want to hitch my wagon to a monster deal for a 32-year-old Arrieta. If next offseason is the time the Brewers jump deeper into free agency, I'd like them to look at guys like Tyler Chatwood and Jarrod Parker, who will be much younger free agents (unless they extend before then). I agree that I do not want to see the Brewers sell the farm for an ace, as without the farm we would not be in need of an ace for a playoff run.

Dexter Fowler is also a FA, but we probably have enough outfielders. As to adding middling starting pitching, we already have six guys, and some on here are stating that we "need" to trade someone due to the "logjam." I don't think we need to trade anyone, but I also don't think we should be looking for veteran mid-to-back-of-the-rotation guys in free agency. I'd say start the season with what we have and add in some of our prospects when they're ready. Look to add a better FA starter (a guy who could be at the top of the rotation) after we see how 2017 goes. If we tie up money now on lesser guys, we'll have a hard time getting better guys when we're ready to add them.

The main reason baseball games take longer is that there is greater focus on OBP, so hitters are taking a lot more pitches, getting on base more, and forcing opposing teams to the pen earlier. If you want to shorten games, penalize hitters for taking pitches. This would be best done by making the strike zone bigger. Pitchers will be much more dominant, but time of game will go down as hitters are forced to swing at more pitches and get more outs. I'd personally rather just watch an extra ten or fifteen minutes of baseball, but that would solve the perceived problem of the thread.

Say you limit it to 4 throws. On the first throw, safe, second throw, safe. Well on the 3rd throw, he better be darn well sure he is going to pick him off, otherwise you are down to your final throw and if he is safe. And if you throw a 4th time I would just award him 2nd base. I understand this is a drastic change, but I am open to just about anything at this point. As I said before I just don't like the unlimited I can throw to first as much as I want. Additionally, if they do limit the number of times a pitcher can step off the rubber, this will just become the new way of stepping of the mound. With a runner on, they will just step off and throw to a base with a runner. Well, I guess we could just load the lineup into a computer simulator prior to the game, sing the national anthem, and tell the fans who won the simulation. It sounds like you would prefer to watch home run derby baseball. I personally prefer to watch games where some "boring" strategy is part of the game. Disrupting timing and throwing the other guy off is a big part of baseball.

Fox Sports 1 averaged 4.2 million viewers between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET to claim the top spot. Fox News finished second with 3.3 million viewers and CNN finished third with 2.2 million primetime viewers. The MLB playoffs are putting up huge ratings number, while NFL ratings are plummeting. Some of the things being thrown around here would fundamentally change the way the game is played, and that would all be to fix a perceived problem that doesn't even seem to exist.

Probably off topic, but how are first basemen rated for defense? Is it like most positions rated for range? I don't think range is overly important for a first baseman. Like a catcher, the most important thing for a first baseman is fielding balls thrown at him. Therefore, he should probably be rated along the lines of a catcher's "pitch framing" more than rating him the same way you rate other positions. As far as can/should he be traded, I think Carter comps well with Mike Napoli. He always seems to be in demand, so I think Carter will as well. Carter had a bad year in 2015 and was benched. We "bought low" and it paid off, so there's no reason to trade him unless we get good value in return, and even then we'd need to find another first baseman, so trading him doesn't make that much sense.

I like watching baseball. I don't see the problem.

Anyone is available for the right price, but I agree with those saying that it will take a lot for us to part with guys who have team control. I don't think we need to do much more tearing down, as all the moves over the past year and a half have laid the foundation, and we'll build from there. Braun is likely dealt. This is the final "tearing down" move, but Brewers are trying to move him, so I would be surprised to see him as a Brewer next year. If moved, he will probably bring back a salary dump MLB guy (like Puig) who can fill out the MLB roster, as well as a good haul of prospects. Gennett is likely dealt. The Brewers seem to like Villar at 2B, and Gennett can't play anywhere else, so he'd make a bad bench player. Someone will give us something for him, and he will start for a MLB team next year, but I wouldn't expect too much. I hope Stearns' magic can drum up another deal that people hate when it happens and are ecstatic about by the end of next season. One of our SP could be dealt if we get a good deal, but we do not need to trade anyone. My guess is that they will shop Garza to see if they can eat some money and get a prospect, but if we can't find a deal, then at worst we could throw someone in the "long man/6th starter" role until someone gets hurt. Thornburg is a possibility, but I think they'll wait until trade deadline to see if it's as big a meat market as it was this year. Other than that, anything would be pretty minor. Maldonado is probably the odd man out at catcher, as he's the most expensive and isn't better than the other options. Kirk N could be kicked to the curb or kept... it really doesn't matter too much and with Braun likely gone, he may be the warm body they keep until better options are ready.

I'm pretty sure Uecker used to regularly do the World Series so I don't really the issue there. It's not like he's doing it for the Cubs he's doing it for national television.. Knowing Cub fans, if Fox made that switch to appease them (they're the ones who hate Buck) and they went on to lose the World Series, they'd blame Uecker for the loss.

To go a step further...we were 25th in the league in runs scored with 671. So, we were 1st in the league with runners thrown out at home with far fewer opportunities than other teams in the league. Neat stuff. I just wanted to re-post this, as I believe it is an important point. It's kind of like why SB% is important when determining if a guy is a good base stealer. If someone led the league in CS with far fewer attempts than everyone else, you should tell him to stop trying to steal. If you lead the league in runners thrown out at home with far fewer runners sent, then maybe you should not be the guy making that determination.

The Cubs are good, but they're human and can be beaten. The Brewers just need to focus on themselves. They have done a wonderful job of stocking the system in the short time they've been in "rebuild" mode, and the time will come for them to start putting an emphasis on being competitive at the big league level. I think/hope that time is not too far away. The Cubs have set themselves up to be good for a while, and hopefully the Brewers are in the process of doing the same. It will be fun when the Brewers are ready to knock them off their perch.

I'm with you on this. I believe I earlier said "fast track," and that's probably not the right term. With prospects in general (not pointing the finger just at Erceg), I hope the Brewers push the guys a little. If a guy keeps producing, keep promoting him. If that means he's in the majors at an early age, that's a great "problem" to have. If he has some growing pains when he hits a certain level, then that's where he needs to spend more time. It seems that they have been doing this recently, which is a nice change from where they were in the second half of Melvin's tenure, when guys didn't seem to hit the majors until they were in their mid-to-late 20's.

I agree that he has a lot to prove, but he can't "hit well against someone who can actually challenge him" until the Brewers put him at a level full of guys who can actually challenge him. They'd probably like to see him face some AA pitching this year, so hopefully if he starts in high-A, he'll show enough to get bumped up to AA. From there, depending on performance, any prospect is a phone call away from Milwaukee. Like anyone in the low minors, he's still a long shot for the majors. But he's our best 3B option in the minors, so it will be interesting to see how he develops.

I agree. He was drafted out of college, so he's already 21. No reason not to try to fast-track him if he continues to produce. He's a year younger than Brinson and Hader, several months older than Ortiz and Bickford, and only nine months younger than Arcia. If a player produces, keep advancing him. Let his production tell you when he needs more time at a level.

I agree. I'm expecting it to happen in the next couple of years. I figure I enjoyed watching the Brewers when they were in the AL with the DH, and I've enjoyed watching them in the NL without the DH. That they are "my team," and are playing baseball is what matters. Whether or not there is a DH is pretty much irrelevant to my being a fan. As to whether it will happen: 1) The players' union wants it, as it extends expensive players' careers. Keeping vets with ten figure salaries on the roster and limiting arby guys with six figure salaries puts a lot of money in the union's pocket. 2) Owners of big AL teams hate that their pitchers have the risk of injury when they play in NL parks. Losing your ace could be the difference between winning the World Series and missing the playoffs. 3) NL owners should hate being at a disadvantage in interleague play. We have a big enough W/L sample to show that AL teams have the advantage. That gives good reason for all parties involved to accept the DH across baseball.

Yeah, that was bad.