wntrtxn21

Cain was a 6 WAR player. He also just signed an 80 million dollar contract. He was also just a top 10 MVP finisher. But we're suggesting moving him to a reserve role? Why? To play Thames more? The 2017 version of Thames posted an .877 OPS... Cain in 2018 had an .813 OPS. In the first half of 2018, Thames had a .901 OPS. If he is healthy, he's got a very potent bat, one that is underrated because he's arguably been misplaced in the leadoff or #2 spot of the batting order. Wow I assumed the Cain to bench thing was a joke. Just wow Thames is a horrible OF and whiffs almost 40% of the time! He is an all-or-nothing type hitter who far too often, comes away with nothing. I don't even see him making the team if Stearns can do a salary dump and talk some other team into taking him. Cain is a tremendous CF and a very good leadoff hitter. Replacing him with Thames would be the epitome of stupidity.

Great points, all. Thinking back to last year and the OF glut, I think the team is very comfortable riding with more depth than it will look like they're gonna need. Because stuff happens. Guys get hurt. These things work themselves out sometimes, for sure. I hope Stearns can trade Thames for just about anything in a straight salary dump. Thames has proven he is horrible in the OF and if they keep him it leaves Perez the only backup at 2B-SS-3B. With Shaw able to move to 1B, it leaves Thames as an extremely strikeout prone (40% last year) PH. It's hard to see them using a roster spot for a PH. Gamel is a better over all hitter than Thames and is certainly much, much better on defense. I don't see Gamel going down because of Braun's many days off, especially if they keep Thames.

How about when Cain got hurt running the bases? Or Aguilar, or Braun, or Thames etc... Should there be automatic PRs for every hitter so nobody gets hurt running the bases? Maybe full platoon type baseball where there is offense and defensive players plus automatic pinch runners. If Yelich had missed the season because of a base running injury, the Brewers don't see the playoffs.

I couldn't agree more! Thames is a whiff artist (almost 33%) and is horrible in the OF. He is an HR. or nothing hitter and useless against LH pitching. With Shaw an option at 1B, Thames is of no use to the Crew. They should try and trade him even if they have to pay part of his salary. A straight salary dump.

Every player, elite or not, is free to withhold his services from MLB and seek another occupation. ANY free agent is free to sign with any league (MLB-Korea-Japan-independent teams) that he wants to. Nobody forces players to sign with MLB. If they don't like the salary they are free to seek more money else where.

What happens when MLB (low end) and players union (extreme high end) can't agree on a FA's salary? What happens when NO team wants to sign a player for the stated salary? If Jan 15th passes and no team wants to sign the guy, what happens to him? Japan, Korea? Players union would NEVER go for anything even close to an auction scenario.

Moustakas turned down $15.3M already. He thinks he is worth far more. He is a career .251/.307 hitter. Teams are finding cheaper options.

You're right in saying a computer could be used for balls and strikes. A computer could relay the call to an umpire behind the plate wearing an ear piece. Calls would be near instantaneous. However, umpires would always be needed because too may calls are not obvious. Even some obvious calls are not as simple as it appears. W/o umpires, which team would make the "obvious" calls? There would be far too many challenges by the "wronged" team and games would be longer by an hour or more with entirely too much inaction waiting for a call. The current system needs tweaking (max. 90 secs from the time the head-set is put on to overturn a call or the call stands), but it's not bad except for the huge discrepancy in balls and strikes. MLB has to correct that part of the game and the highly controversial pitch-framing will be a thing of the past.

Tomlin is horrible and getting worse. Last year alone he allowed 25 HRs in just 70 IPs. Velocity is getting worse, location stinks, and he allows a ton of hits. He'll get bombed in AAA. Nothing lost by Stearns since it's a minor lg. contract with little risk.

You obviously have never played the game, much less managed a team. The AL has almost no strategy other than, as you call it, "reading a spread sheet" as to what pitcher is to face what hitter. In the NL the strategy is timing of using a PH and using your bench accordingly. Does a mgr. hit for the starter earlier if he thinks runs will be scarce. Which hitter off the bench hits early, does he use his best PH or save him for a later situation? If a double swith is made, how does that affect the defense, especially in the later innings. Now days, because of 13 pitchers on most teams, the mgr. has only 4 bench players. One is his back-up catcher who he is reluctant to use in case of injury. He may want to hit for a weaker hitter other than the pitcher too. Does he use a versatile defender who may be his best hitter or does he send up a weaker hitter in a clutch situation early in the game? This is just a small portion of the strategy that a NL manager has to utilize.

Why stop with just one DH? Why not go all the way! Raise the rosters to 40 and have offense, defensive, and designated pinch runners. 9 DHs, 9 defenders, and designated pinch runners. That way NO good hitter ever gets hurt running the bases, you always have your best 9 hitters in the game and your best 8 defenders along with a pitcher. Players' union would love it because there would be more jobs. Pitchers hit maybe twice a game in the NL. In the modern game there are every-day players who whiff 30-35% of their ABs and hit under .200 regularly. The uniqueness and strategy of the NL game far out weighs any argument for a DH.

Your "fix" would kill baseball forever. Small market teams would lose players to huge spending teams even faster. Larger salaries would further handicap teams w/o monster tv contracts. Restricted free agency is worthless to smaller markets because big spenders can offer so much more knowing the player's team can't afford to match the offer. The fix is to put in a salary cap that is reasonable for smaller markets too. The player's union would once again strike if the owners tried it, but that would at least give some parity to baseball.

Average number of years played in nfl is 3.3...MLB is 5.7years. He can (on average) make more playing baseball. Plus the average AAA minor leaguer makes around $76,000.

Players are allowed to shop their services once they reach FA or even before they are drafted. If they think they aren't being paid what they are worth, they are free to go to Korea, Japan, Mexico, or sign on to an independent team. I think Europe may also have a league.

This is a big component of the "collusion." I can't remember where I saw this one article, but it said teams make around $60 million from national and local TV revenue. Teams get an equal share of national TV rights, regardless whether they are shown on national broadcasts or not. There is currently no disincentive for a greedy owner to field a team that has no chance of winning but is profitable to the ownership. You can say you'll alienate the fanbase, but an owner could theoretically still turn a profit with attendance under 20k per game. Therefore, if the players want teams to shell out the $$$ in FA, they need to work with the league to make the owners feel a need to spend $ on veterans vs. trying their luck with their minor leaguers. Draft picks or bonus $ could be tied to making the playoffs or conversely picks or revenue sharing could be taken away from teams that chronically underspend. I don't think the players have much leverage on trying to get the vets more $. I think that ship has sailed with the greater use of analytics to model how players will perform as they age. I think the MLBPA needs to get the minimum salaries raised and have an arbitration process based on player comparisons vs. an adversarial process between the team and the player. It may also make sense to bring the minor leaguers into the union and get player raises there. I think all baseball players in affiliated ball should have some labor protections. You can never tie draft picks or bonus money to making the playoffs! That would give huge spending teams an even bigger advantage over the small market teams. Small market have a short window to compete until their top players are too expensive and have to be traded before FA. Losing valuable picks and money would make it even worse. How can you say any team under spends? Compared to what? What teams set the threshold for spending and which teams fail to meet the subjective number? Baseball already has a major problem with big tv markets compared to small markets. Making it harder for small market teams to compete would be extremely counter productive and eventually kill baseball in many markets.

1) Guerra was quoted last month saying that the Brewers have already informed him that he'll be in the pen in 2019. He was electric there, so that makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I think he's done as a starter with the Brewers, though, barring the unforeseen. If nothing changes roster-wise, Burnes slides into that spot. 2) I agree on Houser. I predict he looks strong in Spring Training and makes the team as a reliever. He's going to have to pitch well to maintain his spot, though. I just hate to give up on that kind of arm. 3) I also agree on Peralta heading to AAA. There's just no room at the inn, especially if they have to keep Houser up full time. I predict he'll make a big contribution to the 2019 MLB squad, though. Just maybe not in April. 4) Its really cool having power arms like Williams, Wahl and Petricka at their disposal at AAA. That shuttle is gonna get a lot of work. 5) Predictions - a) One of Davies or Anderson is dealt before the start of the season. b) Trey Supak is a breakout star in AAA, and makes an impact at the ML level. I can't see Houser making the roster in any capacity. He stunk in the minors last year and wasn't much in the majors. I think Williams is far better. Barnes is also better suited for the majors than Houser. Guerra is headed for the pen and provided they don't sign a lefty, I believe Woodruff will get the call as the 5th starter. Burnes is also a strong possibility to start if Woodruff falters. Wilkerson may be a dark horse as well as Brown. An awful lot depends on if MLB dumps the 10-day DL and goes back to the 15-day DL.

I can't see Claudio going multiple innings unless the opposition has a ton of LH batters or he is the last resort. Righties hit an incredible .369/.404 off him last year. Plus he allowed 91 hits in only 68 IPs. I think he is a LOOGY or maybe a couple of hitters if they are both LH. With Miley gone and it looks like Stearns doesn't want anything to do with Gio, a trade for a lefty is all that's left. I think you're right, they do need a lefty starter in the NL Centra.

I don't see Stearns adding any more payroll. If he can trade Thames and his $7M ($6M + $1M 2020 buyout) contract he may look at Miley. Gio is worse than any of the three young guys CC can run out there and there isn't any other FA worth spending money on. Maybe a trade, but not many teams looking at trading starters unless it's for a contract dump. With the payroll being around $120M there doesn't seem to be much room to make another move.

This is pretty much it. The Reds last made the playoffs in 2013. In the five seasons since they have won an MLB worst 343 games, 10 fewer than the next worst club. Their offense has been comparable to ours the last three years (93 wRC+/55.2 WAR vs 95 wRC+/56.5 WAR), but they've had thee worst pitching on all of MLB by a huge margin (9.2 WAR vs 24 WAR for the next worst team). After a half decade of being comfortably the worst team in MLB you almost have to make some moves to at least give the appearance of trying. The Reds trying to fix their pitching by bringing in DJ & making the moves they have should make the NL more competitive & thus more interesting, which I can always get behind. Right on. On paper, it looks like the Reds did all the right things. They added 2 quality SP, one of which is a bit of a bounceback candidate. They added excellent complimentary pieces to an already incredibly good offense. I'll admit I'm a bit biased based on what DJ did with our staff, but he'll have a heck of a lot more talent to work with in trying to craft the Reds staff into winners. I honestly don't see a weakness on this team besides potentially pitching, but they've done a lot to address pitching. The Reds added almost $50M to their payroll and three of the four guys will be gone next year.

I don't think Stearns is looking at Gonzalez or Pollack. Gonzalez is a .247/.323 hitter with some pop, but not worth anything near the $10-12M he is reportedly asking for. Villar was a better hitter and they let him go. Pollack is an OF and wants way too much money to be a bench warmer. Plus he is on the DL constantly. Not a guy worth going after given the Brewers OF. Moustakas is the only one worth looking at, but he already turned down $15+M from the Brewers. Stearns isn't likely to go up from that.

So the Players Union were told that this could happen and they didn't believe it. Maybe the players need to address with the union why they didn't get it right... To expand on what I posted earlier, the players union wants to maximize the amount of revenues that go to player salaries and the owners want to minimize that amount. They set in place the current CBA rules as each thinks different articles enhance their position. To prevent unexpected outcomes as the owners changing their habits based on current market forces, both sides should negotiate to a fixed % of revenues going to player salaries. Then both sides limit their downside to unexpected market forces. The huge problem with % of revenue is; whose revenue? Would it go by team, by avg. revenue in the league? The revenue for the Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees, etc.. far exceeds the smaller market teams' revenues. Baseball already has a monstrous problem with money differential by market and forcing small market teams to spend even more every year would make it worse. It would be hard to convince owners that they HAD to spend X amount without some kind of cap.

There is no way in the world the Brewers could add 67% to their payroll! Nobody knows what the tv deal will be, except it will be less than 1/4 of the Cubs or Dodgers deal. Increased attendance won't bring much, and costs are increasing. Their MAX will be around $117-120M for this year. Right now I too think they are at that sum, so unless a trade of Anderson and/or Thames comes to pass, Stearns is done. Im not sure where you are getting 67%. Brewers ending payroll last year was 120m. A 67% increase would bump it to around 200m. You must be comparing opening day payroll of 90m, which is a meaningless comparison. I also said i think they could go 150m without losing money. Not that they'd go that high. Their opening day payroll might be around the number you suggested, but i would be surprised if we are both a contender and end the season with under 130m payroll. As for the tv deal, i would look at the rays recent tv deal for what we likely can get. I don't have the numbers offhand, but you can certainly find it on google and it would be a game changing number. The Brewers TV deal was estimated between $20-23M. At 20 they would be the lowest in the league.

You forget that all teams have net operating costs too. Coaches salaries are not included in payroll. Cost of running Miller Park, travel costs, hotel costs, insurance costs, doctors, trainers, club house personal, etc.... All these and many more add up quickly and all come off the bottom line and affect net profits.