brewerfan82

Ryan Braun, age 31-33 (2015-2017) - 140 Games played, 135, ~100 Tony Gwynn, Sr., age 31-33 (1991-1993) - 134, 128, 122 (110 in 1994) Kirby Puckett, age 31-33 (1991-1993) - 152, 160, 156 (AL player; 108 in 1994) Ken Griffey, Jr. age 31-33 (2000-2003) - 145, 111, 70 (All with Cincinnati) Robin Yount, age 31-33 (1987-1989) - 158, 162, 160 (AL...but he wasn't the DH!) Barry Bonds, age 31-33 (1995-1998) - 144, 158, 159 (112 in 1994...must have been a bad year for outfielders! Note: July Birthday, which makes deciding on the years a bit tougher) Gary Sheffield, age 31-33 (2000-2003) - 141, 143, 135 Andruw Jones, age 31-33 (2008-2010) - 75 (+11 AAA), 82 (+3 AA), 107 Vladimir Guerrero, age 31-33 (2006-2008) - 156, 150, 143 (100 +2 in 2009) Rickey Henderson, age 31-33 (1990-1992) - 136, 134, 117 No cherry-picking here; if I thought to look up a player, I listed him. (I did skip Cal Ripken...for the obvious reason.) Tried to stick to outfielders, since they're the easiest comparison. Not surprisingly, there's not much of a consistent pattern. Most guys in their early 30s start taking some games off. (All I did was start looking up players on Fangraphs; feel free to add your own names to the list.) Not sure if it was obvious and/or sarcasm, but just in case anyone missed it, those '94 numbers are from the strike shortened year. There were only 115 games that year, so don't factor those as good comps of guys dropping off around Braun's age

Where has it been stated that Wilkerson is even pitching in this game? I missed that part. If he isn't making this start, exactly what start do you think he's going to make? Him not starting today is a crystal clear indication that he isn't being brought up to start but to pitch in relief. Whether it's today, tomorrow, whenever...it will be in relief. I really shouldn't have had to spell this out for you...should have been very easy to piece together yourself. Looks like tomorrow:

Pretty sure his assessment was based on Sogard's decision to run and getting out leaving runners at 1st and 2nd with one out rather than Sogard staying put and them turning the double play. So no run scores either way, he'd just rather have 1st and 2nd with 1 out than man on 3rd with 2 outs.

Where has it been stated that Wilkerson is even pitching in this game? I missed that part. If he isn't making this start, exactly what start do you think he's going to make? Him not starting today is a crystal clear indication that he isn't being brought up to start but to pitch in relief. Whether it's today, tomorrow, whenever...it will be in relief. I really shouldn't have had to spell this out for you...should have been very easy to piece together yourself. Woah. Seems a little strong there. People have been talking about him relieving Jeffress tonight instead of the other way around, pretty sure that's what Brew4U was referring to and that argument only makes sense if it's pre-planned that he's for sure pitching tonight (and not just brought up to be available in general). Regardless, not sure what the huge concern is here. You're acting like they're messing with his career or something. The alternative was for him to be done for the year, so why not bring him up and have him as an option out of the pen? Maybe one team or another gets a big lead and you give him a few innings in the middle of a game to save the rest of the pen one of these days. Good to have him around.

Was that supposed to be blue? I found out about that specifically because people have been bringing it up on this site, lol. Anyways, every game is huge this weekend. With every win we gain ground on either the Cubs or Cards and stay pace with the other, while with any loss and we lose ground on one of them.

I'm with you, been checking for updates on this all day! I'm walking distance from the light rail that drops off at Camden Yards, so I'll be there too if this happens!

So what is it based on then? How did you get the 1 win? That's a serious question. Saying it's *not* based on WAR (which would actually be something to back up a claim) is zero proof of something being true. And the previous statement about Sale, with nothing else considered, is borderline baiting as I truly believe you realize that's an incredibly flawed conclusion to derive from that. I really am interested in your reason behind the last statement as well. Has this been proven? For instance, David Price has faced on average 886 batters the past 7 years, compared to Mike Trout averaging 685 plate appearances the past 5 years. So ace starting pitchers affect significantly more at bats than an everyday position player does. Additionally, adding an ace to your staff replaces your 5th best starter, whereas adding a centerfielder replaces your best centerfielder. I'm not saying that's proof you're wrong, but I definitely wouldn't jump to the conclusion that you're correct on that point unless you have some study proving otherwise.

True, however, it's really cable/internet combo package cost - internet only cost vs Hulu and Sling, which often is only like $5-10 per month. In fact, when I tried to cut cable recently, they offered me the combo deal for less than the internet only deal I was aiming to get. Of course, that's pretty limited cable (although mine still included HBO and all the OnDemand content that comes with that) and it starts to rack back up if you start adding HD boxes and more channels, but if you're already getting internet, it usually doesn't cost much if anything to get some basic cable as well.

I rarely notice announcers either. I enjoy that they're there and chatting about the game, but I really only notice them when 1.) they say something blatantly wrong about what just happened on the field (which I find annoying, especially if it has to do with them being a homer for the team they represent) or 2.) when they're reacting to an exciting moment in a game (which I enjoy the added energy when they do it well). Overall, I think both our tv and radio announcers do a good job on both fronts and I rarely find myself thinking about the job they're doing as opposed to thinking about the game. In a lot of ways, I see the announcers in baseball like cornerbacks in football, if you don't notice them, they're probably doing a good job.

He's only pitched 3 innings in the past 8 days... is it really that horrible giving him the ball today before another off day?

It makes me wonder what he's gonna do when he plays al his starters. Like Walker 4 and Santana 5 in the lineup makes little sense Pretty sure he just put replacements in the lineup in the same spot the regular is and wouldn't be surprised if you kept the defensive positions in the same spot and just put the regulars back in you'd have close to what you should expect: 2B Walker, 1B Thames, LF Braun, 3B Shaw, RF Santana, C Pina/Vogt, SS Arcia, CF Broxton

I'm guessing Shaw's leg isn't feeling too great from those foul balls (and further evidenced by the guard he was wearing during his at bat) and they just didn't want him running on it right now.

All three guys that have already homered today are coming up. Let's get a walkoff here!

I like the move. They're only 3 games back, but this is a surprise team and it probably wouldn't have been wise to go after any big fish that would have cost significant prospects. If they can fill some holes like this without giving up any of the big future pieces, it gives them a chance to see where it can go this year while still retaining the guys that could be important for a more talented future team. Wouldn't mind seeing Granderson come on over as well, perhaps these talks also prepped some talks on that front as well. I don't really see the whole "Villar is turning the corner" point with the timing, he's literally had two good games in a row... he was 1 for 19 in a 10 games stretch before that... I wonder if bringing Walker on board won't have a couple extra benefits in regards to Villar though. 1.) He'll have a veteran 2B to learn from the rest of the year and 2.) He'll have a fire lit under him for next year and know that he's got to produce if he's going to play when it's crunch time. It's hard to tell with Villar though as so many of his problems seem to be mental and it takes different guys different things to get their heads screwed on straight.

3. Stearns also values prospects not named Brinson and thinks the asking price for players is too high even if Brinson isn't included. Well he traded a guy hitting 359 for a guy who could only mange 2 innings before he was demoted; and he traded our 17th ranked prospect for a guy who will pitch about 20 innings or so on what is now a 4th place team then become a FA, so it does appear he is willing to over pay to get guys he wants. Not sure how either of those example proves he's willing to overpay to get guys he wants. As you stated in your own quote, neither guy was ranked in our top 16 prospects. He may just not have valued either of those guys highly to begin with and didn't see losing them as having an affect on the future of the team. If teams are asking for players in the top 10 or even top 5 for whoever he's targeting now he's likely to value them a bit more than either of those examples.

3. Stearns also values prospects not named Brinson and thinks the asking price for players is too high even if Brinson isn't included.

Ha, considering only 3 players are getting paid post-arby figures next year (Braun $20m, Thames $5m, and Garza $5m) I guess that's syntactically possible since there's really only the 3 possibilities, but when you're talking about a couple productive players (a hitter with an .870 OPS and a pitcher with a league average 4.34 ERA) making only $5m each it's hard to really call either a bad contract. Even if they don't play an inning, that's not much of a hit to absorb. The only one that has potential to be bad is Braun's at $20m and even that one is hard to complain about considering it's not blocking any other moves from happening.

For those under the impression that Stearns is sitting on his hands, this from Adam McCalvy / MLBTradeRumors: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/08/nl-rumors-brewers-giants-cards-phillies.html

However, no other teams have grabbed the guys at CF or 2B that have been talked about either. It takes two teams to make a trade and you have no idea if the other GMs are being reasonable with their requests at this point. They have 20 more days to trade their guys, so there's a decent chance they're demanding more than they're worth at this point still. Which they should, there's no reason for them to take a low ball (or even reasonable) offer as it doesn't make a difference to them if they're traded today or August 31st, but they know it matters to contenders and they might get something extra by making a team overpay to fill a hole for a couple extra weeks.

I like that better than Granderson. I'll take Granderson. Over the past 3 months: Jay Bruce: 298 AB, 14 2B, 20 HR, 26 BB, 82 K, .252/.312/.500/.812 (90 RF, 10 1B, 2 DH) Curtis Granderson: 211 AB, 17 2B, 13 HR, 42 BB, 54 K, .270/.393/.555/.947 (59 CF, 22 RF, 7 LF, 2 DH) Granderson started off 2017 slow and Bruce started off hot, but since May 3rd, Granderson's been a better hitter. Throw in his ability to play center and I think he's just a better fit if we're going to add an outfielder to the team.

Martinez will probably fan him 3 times tonight. Geesh. [sarcasm]But I thought you liked players that strikeout?[/sarcasm]

Exactly. He has 502 career at bats and if you prorate that to a 600 AB season, you get a line of: 96 R, 26 2B, 6 3B, 27 HR, 66 RBI, 49 SB, 12 CS, 75 BB, 255 K, .227/.319/.428/.747 That's a ton of striking out, but there's also way too much to like in there to give up on and with a hot last 3rd of the season (like last year), he could provide some good value after the year. Of course, if he plays like he did last year, we'll all want to keep him again, lol.

I don't think you're going to win this argument and I don't think anyone's going to change your point of view. Everyone that's against overpaying for players are against it for the same reason you're for it, they hate losing. There has to be part of you that understands that trading away prospects has some affect on the future success of the team, correct? By trading away our top prospects, you're not only trading away the potential for many years of controllable, high upside, low cost, talent (which is necessary for a team in Milwaukee's market and in a sport with baseball's salary structures... you *have* to hit on some prospects in order to have a chance at a winning team), but you're also trading away prospects that may be better used later in trade when the rest of the team is closer to being truly competitive. For most here, it's a timing issue. It's not convincing that this is the team to start using our assets on when they've 1.) played well above expectations, and 2.) have really just been a team hovering just above .500 all year and really only maintained 1st place for so long because other teams in the division underperformed for the first half. The Cubs have already surged past us and they are undoubtedly the more talented team this year, regardless of who we did or did not trade for. It seems very unwise to knowingly overpay in prospects when the likelihood of actually making the playoffs is still so low. If you don't agree, that's fair and your opinion, but to constantly act like it's the most perplexing thing ever to want to build through the farm system instead of striking when on paper this team is overachieving seems a bit dramatic.

As good as last year's Rangers trade looks from the Brewers standpoint now, it looks even worse from the Rangers perspective: Brinson, Ortiz, and Cordell for Taylor Scott and PTBNL... Oof.