MadScientist

Any early insight on how the Brewers are going to help him get better control? That kind of heat (or even dialing it back to 97-98) with control would get him on the fast track to the majors.

Well any Cubs backup is likely to be a thorn in the Brewers. He's been pretty decent getting on base the last 3 years. Possibly he's been able to handle inconsistent playing better as he matures. He seems a bit better than Perez, but at twice the cost (this year anyway). Must have misread the contract details. At 5/2 (including buyout) or 7.5/3, he'll be cheaper than Perez. Makes it a much better deal for the Cubs.

Not a bad idea, but the targets would have to be heavy ground ball pitchers that the numbers indicate did not perform as well as they could due to lack of shifts. Also 3 of the bottom 6 are from the NL central, so the trade options are reduced.

Well any Cubs backup is likely to be a thorn in the Brewers. He's been pretty decent getting on base the last 3 years. Possibly he's been able to handle inconsistent playing better as he matures. He seems a bit better than Perez, but at twice the cost (this year anyway).

The Brewers were one pitch or one hit away from being in the World Series. The core of that team is under control for several more years, and not much was lost. This is the best the Brewers have been for 25+ years. The only thing it makes sense to do is to try and improve the team. If they have extra depth that they can't easily keep, go ahead and trade them for picks or lottery ticket players or whatever, but the focus has to be on making the big league team the best it possibly can be. This trade helps do that and doesn't even weaken the farm system for this year, which is great.

The Brewers needed a lefty reliever, and got a guy in his prime who is very effective against lefties, doesn't give up homers, and is affordable and controllable. He is a good get for the Brewers. We will never fully know if the trade is a win for the Brewers win, because trading a slot has the potential to change the nature of the draft, however the odds are that this trade will be good for the Brewers

2-1 vs the Brewers this year, 1-2 last year. A couple of those losses can't be pinned on him. He's been effective, but not dominant. Just good at limiting damage, like giving up 7 hits in 4.2 innings, but only giving up 1 run.

That is ridiculous. Amazing what living the moment every kid who's ever played baseball imagined will do for your reputation. Although, to be fair, he was apparently a great fielder and played in a pitchers park. Tinkers, Evers, and to a lesser extent Chance getting in on the basis of a poem was pretty bad too.

If he was on the market now, yes. However Cleveland had all the leverage. To get more money he would have to have been healthy and effective enough over the next two years to get, at 34 a better than 2/27 or 3/38 contract. That might have been possible, but there would have been a lot of risks, and money for older players has been drying up a bit. Charlie Morton is projected to get a 2 /16 deal, so it's not an unreasonable for Carrasco to not break the bank two years from now.

You don't see them putting Martinez in the outfield and sitting Fowler? If you are right, this is not going to upgrade the Cards offense very much. Fowler makes a king's ransom while Martinez makes peanuts. Our GM insists on playing the highest paid player as it's a bad look for him to be sitting on the bench. It's gonna put Shildt in a tricky position juggling those two: how can you pinch hit Martinez for Fowler in late innings? He's gonna have to sub 2 guys for Dexter as you can't have Martinez out there stumblin' and bumblin' in RF. It's odd that Luke (baby Hulk) Voit was shipped to the Evil Empire. Youth, power, speed and glove... I thought he was a better option than both of them. I hope you are right about your GM forcing sub-optimal playing time. They'd be a lot better off playing Martinez, using Fowler as a PH for a pitcher late in the game and leaving him as a defensive substitution for Martinez.

You don't see them putting Martinez in the outfield and sitting Fowler? If you are right, this is not going to upgrade the Cards offense very much.

The arbitration numbers are based on outdated statistical analysis. However the rest of what you are complaining about is the system working as designed. They could have offered Schoop whatever they felt like, but unless it was close to the expected arbitration number, there was no incentive for him to sign. There was also nothing preventing the Brewers from offering Schoop 7.5M for the year after they declined arbitration. The system is to get players to get a good chunk of money or become FA's early.

Scoop gets to bet on himself having a bounce back year while pocketing 7.5M. Twins get a chance to get a bargain for a year, without any dead money if it doesn't work out, and possibly a nice trade bait. Pretty reasonable for everyone.

He wasn't himself though. Not much better than Aguilar really, which is my point - if Goldschmidt's struggles at the start of the year are a very early indicator of some decline, then he might not be much better than Aguilar next year, which is why I don't blame the Brewers for taking this gamble. They should be focused on what went wrong with Aguilar and why he couldn't stay effective all year. Spend the money on more trainers and dietitians instead of giving up prospects for Goldschmidt (half-kidding, but I do think that's part of the problem with Aguilar). I would buy that Pujols was a little over 31 in 2011. I also think it's just as likely that he was on PED's and stopped taking them when he got a huge contract. I wasn't thinking in terms of the Brewers getting him. He likely would not have been a significant upgrade. However he likely does help the Cardinals by a fair amount, which hurts the Brewers.

Pujols was decent his first year with the Angels, and while he may not be a huge upgrade for the Cards at first, they can now put Martinez in the outfield and sit Fowler. That winds up being a pretty good upgrade offensively for the Cards. That and the fact they didn't give up a ton makes it likely a good deal for StL. Unfortunately. If the Cards sign Goldschmidt to a long term extension it will come back to bite them.

Looking at his home/road splits (>800 road ops the last 3 years), I really want the Brewers to get him if he can play 2nd anywhere close to average.

He did make a change, going to almost all cutters. It seemed to work for him. He's Texas' K-Rod. Get him, trade him, get him back, trade him again.

Sure, but muscle injuries like the calf one he had are very easy to crop up again, even after a point where he looks fully healed by all measures. Just look at Braun and his oblique injuries. Also if he has made subtle changes to protect against injury, something else could crop up.

That is a high price for a guy coming off an injured / down year. At least it won't cripple them in the future.

Seems like a lot for a guy who lets a guy like Suter hit an absolute bomb.

They are a rookie league franchise, they'll do anything for attention and attendence. They now have an opportunity for a giveaway based on their name that will get a lot of attention that will put a lot of butts in seats. Even if they squirm around all game.

Brewers were predicted to win 77-86 (exceeding expectations by 10-19 games) Braves were predicted to win 72-80 (exceeding expectations by 10-18 games) Brewers division lived up to expectations and was very tough. Braves division fell apart, all teams other than the Braves would have finished 5 (or 6th) in the central. Voters just forgot about what teams were actually predicted to do, didn't consider the competition, and didn't know or pay attention to how games were actually managed. Maybe Baseball-Reference or Fangraphs can come up with a managerial WAR stat. So the players are responsible for expectations and the manager is responsible for anything over that? I mean I don't even know how to rate managers...there are so many variables and reasons a manager is good. It doesn't shock me someones opinion had Counsell outside the Top 3. This isn't like the MVP where finding the best and ranking them is much easier. It comes down to two questions. 1) Given the quality of the players, how well did the manager convert that talent into wins. 2) How much better (or worse) is each player due to the influence of the manager? Question 1 can be somewhat assessed based on projections and simulations. Question 2 has two elements a) how often was a player put in the best chance to succeed (e.g. L-R split advantages, facing batters 3 times, etc), and b) What intangible influences did a manager have on a player's performance (calming influence during streaks, creating a positive clubhouse atmosphere, strategic use of days off, etc). The last one is almost impossible to ascertain, but it seems like many writers are using guesses about it to judge MotY voting. It may not be shocking, but it doesn't seem like the best way to vote. While the mWAR suggestiion was somewhat in jest, it seems something could be calculated based on 1 and 2a above, so there would at least be an objective starting point for MotY discussions.

Brewers were predicted to win 77-86 (exceeding expectations by 10-19 games) Braves were predicted to win 72-80 (exceeding expectations by 10-18 games) Brewers division lived up to expectations and was very tough. Braves division fell apart, all teams other than the Braves would have finished 5 (or 6th) in the central. Voters just forgot about what teams were actually predicted to do, didn't consider the competition, and didn't know or pay attention to how games were actually managed. Maybe Baseball-Reference or Fangraphs can come up with a managerial WAR stat.

The ballot was designed in Broward County.

I'm guessing the voters looked at the Brewers record last year, noted the additions of Yelich, Cain and Chacin, and said that the improvement should have been expected (the preseason analysis was soooo long ago). They didn't follow the Brewers and see all the player and position juggling that went on to get production out of that lineup. They didn't notice how most of the starters regressed from last year leaving a rotation that held together by smoke an mirrors. How the bullpen moves were done to sacrifice some games so that they had the pitchers they needed to use when they had a small lead late. Admittedly I didn't follow the Braves at all. They were a surprise team, but looking at the stats, it seems that once Acuna was up, they more or less had the same lineup day in and day out (except splitting catcher duties), and mostly threw the same starting 5 out there as well, who would at least get into the 6th and then turn things over to 1 inning guys. Maybe somebody can tell me something special he did, otherwise it sounds like run of the mill, let them play managing. Atlanta under-performed Pythagorean by 2 games, Brewers over-performed by 5. They chose the wrong guy.