MadScientist

So much for the idea that dropping 30 lbs makes you a better fielder. He could be even worse with 30 more pounds. Haven't been watching, but is it approaching Yakety Sax territory yet?

Win-Loss Record: 89-73 Playoffs (Yes, No): Yes Highest Playoff Level Achieved: NLCS All Star Game Representative(s): Anderson, Shaw Offensive Player of the Year: Yelich Pitcher of the Year: Anderson Most Surprising Player: Villar Most Disappointing Player: Chacin

The announcers noted that Anderson was making a conscious effort (as were others on the staff) to pitch inside this spring. You make mistakes learning something new, and those mistakes got hammered.

A. I want the Brewers to win the series, period. If current rules were in place in the 70's-80's the Brewers would have been in the playoffs 4-6 times during their run. And nearly 40 years later all we do is fondly remember the team that lost the World Series.

The question is what direction will he move the needle. Likely positive this year, but after that, don't hold your breath.

The Twins were done adding players a week ago, and then they added Lynn. DM smoke screens are all part of the game. Plus if they don't land either, he can act like it was always the plan to not sign anyone.

He is probably hoping the GM's start paying stupid money again. Next year might be a good time to be a FA because the expected really high contracts fro superstars might push the market higher for mid level FA's. However even if he pitches well next year, there is no guarantee that this new generation of GM's will be any more likely to open the checkbooks next year than they have been this year.

That's a lot better than the 4/75 you threw out there in the twitter poll a while back. I'd be happy if the Brewers bring him in for that.

Yep, and right now it seems that the Brewers have the leverage advantage, as there just doesn't seem to be a ton of interest in these guys at the numbers they are looking for. While it's frustrating for us as fans to wait, it makes really solid business sense for Stearns and the Brewers to draw a line in the sand and not cross it. I suppose it is also giving them the chance to really take a look at the starting pitching depth (or lack thereof) that they really have. And it makes solid business sense for the pitcher to wait in an environment like this. GM's have held the line and are not paying like previous seasons. So why shouldn't the pitchers wait to see if a team either has an injury or gets antsy about the quality of their staff and ups the ante. It makes sense but we want our Oompa-Loompa now.

You're right. It's very odd at this point to see multiple upper end starting pitchers still sitting on the market. Every one of these guys has some sort of a red flag, but I didn't think they were big enough to stop them from procuring a contract. There's gotta be something these teams are seeing that we as fans aren't. Teams are seeing their actual budget, their full internal analytics, and the true asking prices of the pitchers that we only have rumors about. Those things are not meshing, or players would have been signed. Evidence suggests that the pitchers and their agents are asking like players are still going to get contracts based on what they had done, instead of what they can be reasonably expected to produce. Right now it's a game of chicken. Will the GM's give and fork over too much $$ to improve their roster's chance or will the pitchers give and take a contract much lower than what they were hoping for. Another factor might be a lack of GM's on the hot seat willing to spend money to try to get results to save their jobs and let contract messes fall to their successors.

At this stage in the spring he's looking the part against other players who are trying to look the part. According to baseball reference his spring training opponent quality is the equivalent of high-A ball.

These guys are established vets, so they won't play a huge amount early. Plus they are not trying to impress, they are more likely to be working on things they can't during the season. They may even pass up pitches they can drive so they can look for a pitch they have trouble with.

I'm not surprised that someone threw out that suggestion, for the given reasons. However, I'm also not surprised that it never went past the spit-balling ideas stage.

Should it be per game, or per inning. I.E. one catcher or PC visit is ok, the next can't be a catcher visit and must be a pitching change. Also should there be an exception for the ump taking a foul? It is standard practice for the catcher to call time and go to the mound to give the ump a minute. I still think pitchers coming in to face only one batter is a worse problem. That disrupts the flow and enjoyment of the game more than a mound visit.

Market size IS the reason the flow of money is a problem. It seems to be begging the question. A team in Jersey and Inglewood would be good for every baseball fan in the country (including all of those in NY and LA) and the MLB as a whole--both fans and ownership--except for the ownership groups of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels and probably Philly. The question is whether a team in those locations would be good for the owners of those teams in those locations. I would say yes, as long as those owners run those clubs more like the Rays, Brewers, and Twins and not try to be like the Yankees or the Dodgers (Both the Mets and Angels have had this problem a little bit). A Jersey team probably makes more sense than another LA team. It's hard to get from Jersey to the Bronx or Queens, making it more justifiable than a park between the Dodgers, Angels, and the ocean. Vegas would probably make more sense than Inglewood if the object was to cut into the SoCal market. Market size may have started the problem, but your 'solutions' simply won't do anything to solve the money problem. There's no clamoring for new franchises in those areas. Adding teams in the market area won't change fan's favorite team, it won't change how many people watch their games. If you try to prevent people from watching the team they want to watch, you are more likely to convince people to give up on baseball. A solution has to take into account the realities of people, not some abstract statistics.

Yeah, that's the tricky part. The generations are too far removed now and the Giants and Dodgers have too much history established in their Cali locations to make a "move (in name only)" back to the NY area where they had a large fanbase already built in--but that would have worked great back in the 90s or so. Re-name/brand the Mets as the Dodgers, and put a team in the Meadowlands that takes the Giants brandname, and re-brand the teams in SF and LA to something more California oriented. It's too late for that, and the Mets are already "little brother" to the Yankees, so another team would have to endure being 3rd tier at best for awhile. Then again, there are probably at least 5 organizations scattered from Pittsburgh to Tampa to Kansas City that are about on that level already. The NFL did that very well when the "Browns" moved to Baltimore, but basically started a new franchise IN Cleveland that took the name and the history of the Browns--while all ownership and personnel moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens. Giants and Dodgers and the MLB should have done that instead of the outright move to the west coast. The NFL did it within a couple of years of the Browns going to Baltimore, and the fans in Cleveland badly wanted a team. There is no push for a new franchise in the NY/NJ area. Just because the market is big doesn't mean it will split up magically in desired way. People are going to root for the team they root for. Unless they or the team the root for move, that won't change. The problem isn't really how big a market or how many fans one team has vs another, the problem is the flow of money, and that can be solved without trying to push people to be fans of teams they don't want to be fans of.

Ok here's where you are wrong: Since the Mets and Yankees have newish stadiums, no move to Jersey is possible. With about 330 million people, 1 team per 15M = 22 teams. (+1 in Canada). Are you arguing franchises be moved out of the US? The local / regional cable games don't just serve as a revenue, they essentially advertise the team to the people most likely to be able to get to the game. Also under the cable model, channels get money for all subscribers with access to the channel. Going a la carte, means the fans will have to pay a lot to get the games, because the cost isn't amortized over many viewers. Fundamentally the issue isn't with who watches what games, it is where the money goes. There needs to be full sharing of local revenue, including networks owned by a team. If the revenue sharing is in place, then work on things that will get a fair amount of money to the players, and things that will reduce the number of teams not trying to compete. I would think this set would make for a fair give and take for players and owners: For players: Double the base salary (including MiLB) Shorter time to FA (4 yrs, arb after 2, with super two being any player with the team more than 50% of the year) Guaranteed revenue percent (45-50%, but that includes payments from MLB to MiLB to cover increased player costs there) For owners: Hard cap Either non-guaranteed contracts, or set contracts to have a maximum length of 3 years.

It seems like your saying that every FA pitcher that doesn't sign with their old team is damaged goods? I don't think the Cubs are all that desperate for a starter either. The Cubs are looking for a top pitcher, and Arrieta is only three years removed from winning the Cy Young, and was still good last year. The Cubs have money, which would be the main reason a team doesn't sign their own good FA pitcher, so what is the problem? The things I can think of are: 1) They think Darvish is much better and want to do what they can to get him (except pay the staggering asking price). But if that were the case you'd think there would be more hints that the Cubs were keeping dialogs going for Arrieta, if they don't land Darvish. 2) Arrieta's agent is asking way more than the Cubs are willing to pay and won't budge. 3) There's some bad blood for some reason (like for not getting a long extension a couple of years ago), but usually those things get leaked out. 4) The Cubs expect Arrieta to be a shell of his former self very soon.

'News' does sound like something eventful is happening. But thanks for the update. It's really interesting to get a little peek under the hood of a MLB front office. Still wished there was a front line pitcher coming our way.

Was thinking the same thing. They were in the middle of talking about it when I flipped over. I thought for a moment that they were actually talking about a signing and not a hypothetical.

I'm just baffled that teams didn't go righty-heavy and dominate him. Looks like the Brewers did that.

Really hope they keep Phillips. Between Braun at 1st and other days off for him, it could lead to 60+ starts available for Phillips. I want to see a runner at 3rd thrown out at home on a base hit to left.

Sounds like you think their offer is an overpay. Not good for a non-pitcher and non-superstar player. And friends sounds like Castro as part of the package.

If Yelich played second, I'd be more excited. I'd rather see what Phillips can do as the starter in CF, with his electromagnetic rail gun for an arm stopping runners from even thinking of taking an extra base.

Hope he enjoys doing games with 5,000 fans scattered among the seats. Miami isn't a destination job. It's a stepping stone for future. Ask Len Kasper. If it pays more and helps his career, best of luck to him. I've certainly enjoyed listening to him call games. This is why I find all the talk about people leaving after a few years with Uke baffling. Everyone who left did so to be the #1 guy elsewhere. Being second fiddle to Bob is like being a coordinator for Belichick. If you do a decent job, other clubs will come knocking on your door. Only on Star Trek does the second fiddle refuse to take a promotion somewhere else. Given how often this has been happening, I'm very much in favor of having the #3 guy get work in on road trips. It really helped Levering make the adjustment to regular #2 guy go much smoother. I remember disliking Provus and Block when they first started, but both improved after a year.