MadScientist

[sarcasm]It's probably to make Perez, Sogard, and Villar sweat a bit.[/sarcasm] If Hiura comes up and impresses, it would be safe to assume those guys will be wondering how long they have job security here for. He's not a threat this year, but maybe next year. Impressing in ST, especially early means very little. Erceg looked last year like he was just about ready for the bigs, then struggled for parts of the year in A+ ball.

Any word on escalators? If he's going to be the closer, I would think he would have tried to get some bonus money for saves or games finished.

Agreed. This was a November wavier wire pickup, that got DFA'd a month later. Either the Brewers will get a minor league roster filler, or they will get cash. Either way they get something for nothing, even if the something is next to nothing.

In sports they say speed kills. In medicine it saves.

ptching WOAH SOLVDD

Yes, but they don't all get this kind of treatment. That suggests to me that something is bothering him, and there's a very good chance of TJ soon.

I have been clamoring for this forever. This is an innovation that is long overdue. The evidence about starters going 3 times through the order is overwhelming, and has been as long as analytics have been a thing. Furthermore, relievers are under-utilized. The balance between starter IP's and reliever IP's is extreme. You couldn't get as many games of out relievers if you used them in long relief, but you could get more innings out of them. You'd just have to plan more carefully. Current orthopraxy is too obsessed with using relievers to micromanage matchups, which doesn't outweigh the importance of avoiding that last time through the order, not to mention having one less pa from your starting pitcher. The downside would be having to rest relievers more days, but it solves more problems than it creates. Heck, you might even be able to use just 4 starters regularly if you have enough relievers with options, mind your off-days, and use long relievers more. Another issue is that if your first long reliever bombs, you're in some trouble, but you're in trouble when a starter bombs anyway. We've seen this work in the playoffs so I don't understand why nobody has had the guts to try it. I know you don't get as many rest days in the regular season, but you can also cycle through more relievers during the regular season, whereas you're trying to stick with your 4-5 best relievers in the playoffs. Ironically, it would also allow you to micromanage matchups a little more in some cases. For example, if you have lhp long relievers and a team started all their lhb's against your rhp, you can pull your starter before his second pa and all of a sudden you've created a big matchup headache for the other manager. You can even plan to have your long relievers rested according to the rhb vs. lhb splits of the lineups you'll be facing in a given series, macro-managing those matchups instead of micro-managing them. I always thought it was incredibly weird to have lhp starters and then be stuck starting them against a dominant rhb lineup just because it was their turn in the rotation. Just get more innings out of relievers and stop putting starters through the order 3 times so often. The stats are pretty convincing. This notion that a starter is "rolling" so you can't pull him is stupid. Chances are pretty good that he'll stop "rolling" when he gets to the top of the order for the 3rd time - not to mention the fact that you probably wasted another pa to keep him in the game that long. This just isn't tenable in today's game. First off you are making it so that in probably half the games the starter can only get a loss or ND, even if they are pitching well. Wins and losses are far from the best way to evaluate a pitcher, but they still are considered, especially for starters, for post season awards, the AS game and contract negotiations. You may not think it is so important, but you can't implement something that will cause a player revolt, and when a plan will likely hurt players trying to get paid, the players will revolt. Second this limits roster flexibility. 4 starters, 5 long relievers, 1 closer and 3 others, assuming a 13 man staff. Going to 12 would be difficult to make work. Given all the times when a player or 2 are out with a minor injury, this limits your ability to send a pitcher down and bring a position player up. Third this ignores the dynamics of the game, particularly in the NL. What do you do in the 6th or 7th inning when the pitchers spot comes up? If you pinch hit, you now basically are reverting back to 1-2 inning relief pitchers, except with fewer who are available. Also you talk about macro-managing game plans, but there will always be times later in the game when you want to exploit a matchup. Again either you are reverting to short relievers or you stick with your 3ish inning reliever come hell or high water. Late in the game is when things start being played tighter because there isn't much time to make up a run. So basically this is likely only to work with larger rosters, the DH in the NL, and adjusting the pay and rewards grading of starting pitching.

Its not like it was Suppan money. If he stinks he'll be cut without too much pain. If the change of scenery helps him regain form, they get a decent pitcher for cheap. I have no problem with him not being here, but I don't fault KC for giving him this contract.

They lost some confidence with him, as he gave up more homers and walks last year, but the estimate for arbitration was >$6M. Nobody else did a waver claim on him, so similar to Chris Carter last year, the arby figures were too high. If the Brewers can get him for a reasonable price, he'd be a good pickup.

I'm guessing he's the first of many claim and outright (with the intent to stash at AAA) that we will be seeing over the next month or so.

Harmless signing, but I almost think that if he doesn't make the MLB roster, he may as well be cut. A pitcher who throws a mid-upper 80's cutter with a tendency to get hit and give up home runs is a bad fit for CS.

I'd think Wren has only a minimal chance of getting selected. While he would not likely be a wasted roster spot, he's most likely be a 5th outfielder with a ceiling of a 4th outfielder or maybe a marginal starting CF. That doesn't seem to be a good target for Rule 5, given that it will hurt roster flexibility, which is needed at the bottom of the 25 man roster. If there is a team that is really lacking in outfielders at the major league and AAA levels, then grabbing Wren would make a lot of sense.

So basically the projections decided that only Villar played to his true nature last year. 69 wins projected after winning 86 last year and the only real loss is Nelson for part of the year? Someone's software is buggy. If they had predicted some regression and put the Brewers at 79 wins, it would be much harder to fault them.

That's a recipe for winning the off season, but winning the off season isn't generally the goal. In a year and a half the Brewers would be desperately trying to dump those contracts or being forced to trade off good young players that they can't afford the arbitration for.

Since the ones who had contracts have been made free agents, will they be rule 5 eligible immediately, or at least eligible for next year's rule 5 draft?

Success isn't a direct transfer, as their hitters aren't at the same level as MLB. However the velocity is decent and his control has greatly improved. Those things will transfer, unless the only reason his control has improved is that he isn't worried about the hitters there but will be on this side of the pacific. If he is and nibbles too much the walks and runs will jump beyond what could be expected by facing improved competition. Still worth looking at for that price.

No. Please no. Just look at his numbers: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/arrieja01.shtml He is not a candidate for decline, he's in the midst of it right now, and it will only accelerate. He might be serviceable next year, but after that I expect him to be in Suppan territory. I'd rather them make a run at Tyler Chatwood. He is unlikely to be the ace Arrieta once was, but I'd bet he'll be the better of the two over the next 3-4 years.

I seem to remember him throwing a curveball that was consistently in the dirt. (I think his .69 K/BB ratio supports this memory).

I have that hope every year. The Cards aren't known for having a quick trigger on managers, but then again they are not known for having losing seasons.

Did the Dodgers and Astros forget to put their bullpens on the World Series rosters?

May there never be a day where this becomes common enough for there to be a standard procedure. I'm not sure about a trip down there given the unrest in Venezuela, but some gesture beyond just a call is warranted.

I never said it was that simple or that they could just slap a warning label on and be done with it. They need to provide protective netting in front of the most dangerous seats, which all teams do. A lawsuit which cites other stadiums that have extended netting will likely lose. There is something called the 'baseball rule' which has long been enforced by courts. Basically, any fan that isn't behind protective netting assumes risk for potential foul ball injury. How severe the injury is, isn't really relevant. A fan in LF could take a screamer off the head and suffer a broken skull and most likely the team would still not be held liable for injury because of the assumption of risk. Personal injury lawyers literally turn away many clients with these kinds of injuries just because the cases are so hard to win. You'd have to have some special circumstance in play. Like if the netting was defective and a ball came through and struck a fan, that would definitely be a case. There is a fan currently suing a team because his view was obstructed by umbrellas so he's suing based on their umbrella policy. Possibly a case there. But 99% of foul ball injuries, there's really no legal recourse. Possibly, but you never know with lawsuits. If the injured party can show that the configuration of a newer stadium puts fans along the base paths closer, and the exit velocity of the hits has increased, they have a possible case to say that the existing netting is not protecting a sufficient part of the danger zone. Adding that other teams have increased netting areas would help their case.

With 1500 injuries a year, it should be easy to look at all instances over the last couple of years and plot out where the foul balls went, how fast they were going and how long the fan had to react. This should be used to determine how far the netting should be extended to maximize safety and minimize impact of the netting. Bats in stands should be checked as well, but if the nets are extended for the dangerous fouls, that will most likely take care of the the bats as well.

Back to the topic, I remember thinking Bob Skube showed promise when he got his cup of coffee in 82. But sporadic playing time in 83 didn't work out and got him sent down, never to be heard from again. Minor league numbers look like he could have earned another shot. I don't know how much was what I thought I saw, or just wanting to hear cries of "Skube do!" when he got a big hit.

Since when is 730 OPS (90 OPS+) a 'no-hit' shortstop? Clayton (and many other Brewers over the last 25 years) was ~630 OPS (68 OPS+). That's a big difference. Arcia certainly has things to work on during the off season, but he's young enough to think that he has a real chance to improve. If he regresses like Segura, then it will be a problem, but even plateauing at the production he had this year makes him serviceable, particularly with his defense.