djoctagone

he cleared waivers and was outrighted to the minor leagues. brewers could've claimed him.

i haven't really followed this trade or this thread. how many of the players that the marlins got are not on the 40-man roster? wouldn't it be funny if the marlins lost one or more of their new unprotected players to the rule 5 draft?

five players had their contracts purchased this morning. they are now all on the 40-man roster and should each have three option years remaining (meaning the club can send them up and down for the next three seasons). right-handers nick bucci and hiram burgos, outfielder khris davis, second baseman scooter gennett and outfielder josh prince. the roster now stands at 39. this doesn't leave the brewers a lot of flexibility for free agent signings. other fringe players are likely to be jettisoned to make room for the pitching help that melvin assured.

per gord ash, players will be added monday . . . four or so.

per gord ash, players will be added monday . . . four or so.

with the proposed extension, the brewers would be in need of a starting first baseman in 2016. hunter morris doesn't have to be added to the 40-man roster until after the 2013 season . . . which would make 2016 his final year of minor league options.

this move puts the roster at 34.

doug melvin stated that four to six players could be added.

doug melvin stated that four to six players could be added.

in claiming him off waivers, the player remains on the major league 40-man roster, albeit the 40-man roster of a different team.

mcgwire becomes the new dodgers hitting coach. how will chris carpenter explain this to his son?

with a bunch of moves in recent days, the brewers' roster is at 33. granted, at least two spots should be reserved for free agent signings (hopefully pitchers), but if you're a brewers minor league prospect gunning for a major league roster spot, you have to like your chances of being added.

with a bunch of moves in recent days, the brewers' roster is at 33. granted, at least two spots should be reserved for free agent signings (hopefully pitchers), but if you're a brewers minor league prospect gunning for a major league roster spot, you have to like your chances of being added.

looks like leon had his contract purchased by the astros in the 2010-2011 offseason. he should have one minor league option remaining in 2013. the major league roster is now at 33.

every hospital in the milwaukee area is also a fedex drop off facility. when the hospital's closed . . .

morgan can declare free agency. reports are that the brewers are not interested in signing him to a minor league deal. this move puts the roster at 34. if you're a brewers minor league prospect facing having his contract purchased, that's got to make you feel good. if you're logan schafer, it's got to make you feel even better.

i was expecting them to trade him . . . similar to what they got for casey mcgehee. i am hoping that morgan accepts the assignment and that he stays in the organization. he's good depth to have.

this move puts the roster at 35.

a tip to the two previous posters . . . with your exclusive use of pronouns, it's difficult to tell whom you're referring to.

a tip to the two previous posters . . . with your exclusive use of pronouns, it's difficult to tell whom you're referring to.

a tip to the two previous posters . . . with your exclusive use of pronouns, it's difficult to tell whom you're referring to.

it's been confirmed. lucroy did not reach super 2 status.

it should also be noted that earlier, cody scarpetta and eric farris were outrighted off the 40-man roster. at that time, it put the roster at 38. with the addition of sanchez, and the subtraction of hernandez and torrealba, it's 37. expect that number to go down as veterans file for free agency after the conclusion of the world series, but then bumped up by two as mat gamel and chris narveson are added back to the 40-man.

a suggestion to forum members when responding to threads, and also when quoting other members . . . please try to avoid exclusive use of pronouns in your post and/or quote . . . typically his, him, he, their, etc. removed from their original context, it's usually hard for others to determine whom you're referring to. if you're quoting someone, please make sure it's clear whom s/he is referencing. if it's entirely comprised of pronouns, we're all confused. a recent example is found in this post (which is the first post on page 3 of the thread, so it's more difficult to go back to page 2 to find the original discussion.) copied here, it reads: I don't think considering him an injury risk is a stretch at all. He is 34 so that alone throws up some red flags as far as expected injuries. Add in his recent injury history and I think that points to a higher injury risk. i have no idea whom either person is referring to. the posting that would better serve the readers of this forum could look like this instead: I don't think considering A-Ram an injury risk is a stretch at all. He is 34 so that alone throws up some red flags as far as expected injuries. Add in his recent injury history and I think that points to a higher injury risk. note that the quote was edited by replacing "he" with the player's name in parentheses. you're still respecting the integrity of the of the original poster's intent with that editing. this would be much appreciated . . . thanks! being that mlb players and coaches are male, and that the majority of brewerfan.net discussion revolves around these men, i elected not to use female pronouns in my example.

i hate this because the lower seeded team has the potential for more revenue from home games than their opponent. with this format, the cardinals are guaranteed revenue from two home games. were it the normal format, the nationals could go 3-0 to clinch and only get the cardinals revenue from one playoff game.