Point Beer Is Best

Splitter nails it, in that the Brewers & Dodgers current situations match up perfectly to consummate a deal. They could do a deal that effectively keeps their respective payrolls similar, while LA replaces bad players with a very useful one in Braun. And boy oh boy - the Dodgers would have to pay out the nose in terms in prospects to get that done. They can't use free agency, so their only avenue is to find a willing partner to take on bad contracts to part with a useful player in return for elite prospects. The Brewers have the capacity to do it, and the player the Dodgers want. Can anyone else think of another club in a comparable spot that could pull off a deal like this? McCutcheon & the Pirates maybe?

My oldest brother & his wife raised their three kids in Kimberly, and seem to really enjoy it. The school there is supposed to be pretty good. They live about a mile or two away from the High School & the YMCA. Lots of newer retail/restaurants in that area.

They're at least players for big free agents this year. These could literally be the biggest free agent signings since Pablo Sandoval. Literally.

one of the two players to be named later in the 12 july 2011 trade that first brought francisco rodriguez to the brewers was daniel ray herrera. he was on the 40-man roster at the time of the trade on 1 september 2011. Pretty sure the only roster restriction on PTBNL is they cannot be on the 25 man roster, which isn't an issue in the offseason. There was some speculation early that the PTBNL in the Lucroy trade may actually be Joey Gallo (he was in the minors at the time, and obviously on the 40 man roster), but that was put to rest almost immediately when he was recalled to the 25 man roster after the trade.

Its very possible that I may be operation on old rules. Once you get someone picked in Rule 5, aren't you able to pull another player off the list? That's how it used to work... I don't think it ever worked that way, since they have to be on the 40 man to protect them. Maybe you're confusing the rules of an expansion draft. I know the rule there the last time was that you issued a list of players to protect, and if you had a player selected you could protect more players.

I thought if your pick was in the first 15, if you signed a player who had a QO compensation attached, that club would forfeit their 2nd round pick instead. Or am I thinking of the old Elias Sports Type A/B tier system and those rules?

They made a good deal for Thornburg. While we got some decent pieces, Boston didnt give up anyone that matters to them. Sale is a different deal. They gave up their minor league system for a VERY talented pitcher who might also be insane. Any sneak previews available on Boston's retro uniform for 2017?

Agree. There's a chance he will continue his success and be worth a bit more, but if they sold a little bit low on Thornburg to avoid the risk of regression, the same applies to Guerrero.

That Red Sox forum that was linked to in the Thornburg thread is about ready to riot in the streets over this deal, after seeming to love the Thornburg trade for what its worth.

Little easier to do when you have almost unlimited funds. They can fill those voids down the road pretty easily with free agency if they need to. Do they have anything left to take on Braun? Strike while the iron is hot.

Boy, does Dave Dombrowski love to trade away prospects.

Craig Calcaterra (HardballTalk) is going after Selig pretty hard, calling his induction an embarrassment. I don't know if I'd go that far, but he raises some good points on how Selig has escaped any accountability for the steroid era. Only the players have suffered any real consequences, while guys like LaRussa and Selig are enshrined. To clarify, Calcaterra is in favor of electing guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc to the HOF. He's just calling out the hypocrisy of making the players shoulder the blame, while anyone else involved escapes any culpability.

There's quite a bit of opinion out there of "this is why former players shouldn't be Executive Directors of a players association" and there may be some truth to that. What the owners really wanted - suppression of the dollars spent on international talent acquisition - they got. They disguised it at first as wanting an international draft, but ultimately received anyways by the Union agreeing to a hard cap for the very first time. Never in my life would I have though the MLBPA would acquiesce to a hard cap. But there may have been some "well less for them (int'l) means more for us" thinking by some of the membership, which also applies to the current minor league compensation issues. Another change that players were upset to find out is that their meal per diem is decreasing from $105/day to $30, but that is supposed to be made up for with each team supplying chefs to prepare meals for the visiting ball club. So the players will make out alright, but clubhouse attendants that used to run to get meals for players (and receive a tip) will be most impacted by that change. One of the biggest things not touched on here is the fact that the deal was jointly announced by MLB/MLBPA before the CBA was presented and ratified by the members. Some view this as a way to cast any vocal opponents to the new deal in a negative light and to fall in line.

The problem is that Carter would likely be slated for $8-10M if he went through arbitration. It would only make sense for a team to trade for him if they thought he was worth it, and while many teams may be interested in him, nobody will likely touch him at that price (let alone part with a player to acquire the right to do it).

He may flop, but I can't really get upset about spending basically the same amount of money as a Qualifying Offer but spread out over a 3 year period. Hard to think they could find someone with the same amount of potential at $5M per year, and that amount of salary isn't material enough to hinder any other potential moves.

The same people who are calling for MM/TT's heads are the same people who got upset they let Sitton go to replace him with Lane Taylor. It's certainly fair to question the timing (there were rumors of an altercation between Sitton and Sam Barrington over the Colin Kaeparnick controversy), but that move saved them $6M that freed up cash for the many pending free agents after this year. That may be the difference between being able to sign JC Tretter or watching him walk. The same people who complain they (almost) never sign free agents (they never sign a free agent who impacts the compensatory draft formula), disregarding the fact that their franchise model depends on acquiring cheap controllable talent and developing it while trying to retain their best players through extensions. Signing other team's cast-offs rarely works out because it a) deprives you of cash to spend on your own players and b) deprives your young players of valuable playing time to develop. Yes, there will be some bumps on the road along the way, but this model is the proven method of generating long-term success for teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and New England. The Seattle model worked because they hit on several guys in the draft and were able to sprinkle in free agents because their stars (Wilson, Sherman, other DB's, Wagner) were all on their rookie deals. Now that they've been paid or let go, they are maxed out in cap space and can't field a competent O-line. Minnesota splurged on the O-line in the offseason with Andre Smith and Alex Boone. And that is still their biggest weakness. Draft, develop, and retain.

If the Cubs manage to win Game 7, that Guyer AB in Game 5 is going to draw a lot of attention. I had read someplace that the win expectancy for the Indians dropped 10 percentage points after that single blown strike call.

If you want to cherry-pick, then Bill Belichick is 11-10 in playoffs when you exclude the years he won a SB.

Trade conditions were that they owed KC a 7th rounder if he were on the roster for 3 games. They cut him after 2 to avoid paying. Montgomery is likely back and Starks must be close.

After the first out route, I think the next pass hit Nelson right in the hands around the Atlanta 45 (when he got hurt). Complete that pass and things are looking pretty interesting. The next pass nearly got picked as Allison let the DB undercut him a bit, and obviously the last pass had some disconnect with Adams as Rodgers expected him to cut across back towards the sidelines more instead of angling downfield further. One of those games that it felt like they just ran out of time. They had a disgusting list of injuries heading into that game and still came close to winning it. The offense, despite having zero run game, came alive and involved the entire offensive roster. And yet people still want to dump McCarthy.

Another way of asking this, and perhaps it was done and we don't know about it, is would anyone claim Votto if he were placed on revocable waivers in August? If no one was willing to even make a claim on him out of fear of getting saddled with that contract, then Cincy knows it will have to eat salary to move him for any return at all.

The Arch is downtown, nothing else that you mentioned is considered downtown. The museums are in Forest Park, which is not considered downtown. The Arch is, the stadiums are, City Hall, etc. All downtown. The river front area is considered "downtown". So, nothing I said was false. Your understanding of the STL neighborhoods is lacking. The St. Louis Zoo and Art Museum are in Forest Park, but the City Museum (a pretty big tourist destination along with the Arch) is smack dab in the middle of downtown St. Louis.

Why can't we have nice things.

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but if it's true that a) Braun's 10/5 rights vest in May and b) Braun submits his no-trade clause each offseason, is it possible he will add the Dodgers to his no-trade clause in order to increase his leverage to get his 2021 option guaranteed? I remember being one of the only ones who was afraid that Lucroy would exercise his no-trade to veto the Indians trade because it made so much sense for him personally to do so, but the Braun situation is a little different. While I assume he wants to play for the Dodgers, it makes all the business sense in the world for him to put the Dodgers on his no-trade list even if he realistically won't exercise it. The PR hit he would take probably doesn't make it worth it either (fans of both teams would see it as a selfish act).

I don't think it was addressed in the thread, and maybe I missed it someplace else, but LaRussa was relieved of his current duties (baseball operations) but was offered an advisory role if he wanted to stay with the club.