RealGM

jakecronus8 wrote:

MickeyDavis wrote:Miller Park is extending the netting to the end of the dugouts. I understand why but I don't like it from a viewing standpoint. I guess I'll get used to it but I don't like sitting behind the netting, I always sit a few rows behind one of the dugouts and now that will be behind netting too.

It won't take that long to get to the point where you don't notice it.

This is far overdue. Every time someone gets injured in the crowd it messes with the players and they're the ones who always say it should be extended.

You always here people say that if you're at the ball game you need to be on the lookout but I just don't see that being realistic. Given the adage of smart phones, the slow pace of the game and the high speed these projectiles travel, it would only be a matter of time until someone is killed. A 16 year old girl was killed from a flying puck in a hockey game about a decade ago and MLB doesn't want that on their hands.

Agreed. In a perfect world I wouldn't want to look through netting either but these balls (and occasionally bats) comes SO fast. It is kind of unrealistic, as said, to be on alert every single pitch. And if you have a younger family, you may even be a few seats from them. Or someone older may not have the reaction time.

My neighbor got crushed in the head and taken to ER last summer from a foul ball at a Timber Rattlers game. She said she was paying attention but the ball was hit so hard there was no time to react. I think those games are even worse b/c you're often not tied to the outcome so half paying attention or there to socialize.

Counsell wins NL manager of the year.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/2017/10/26/brewers-give-right-hander-chase-anderson-two-year-contract-two-option-years/802027001/

We extended Anderson for two years, plus two years club options. Not sure if this was already known in advance and discussed elsewhere.

MikeIsGood wrote:http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/2017/10/26/brewers-give-right-hander-chase-anderson-two-year-contract-two-option-years/802027001/

We extended Anderson for two years, plus two years club options. Not sure if this was already known in advance and discussed elsewhere.

Seems like a good deal for the brewers buying out his first year of free agency. Kind of surprised chase was willing to give that up for only 2 guaranteed years.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

Noice Stearns, noice.

Is the success that Anderson had in 2017 an aberration or sustainable? I guess either way that contract sounds easily digestible. I like it.

Should go year to year with Anderson.

trwi7 wrote:Should go year to year with Anderson.

Isn't that basically what they did with this contract? Or are you saying that that is what his success will fluctuate as (year to year)?

Sogard back too

Kerb Hohl wrote:

trwi7 wrote:Should go year to year with Anderson.

Isn't that basically what they did with this contract? Or are you saying that that is what his success will fluctuate as (year to year)?

How are they going year to year with him? What if he tears his UCL or rotator cuff. Now you're paying him in 2019 when you just non-tender him after the year and probably have some buyouts with those club options. What's the upside? He pitches well enough to exercise the club option in his age 34 season? Is getting that age 34 season really worth guaranteeing his contract?

trwi7 wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

trwi7 wrote:Should go year to year with Anderson.

Isn't that basically what they did with this contract? Or are you saying that that is what his success will fluctuate as (year to year)?

How are they going year to year with him? What if he tears his UCL or rotator cuff. Now you're paying him in 2019 when you just non-tender him after the year and probably have some buyouts with those club options. What's the upside? He pitches well enough to exercise the club option in his age 34 season? Is getting that age 34 season really worth guaranteeing his contract?

Pretty good risk/reward to me. Basically this next offseason is the only one that isn't year-to-year and the chances that you'd have completely non-tendered him for 2019 were pretty low. We've now got an affordable option year.

It's $6 million in 2019. The way he pitched this year, that's a pretty good risk to get an affordable option year even on a guy that would be 34.

If Anderson tore his rotator cuff during this season, they'd probably keep him through next year even without the extension in hopes of having him for 2020. They're doing it with Jimmy Nelson (yes, he's got an extra year of control on the back end of that).

I agree on your prime age essay you wrote a while back when we had this long debate. However, you're taking this way too far.

Have you seen the amount of 33/34 year old players on the World Series rosters? You're acting like it's a disease. And it's a team option!

Out of our remaining free agents, wouldn't mind giving Neil Walker and Anthony Swarzak a 1-2 year deal. Nothing crazy, maybe with team options in 2nd year.

Going to be interesting in our Arbitration players this year. Villar really screwed up in not signing that extension.

Kerb Hohl wrote:Have you seen the amount of 33/34 year old players on the World Series rosters? You're acting like it's a disease. And it's a team option!

On the Astros the only 33 or older players that are used for anything are Verlander, Gurriel and McCann. Their 3 relievers that are 33 and older have pitched 7.1 innings the entire postseason and Beltran at this point is a pinch hitter who you hope can maybe run into a pitch.

The Dodgers position players 33 and over are Utley and Ethier. Rich Hill has been okay. Morrow's been really good. McCarthy hasn't even been on a roster until now.

But really, this is part of your argument? Who are the key players in the World Series this year?

Kershaw (29)
Turner (32)
Darvish (31)
Jensen (30)
Bellinger (22)
Seager (23)
Puig (26)
Taylor (27)

For Houston

Kuechel (29)
Verlander (34)
McCullers (24)
Morton (33)
Altuve (27)
Correa (23)
Springer (28)
Bregman (23)
Devenski/Giles (26 and 27)

Way more young players taking key roles in the World Series than guys in their mid 30s.

trwi7 wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:Have you seen the amount of 33/34 year old players on the World Series rosters? You're acting like it's a disease. And it's a team option!

On the Astros the only 33 or older players that are used for anything are Verlander, Gurriel and McCann. Their 3 relievers that are 33 and older have pitched 7.1 innings the entire postseason and Beltran at this point is a pinch hitter who you hope can maybe run into a pitch.

The Dodgers position players 33 and over are Utley and Ethier. Rich Hill has been okay. Morrow's been really good. McCarthy hasn't even been on a roster until now.

But really, this is part of your argument? Who are the key players in the World Series this year?

Kershaw (29)
Turner (32)
Darvish (31)
Jensen (30)
Bellinger (22)
Seager (23)
Puig (26)
Taylor (27)

For Houston

Kuechel (29)
Verlander (34)
McCullers (24)
Morton (33)
Altuve (27)
Correa (23)
Springer (28)
Bregman (23)
Devenski/Giles (26 and 27)

Way more young players taking key roles in the World Series than guys in their mid 30s.

Morton is 33. Justin Verlander, who you trashed given age earlier in the year, is having one of the best pitching performances in MLB history.

You’re underrating Hill. He was very good this year and he’s been fine in the playoffs.

I’m not suggesting to fill the team with 35-year-olds. Ruling guys out on shorter-term risk because they will be 34 for one of those years is hilarious.

I'm not ruling anyone out. I'm asking why we're guaranteeing money to a 30 year old that we control for 3 more years? Really the only reason to is to get that option for his age 34 season which makes no sense since his value at age 34 isn't likely to be very high.

trwi7 wrote:I'm not ruling anyone out. I'm asking why we're guaranteeing money to a 30 year old that we control for 3 more years? Really the only reason to is to get that option for his age 34 season which makes no sense since his value at age 34 isn't likely to be very high.

I just feel like the chances of him becoming so bad or injured that you’d have non-tendered him prior to 2019 are way lower than the chances that he’s useful in 2021.

If Chase Anderson has a 5.50 ERA in 2018 or suffers a career-altering injury in 2018, the Brewers probably aren’t winning the WS or making a deep run in 2019.

If they somehow have a team that is good enough to overcome their 2nd best pitcher (maybe lower then) being completely useless, then they can overcome his dead $6 million in 2019.

trwi7 wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

trwi7 wrote:Should go year to year with Anderson.

Isn't that basically what they did with this contract? Or are you saying that that is what his success will fluctuate as (year to year)?

How are they going year to year with him? What if he tears his UCL or rotator cuff. Now you're paying him in 2019 when you just non-tender him after the year and probably have some buyouts with those club options. What's the upside? He pitches well enough to exercise the club option in his age 34 season? Is getting that age 34 season really worth guaranteeing his contract?

Depends on how he pitches obviously. The upside would not just be the cheap team option for his free agency season, he'd get more than 8 million in arbitration in 2020 if he pitches well the year prior.

I'm glad it's structured how it is with the two team options so that the risk is very minimal, six million in 2019.

From JSOnline:

Acquired from Arizona on Jan. 30, 2016, as part of a five-player trade, Anderson reported to spring camp this year stronger and throwing harder than ever, gaining 2 mph on his fastball, which averaged 93 mph. He also rediscovered the curveball that was big for him earlier in his career, using a new grip taught by pitching coach Derek Johnson.

Also utilizing an effective cutter and changeup, Anderson became a true four-pitch starter, keeping hitters guessing. Opponents batted a mere .217 against him, by far the best mark of his career.

Anderson's stretch of excellence actually dated to July 25 of last season. In 37 starts since then, he is 17-5 with a 2.69 ERA.

37 starts is a pretty good sample size for continuous success. I have no issues with the contract. If he doesn't pitch again like he did this year, they can get rid of him with a 500k buyout after the second year. If he continues to pitch like he did this year, that contract is a steal. It will not be an albatross contract like Suppan or Garza...

I usually side on the not spend money for guys over 30 side but this deal is incredibly friendly to the Brewers. I see very little to complain about with the Chase extension. In the Melvin era we would be talking about a full 3/75 no options, no buyout, with like 5 mil a year deferred for the next 10. This is a great deal for the team.

wichmae wrote:I usually side on the not spend money for guys over 30 side but this deal is incredibly friendly to the Brewers. I see very little to complain about with the Chase extension. In the Melvin era we would be talking about a full 3/75 no options, no buyout, with like 5 mil a year deferred for the next 10. This is a great deal for the team.

Do you remember Jonathan Lucroy or Carlos Gomez's contracts? Braun's first deal was seen as great and at the time, most people were on board with Braun's second deal *waits for hindsight people to inevitably come in and say it was bad*. This was what Melvin would've done.