At what point does Nelson replace Estrada?

[TooLiveBrew]

Estrada with his league-tying 27th HR, now tied with Cruz and Abreu for MLB lead!

[brewmann04]

every start with this guy we are always behind. Brewers FO wake up

[The stache]

By the way, Oakland, best record in the big leagues.

 

Tommy Millone in his last 11 games for them had gone on average 6 1/3 IP, an ERA of 2.62, the team was 9-2 in his games.

 

But, they saw an opportunity to improve upon their rotation and they took it.

 

So both teams had soft tossing pitchers who are Nationals castoffs and one goes out and gives up an elite prospect to replace a guy that's actually having success so they can maintain their lead over the hard charging Angels, and the Brewers continue to trot out a guy who gives up HR's like foot kitchens give out soup.

 

Well, unfortunately, we don't have many elite prospects to give up. Outside of Nelson, our cupboards are somewhat bare. That's not to say we have no talent in the minors, but none of the other prospects in our system have any wow factor that would allow us to add a premium pitcher.

 

I just hope that by the time Jimmy Nelson comes up we still have a lead in the division.

[trwi7]

By the way, Oakland, best record in the big leagues.

 

Tommy Millone in his last 11 games for them had gone on average 6 1/3 IP, an ERA of 2.62, the team was 9-2 in his games.

 

But, they saw an opportunity to improve upon their rotation and they took it.

 

So both teams had soft tossing pitchers who are Nationals castoffs and one goes out and gives up an elite prospect to replace a guy that's actually having success so they can maintain their lead over the hard charging Angels, and the Brewers continue to trot out a guy who gives up HR's like foot kitchens give out soup.

 

Well, unfortunately, we don't have many elite prospects to give up. Outside of Nelson, our cupboards are somewhat bare. That's not to say we have no talent in the minors, but none of the other prospects in our system have any wow factor that would allow us to add a premium pitcher.

 

I just hope that by the time Jimmy Nelson comes up we still have a lead in the division.

 

I think what he was saying is the Brewers should take their opportunity to call up their top prospect who's dominating in AAA to replace the soft tossing castoff of the Nationals, not that they should go out and trade for Price or something. And Milone was pitching far better than Estrada is when Milone got kicked out.

[JohnBriggs12]

How dominating has Nelson been in AAA? Aside from Brad Mills, the next closet qualifier for the ERA lead is 0.90 behind Nelson or nearly a full run. In fact there are only 6 pitchers in the PCL with ERA's under 3 with enough innings to qualify, and Fiers also in that group at 2.63.

 

What does that tell us? First that the PCL is a hitters league and pitchers who dominate there are rare. Second, that pitchers who do dominate that league usually don't stay there long. Finally that the Brewers are way too over cautious. I get trying to avoid the Super 2 status. But my goodness, Nelson is 25 years old. The Brewers control him into his 30's. He is in his prime as a pitcher right now. What is he doing in the minor leagues?

[1992casey]

86 of the games must come in the prior season, so if a player was called up day 1 of a season for the full year, then in their 2nd year they only played in 80 games, and then played a full season their third year then they wouldnt qualify at the end of the third season for super 2 because they didnt play in 86 games in the season prior

… Based on your explanation, the 86 days would be relevant next year as that would be the year immediately preceding his potential super 2 status. …

"Prior season" means the season that was just completed. Using this terminology, in October of this year, the 2014 season becomes the prior season.

 

The 86 games in the season just completed and total service time have nothing to do with each other. The player must meet both requirements to qualify for Super Two.

[torts]

86 of the games must come in the prior season, so if a player was called up day 1 of a season for the full year, then in their 2nd year they only played in 80 games, and then played a full season their third year then they wouldnt qualify at the end of the third season for super 2 because they didnt play in 86 games in the season prior

 

 

If this is the case, then why are you adding up the 30 days he's got between last year and this year(29 last year and 1 this year) to how many games the Brewers have remaining this year to come up with the August 5th date?

 

Based on your explanation, the 86 days would be relevant next year as that would be the year immediately preceding his potential super 2 status.

 

I'm not arguing with you or disagreeing with you, I'm just having trouble reconciling the date we would be eligible to call him up safely and avoid super 2 status with the 86 days you're referencing. I don't read that as meaning you have to add up his time from last year and this year and stay under the 86.

 

As best as I can understand it, if we called him up immediately following the ASG, we'd be safe from super 2 status. And you could even hold off a bit longer and call him up on the 22nd vs Cincy(as opposed to the 18th as we wouldn't need him to start until the 5th game after the break).

 

I added the 30 days because, theoretically, once Nelson gets called up he wont go back down to the minors, meaning at the end of 2016 he'll have all of the 2015 season (1.011) and 2016 season (1.011). add in the 30 games from 2013/14 call up he's up to 2.052, there would still be another 56 days as of August 5th, bringing his service total up to 2.108 at the end of the 2016 season, which would below the Super 2 cutoff total. They could gamble and add 18 days to that and bring it up to 2.126 and have him start in the MLB the day after the all star game. These are the Super2 cut offs over the last 5 seasons:

 

2013: 2.122

2012: 2.139

2011: 2.146

2010: 2.122

2009: 2.139

[torts]

the 86 days is pretty much irrelevant in regards to Nelson because its expected he'll be with the Brewers all of 2015 and 2016, so at the end of 2016 he'll have had the 86 days required in the prior season having played all of 2015 with the Brewers. It basically means that the Brewers expect him to be Super 2 eligible after 2016, and the only way to avoid that is to delay his call up enough in 2014 to fall below the cut-off service total, and the only way to do that is to project against the previous seasons totals. The fact he was called up in 2013 for a full month further impacts how long they delay promoting in 2014.

[Mr Southpaw]

Just bring up Fiers for Estrada's next start. When Nelson is ready, one of Estrada or Fiers can go.

[Fear The Chorizo]

would be nice for the Brewers offense to score more than 2 runs in a game at some point before the all star break...been in a funk for a good while here just when some of the rest of the division is playing decent baseball.

[JohnBriggs12]

Worst case scenario, Nelson gets an extra season of arby in 2017. He's still under team control through 2020 at which time he'll be 31 going on 32. Many guys are already on the decline by that point. Only difference is he gets an extra arby year. If he's so good that he earns a lot in arbitration, so be it. Right now this team is in position to win a division, and they should look at Nelson attaining Super 2 status as a cost associated with going for it. After all, Wang is the ace of the future anyway.

 

They can also look at a non-tender of Estrada for 2015 being the trade off for an extra year of arby for Nelson.

[torts]

Worst case scenario, Nelson gets an extra season of arby in 2017. He's still under team control through 2020 at which time he'll be 31 going on 32. Many guys are already on the decline by that point. Only difference is he gets an extra arby year. If he's so good that he earns a lot in arbitration, so be it. Right now this team is in position to win a division, and they should look at Nelson attaining Super 2 status as a cost associated with going for it. After all, Wang is the ace of the future anyway.

 

They can also look at a non-tender of Estrada for 2015 being the trade off for an extra year of arby for Nelson.

 

I am one that is not opposed to having a player become Super 2 because there are ways to nullify that year through contract extensions. A prime example is Polanco in Pittsburgh. they delayed calling him up until early June to avoid that 4th year of arbitration, a cost they would not see until 2020. But what makes this Super 2 [expletive deleted by moderator] so frustrating in Pittsburgh... they've already tried to lock him up with 6+ year contracts before the season started and the weeks prior to him coming up to the majors. So clearly, management is not expecting Polanco to be going through a 4th year of arbitration, just like Marte and McCutchen, they want to buy out every year of arbitration with a multi-year contract. now, who knows what would have happened had Polanco been up in April, maybe they win a couple extra games that they ended up losing, but if they miss the playoffs by a game or two, it'll certainly be brought under a microscope.

[JohnBriggs12]

It's one thing to assume a very talented 22 year old everyday player will be around and still productive beyond the 6 years it takes to get to FA. It's quite another to assume any starting pitcher will be, regardless of age. What's so aggravating from my perspective is it's quite possible Nelson is as good as he's ever going to be right now at age 25, and he's using up innings in his arm getting minor leaguers out. Even if you figure the jump from AAA to the majors is worth 2 runs on a guy's ERA, that's still an ERA of under 3.50 in Nelson's case, a full run and a half better than Estrada has posted this year.

 

Maybe Nelson still has room to improve, but how are they going to measure that improvement pitching at a level he's already dominating? By keeping him this long at AAA, assuming it's to avoid a Super Two year, they might think they are taking the "safe route". I suggest they are being foolishly risky. They are risking potentially not having the services of a top flight pitcher in the heat of a pennant race, something that is not all that common for this franchise.

[brewcrewdue80]

I am really getting mad at MLB's rules for Arb and Super 2 because what it does to Prospects that should be playing on a ML team and instead, are being forced to continue playing in AAA doing no good for themselves or the ML that could use him today. The list is growing yearly and this has to be addressed. How many players/Teams can we list being squeezed by Super 2 and Team control status?

Nelson-Brewers

Polanco-Pirates

Springer+Singleton-Astros

Tavaras for StL

KRIS BRYANT!! I mean wow!!! And the rumor is he's not going to be called up at all this year by the Cubs! 20games 8HRs over 1OPS which is right on point for his career in the Minors and he's not going to play for the Cubs? Yeah keep using Mike Olt and his .147BA or Luis Valbuena who's 28 and having the best season in his lifetime(that of a .260/.344/.427/.771 slash)

 

It's such an injustice to be a fan and be forced to wait months for players you know belong on the Major League team Weeks-Months Ago all because of team control verbage and/or Super 2 Status?

 

Here's an idea. All teams have Team Control of their Player to Age 29. And Arb hearings begin at Age 25. You draft and Develop a young player you are rewarded. It's clear cut that way no delaying a ready to play Prospect. In fact you likely begin your Prospect's career too soon, but hey, you make all fans happy regardless because they get to watch this stud prospect play for their home team. Not seek out the box score of some small town minor league team to see how they did.

 

Will this be bad for HS kids who are drafted and make the team by age 20, having to wait 5 years to an Arb hearing? I don't know. How about we make a set structure for years played in ML to age to fix some of that.

It'd go something like this:

20-1st year-500k

21-1st year-500k 2nd year-600k

22-1st year-500k 2nd year 650k 3rd year 1mil

23-1st year-550k 2nd year 700k 3rd year 1.1mil 4th year 2mil

24-1st year 600k 2nd year 750k 3rd year 1.25mil 4th year 2.5mil 5th year 4mil

Age 25 Arb.

 

These kids get signing bonuses when drafted...if they are elite prospects I'm sure the majority of them were 1st rd selections meaning they are likely already millionaires. Meanwhile a ML baseball team's payroll structure is set, Team control is set. And the Players also know they will go to FA at an age just beyond prime so they are maxxing their value to do so.

 

Why does the pay structure increase for a prospect as they age? Because of Peak age performance when they are playing. Also, to increase the Major League ballclub's likelihood to call them up since if they hold the Prospect down at age 22 vs. age 23 they aren't saving a whole lot of money doing so since they will only pay 150k difference, since the initial rate increases for that prospect's first year.

 

It just seems all too simple to me and we instead have this complicated guess work system in regards to team control and Super 2 grey area! Enough Already!! I want my team to have the best Player on the field at their position Starting, not having to wait weeks/months/ all season(in Bryant's case) just so ownership can save some millions down the road and/or be able to own a player a year longer.

[HiAndTight]

 

Well, unfortunately, we don't have many elite prospects to give up. Outside of Nelson, our cupboards are somewhat bare. That's not to say we have no talent in the minors, but none of the other prospects in our system have any wow factor that would allow us to add a premium pitcher.

 

I just hope that by the time Jimmy Nelson comes up we still have a lead in the division.

 

I think what he was saying is the Brewers should take their opportunity to call up their top prospect who's dominating in AAA to replace the soft tossing castoff of the Nationals, not that they should go out and trade for Price or something. And Milone was pitching far better than Estrada is when Milone got kicked out.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't want the Brewers to go out and trade away what they've just started building in reference to their farm system. But they don't have to. I think Nelson is about as close to a Peralta type pitcher as you can get. We can improve our rotation just by dumping Estrada, giving Fiers a couple starts before moving him into the long relief role, and let Nelson sit for a couple weeks to rest his arm, keep his innings down until they're ready to start him.

[HiAndTight]

I am really getting mad at MLB's rules for Arb and Super 2 because what it does to Prospects that should be playing on a ML team and instead, are being forced to continue playing in AAA doing no good for themselves or the ML that could use him today. The list is growing yearly and this has to be addressed. How many players/Teams can we list being squeezed by Super 2 and Team control status?

Nelson-Brewers

Polanco-Pirates

Springer+Singleton-Astros

Tavaras for StL

KRIS BRYANT!! I mean wow!!! And the rumor is he's not going to be called up at all this year by the Cubs! 20games 8HRs over 1OPS which is right on point for his career in the Minors and he's not going to play for the Cubs? Yeah keep using Mike Olt and his .147BA or Luis Valbuena who's 28 and having the best season in his lifetime(that of a .260/.344/.427/.771 slash)

 

It's such an injustice to be a fan and be forced to wait months for players you know belong on the Major League team Weeks-Months Ago all because of team control verbage and/or Super 2 Status?

 

Here's an idea. All teams have Team Control of their Player to Age 29. And Arb hearings begin at Age 25. You draft and Develop a young player you are rewarded. It's clear cut that way no delaying a ready to play Prospect. In fact you likely begin your Prospect's career too soon, but hey, you make all fans happy regardless because they get to watch this stud prospect play for their home team. Not seek out the box score of some small town minor league team to see how they did.

 

Will this be bad for HS kids who are drafted and make the team by age 20, having to wait 5 years to an Arb hearing? I don't know. How about we make a set structure for years played in ML to age to fix some of that.

It'd go something like this:

20-1st year-500k

21-1st year-500k 2nd year-600k

22-1st year-500k 2nd year 650k 3rd year 1mil

23-1st year-550k 2nd year 700k 3rd year 1.1mil 4th year 2mil

24-1st year 600k 2nd year 750k 3rd year 1.25mil 4th year 2.5mil 5th year 4mil

Age 25 Arb.

 

These kids get signing bonuses when drafted...if they are elite prospects I'm sure the majority of them were 1st rd selections meaning they are likely already millionaires. Meanwhile a ML baseball team's payroll structure is set, Team control is set. And the Players also know they will go to FA at an age just beyond prime so they are maxxing their value to do so.

 

Why does the pay structure increase for a prospect as they age? Because of Peak age performance when they are playing. Also, to increase the Major League ballclub's likelihood to call them up since if they hold the Prospect down at age 22 vs. age 23 they aren't saving a whole lot of money doing so since they will only pay 150k difference, since the initial rate increases for that prospect's first year.

 

It just seems all too simple to me and we instead have this complicated guess work system in regards to team control and Super 2 grey area! Enough Already!! I want my team to have the best Player on the field at their position Starting, not having to wait weeks/months/ all season(in Bryant's case) just so ownership can save some millions down the road and/or be able to own a player a year longer.

 

 

I don't think you made things any easier, and I don't think the Union would ever go for this. You just cost Mike Trout how many tens of millions?

[FVBrewerFan]

Nelson > Estrada

Fiers > Kinzler or Wang

Jeffress > Wooten or Wang

 

It's as simple as that. I don't care about Super 2, I don't care about jostling the 40 man roster. I'm sick of having a roster of 20 players who should be there, and 5 who shouldn't.

[brewcrewdue80]

 

 

I don't think you made things any easier, and I don't think the Union would ever go for this. You just cost Mike Trout how many tens of millions?

 

 

From where I'm looking, less than 20mil. Of course I don't know how the Arb money works out but I'd think he'd have a strong case to get a ton of what he's asking for. And I could also say that a team is free to sign a Player to a contract before they reach Arb or FA. In which case Trout has lost nothing.

 

There could also be say a special 23/24 Aged Request for Arb by a player if he's performed to a special level such as Trout and be granted Arb ahead of age 25.

 

This whole idea would change the spectrum of normalcy in Arb. Rather than trying to be paid to players like so and so at such point in a career, it can easily be tied to what a player has accomplished by his age. This could also likely be figured out over players of history to deem what kind of money he can look forward to. Since it's tied to Age and not Team control regardless of age. Nelson being 25 and looking for his first year of Service time. Nelson would just go straight to Arb next season and he'd get money based on what he's done for his age. Maybe it's 1mil or 2.5mil? So in his case it's more than he will make today. The Union would have to figure that in that Trout's case is the exception. Player's like Price who are drafted out of college, (and he made it to Tampa quick) and having to wait in his case til he was 26 for his first Arb year...He would have had Arb 1 year prior and be on his 2nd Arb year instead. So he in fact Gains off of my idea.

 

The only real players that are hurt are ones that make it at age 18,19 and I guess 20. But as I'm thinking about this, they can just have that granted age 23/24 request to receive Arb a year or two earlier due to special Performance circumstances. My guess is a Team will just wind up offering that player a Trout like contract around age 22 or 23 to forgo this.

 

It's great you picked out a Player who's been worth 25WAR in under 3 total seasons of Playing time. Or somebody on track for a clear-cut HOF to make an argument against the idea. The one single man who I'm going to take a guess likely, has the highest WAR in all of Baseball since his ML debut?

 

Is he going to be the one single reason to not want some idea like mine? Because guys like Nelson/Polanco/Singleton/Springer who are all older than Trout, get shafted because the once in a generation player Trout would get screwed in this idea? Nevermind the dozens getting screwed every year now all for Team control(Trout was one himself) or avoid Super 2 status? No one idea will wind up playing out perfect, but I think mine would begin to be some sort of improvement?

[HiAndTight]

 

 

I don't think you made things any easier, and I don't think the Union would ever go for this. You just cost Mike Trout how many tens of millions?

 

 

From where I'm looking, less than 20mil. Of course I don't know how the Arb money works out but I'd think he'd have a strong case to get a ton of what he's asking for. And I could also say that a team is free to sign a Player to a contract before they reach Arb or FA. In which case Trout has lost nothing.

 

There could also be say a special 23/24 Aged Request for Arb by a player if he's performed to a special level such as Trout and be granted Arb ahead of age 25.

 

This whole idea would change the spectrum of normalcy in Arb. Rather than trying to be paid to players like so and so at such point in a career, it can easily be tied to what a player has accomplished by his age. This could also likely be figured out over players of history to deem what kind of money he can look forward to. Since it's tied to Age and not Team control regardless of age. Nelson being 25 and looking for his first year of Service time. Nelson would just go straight to Arb next season and he'd get money based on what he's done for his age. Maybe it's 1mil or 2.5mil? So in his case it's more than he will make today. The Union would have to figure that in that Trout's case is the exception. Player's like Price who are drafted out of college, (and he made it to Tampa quick) and having to wait in his case til he was 26 for his first Arb year...He would have had Arb 1 year prior and be on his 2nd Arb year instead. So he in fact Gains off of my idea.

 

The only real players that are hurt are ones that make it at age 18,19 and I guess 20. But as I'm thinking about this, they can just have that granted age 23/24 request to receive Arb a year or two earlier due to special Performance circumstances. My guess is a Team will just wind up offering that player a Trout like contract around age 22 or 23 to forgo this.

 

It's great you picked out a Player who's been worth 25WAR in under 3 total seasons of Playing time. Or somebody on track for a clear-cut HOF to make an argument against the idea. The one single man who I'm going to take a guess likely, has the highest WAR in all of Baseball since his ML debut?

Is he going to be the one single reason to not want some idea like mine? Because guys like Nelson/Polanco/Singleton/Springer who are all older than Trout, get shafted because the once in a generation player Trout would get screwed in this idea? Nevermind the dozens getting screwed every year now all for Team control(Trout was one himself) or avoid Super 2 status? No one idea will wind up playing out perfect, but I think mine would begin to be some sort of improvement?

 

 

No, there are actually quite a few reasons, that was just one I pointed out. And he's hardly the only young guy who's come up and been great at a young age. How about Miguel Cabrera, Alex Rodriquez, Bryce Harper, Prince Fielder or any other young players who would otherwise be making more money prior to their age 25 season or the dozens of players who would be free agents before the age of 29? You don't think that might be a bit of a sticking point? You think Prince would have been happy waiting two more years for free agency? Or that Trout would have liked waiting another 3 years? Harper? Strausburg? Kershaw? Hernandez? Santana? You know, the type of guys who's contracts the union cares the most about as they set the market? Or guys like Xander Bogaerts moving forward?

 

But you say that a team could just sign a player if they wanted anyway. What incentive is there to sign Trout to a 6 year deal when now all the risk has been transferred to the players as opposed to the team? There certainly isn't any incentive to sign a pitcher when they can't be free agents until their 29 years old. Just ride them until you break them and if they get hurt, well, you don't have any money invested in them moving forward.

 

I just think it's far too convoluted an idea when the whole problem we're talking about is a few players having to wait a few extra weeks to get called up. It's also a pretty difficult argument to make that Mike Trout got "screwed," by the whole super 2 status when he got called up at age 19,struggled a bit and then came up permanently at age 20. You're making the assumption that anytime a guy spends time in AAA and dominates he was only there to avoid super two status.

 

I think there are a lot more flaws in this idea than in the current setup, so no, he's not the "one single reason," that I don't want to implement your idea. I don't think the players union would be a big fan of giving team control of players through their age 29 season so that nobody can hit free agency until their 30 years old. In this scenario, the only way I'd give a player a multi year deal is if they're going to take substantially less money for a long term deal than they would by going year to year because the organization now holds all the cards.

 

 

How about an easier solution. Instead of going off service time, you rate the players like you used to rate them for their draft value? The top 23 pct of the players are "A's," and they are granted a 4th year of arbitration? Seems a lot simpler than this whole....idea.

[brewcrewdue80]

Okay yet here's Price staring at what many are predicting to be 20mil for his 4th year in arb.

What I think you're failing to see, is I'm proposing arb based on what a player has accomplished at his age. This isn't some okay 1st year arb he gets 3mil 2nd year he gets 6-7mil 3rd year 11mil. I'm thinking a player could compare himself to say Mike Trout and say I'm worth 32mil at age 25. If his numbers back that up what will the controlling team do? Offer him 10mil and hope they win? No, a Player like Mike Trout(who's going to make 33mil at age 25) Would be able to just say my numbers say for my age I have a Mike Trout career going and he made 33mil at age 25-26. So I'm submitting my asking price to be 33mil. This is why the Team Controlling this young player will seek to buy him out before Arb hits.

 

If you're opposed to the age 29 team controll then I suppose in argument we could take this idea and push it back 1 year to suit you, as you are speaking on behalf of the Players. So age 24 a Player goes to Arb. Age 28 he's a Free Agent. Does that suit you? I made it age 29 because Drafting a College Senior who's turned 21 going on 22 only gives a team 7/8(depending on Birthday)total years of team control. Making it 28 and now it's 6/7years. Figure that's a little unfair to the team drafting a College player.

 

I just look at Arb and how they come to there figures and so often it reads well there really isn't much to compare so and so heading in to their 1st year of Arb for his age. If it's completely Aged Based, well everyone has an aged 25 year, age 26 year and so on. The history of baseball has players laid out that we compare the best of today to vs. what the best of yesterday did at the same age. That's what I want to get to. Everyone can go to BREF and look up any of today's players and see a list of Comparison of players who put up similar stats at this player's age. For Trout is shows Vada Pinson at age 20 and Frank Robinson at age 21.

 

I'm going to guess some mad genius math whiz can come up with some kind of formula to tie in all the greats of yesteryear/yesterday/ and today for what they've done by their age and what kind of pay that should come to in today's market. It's not how the old Arb works it would be different when this new formula comes out to figure out a proper set in pay. Now when that happens, a controlling team can likely have their own number cruncher, have their own projections what age 25-29 might bring while Mr. Trout plays at age 21 and 22 and decide to make their stud player a contract he can't turn down. And think about this for a moment. Why wouldn't they and the Player make some kind of Contract away from Arb? The Player knows if he follows along the age 21-24 pay guidelines he's worth a certain amount. Meanwhile Ownership looks at what he may project in cost age 25-28 and make an offer when the player is 21/22 to try to pay some more upfront(say 2mil age 22, 7mil age 23, 12mil age 24 to shave some money off what Mr. Trout would seek ages 25-28. Rather than pay him 30mil age 25, 33mil age 26, 35mil age 27 and 38mil age 28, They instead pay more upfront and shave let's say 6mil per year of my numbers.

 

Since we are in a day and age where Contracts are being offered before Prospects ever see an AB in the Majors, I'm far certain, a team that wants to keep Mr. Trout without breaking their payroll bank will offer a contract at age 21-23 that he just can't really refuse. Since he's going to make so many millions more up front. No doubt his Agent has the said Math Genius also at his ready to crunch the numbers and projections to what Mr. Trout may get vs. this offer to at least make sure his decision isn't foolish and the Team's offer is pretty solid.

[HiAndTight]

Okay yet here's Price staring at what many are predicting to be 20mil for his 4th year in arb.

What I think you're failing to see, is I'm proposing arb based on what a player has accomplished at his age.…

I'm not "failing," to understand anything. I'm simply not agreeing with you with you and your plan as I think it's extraordinarily convoluted and is an absurd overreaction to a small problem that impacts a handful of players a little bit every year. As I said, you want to reward the best players in their respective classes with a 4th year of arbitration, take what they've done over the first three years, even if the first year is truncated and rank them on a scale. The guys who fall into the top 23 percent, they get a 4th year of arbitration. There, done. Solved without reinventing the wheel.

 

I'm sure that would be a whole lot easier for this math guru you're talking about to sort out than this incredibly complicated plan that the players union would almost certainly not go for.

 

What I am failing to understand is how comparing Mike Trout at age 20 to Vida Pinson would have anything to do with this new pay structure. Yes, you can compare players from different era's statistics. It's an inherently flawed process for a litany of reasons, but nobody would deny you could do that. I don't understand how that would help to evaluate how to pay Mike Trout at age 20 when you already have him at a set number.

 

 

And finally, why WOULDN'T a team and a player come to terms on a deal? I think I went well into that. Why would you commit 30 million dollars a year to Clayton Kershaw NOW when you control him through his age 29 season? Why would you give Sabathia that type of money until his age 29 season or Johan Santana?

At the rate pitchers deal with injuries or decline(see Justin Verlander this year) what motivation would a team have to give these young pitchers these long term deals? Then again maybe they would because you've changed how the arbitration works by simply saying math guru's would figure it out and it would be different than it is now and come up with some figures for some players that I can't really figure where they came from.

 

Like I said, you're trying to re-invent the wheel when all it needs is a very minor adjustment.

[1992casey]

HiAndTight, please make more of an effort to pare back long quoted passages. Repeating five lengthy paragraphs in their entirety simply isn't necessary. I edited your post above to shorten the quoted material.

 

The simplest solution would be to use a hard number for Super Two, such as 425 or 430 days, while retaining the 86 day requirement for the season just completed. I'd have to think that such an obvious setup would have been considered and that it was probably rejected. A hard number would give owners the ability to ensure that few if any players achieve Super Two at all.

 

I wouldn't reject Super Two out of hand. My guess is that initially, players wanted arby after two seasons and that owners wanted it after three. This would have been the compromise.

 

Back on topic, if Nelson can help the team, he should be brought up regardless of Super Two. If he's paid more down the road, it should be considered the cost of doing business in a season where the team stands a good chance to win a championship.

 

The one thing I'd object to is losing Estrada entirely. He needs to be kept around as depth until he can be replaced during the off-season.

[monty57]

Back on topic, if Nelson can help the team, he should be brought up regardless of Super Two.

 

In hindsight, yes. However, now that we've waited half a season and are down to something like one more start for Estrada before Nelson can avoid Super Two, then I don't think it would be a good idea to call him up before the team is sure to avoid Super Two.

 

Estrada got blown up in June, but his last three starts have been 6.1 IP/2 ER, 6.0 IP/2 ER, 5.0 IP/3ER. Not great, but I don't think giving him one more start will kill us. I just hope that the Brewers are actually planning on bringing Nelson up, and aren't content with the "proven" Estrada being an "okay 5th starter that has settled down after a rough start."

[JohnBriggs12]

"I'd object to is losing Estrada entirely. He needs to be kept around as depth until he can be replaced during the off-season."

 

I disagree. If they have to go deep, they are in trouble whether it's Estrada or someone else. Fiers would be the next guy up internally. I don't think he's any worse than Estrada. Neither would be a guy like Correia whom the Twins would unload without much back. Another guy who fits in that category is Kendrick.

[monty57]

"I'd object to is losing Estrada entirely. He needs to be kept around as depth until he can be replaced during the off-season."

 

I disagree. If they have to go deep, they are in trouble whether it's Estrada or someone else. Fiers would be the next guy up internally. I don't think he's any worse than Estrada. Neither would be a guy like Correia whom the Twins would unload without much back. Another guy who fits in that category is Kendrick.

 

Well, they've made it this far with Estrada in the rotation pitching about as poorly as he is apt to pitch, so I wouldn't say that we're in trouble if we'd need to go back to him. Going "that deep" only means one of our starters gets some kind of injury, which is likely to happen.

 

When Nelson is called up, I would leave Estrada on the roster as the "long man/spot starter" in the bullpen. At least we know what we have in him. Meanwhile, keep Fiers stretched out in AAA, and the Brewers can make a determination on who would be the better SP candidate when/if one is needed. That seems more prudent than simply dumping Estrada and pinning all our hopes on Fiers in the likely event that someone gets hurt.