2019 Brewers' pitching staff

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm going by memory here so that's suspect right from the start, but wasn't one of the reasons Nashville broke from the Brewers was the dip in talented prospects going through there at the time? Guys that could be billed as future pros to watch as they were up and coming? Plus my foggy memory wants to remember that the Brewers had been kind of skipping the AAA level with their promotions, dipping into AA for their call ups and the place where they were stashing their top talent. I think Nashville felt a little neglected with a roster full of AAAA type guys that really weren't buzz worthy. None of this is based on research so I could be way off.

 

That was what they said publicly but it didn't really reflect reality. They were for the most part competitive with Milwaukee. There was also not a lot of fluctuation in their attendance between having guys like Fielder and Weeks there vs. later on. There was some, but it wasn't super drastic. As recently as 2012 they extended the contract with MKE and specifically stated how great the Brewers were at always providing them with quality players. Then two years later were very vocal about how much they hated the Brewers and their inability to provide talent. So I don't buy it.

 

Last year was their 2nd best attendance year ever and they were barely above .500. I'd guess their recent success has more to do with Nashville itself exploding, specifically with younger people and its somewhat newfound reputation as a party town.

[JosephC]

I'd call that a pretty poor example. They were above .500 during their affiliation with Milwaukee and they play in Nashville. It's not exactly a community lacking in things to do. If they're unhappy with the relationship for any reason, they're obviously going to blame the Brewers. Just looking at 2018's numbers there doesn't appear to be a real correlation betweens wins and attendance. It's all over the place. Making the game fun appears to be a much bigger driver than winning.

 

Safe to say that most of the community here loves baseball, so I think we're getting a little bit of bias there. Most people at an MiLB game are just looking for something to do and heard Darius Rucker is singing after the game. Plus they can have six beers for $10.

 

It's not a poor example when Nashville's ownership put it out there that they had been unhappy with the players the Brewers had given them over the previous few seasons. In turn Melvin was unhappy with them because he felt their decision had been made a year earlier after the poor 57-87 season but, out of spite, they waited until the last minute (after a respectable, rebound season no less) to pull the plug which ended up with the Brewers getting stuck in Colorado. There sure seemed to be plenty of bad feelings on both sides when the relationship ended. And the relationship initially soured because the Sounds felt that the talent the Brewers had recently been providing them was completely unsatisfactory, especially when they were going through the process of getting a new stadium built, which is something they had been working towards for about 10 years.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170813011946/http://m.mlb.com/news/article/95157658/brewers-general-manager-doug-melvin-miffed-by-breakup-with-triple-a-affiliate/

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Again, Nashville stated their happiness with that relationship as late as 2012. Specifically citing the great talent pipeline the Brewers supplied. Two years later the Brewers and their terrible players are to blame for Nashville's problems. I have a hard time believing that.

 

And we can cherry pick Nashville all we want, but it doesn't change the fact that the attendance isn't really reflected in the spiel they're doling out. Not just in Nashville, but all over MiLB.

[SeaBass]

Again, Nashville stated their happiness with that relationship as late as 2012. Specifically citing the great talent pipeline the Brewers supplied. Two years later the Brewers and their terrible players are to blame for Nashville's problems. I have a hard time believing that.

Just because it's not a good reason (logically) when viewed neutrally doesn't mean it's not a valid reason. Humans being humans and all.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

You could say that about every helpful innovation before teams started doing it. I think some of the pitching innovations they experimented with last year are more sustainable than most people seem to suggest. No, it's not the same as after September call-ups, but they have plenty of guys with options who are stretched out as starters. It's not really built on using traditional relievers, like in September, but more on long relievers to minimize times through the order and pitcher ab's.

 

Reading the comments today after the Gio signing I'm struggling to understand why there has been so much consternation over what I've been expecting / calling for. That is, stacking the 12 man staff with what are traditionally considered starters and having them used all over the weekly 54-65 innings a team pitches. Today I see people glad another starter was added so a we can shift long men to the pen. Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. Get rid of the 1 inning and 1 out specialists and have a staff full of guys who can start one day, give you 3-4 good innings out of the gate and then pitch a couple innings three days later. You'd truly be able to play matchups at all times rather than the current model of "it's Davies turn in the rotation".

[KeithStone53151]

You could say that about every helpful innovation before teams started doing it. I think some of the pitching innovations they experimented with last year are more sustainable than most people seem to suggest. No, it's not the same as after September call-ups, but they have plenty of guys with options who are stretched out as starters. It's not really built on using traditional relievers, like in September, but more on long relievers to minimize times through the order and pitcher ab's.

 

Reading the comments today after the Gio signing I'm struggling to understand why there has been so much consternation over what I've been expecting / calling for. That is, stacking the 12 man staff with what are traditionally considered starters and having them used all over the weekly 54-65 innings a team pitches. Today I see people glad another starter was added so a we can shift long men to the pen. Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. Get rid of the 1 inning and 1 out specialists and have a staff full of guys who can start one day, give you 3-4 good innings out of the gate and then pitch a couple innings three days later. You'd truly be able to play matchups at all times rather than the current model of "it's Davies turn in the rotation".

 

So this is more proof that you were right all along?...got it.

 

Or maybe they added GG because almost our entire SP staff is struggling right now, and it gives us an opportunity to send Burnes/Peralta or any other struggling pitchers to AAA to work on stuff and still have a starter available to eat innings. Signing GG and rotating pitchers as we have is done out of necessity, not strategy...because almost everyone on our pitching staff is struggling right now.

 

Maybe try looking at moves simply for what they are, rather than "how can I twist this move to fit my narrative and prove I'm right?"

[tmwiese55]

You could say that about every helpful innovation before teams started doing it. I think some of the pitching innovations they experimented with last year are more sustainable than most people seem to suggest. No, it's not the same as after September call-ups, but they have plenty of guys with options who are stretched out as starters. It's not really built on using traditional relievers, like in September, but more on long relievers to minimize times through the order and pitcher ab's.

 

Reading the comments today after the Gio signing I'm struggling to understand why there has been so much consternation over what I've been expecting / calling for. That is, stacking the 12 man staff with what are traditionally considered starters and having them used all over the weekly 54-65 innings a team pitches. Today I see people glad another starter was added so a we can shift long men to the pen. Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. Get rid of the 1 inning and 1 out specialists and have a staff full of guys who can start one day, give you 3-4 good innings out of the gate and then pitch a couple innings three days later. You'd truly be able to play matchups at all times rather than the current model of "it's Davies turn in the rotation".

 

I see the point. And going back a day or two to whoever kind of made the "out of necessity" point regarding last year. That might be happening again now. Think of like this, ideally everyone knows they'd be better off if they can get normal-ish starting rotation production. Clearly the Brewers goal was that here as well with what they did to start the year. But at this point out of necessity a month in they might have to get crazy and try some other stuff. Or like Snapper said, you're throwing stuff at the wall at this point and management knows a situation like this is not ideal by any means. and that's why no one tries to go this route going into a season. You're essentially planning on needing 13-16 competent guys and to use several guys every day no matter what (each one with a chance to 'not have it that day') combined with the roster juggling thats needed. Our problem right now is finding more than one reliable pitcher, how are we gonna come up with like 15? And even still, they're very likely gonna stay on a normal 5 man rotation, it's just planning on them knowing they're not guys likely to make it past 5-6 innings. Which is still far from what you're pushing or predicting.

 

Also, I think a key point that could have been made more clear in your whole point here is that you think this is a strategy that 'should' happen by us or someone in MLB. Not that you were necessarily predicting it. Though in the offseason it sure came off pretty hard as a prediction. Just saying I think it would come off a bit better phrased that way. If that makes sense.

[FVBrewerFan]

You could say that about every helpful innovation before teams started doing it. I think some of the pitching innovations they experimented with last year are more sustainable than most people seem to suggest. No, it's not the same as after September call-ups, but they have plenty of guys with options who are stretched out as starters. It's not really built on using traditional relievers, like in September, but more on long relievers to minimize times through the order and pitcher ab's.

 

Reading the comments today after the Gio signing I'm struggling to understand why there has been so much consternation over what I've been expecting / calling for. That is, stacking the 12 man staff with what are traditionally considered starters and having them used all over the weekly 54-65 innings a team pitches. Today I see people glad another starter was added so a we can shift long men to the pen. Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. Get rid of the 1 inning and 1 out specialists and have a staff full of guys who can start one day, give you 3-4 good innings out of the gate and then pitch a couple innings three days later. You'd truly be able to play matchups at all times rather than the current model of "it's Davies turn in the rotation".

 

 

That's great, except they haven't done that and won't do that. They signed Gio because it's worth the money to find out if he can get through 4-5 innings without disaster. Playing matchups isn't necessary when everyone has a zillion.78 ERA.

[JosephC]

Have to start wondering if and when the Brewers are going to make a decision on Woodruff? I think the Brewers have to seriously considering moving him out of the rotation after another bad start. I've posted the splits many times, the statistical difference between him as a MLB starter and MLB reliever is pretty staggering. I'd have no problem putting Woodruff into the bullpen immediately and maybe putting Guerra back into the rotation. Guerra has the attractive ERA as a reliever, but that BB/K ratio results in pretty ugly FIP and xFIP and one has to wonder how long he'll sustain the ERA. Hopefully Woodruff can rebound with a solid start. Really disappointing last time out considering he got decent results in the previous game against the Cardinals.

[wntrtxn21]

Have to start wondering if and when the Brewers are going to make a decision on Woodruff? I think the Brewers have to seriously considering moving him out of the rotation after another bad start. I've posted the splits many times, the statistical difference between him as a MLB starter and MLB reliever is pretty staggering. I'd have no problem putting Woodruff into the bullpen immediately and maybe putting Guerra back into the rotation. Guerra has the attractive ERA as a reliever, but that BB/K ratio results in pretty ugly FIP and xFIP and one has to wonder how long he'll sustain the ERA. Hopefully Woodruff can rebound with a solid start. Really disappointing last time out considering he got decent results in the previous game against the Cardinals.

 

If they are wondering about Woodruff, they have to be wondering about Peralta and especially Burnes also. Their inability to keep the ball in the park and the opposition off the board is startling. All three have looked much, much better out of the pen rather than starting. Guerra looks better as a long man too. CC is trying to see if any of the young guys are viable options as starters. So far it has been a complete disaster with all three, but Chacin isn't doing any better either. Right now CC doesn't have any options other than to start at least one of the three young guys and hope they don't continue to be horrific.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I see the point. And going back a day or two to whoever kind of made the "out of necessity" point regarding last year. That might be happening again now. Think of like this, ideally everyone knows they'd be better off if they can get normal-ish starting rotation production. Clearly the Brewers goal was that here as well with what they did to start the year. But at this point out of necessity a month in they might have to get crazy and try some other stuff. Or like Snapper said, you're throwing stuff at the wall at this point and management knows a situation like this is not ideal by any means. and that's why no one tries to go this route going into a season. You're essentially planning on needing 13-16 competent guys and to use several guys every day no matter what (each one with a chance to 'not have it that day') combined with the roster juggling thats needed. Our problem right now is finding more than one reliable pitcher, how are we gonna come up with like 15? And even still, they're very likely gonna stay on a normal 5 man rotation, it's just planning on them knowing they're not guys likely to make it past 5-6 innings. Which is still far from what you're pushing or predicting.

 

Also, I think a key point that could have been made more clear in your whole point here is that you think this is a strategy that 'should' happen by us or someone in MLB. Not that you were necessarily predicting it. Though in the offseason it sure came off pretty hard as a prediction. Just saying I think it would come off a bit better phrased that way. If that makes sense.

 

Yes definitely. There's no doubt I erred somewhere along the way in the way I stated the message. I have to own that. My words were often misconstrued as well. Even what I just wrote now. They're obviously not going to rid themselves of Jeffress, Albers, Wilson, etc overnight. And they're all 1 inning type guys. But if the Brewers want to avoid the ugly numbers pitchers post the 3rd time through, they're going to have to stack the staff with starter types and deploy them in unique ways. But I've said all along it would take time. I did erroneously predict we'd see more tandem type usage out of the gates this year but now it's starting to look like it will happen sooner rather than later. If any or all of the young 3 guns get shifted to the pen, they'll be able to get really creative.

[homer]

It's easier to find guys that don't have to go through the order 3+ times. It's better to find guys that can.

[Brew crew 92]

I see the point. And going back a day or two to whoever kind of made the "out of necessity" point regarding last year. That might be happening again now. Think of like this, ideally everyone knows they'd be better off if they can get normal-ish starting rotation production. Clearly the Brewers goal was that here as well with what they did to start the year. But at this point out of necessity a month in they might have to get crazy and try some other stuff. Or like Snapper said, you're throwing stuff at the wall at this point and management knows a situation like this is not ideal by any means. and that's why no one tries to go this route going into a season. You're essentially planning on needing 13-16 competent guys and to use several guys every day no matter what (each one with a chance to 'not have it that day') combined with the roster juggling thats needed. Our problem right now is finding more than one reliable pitcher, how are we gonna come up with like 15? And even still, they're very likely gonna stay on a normal 5 man rotation, it's just planning on them knowing they're not guys likely to make it past 5-6 innings. Which is still far from what you're pushing or predicting.

 

Also, I think a key point that could have been made more clear in your whole point here is that you think this is a strategy that 'should' happen by us or someone in MLB. Not that you were necessarily predicting it. Though in the offseason it sure came off pretty hard as a prediction. Just saying I think it would come off a bit better phrased that way. If that makes sense.

 

Yes definitely. There's no doubt I erred somewhere along the way in the way I stated the message. I have to own that. My words were often misconstrued as well. Even what I just wrote now. They're obviously not going to rid themselves of Jeffress, Albers, Wilson, etc overnight. And they're all 1 inning type guys. But if the Brewers want to avoid the ugly numbers pitchers post the 3rd time through, they're going to have to stack the staff with starter types and deploy them in unique ways. But I've said all along it would take time. I did erroneously predict we'd see more tandem type usage out of the gates this year but now it's starting to look like it will happen sooner rather than later. If any or all of the young 3 guns get shifted to the pen, they'll be able to get really creative.

 

Pen at some point this year:

 

Kimbrel/trade acq.

Jeffress

Hader

Claudio

Burnes 2-4 innings

Woodruff 2-4

Guerra 2-4

Peralta 2-4

 

Probably later than sooner, with 6 man rotation, one of Burnes woodruff peralta to pen, or AAA to develope. Other two plus Nelson rotate to pen in the 6 man.( keep innings down ).

 

This is a unique, dominating, lock down bullpen.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

It's easier to find guys that don't have to go through the order 3+ times. It's better to find guys that can.

 

Of course but they're extremely rare and cost a ton. It doesn't stop you find trying to develop one but at the same time you don't throw your arms up in the air and say we just can't compete because we don't have a horse who can go 7+ every time out.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

I see the point. And going back a day or two to whoever kind of made the "out of necessity" point regarding last year. That might be happening again now. Think of like this, ideally everyone knows they'd be better off if they can get normal-ish starting rotation production. Clearly the Brewers goal was that here as well with what they did to start the year. But at this point out of necessity a month in they might have to get crazy and try some other stuff. Or like Snapper said, you're throwing stuff at the wall at this point and management knows a situation like this is not ideal by any means. and that's why no one tries to go this route going into a season. You're essentially planning on needing 13-16 competent guys and to use several guys every day no matter what (each one with a chance to 'not have it that day') combined with the roster juggling thats needed. Our problem right now is finding more than one reliable pitcher, how are we gonna come up with like 15? And even still, they're very likely gonna stay on a normal 5 man rotation, it's just planning on them knowing they're not guys likely to make it past 5-6 innings. Which is still far from what you're pushing or predicting.

 

Also, I think a key point that could have been made more clear in your whole point here is that you think this is a strategy that 'should' happen by us or someone in MLB. Not that you were necessarily predicting it. Though in the offseason it sure came off pretty hard as a prediction. Just saying I think it would come off a bit better phrased that way. If that makes sense.

 

Yes definitely. There's no doubt I erred somewhere along the way in the way I stated the message. I have to own that. My words were often misconstrued as well. Even what I just wrote now. They're obviously not going to rid themselves of Jeffress, Albers, Wilson, etc overnight. And they're all 1 inning type guys. But if the Brewers want to avoid the ugly numbers pitchers post the 3rd time through, they're going to have to stack the staff with starter types and deploy them in unique ways. But I've said all along it would take time. I did erroneously predict we'd see more tandem type usage out of the gates this year but now it's starting to look like it will happen sooner rather than later. If any or all of the young 3 guns get shifted to the pen, they'll be able to get really creative.

 

Pen at some point this year:

 

Kimbrel/trade acq.

Jeffress

Hader

Claudio

Burnes 2-4 innings

Woodruff 2-4

Guerra 2-4

Peralta 2-4

 

Probably later than sooner, with 6 man rotation, one of Burnes woodruff peralta to pen, or AAA to develope. Other two plus Nelson rotate to pen in the 6 man.( keep innings down ).

 

This is a unique, dominating, lock down bullpen.

I just don’t see how you could do this for more than 2 spots in the rotation. You still need 3 of the spots to be guys that can be more traditional and go 5-6 innings more often than not. Outside of September you can’t do this I don’t think. Once a guy goes 2-4 innings he’s down for 2 days at least and you’re talking using more than 1 guy a game doing this and multiple spots in the rotation doing it? I just don’t think it adds up. I love the creativity but again outside of doing it for 1 or 2 spots in the rotation I don’t see it.

[OnTheBlack]

It's easier to find guys that don't have to go through the order 3+ times. It's better to find guys that can.

 

Of course but they're extremely rare and cost a ton. It doesn't stop you find trying to develop one but at the same time you don't throw your arms up in the air and say we just can't compete because we don't have a horse who can go 7+ every time out.

 

 

I'd look at what the Yankees have been doing lately. They seem like they've gone with talented starters who don't go deep into games, but they've built an dominant pen.

 

I don't want to see the Brewers spend Chapman type money and I think it's ridiculous, but they look for 5 innings from their starters and then turn it over to a pen that's just ridiculously deep. Before Knebel, JJ and Wahl went down, I really wanted to see the Brewers go after Ottavino or Miller. Miller I thought would bounce back..and we'll see if that's true and Ottavino, I've just been a fan of his since I watched him pitch vs team USA in the WBC for Italy. He was a starter, but he had nasty stuff and then last year he put it together. I'd hoped they'd try to add another arm to that pen and then go with the young guys in the rotation. My idea went out the window a bit with the injuries, but I think the three young guys may have benefited from only having to try to get through 5 and then have Wahl, Claudio, Ottavino, Knebel, Jeffress, Hader and then Barnes, Guerra, or whomever.

 

 

But....we're .500. When we were 6 games over 8 games ago, I was saying I'd have been happy going .500 through April given the schedule we've faced. I still think things will come together. Nobody was expecting Burnes, Woodruff, Soria to be part of a dominant pen in Sept this time last year. Maybe Brown, Rasmussen, and Sanchez will step up and with the addition of a trade or signing, Stearns will be able to sort things out.

[OnTheBlack]

 

Pen at some point this year:

 

Kimbrel/trade acq.

Jeffress

Hader

Claudio

Burnes 2-4 innings

Woodruff 2-4

Guerra 2-4

Peralta 2-4

 

Probably later than sooner, with 6 man rotation, one of Burnes woodruff peralta to pen, or AAA to develope. Other two plus Nelson rotate to pen in the 6 man.( keep innings down ).

 

This is a unique, dominating, lock down bullpen.

I just don’t see how you could do this for more than 2 spots in the rotation. You still need 3 of the spots to be guys that can be more traditional and go 5-6 innings more often than not. Outside of September you can’t do this I don’t think. Once a guy goes 2-4 innings he’s down for 2 days at least and you’re talking using more than 1 guy a game doing this and multiple spots in the rotation doing it? I just don’t think it adds up. I love the creativity but again outside of doing it for 1 or 2 spots in the rotation I don’t see it.

 

 

I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

[wntrtxn21]

It's easier to find guys that don't have to go through the order 3+ times. It's better to find guys that can.

 

Of course but they're extremely rare and cost a ton. It doesn't stop you find trying to develop one but at the same time you don't throw your arms up in the air and say we just can't compete because we don't have a horse who can go 7+ every time out.

 

 

I'd look at what the Yankees have been doing lately. They seem like they've gone with talented starters who don't go deep into games, but they've built an dominant pen.

 

I don't want to see the Brewers spend Chapman type money and I think it's ridiculous, but they look for 5 innings from their starters and then turn it over to a pen that's just ridiculously deep. Before Knebel, JJ and Wahl went down, I really wanted to see the Brewers go after Ottavino or Miller. Miller I thought would bounce back..and we'll see if that's true and Ottavino, I've just been a fan of his since I watched him pitch vs team USA in the WBC for Italy. He was a starter, but he had nasty stuff and then last year he put it together. I'd hoped they'd try to add another arm to that pen and then go with the young guys in the rotation. My idea went out the window a bit with the injuries, but I think the three young guys may have benefited from only having to try to get through 5 and then have Wahl, Claudio, Ottavino, Knebel, Jeffress, Hader and then Barnes, Guerra, or whomever.

 

 

But....we're .500. When we were 6 games over 8 games ago, I was saying I'd have been happy going .500 through April given the schedule we've faced. I still think things will come together. Nobody was expecting Burnes, Woodruff, Soria to be part of a dominant pen in Sept this time last year. Maybe Brown, Rasmussen, and Sanchez will step up and with the addition of a trade or signing, Stearns will be able to sort things out.

 

I think Ottavino signed for something like 3/$27M and Miller got 3/$35M. Far too rich for the Brewers. (Miller has been horrible so far this year. 4 HRs in only 8 IPs.) Stearns thought he had Knebel and Wahl plus Jeffress and Hadar. Both Ottavino and Miller were out of his price rainge at the time.

[wntrtxn21]

Truly could use some starters who can figure out how to go six innings or deeper in a game. The team is averaging 4.89 IP/start through April 23. Exposing the bullpen for four or five innings per game as it’s currently constructed doesn’t appear to be a winning formula.

 

Exactly. Forgetting the roster restrictions and all that, it's very difficult to find 13-16 reliable pitchers that would be needed in this type of scenario. Probably a reason why teams have tried to find 4-5 reliable guys to start and then hope for as many good BP guys as possible but usually can only find 2-3. Somehow the perfect storm happened last year for MKE to have incredible depth of reliable guys in the pen. Obviously we're seeing the opposite of that now. As a small market team though it would be a cost efficient creative thing to explore but I'd say the roster rules combined with finding this many reliable guys makes it not tenable. I'd think to even consider a drastic change up you'd need the 26th spot, DH and no restrictions on pitchers on your roster.

 

Probably the most realistic shift could be a middle ground of sorts. Where you do have a couple normal starters but also 1-2 'rotation' spots where you know it's gonna be a team approach that day so you plan your roster moves and reliever usage around it. Still, if your normal starters get beat up you're in big trouble as your bp doesn't get rest then. Could see this working around true top end SPs though, say WAS as an example. You have 3 ace level type guys you can rely on for 6+ almost every time out. Well then get weird those other days instead of trotting out a Tanner Roark for a 5 ERA all year.

You could say that about every helpful innovation before teams started doing it. I think some of the pitching innovations they experimented with last year are more sustainable than most people seem to suggest. No, it's not the same as after September call-ups, but they have plenty of guys with options who are stretched out as starters. It's not really built on using traditional relievers, like in September, but more on long relievers to minimize times through the order and pitcher ab's.

 

Reading the comments today after the Gio signing I'm struggling to understand why there has been so much consternation over what I've been expecting / calling for. That is, stacking the 12 man staff with what are traditionally considered starters and having them used all over the weekly 54-65 innings a team pitches. Today I see people glad another starter was added so a we can shift long men to the pen. Well, that's exactly what I've been arguing for. Get rid of the 1 inning and 1 out specialists and have a staff full of guys who can start one day, give you 3-4 good innings out of the gate and then pitch a couple innings three days later. You'd truly be able to play matchups at all times rather than the current model of "it's Davies turn in the rotation".

 

Once again the problem with your scenario is everything has to go perfect in the games so a 4th or even 5th pitcher isn't used. If a guy gets lit up early and more than 3 pitchers are used it turns your system on it's ear. It comes down to would you rather have Hader or Knebel facing the top of somebody's order in the 9th, or Petricka who has already pitched 2 innings?

[Brew crew 92]

 

Pen at some point this year:

 

Kimbrel/trade acq.

Jeffress

Hader

Claudio

Burnes 2-4 innings

Woodruff 2-4

Guerra 2-4

Peralta 2-4

 

Probably later than sooner, with 6 man rotation, one of Burnes woodruff peralta to pen, or AAA to develope. Other two plus Nelson rotate to pen in the 6 man.( keep innings down ).

 

This is a unique, dominating, lock down bullpen.

I just don’t see how you could do this for more than 2 spots in the rotation. You still need 3 of the spots to be guys that can be more traditional and go 5-6 innings more often than not. Outside of September you can’t do this I don’t think. Once a guy goes 2-4 innings he’s down for 2 days at least and you’re talking using more than 1 guy a game doing this and multiple spots in the rotation doing it? I just don’t think it adds up. I love the creativity but again outside of doing it for 1 or 2 spots in the rotation I don’t see it.

 

 

I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

 

Rotation:

 

Chacín Davies pitch every 5 th day

3 of Anderson Nelson Gio Woodruff Burnes Peralta rotate as starters, relievers or AAA.

 

Burnes woodruff Peralta can develope in rotation and have their innings managed. Nelson’s innings can be managed also.

 

Bullpen would have 2-3 of Nelson Anderson Gio Woody Burnes peralta joining Guerra giving the pen 3-4 Quality arms pitching 2-4 innings at a time.

 

Add kimbrel or dominant trade acquisition to this mix with Hader jeffress Claudio > Equal or better than last year’s playoff pen.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

 

I'm not either believe it or not. But I'd much rather have that than to continue to have them trot out a bunch of mediocre 1 inning guys like Petricka Wilson, Albers, Barnes, Williams, etc. What it comes down to is this...

 

Soon enough the Brewers rotation options are going to be Chacin, Davies, Anderson, Gio, Nelson, Guerra, Burnes, Woodruff, and Nelson. Even without getting crazy with tandems or piggybacks, which I still think is a ways off unfortunately, you've got 9 guys for 5 spots. Guerra seems to be thriving in the long pen role. Let's add 3 more like him. I'd rather have all 9 of these guys on the Brewers 12-man staff than have 3 or 4 of them starting games in San Antonio. Especially if it means the aforementioned mediocre short guys are still around. On top of those multi-inning pitchers, you round out the staff with Hader, Claudio, and Jeffress. And then you've got plenty of coverage when your starters don't go 6 or when you purposely want to keep their outing short. As far as who are the "starters" and who goes to the pen, just give me the 5 who have the best history of eating innings effectively thus far.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

 

I'm not either believe it or not. But I'd much rather have that than to continue to have them trot out a bunch of mediocre 1 inning guys like Petricka Wilson, Albers, Barnes, Williams, etc. What it comes down to is this...

 

Soon enough the Brewers rotation options are going to be Chacin, Davies, Anderson, Gio, Nelson, Guerra, Burnes, Woodruff, and Nelson. Even without getting crazy with tandems or piggybacks, which I still think is a ways off unfortunately, you've got 9 guys for 5 spots. Guerra seems to be thriving in the long pen role. Let's add 3 more like him. I'd rather have all 9 of these guys on the Brewers 12-man staff than have 3 or 4 of them starting games in San Antonio. Especially if it means the aforementioned mediocre short guys are still around. On top of those multi-inning pitchers, you round out the staff with Hader, Claudio, and Jeffress. And then you've got plenty of coverage when your starters don't go 6 or when you purposely want to keep their outing short. As far as who are the "starters" and who goes to the pen, just give me the 5 who have the best history of eating innings effectively thus far.

 

You forgot Peralta. I remember reading that his injury was supposed to be short-term.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that the talent is there to have an above average to great pitching staff. It's a matter of finding the right roles, and helping these talent arms perform to expectations.

[Brew crew 92]

I just am not a fan of seeing all three young arms back in the pen this year, especially if you're saying sooner rather than later. We're never going to develop these elite pitchers if we don't give them a chance. I see no reason why Corbin Burnes can't be an effective sub 4.00 starting pitcher? Or Woodruff....or even Peralta if he can fine tune his breaking ball and develop that change. He is just 22 years old.

 

I'm not either believe it or not. But I'd much rather have that than to continue to have them trot out a bunch of mediocre 1 inning guys like Petricka Wilson, Albers, Barnes, Williams, etc. What it comes down to is this...

 

Soon enough the Brewers rotation options are going to be Chacin, Davies, Anderson, Gio, Nelson, Guerra, Burnes, Woodruff, and Nelson. Even without getting crazy with tandems or piggybacks, which I still think is a ways off unfortunately, you've got 9 guys for 5 spots. Guerra seems to be thriving in the long pen role. Let's add 3 more like him. I'd rather have all 9 of these guys on the Brewers 12-man staff than have 3 or 4 of them starting games in San Antonio. Especially if it means the aforementioned mediocre short guys are still around. On top of those multi-inning pitchers, you round out the staff with Hader, Claudio, and Jeffress. And then you've got plenty of coverage when your starters don't go 6 or when you purposely want to keep their outing short. As far as who are the "starters" and who goes to the pen, just give me the 5 who have the best history of eating innings effectively thus far.

 

You forgot Peralta. I remember reading that his injury was supposed to be short-term.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that the talent is there to have an above average to great pitching staff. It's a matter of finding the right roles, and helping these talent arms perform to expectations.

 

Tbbc and jmb are both right imo.

 

Barnes-gone Wilson-gone Petricka-gone Albers-gone eventually

 

9 starters & Claudio & jeffress,Hader,kimbrel/trade acq. = 13 man staff

 

Guerra & 3 multi- inning & Claudio > get outs and destroy timing. Then 3 high leverage arms.

 

Could still rotate Burnes Nelson peralta woody to manage innings and find the best role’s for the rest of THIS year.

[Warning Track Power]

Assuming health (a big ask), I think the rotation by the middle of the season will be Nelson-Gonzalez-Davies-Chacin-Anderson, with Woodruff and Burnes strengthening the pen. That rotation combined with a pen of Woodruff, Burnes, Hader, Claudio, Jeffress and Guerra in the pen, the pitching staff becomes quite good on paper. If they only can perform to their abilities...

[BrewCrewForever]

Assuming health (a big ask), I think the rotation by the middle of the season will be Nelson-Gonzalez-Davies-Chacin-Anderson, with Woodruff and Burnes strengthening the pen. That rotation combined with a pen of Woodruff, Burnes, Hader, Claudio, Jeffress and Guerra in the pen, the pitching staff becomes quite good on paper. If they only can perform to their abilities...

 

Fantastic proposal. I really like both that rotation and pen. Part of me hates to see Woodruff and especially Burnes be put back into the pen and not starting, but so far they have not performed and we know they can out of the pen. So it makes sense. Makes our pen look real strong again like it did last season.