Brewers sign Brett Anderson to a one year deal

[Brewcrewin07]

A little surprised to see so many strong reactions. At best, he's a solid 3/4. At worst, it's a one-year deal and he's Chacin-ed by the break and they're not out much since it's a one-year deal. More likely, he's a decent 4 to fill out the back of the rotation at a very reasonable cost.

 

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Which brings me to my next point..I see everyone when they sign a cheap guy like this say "well, if he bombs, he only cost xxx amount of money, as if the low amount of money mitigates the disaster. Only in reality, you shouldn't look at it in terms of what he costs as far as it not making it bad..the RESULTS are what end up being bad, and costing the team dearly if it doesn't work out. You can't say "well, he was bad, but he was only 5 million". The 5 million doesn't make it okay if he's bad. The results are the problem if they are bad.

 

Finally, I see people talk about "well, I like this signing of so and so, because it still leaves them money to go out and sign someone for more". In theory, that's correct. However, they are sitting on a boatload of $$ right now, but the problem is....there isn't really anyone left to give that money to. At this point, to me, if they "use up" all of their money and have the same payroll as last year(for example), then they likely severely overpaid someone to use up what they have.

[TJseven7]

A little surprised to see so many strong reactions. At best, he's a solid 3/4. At worst, it's a one-year deal and he's Chacin-ed by the break and they're not out much since it's a one-year deal. More likely, he's a decent 4 to fill out the back of the rotation at a very reasonable cost.

 

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

 

The problem is also the definition of #2 starter. A couple years ago one of the guys here showed the pitchers rankings league wide based on ERA. 4 ERA rated much higher than you'd expect. DS has done a great job of having a guy who comes in early on tier 2 and and number of 3s. When this staff is working it has a 2 and 4 3s. You don't need a 1 to overcome the 4s and 5s if you truly don't have any. I'd suspect that Gio Davies and Woodruff were cleanly 2s. Houser and Anderson were 3s. Lyles pitched like a 1 for MKE.

 

There are a lot more Chacin's throwing in the MLB than you think. We just assume everyone has guys throwing 3.0 ERAs.

 

Fun with numbers. What do you want to see? Pitchers under 4.5 era with 20 starts min by team. I'm taking requests.

 

Spoiler, you'll be stunned where Woodruff and Anderson show up on the list.

[liveforoctober]

A little surprised to see so many strong reactions. At best, he's a solid 3/4. At worst, it's a one-year deal and he's Chacin-ed by the break and they're not out much since it's a one-year deal. More likely, he's a decent 4 to fill out the back of the rotation at a very reasonable cost.

 

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Which brings me to my next point..I see everyone when they sign a cheap guy like this say "well, if he bombs, he only cost xxx amount of money, as if the low amount of money mitigates the disaster. Only in reality, you shouldn't look at it in terms of what he costs as far as it not making it bad..the RESULTS are what end up being bad, and costing the team dearly if it doesn't work out. You can't say "well, he was bad, but he was only 5 million". The 5 million doesn't make it okay if he's bad. The results are the problem if they are bad.

 

Finally, I see people talk about "well, I like this signing of so and so, because it still leaves them money to go out and sign someone for more". In theory, that's correct. However, they are sitting on a boatload of $$ right now, but the problem is....there isn't really anyone left to give that money to. At this point, to me, if they "use up" all of their money and have the same payroll as last year(for example), then they likely severely overpaid someone to use up what they have.

 

What is your definition of a #2 pitcher?

[Soupbone]

I really don't think the big additions we are all hoping for are coming via free agency. As Brewcrewin07 stated above there aren't a lot of "good" guys left. My thinking is that our way of getting the key missing pieces we all want is going to happen via the trade market. There are some names available that would be interesting additions for the Brewers. The problem is the cost.

[Pugger]

I am just going to get out in front of this before it gets out of control...let's chill with the terrible signing stuff. This is a cheap, depth signing that probably cost the Brewers a few million bucks and he may not even end up making the rotation. Given his injury history I bet the deal doesn't have a ton of guaranteed money and is pretty incentive laden. Extremely low risk deal and if he ends up being terrible its not going to cost much for the Brewers to let him go.

 

this

[Pugger]

 

There are a lot of negative comments, however, the constant "everything is great" comments can be a bore too. Giving lectures on how people should feel is also pretty old here...

 

Ok? But everything is great. We've made the playoffs two consecutive years during what was supposed to be a rebuilding period, and we arguably have the most effective GM in the sport. Plenty of Yankees jerseys for sale online if you want to follow a team that splashes $300M on a perennial Cy Young contender.

 

The Yankees are the best team money can buy.

[Pugger]

 

Did Stearns come out and announce that the Brewers 2020 rotation is now in place, and I missed it? Is it Feb 13th? Because I’m pretty sure my calendar says Dec 13th...

 

Nope. Each move we make I read posts like we are done for the offseason. I don't get it.

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of negative Nellies here who will fret no matter what Stearns does. He signs Anderson and its a mistake because of his injury history. If he signs a big name its a mistake because we have too much money in one player when we have so many other needs on the roster.

 

On another forum there is a guy who wants Stearns to trade Hader for a boat load of prospects.

[JimH5]

Brett Anderson is fine.

 

I do wonder why the A's didn't bring him back for that money, but they have a lot of young pitchers for their rotation. The Brewers don't, so until they do, it will be more of these cheap, one-year flier types. Twelve guys made starts for the Brewers last year, so it's possible to patch together a staff with guys like Brett Anderson.

[Ennder]

Anderson wouldn't have made their starting rotation assuming they go with Luzardo and Puck, and I think he is the type of guy you want starting in the majors every chance you can get while he is healthy.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Why does a rotation need to be filled, in order, from top to bottom? The Brewers lacked a 3 yesterday morning, and they went out and got a guy that performed like one last year for a very affordable rate. Check. Doesn't exclude them from pursuing additional SP help.

[tigerbrew]

1) Woodruff

2) Lauer

3) Houser

4) Anderson

5) Lindblom

 

I really hope this is not the final plan to be the rotation cause that's just plain gross. I like all the cheap additions and low risk signings, but they have one guy who is a proven starter and then a bunch of guys you would expect a 90 loss team to trot out there. That just does not sound promising.

 

Agree that the current rotation doesn't look good especially if we want to contend. I hope Stearns is getting a #1 SP and move Woodruff to #2 to improve the rotation.

 

I much prefer Houser to be in the bullpen where he has been great.

 

I think Lindblom is a good addition, Lauer got rushed up but he is a very good prospect, Anderson is more like the 5th starter and he seems like an injury waiting to happen.

 

Stearns please get a #1 SP so that we can contend for the WS while we still have Yelich.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

A little surprised to see so many strong reactions. At best, he's a solid 3/4. At worst, it's a one-year deal and he's Chacin-ed by the break and they're not out much since it's a one-year deal. More likely, he's a decent 4 to fill out the back of the rotation at a very reasonable cost.

 

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Which brings me to my next point..I see everyone when they sign a cheap guy like this say "well, if he bombs, he only cost xxx amount of money, as if the low amount of money mitigates the disaster. Only in reality, you shouldn't look at it in terms of what he costs as far as it not making it bad..the RESULTS are what end up being bad, and costing the team dearly if it doesn't work out. You can't say "well, he was bad, but he was only 5 million". The 5 million doesn't make it okay if he's bad. The results are the problem if they are bad.

 

Finally, I see people talk about "well, I like this signing of so and so, because it still leaves them money to go out and sign someone for more". In theory, that's correct. However, they are sitting on a boatload of $$ right now, but the problem is....there isn't really anyone left to give that money to. At this point, to me, if they "use up" all of their money and have the same payroll as last year(for example), then they likely severely overpaid someone to use up what they have.

 

You repeatedly say that you are looking for "proven" guys, and Anderson went 13-9 with a 3.8 ERA last year. He carries an ERA just over 4 in 176 career starts. He isn't an ace, but he's a proven MLB-caliber mid-rotation starting pitcher. I just don't think that the Brewers are ever going to be in the market for the big name over-hyped guys that you seen to be craving.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

1) Woodruff

2) Lauer

3) Houser

4) Anderson

5) Lindblom

 

I really hope this is not the final plan to be the rotation cause that's just plain gross. I like all the cheap additions and low risk signings, but they have one guy who is a proven starter and then a bunch of guys you would expect a 90 loss team to trot out there. That just does not sound promising.

 

Agree that the current rotation doesn't look good especially if we want to contend. I hope Stearns is getting a #1 SP and move Woodruff to #2 to improve the rotation.

 

I much prefer Houser to be in the bullpen where he has been great.

 

I think Lindblom is a good addition, Lauer got rushed up but he is a very good prospect, Anderson is more like the 5th starter and he seems like an injury waiting to happen.

 

Stearns please get a #1 SP so that we can contend for the WS while we still have Yelich.

 

I disagree. Right now the current makeup of the rotation is very similar to what it's been the last three years. Of course, this team has been a contender the last three years. Especially in 2018, when they were one bad inning from a World Series birth.

[tigerbrew]

1) Woodruff

2) Lauer

3) Houser

4) Anderson

5) Lindblom

 

I really hope this is not the final plan to be the rotation cause that's just plain gross. I like all the cheap additions and low risk signings, but they have one guy who is a proven starter and then a bunch of guys you would expect a 90 loss team to trot out there. That just does not sound promising.

 

Agree that the current rotation doesn't look good especially if we want to contend. I hope Stearns is getting a #1 SP and move Woodruff to #2 to improve the rotation.

 

I much prefer Houser to be in the bullpen where he has been great.

 

I think Lindblom is a good addition, Lauer got rushed up but he is a very good prospect, Anderson is more like the 5th starter and he seems like an injury waiting to happen.

 

Stearns please get a #1 SP so that we can contend for the WS while we still have Yelich.

 

I disagree. Right now the current makeup of the rotation is very similar to what it's been the last three years. Of course, this team has been a contender the last three years. Especially in 2018, when they were one bad inning from a World Series birth.

 

The last 3 years, We didn't win a WS, we didn't even make the world series. The Brewers have never won a WS.

 

Since we have been unsuccessful in winning a WS the last 3 years with this rotation makeup, wouldn't it make sense to do something different like improving the rotation?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The last 3 years, We didn't win a WS, we didn't even make the world series. The Brewers have never won a WS.

 

Since we have been unsuccessful in winning a WS the last 3 years with this rotation makeup, wouldn't it make sense to do something different like improving the rotation?

 

I'd agree, if the performance of the starting pitching was the overriding reason for the team not moving on in the playoffs in 2018 and 2019. The playoff starting pitching has been very good, though. Once you make the playoffs, it's a whole different dynamic. The starting staff has been effective enough to get them to the tourney. That's what's most important.

[JimH5]

It's a very long season.

 

I think they're operating on the Sabathia model. They'll get an ace when they have proven to be a contender and only for the part of the season when his salary is most meaningful.

[Ennder]

The last 3 years, We didn't win a WS, we didn't even make the world series. The Brewers have never won a WS.

 

Since we have been unsuccessful in winning a WS the last 3 years with this rotation makeup, wouldn't it make sense to do something different like improving the rotation?

 

There is no significant difference between making the World Series and not making in 2018 when evaluating player talent. They came one pitch away from making it. That means the talent was in place to make it. They don't need to change a thing. Also making the World Series being your only barometer for judging a team is just a really poor way to look at things.

 

I would like to see them sign one more solid non injury guy for sure to add depth.

[Brewcrewin07]

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Why does a rotation need to be filled, in order, from top to bottom? The Brewers lacked a 3 yesterday morning, and they went out and got a guy that performed like one last year for a very affordable rate. Check. Doesn't exclude them from pursuing additional SP help.

 

Because it's Woodruff, and then all a bunch of "flyers" in reality. They may work out fine, they may not. It really amazes me how so many Brewer fans like and get excited about these "cheap" signings, and how they are "great value". Well, for one thing, they are cheap for a reason. Could they be good?? Sure they could be, and that would be fine. But when it doesn't work out, it will be disastrous. Not in terms of money(which to me is irrelevant, results are what matter), but in terms of results. Going on what we know now, and who will be in the rotation, what happens if/when 2 of 3 of Lindblom, Lauer and Anderson don't work out?? You are down to one reliable starter in Woodruff, and no real remedy to fix the disastrous results the other 3 gave you, as the hole they have dug you is likely too deep to get out of, even if it's fairly early. Look what happened last year in going with the 3 young arms to start the year. Burnes was an unmitigated disaster and so was Peralta in the rotation.

 

It took an unprecedented late season run to get into the wild card game and even though the team had other problems, to me, the decision to go with those young guys in the rotation was a big reason they had to make a late season run.

 

The Brewers give themselves such a thin margin for error every year with putting a staff together, sure they may have decent depth if one or two guys go down, but you are just replacing them with another guy that's virtually the same pitcher and one who makes you hold your breath damn near every time he goes out there because you worry about them getting lit up.

 

I guess I don't really understand the organizational philosophy to essentially "ignore" pitching and focus so much on hitting. Yes, I love a team that can put up a lot of runs, that is always fun, but i also dislike having a staff in which you never know what you are going to get on a night in night out basis. One night you might get a gem from one of the castoffs, the next night one of them gets lit up, essentially negating the gem you got the night before.

 

I would like to see them have at least two top end guys who you pretty much know what you are going to get every night. Sure they will have bad nights, everyone does, but you know it's an anomaly as opposed to the norm.

 

Others in this thread have said it..at some point don't you HAVE to take pitching more seriously, and make a splash signing?? Especially with 3 more years of Yelich control. Yes, TOR guys are expensive, I get that, and maybe Mark A would have to raise payroll levels higher then he would like(even though their payroll COULD be higher, he just doesn't want it to be) for 3 years, sometimes you have to take chances to be successful, good business people like Mark A know that.

[LouisEly]

You should probably use Houser’s stats only as a starter so as to not have inaccurate results that are misleading.

Adrian Houser's 2019:

 

1st half: 19 G, 5 GS, 42.2 IP, 4.01 ERA, 9.9 K/9, 2.47 K/BB, 1.453 WHIP, .796 OPS-A

2nd half: 16 G, 13 GS, 68.2 IP, 3.54 ERA, 9.2 K/9, 3.89 K/BB, 1.107 WHIP, .656 OPS-A

 

Let's not let a couple of bad starts early in the year when he was being yanked back and forth between the majors and AAA and between the bullpen and starting cloud judgment of his season. Once he had a regular, defined role in the 2nd half he did very well.

 

(The three relief appearances in the 2nd half he had a 3.60 ERA, essentially the same as his ERA as a starter in the 2nd half, and a 7.2 K/9 so it's not like he had three lights-out relief outings bringing down his 2nd half numbers.)

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

There's been plenty of big-name "splash" starting pitcher signings who have turned out to be terrible over the years. Signing a big-name pitcher guarantees you nothing other than owing that guy a lot of money.

 

In the interest of keeping this thread from turning into yet another debate on signing pitchers to $100 million deals, lets keep it on Brett Anderson. If he stays healthy, he's a solid MLB starter for a team that is in need of solid MLB starters.

[PeaveyFury]

Others in this thread have said it..at some point don't you HAVE to take pitching more seriously, and make a splash signing?? Especially with 3 more years of Yelich control. Yes, TOR guys are expensive, I get that, and maybe Mark A would have to raise payroll levels higher then he would like(even though their payroll COULD be higher, he just doesn't want it to be) for 3 years, sometimes you have to take chances to be successful, good business people like Mark A know that.

 

The Brewers are better at this than we are, and have more than earned the benefit of the doubt. People bemoan a signing like Anderson, possibly because they've never heard of the guy before yesterday, but don't acknowledge that he had a great season in 2019 and could well be an anchor in the rotation. People fall in love with names, but in reality, this contract is no more of a 'flyer' than the gamble a team like Washington is taking on Strasburg not imploding in his mid-late 30s and being on the hook for a crippling amount of money.

 

In reality, this is why the Brewers are better off giving themselves 6-8 viable starting options, so that IF a guy like Anderson or whomever don't work out, they can move on quickly to another alternate option rather than putting all their eggs in one potentially franchise-crippling basket.

[Oxy]

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Why does a rotation need to be filled, in order, from top to bottom? The Brewers lacked a 3 yesterday morning, and they went out and got a guy that performed like one last year for a very affordable rate. Check. Doesn't exclude them from pursuing additional SP help.

 

Because it's Woodruff, and then all a bunch of "flyers" in reality. They may work out fine, they may not. It really amazes me how so many Brewer fans like and get excited about these "cheap" signings, and how they are "great value". Well, for one thing, they are cheap for a reason. Could they be good?? Sure they could be, and that would be fine. But when it doesn't work out, it will be disastrous. Not in terms of money(which to me is irrelevant, results are what matter), but in terms of results. Going on what we know now, and who will be in the rotation, what happens if/when 2 of 3 of Lindblom, Lauer and Anderson don't work out?? You are down to one reliable starter in Woodruff, and no real remedy to fix the disastrous results the other 3 gave you, as the hole they have dug you is likely too deep to get out of, even if it's fairly early. Look what happened last year in going with the 3 young arms to start the year. Burnes was an unmitigated disaster and so was Peralta in the rotation.

 

It took an unprecedented late season run to get into the wild card game and even though the team had other problems, to me, the decision to go with those young guys in the rotation was a big reason they had to make a late season run.

 

The Brewers give themselves such a thin margin for error every year with putting a staff together, sure they may have decent depth if one or two guys go down, but you are just replacing them with another guy that's virtually the same pitcher and one who makes you hold your breath damn near every time he goes out there because you worry about them getting lit up.

 

I guess I don't really understand the organizational philosophy to essentially "ignore" pitching and focus so much on hitting. Yes, I love a team that can put up a lot of runs, that is always fun, but i also dislike having a staff in which you never know what you are going to get on a night in night out basis. One night you might get a gem from one of the castoffs, the next night one of them gets lit up, essentially negating the gem you got the night before.

 

I would like to see them have at least two top end guys who you pretty much know what you are going to get every night. Sure they will have bad nights, everyone does, but you know it's an anomaly as opposed to the norm.

 

Others in this thread have said it..at some point don't you HAVE to take pitching more seriously, and make a splash signing?? Especially with 3 more years of Yelich control. Yes, TOR guys are expensive, I get that, and maybe Mark A would have to raise payroll levels higher then he would like(even though their payroll COULD be higher, he just doesn't want it to be) for 3 years, sometimes you have to take chances to be successful, good business people like Mark A know that.

 

 

Cheap contracts can never be a disaster. If they are no good, you cut them and try again. Darvish, Cueto, Chris Archer and Jordan Zimmerman can't really be cut. Those teams are stuck paying them for poor to middling results.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/contracts/starting-pitcher/

 

A. Which of these contracts do you wish the Brewers had? Do you think that player would have signed with the Brewers for that contract?

B. Which of these contracts are you glad the Brewers DON'T have?

C. What makes you think if the Brewers "make a splash" by signing a free agent it will end up in column A 2 years down the road instead of column B?

 

D. Imagine that the Brewers had signed Yu Darvish (or John Lester or Johnny Cueto or Chris Archer) instead of Joulys Chacin before 2018. How many playoff appearances would we have made in the last 2 years? Would you still think the Brewers needed to make a bigger splash than they did by signing Darvish?

 

E. Do you see now why it is better to have a cheap player fail than it is to have a long-term expensive contract player fail?

[superfly]

 

Couple of things...you're right, at best he's a solid 3/4...the problem is and has been, Stearns signs guys that should be NO better than really 4-5 guys and one of them has to be a 2. He's been playing russian roulette with the rotation and so far it's worked, but it's not sustainable.

 

Why does a rotation need to be filled, in order, from top to bottom? The Brewers lacked a 3 yesterday morning, and they went out and got a guy that performed like one last year for a very affordable rate. Check. Doesn't exclude them from pursuing additional SP help.

 

Because it's Woodruff, and then all a bunch of "flyers" in reality. They may work out fine, they may not. It really amazes me how so many Brewer fans like and get excited about these "cheap" signings, and how they are "great value". Well, for one thing, they are cheap for a reason. Could they be good?? Sure they could be, and that would be fine. But when it doesn't work out, it will be disastrous. Not in terms of money(which to me is irrelevant, results are what matter), but in terms of results. Going on what we know now, and who will be in the rotation, what happens if/when 2 of 3 of Lindblom, Lauer and Anderson don't work out?? You are down to one reliable starter in Woodruff, and no real remedy to fix the disastrous results the other 3 gave you, as the hole they have dug you is likely too deep to get out of, even if it's fairly early. Look what happened last year in going with the 3 young arms to start the year. Burnes was an unmitigated disaster and so was Peralta in the rotation.

 

It took an unprecedented late season run to get into the wild card game and even though the team had other problems, to me, the decision to go with those young guys in the rotation was a big reason they had to make a late season run.

 

The Brewers give themselves such a thin margin for error every year with putting a staff together, sure they may have decent depth if one or two guys go down, but you are just replacing them with another guy that's virtually the same pitcher and one who makes you hold your breath damn near every time he goes out there because you worry about them getting lit up.

 

I guess I don't really understand the organizational philosophy to essentially "ignore" pitching and focus so much on hitting. Yes, I love a team that can put up a lot of runs, that is always fun, but i also dislike having a staff in which you never know what you are going to get on a night in night out basis. One night you might get a gem from one of the castoffs, the next night one of them gets lit up, essentially negating the gem you got the night before.

 

I would like to see them have at least two top end guys who you pretty much know what you are going to get every night. Sure they will have bad nights, everyone does, but you know it's an anomaly as opposed to the norm.

 

Others in this thread have said it..at some point don't you HAVE to take pitching more seriously, and make a splash signing?? Especially with 3 more years of Yelich control. Yes, TOR guys are expensive, I get that, and maybe Mark A would have to raise payroll levels higher then he would like(even though their payroll COULD be higher, he just doesn't want it to be) for 3 years, sometimes you have to take chances to be successful, good business people like Mark A know that.

 

I don’t know why we must always “settle” for mediocre Walmart shopping prices on pitching. It’s almost like people get even more excited about getting a guy for a million dollars than having a guy in the rotation with a proven pedigree. The allure of living in Las Vegas every night with your starting pitching isn’t as much fun to me as it is to some apparently. Oh my god somebody gave Zack Wheeler 118 million, that’s crazy! No it’s not crazy, that’s called paying for proven track record results. That’s why Adrian houser makes minimum salary with a small sample size of similar numbers.

 

Now please feel free to give the lecture on how we have limited money, a small market blah blah blah.

[tigerbrew]

The last 3 years, We didn't win a WS, we didn't even make the world series. The Brewers have never won a WS.

 

Since we have been unsuccessful in winning a WS the last 3 years with this rotation makeup, wouldn't it make sense to do something different like improving the rotation?

 

There is no significant difference between making the World Series and not making in 2018 when evaluating player talent. They came one pitch away from making it. That means the talent was in place to make it. They don't need to change a thing. Also making the World Series being your only barometer for judging a team is just a really poor way to look at things.

 

I would like to see them sign one more solid non injury guy for sure to add depth.

 

It is not the only barometer, but it is a key barometer when we've an MVP player in our team. Winning the WS is a barometer and the key goal of Stearns and Mark A, I've heard them saying it.

 

The Marlins, Royals, Astros, Cards and even Cubs have won the WS, it would be nice for the Brewers to win it at least once.

 

As a Bucks fan, the key goal and barometer this season is to win the championship with our MVP player.

[Oxy]

 

I don’t know why we must always “settle” for mediocre Walmart shopping prices on pitching. It’s almost like people get even more excited about getting a guy for a million dollars than having a guy in the rotation with a proven pedigree. The allure of living in Las Vegas every night with your starting pitching isn’t as much fun to me as it is to some apparently.

 

Now please feel free to give the lecture on how we have limited money, a small market blah blah blah.

 

Because when a large contract player fails or even just doesn't live up to the contract--you have to continually live with bad results. You can't cut them and you can't trade them. You are stuck with them AND you have to pay them, which means that money you are paying for BAD results goes against your budget and keeps you from getting ANY other player, cheap or not. The Miami Marlins are paying Wei-Yin Chen $22,000,000 next year. Do you know who Wei-Yin Chen is? Me neither.

 

How many WS have the Yankees won in the last 10 years?