LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2  [ 34 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Lyles was a money thing, right?

Author Message
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#21

Posted: May 23, 2019, 6:22 AM Post
Posts: 3682
Most pitchers are volatile year to year. Selling high on Hader would have been a genius move too. The guesswork as to which pitchers will produce year to year is somewhat akin to picking stocks, the goal is to win more than you lose.

The David Stearns era: Controllable Young Talent. Watch the Jedi work his magic!


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#22

Posted: July 18, 2019, 11:56 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2551
*Ehem*


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#23

Posted: July 18, 2019, 12:00 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 12696
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Oh, he stinks again? Shocker. [laughing]


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#24

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:11 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 354
Location: Chicago
Brew4U said:
Oh, he stinks again? Shocker. [laughing]


If he ‘stinks’ what does that say about Burnes, Wilkerson, Burch Smith, Jay Jackson, Alex Wilson, Petricka?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#25

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:22 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2551
Jopal78! said:
Brew4U said:
Oh, he stinks again? Shocker. [laughing]


If he ‘stinks’ what does that say about Burnes, Wilkerson, Burch Smith, Jay Jackson, Alex Wilson, Petricka?


One of the bigger regrets I have is not posting, "in, before he is compared to our current pitching."


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#26

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:29 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1619
14 ER in 4.2 IP in two starts against the Cubs. That's one way to go from a good season to falling back in line with his career averages. [sad]


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#27

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:40 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 354
Location: Chicago
bill hAll Star said:
Jopal78! said:
Brew4U said:
Oh, he stinks again? Shocker. [laughing]


If he ‘stinks’ what does that say about Burnes, Wilkerson, Burch Smith, Jay Jackson, Alex Wilson, Petricka?


One of the bigger regrets I have is not posting, "in, before he is compared to our current pitching."


But that is the point. The Brewers dropped him (presumably over money), and it weakened the overall talent of the pitching staff. Lyles isn’t a world beater but he’s effective at soaking up innings and keeping his team in the game. The last couple spots that n the Brewers staff haven’t been able to do that


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#28

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:43 PM Post
Posts: 11126
Ha....these hot takes aren't aging to well it seems.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#29

Posted: July 18, 2019, 1:53 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2551
Jopal78! said:
bill hAll Star said:
Jopal78! said:

If he ‘stinks’ what does that say about Burnes, Wilkerson, Burch Smith, Jay Jackson, Alex Wilson, Petricka?


One of the bigger regrets I have is not posting, "in, before he is compared to our current pitching."


But that is the point. The Brewers dropped him (presumably over money), and it weakened the overall talent of the pitching staff. Lyles isn’t a world beater but he’s effective at soaking up innings and keeping his team in the game. The last couple spots that n the Brewers staff haven’t been able to do that


Going into when they decided this before the season, given that Lyles probably needed to/wanted to be on an MLB roster, would you have taken Lyles over Burnes, Woodruff, etc?

To start the year they had Chacin, Woodruff, Anderson, Davies, Burnes, Guerra, Hader, Knebel, Jeffress, Peralta, Albers, Claudio.

That's 12 pitchers right there with Nelson eventually coming back. Albers they needed to keep and Claudio was acquired later, but even one with a negative outlook on him wouldn't complain about a guy that could/should be a LOOGY being there.

So the problem has been injuries and minors depth. They ended up spending the money on Gio once injuries hit anyways who is probably functionally the same as Lyles other than the fact that he's dealt with more injuries this year.

They had roughly 13 MLB pitchers already. I don't know what Lyles' situation is but I'm not sure they wanted to just stash him in the minors for $2.5 million even if they could.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#30

Posted: July 18, 2019, 2:06 PM Post
Posts: 4851
Location: New Berlin, WI
bill hAll Star said:
Going into when they decided this before the season, given that Lyles probably needed to/wanted to be on an MLB roster, would you have taken Lyles over Burnes, Woodruff, etc?

To start the year they had Chacin, Woodruff, Anderson, Davies, Burnes, Guerra, Hader, Knebel, Jeffress, Peralta, Albers, Claudio.

That's 12 pitchers right there with Nelson eventually coming back. Albers they needed to keep and Claudio was acquired later, but even one with a negative outlook on him wouldn't complain about a guy that could/should be a LOOGY being there.

So the problem has been injuries and minors depth. They ended up spending the money on Gio once injuries hit anyways who is probably functionally the same as Lyles other than the fact that he's dealt with more injuries this year.

They had roughly 13 MLB pitchers already. I don't know what Lyles' situation is but I'm not sure they wanted to just stash him in the minors for $2.5 million even if they could.


It's so easy to monday morning quarterback this stuff. Why'd we get rid of Garrett Cooper again? Why'd we let Sogard walk? Guys seriously questioning not keeping Lyles...please join my fantasy baseball league.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#31

Posted: July 18, 2019, 2:26 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 354
Location: Chicago
It’s all relative. 2017 they missed the post season by one game. One extra win here and there has the potential to be important in September. I don’t think there’s much doubt that a little better quality of depth on the 40 man would have resulted in a few more wins this year already.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#32

Posted: July 18, 2019, 4:52 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 8026
Lyles seems like an odd hill to die on... the Brewers assumed that Lyles, at his career norms, wasn't worth the money owed. After a great start in a very small sample, he's reverted to his career norms. Seems like the Brewers made the right choice at the time based on that.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#33

Posted: July 18, 2019, 5:35 PM Post
Posts: 176
I wasn't opposed to Lyles as a depth piece, but the guy I wanted to keep was Miley. In order I thought they should keep 1 of Miley, Gio, then Lyles. I guess we ended up with 1 of them, so we still need to see how Gio actually does.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lyles was a money thing, right?
#34

Posted: July 18, 2019, 6:35 PM Post
Posts: 844
Location: Wisconsin
In his last 7 starts, which were interrupted by a stint on the DL and include 3 starts against the Brewers, Lyles has an ERA over 10.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2  [ 34 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bill hAll Star, Bombers, Brew crew 92, ecjimg, monkeyman343434, Roderick, SeaBass, treego14 and 17 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test