gregmag

As a guy who lives in StL, which like a lot of places has a lot of racial tension, I'm very happy the Cards, who are basically a civic religion here, finally signed an African-American player long term. Their dearth of African-American players since 2005 (basically one season of Jason Heyward and two months of Edwin Jackson in 11 years) has been borderline creepy -- hard to explain as accidental or random. I know this doesn't matter as a baseball issue, but I think it's good for the city and the fan base. As a Brewers fan who passionately hates the Cardinals, I love this signing. The guy just had his best season at 30. He doesn't have a standout skill, and he already profiles as mostly having an older player's skill set. He should be in thorough decline right about when the Brewers get good again. Plus losing the draft pick? The Cards can do signings like this all day and I'll be a happy man.

I don't quite follow your logic here, but you seem to be saying "if you want to talk about the possibility Thornburg will fail, then we also have to talk about the possibility the possibility the guys we got back will fail." That makes perfect sense. But then you turn around and say "if, on the other hand, Thornburg succeeds, then it's a terrible trade." That makes no sense at all. By what seems to be your own logic, if we're going to talk about the possibility Thornburg will succeed, then don't we also have to talk about the possibility the guys we got back will succeed? If Thornburg is a star closer for Boston for three years, and if Shaw's an above-average starter at 3b, Dubon holds his power gains, and Pennington turns into even a legit bullpen weapon, then I'd say it's a pretty great trade for both sides. Maybe what you're trying to say is that you think the guys we got back are more likely to fail than Thornburg. Fair enough, and I'd take that bet. Boston's staking everything on a half season of star-quality performance from an undersized pitcher with a surgically repaired shoulder. We're getting 17 years of control of three very different sorts of players, each of whom has a realistic (not to say likely) path toward having a much better career than Thornburg going forward. Boston's in this for leverage. We're in it for total return, and by that measure it's hard to see us losing. What are the odds that Shaw alone is worth more WAR (or its theoretical equivalent of anyone's choice) over the next three years than Thornburg? They have to be better than 50-50, maybe more like 70-30, given that a reliever needs to pitch out of his mind to win you three games in the 60-80 innings he pitches.

Not many teams are in a full blown rebuild with three near elite relievers that are experienced and controllable. What we had was a luxury and not all that common. Also, grooming closers is risky. If you're the Red Sox, with pressure and opportunity to win now, you need a closer you can trust. You can't hold auditions. For us, the risk of holding auditions is nil. If we try Knebel as our closer and he flops and costs us three games, we just shrug and turn to Marinez or whomever. If that happens in Boston, heads roll. Maybe this is stupid. Maybe contending teams should be growing and auditioning their own closers, because the marginal risk matters less than having to blow up your talent pipeline. GMs are pretty smart now, so I'm inclined to think they know what they're doing, but bubbles happen. We'll see over time how the relief market plays out.

Here's another thing about this trade. People have said pieces of this, but I'm going to try to put the pieces together. I don't love Travis Shaw, but here's why I love *getting* Travis Shaw: He helps us maximize a whole bunch of resources. Villar gets to play what everyone seems to think is his best defensive position. Perez gets slotted into what I and others believe is his optimal position as supersub. Thames doesn't face any pressure to play him at 3b, which seems likely to be a defensive stretch for him. Gennett's proper role, trade bait, gets solidified. Getting Shaw puts the whole infield roster into better positions to succeed. Putting guys in comfortable defensive positions can help their offensive performance as well. This is why rebuilding teams should get veterans: for plugging holes not so much to win games but more to avoid having to stretch guys whom you're counting on. Villar, and to a lesser extent Perez, and in a different way Gennett are important for our development. Used properly, as players or (exclusively in Scooter's case) trade bait, they can help our next good team. Putting them in the best position to realize their value is really important.

I was all set to say this, but you said it first and better. This is a huge point. The closer's slot is like a value-inflating machine. We can grow a resource that we don't need but for which other teams will overpay. Our new closer can add a lot more value by the trade deadline or the next offseason than TT would have added even with a dominant season. Of course, our next closer could flop, but TT could also regress or have a shoulder explosion. Trading closers fast in this market makes a ton of sense.

I wanted to say something about this in the TT trade thread, but I think maybe we're getting a bit out of control in how we're valuing relievers. CONTENDERS place a high value on CONSISTENTLY DOMINANT RELIEVERS because they're in a place where, say, a 30 percent greater chance of winning one key game has enormous value. Three things about that: (1) If you aren't a contender, you don't care about that margin, and relievers are a foolish investment. You just need a competent bullpen so that your pitching staff doesn't implode, and we have plenty of warm bodies that can fill that need as well as JJ. For a noncontender, a reliever has only his basic value: that of a guy who pitches maybe 60-70 innings. Market forces aside, just looking at raw game-winning value, TT for Travis Shaw straight up would have been very reasonable (and I'm not a big Shaw fan). (2) If a reliever isn't well established as a shutdown guy, his value is drastically less. That's why I love the return for TT. He's had one excellent season, with less than half of it as a closer, and he's had medical issues. If he becomes a top-tier reliever, more power to him, but he isn't there and isn't a better bet to get there than not. (3) The present market could be largely wrong; it really may be a bubble. The reliever market may be inflated on the "shiny object" theory, the shiny object in this case being the Royals' recent success. That possibility is a reason by itself to be wary of paying market price for an established reliever like JJ right now.

Great call, Briggs. I like this a lot even though I think there's a real chance Thames will flop. Mainly I like this use of a roster spot a lot more than I would have liked re-signing Carter at market value. As others have said, Carter won't improve; Thames, in a weird way, has upside. If Thames ends up as even a two-win player this move will look brilliant. If he flops, he won't do much harm. A contract like this is nothing to the Brewers right now. It seems we now have three guys -- Thames, Santana, and Braun -- who might fit either at 1b or corner of.

I'm not sure I can remember a draft when so many guys after the season at least retained some chance of being good. To put it another way, we have an awful lot of 2016 draftees who didn't immediately prove that they were stiffs. If one or two of these sleepers ultimately amounts to something, this draft will probably end up looking really good in five years.

Dang a back-up catcher with average defense! That has to get one excited. Relax, they only gave up a 42 HR, 102 RBI controllable bat in his prime to get him. I'm just curious: If Nottingham puts it together and helps the Brewers in a few years, while Davis fades from his present adequacy (oooh -- rbi!) into mediocrity, will you have the grace and stomach to admit you were wrong? Or will you just never talk about the subject again, like you've done after you complained so loudly about our trades of the mighty, world-beating Adam Lind and Jason Rogers? Repeating the same, tired claims over and over again is the easiest thing in the world. I guess that makes it equally easy just to slink away into the shadows and hide when the claims turn out to be wrong, as yours usually do.

OPS+ is, I believe, park adjusted. It has Carter at 114 for 2016, 102 for 2015, 123 for 2014, 112 career. Those numbers don't surprise me, based on my prior knowledge of him. It's quite reasonable to say that he was about at his career norms last year. I don't think it's reasonable to say that he didn't bounce back last year from a subpar 2015. More importantly, if somebody doesn't get Chris Carter to use the X-Files theme as his walk-up music, I will continue to be less happy than I optimally could be.

Based on what we have now, Santana should end up at 1b; the only question is when. At the same time, I can't see Carter as a non-tender. Surely we could get something for him. Gennett doesn't fit where the team is going. What's helpful is that Villar's and Perez's versatility gives us a lot of flexibility. If we get a good deal for Scooter this winter, great. If we have to start the season with him, fine. I agree that we should be looking for another infielder, preferably at 3b but I'm not as confident as many people seem to be that Villar would be a train wreck at 3b. Right now I'd be willing to consider Villar at either position to leave us in a more flexible position.

That's exactly the way it works. There is a lot of luck that goes into determining a team's final record. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/ I was pretty alone last spring when I said your record is what should ultimately determine how much talent you had. I don't think i ever explained why I think we should look at records to determine talent levels very well. I think part of my problem with just writing it off as luck is the danger of assuming the metrics we used to determine talent level is right even when the record says it isn't. People have an idea that certain metrics determine player value and the culmination of all those metrics determine the relative talent level of the team. When the team's actual performance level doesn't match the predetermined talent level it is just written off as luck. Maybe it is but isn't predetermining talent levels and ignoring what actually happens in the only stat that matters a dangerous precedent to set? Especially when we are talking about a game that evolves over time. By the time we get enough stats to know something the dynamics of why it was so important to begin with may very well have changed. Shouldn't we start by assuming how many wins a team has is it's actual talent level and then go about determining why our metrics didn't predict the end result? Shouldn't the metrics we use be the first thing we question instead of just writing it off as luck? it just seems backwards to me to say we know what makes a good team and the fact that it didn't turn out that way was just random luck. Isn't that essentially saying our numbers were right and reality got it wrong? People have actually thought and written a whole lot about this over the years. The best summary I can offer, filtered obviously through my own viewpoint, goes like this. We've developed statistical tools and metrics that we have very good reasons to believe explain a lot of what happens in baseball. When those metrics fail to explain something, we either reexamine the metrics or we acknowledge that, though the metrics do useful work, their explanatory power has limits. Then we look at those limits, the stuff our existing metrics can't explain, and try to figure out a different way to explain that stuff. Variation happens in nature and in baseball. A guy who hits .300 over the course of the year hits .260; a team that outscores the opposition by 35 runs finishes at .500. When something like that happens, baseball statheads generally haven't just thrown up their arms and chalked it up to random variation. They've pushed for more knowledge. Bullpens can explain some variation in how well a team does in close games. BABIP can explain some fluctuations in batting average, and batted ball data can explain some fluctuations in BABIP. People have spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure this stuff out. But yeah, random variation -- "luck" -- exists. IMHO to deny that random variation affects outcomes in baseball is both highly implausible -- why should baseball differ from the rest of reality? -- and corrosive of good analysis, because you have to start making questionable assertions that are usually hard to support (like "clutch hitting is a skill" or "teams win or lose one-run games because of grit or character"). You're certainly right that reflexively chalking up all unexplained variation to luck is also corrosive of good analysis. But IMHO you're overstating the extent to which smart people do that.

Apparently now that your "Santana is worthless" refrain has been exposed as indefensible, this is going to be the new thing you say over and over and over and (please make it stop) over with the hope that people will believe repetition in the absence of reason. The statement, first of all, has very little hard support. Santana OPSd .726 in 2016 against RHP. That's not a number that calls for a platoon. He has shown steady improvement against RHP in his young career. On top of the hard evidence, he's going into just his age 24 season and still developing. You don't platoon a young player with big-time power potential who has performed adequately against same-side pitchers. Your hypocrisy on this point, btw, is breathtaking. You spent years making every conceivable excuse for Gennett's world-historically awful performance against LHPs. He isn't getting enough opportunities; he has to face tough LH relievers; he's better than his results. I'm sure you feel vindicated now that Gennett has shown some improvement against lefties. Guess what? Gennett OPSd .708 against lefties this year in 108 PA (at age 26). Santana OPSd .726 against righties in 192 PA (at age 23). So of course Gennett should play every day and Santana should be platooned. (Oh, speaking of Gennett, I have to love the original post's reference to "the newly found power lefty hitter in Gennett." Those .412 and .381 SLGs the past two years must be making pitchers break out in cold sweats.) As for Thames, I've heard worse ideas, but I've heard better ones. If we trade Braun, get no OF back, and move Santana to first, we can maybe use a stopgap OF, and if he's a lefty that helps us win some games. If he would take any playing time away from Broxton, Liriano (who could be nothing but I want to know), Brinson (who should be up by midseason), or even Perez, or basically anyone more than a year younger than he is, then I don't want him.

If Villar and Guerra played like garbage all year would you still want the 5 less wins? Why are Villar and Guerra playing like garbage all year a prerequisite for the Brewers winning fewer games? The Brewers could have easily lucked (or unlucked I guess) their way into 5 fewer wins with exactly the same production from those two. You're right, of course, but there's a general point here that seems important. (I know this is nothing you don't already know.) If you want to maximize losses, you need to sacrifice the goal of identifying and developing useful contributors at the big league level. If on the other hand you want to identify and develop useful players at the MLB level, you're going to win some games with those guys. Of course we can root for the best of all possible worlds, and I often did. Give me a game where Davies makes a great start, Broxton, Villar, and Arcia perform well, and then Boyer coughs up the lead for a loss; that checks all my boxes. But realistically it's a tradeoff. The Brewers opted to find more guys now who can help -- trading for and playing Villar, bringing up Arcia, persevering with Broxton, effectively replacing Jungmann and first half Peralta with Guerra and Davies, etc. Tank fans have reason not to like that tradeoff, but I think most of us are happy with it.

Sometimes you just want to know what happened.

The Cubs are mostly okay, and they did a great job building that team. Thoroughly enjoying the disappointment of my St. Louis friends and neighbors.

That point about the lack of angst-stress is spot on. I lost no sleep or hair over this season. It really was a lot of fun to watch. Also, the people in charge all seem smart, well informed, and conscious of a coherent strategy.

At this point, I want that MLB K record. What the heck. League leaders in HR and SB plus the most Ks in history? No one can say this team was boring.

Gennett has been trending upward, enough that he should bring something decent back if we can find a team with a hole at 2b. Hernan has been trending downward, which supports the idea that super-sub is his ideal role. The org seems to be thinking this way on both counts, given that Villar has gotten time at 2b and Perez has gotten time everywhere. Upshot: I want Gennett gone, but I think we need a 2b or 3b (because Villar can play either) once he goes, at least for our real, contending lineup. Santana to 1b now makes more sense than Braun to 1b, especially because Braun to LA makes about as much sense as Braun to 1b. In fact, Santana to 1b is starting to seem like a no-brainer, since we have like 50 CFs in the pipeline, at least one or two of whom should work out. I'm feeling better about our rotation for where we're at in the rebuild. Hopefully two of our top minor league guys can supplant two back-of-rotation guys below by May 2018. Starting rotation: Guerra, Davies, Nelson, Peralta, Anderson; Jungmann (injury replacement) (hoping Garza's recent adequacy makes him flippable) Pen: Thornburg, Torres, Knebel, plus four of Blazek, Marinez, Suter, Scahill, Cravy, Barnes, Magnifico (presumably some among these ten guys get dealt) c: Susac, Pina time-share (trade Maldy) 1b: Santana (trade Carter) 2b: Villar / new guy (trade Scooter) 3b: new guy / Villar ss: Arcia lf: Braun (if he doesn't get dealt, obviously) cf: Broxton / Brinson (after service time delay) rf: Brinson / Broxton c: Pina / Susac time share if: Rivera of: Liriano (please be okay) supersub: Perez 25th man: maybe another reliever, preferably a position player, with Reed and Orf the best candidates right now

It's amusing to think of what happened between the two trade deadlines as effectively a three-team trade: Brewers get: OFs Lewis Brinson, Ryan Cordell, Brett Phillips, and Domingo Santana; Ps Josh Hader, Adrian Houser, and Luis Ortiz. Rangers get: C Jonathan Lucroy, OF Carlos Gomez, P Jeremy Jeffress. Astros get: P Mike Fiers. The Brewers and Rangers both got exactly what they wanted: diverse, high-level talent for the Brewers, championship-caliber contributors for the Rangers. The Astros got a no-hitter and . . . well, their organization has other wonderful qualities. BTW, I just noticed that Mike Fiers is leading the AL with 17 wild pitches -- more than his career total before this year and more than twice his previous career high. I'm not sure what to make of that. Great to see Carlos having fun again. I don't even care that he's doing it against us, because the micro-tank to the finish line is on.

We can make better use of the bag of balls. Thank goodness we have a GM who is far too smart even to consider a move like this.

To respond with the same degree of respect, attention, and detail that you show to people who disagree with you: No.

I'm trying to be objective, and I have a hard time seeing a trade that Stearns has lost. The main problem is that we're less than a year out from his trades, so it's way too early to assess impact, especially for minor leaguers. In addition, people are always going to talk about how he (or any GM) could have gotten more in a particular deal. If Jean Segura keeps hitting and Isan Diaz doesn't, we may end up losing that trade. But if they both keep hitting, or if one of the Hill trade guys pans out, or if we get something useful for Anderson, I'm more than happy with it. Maybe none of the guys in the Lind trade develops. But Lind is subreplacement this year (even though he's hit 20 count 'em 20 home runs!), and that's hardly a shock. The Mariners have to be disappointed, but they and presumably other teams offered what they did because they knew Lind was likely to decline. The Davis trade is a bigger version of the Lind trade. I like Khris Davis more than a lot of people here, and I do think he has increased his value somewhat with this season. He isn't a star, but he's a solid regular. That said, it's specious to evaluate the timing of any trade in a vacuum. If we had kept Davis this year, it would have essentially been a bigger version of the Aaron Hill gambit -- play a guy to build his trade value. With Davis soaking up PAs, we probably wouldn't know what we know about at least three of Broxton, Santana, Perez, and Flores (and, okay, Kirk), the first three of whom emerged as important players going forward. Braun would have also continued to play out of position in RF, which might have dampened his great year. We wouldn't have been able to justify another high-power, low-OBP bat, which means no Carter, which means maybe we don't use Jason Rogers to steal Broxton. It was time for Davis to go. As for the return, it's way too early to draw any firm conclusions. If Nottingham washes out, then we probably lose the trade. Sardinas for Flores . . . Both sides got what they could reasonably expect. Rodriguez for Betancourt / Pina could end up a loss. Rodriguez has had your basic late-model K-Rod season (he's been pretty consistent other than 2012). Betancourt was awful this year, but he -- like Nottingham -- was 21 and getting his first exposure to AA. (Those two were the youngest players on the Shuckers other than Luis Ortiz; also, BTW, Wendell Rijo was the youngest position player at Brevard.) If he pans out, or if Pina ends up playing a lot for us and hitting some, I'm happy with the trade.

In evaluating Villar's defense at 3b, I think we have to give some consideration to the fact that he moved to the position midseason, with zero prep time. I've seen him make a few bad plays that basically look like the work of a guy who isn't used to playing the position. Macho truisms about "no excuses!" aside, we would seem to have good reason to expect him to improve at 3b (or 2b if they go that route) with reps in the offseason and spring. I can't imagine wanting to trade either Arcia or Villar right now. Sure Villar could regress. He's 25; he could also improve. His power has come on stronger as the season has progressed. He's young enough to help us contend in two years, he's versatile, and he does things that aren't easy to replace. Of course you trade anybody if teams back up a truck, but that's a completely passive approach, and that's the approach I would take with both Arcia and Villar.

I got to thinking about the 2005 draft, all the infielders at the top, and how they've panned out. This didn't seem to be worth its own thread, so I'm sticking it here. Back of the napkin math, ESPN WAR, with all the cautions both of those things entail. I stuck the three significant OFs in here as well. As of now: Braun 43.5 WAR Tulowitzki 42.2 McCutchen 37.1 Zimmerman 32.4 Gordon 31.5 Ellsbury 27.9 Upton 24.6 Bruce 14. That seems, as a class, shockingly good, though I haven't compared other classes so who knows. Since draft day I've thought of Braun, Tulo, Zimmerman, and Gordon together. It seems kind of amazing how well they've all done, and how relatively closely clustered they all are. We wouldn't have gone wrong with any of them, though we have to be happy about how we made out. Now it will be interesting to see which of these guys holds his value best through his 30s. Braun is looking strong right now, though most of these players look like they're capable of maintaining substantial value.