gregmag

That's interesting. I hadn't seen anything conclusive. Where are you getting it from?

I voted Braves in the poll, and at the time I was the only one. I'm just pointing that out because, if we somehow deal him to the Braves, I'm going to go all "I'm a genius" for at least ten minutes, and if as seems much more likely we don't, none of you will remember that I cast an uninformed, wacky vote. I love this rumor. It's exactly what you expect to hear five days before a good deadline deal happens. "Stearns is way too secretive for my fandom" is my favorite thing that anyone on Earth has said all week. fondybrewfan, my hat is off to you. The Mets appear to be whining about a trade they don't have the pieces to make, which is wonderful on numerous levels. I deeply hate the Mets for mostly petty reasons, so I'm basking in the Mets hate that is radiating from this thread. Keep hating the Mets! Keep the hate vocal!

Darrell Porter's story is very sad. I didn't know he died from drugs. He had a terrific career even with drug problems; we can only imagine how much more he could have accomplished clean. Porter is also one of those guys who suffers historically from coming up before people widely understood the offensive value of walks and to a lesser extent isolated power. He batted only .247 for his career but with a .354 OBP and .162 ISO. He wasn't quite Gene Tenace (.241 / .388 / .188), but he's probably the next best example of that kind of player at catcher until Mickey Tettleton came along (.241 / .369 / .208).

For the hell of it (and because I really want to avoid the work I need to be doing right now), since fWAR covers both offense and defense, here's some different rough info on offense alone: best three seasons as a Brewer by OPS+, minimum 300 PA, and total (Brewer and non-Brewer) career OPS+: Jonathan Lucroy: 132, 131, 124 (2016 to date); career 111 Dave Nilsson: 141, 131, 106; career 110 Darrell Porter: 133, 123, 103; career 113 Ted Simmons: 126, 112, 104; career 118 B.J. Surhoff: 120, 102, 99; career 98 As a Cardinal, Simmons had four seasons over 140 OPS+. For his career none of the others can touch him. The Dave Nilsson season that Briggs mentioned above is the best ever for a Brewers catcher by OPS+. The numbers make for an interesting conversation about the best offensive catcher for the Brewers overall. I'd take Lucroy over Nilsson, based on more performance at a high level. You can make a reasonable case for either guy. The others really had nothing good as Brewers behind their three peak seasons, whereas Luc has had another season of 116 and Nilsson had a couple of 103s (one with only 294 PA). If both guys had healthy careers I bet Nilsson would have exceeded Luc offensively, but we'll never know.

Somebody started this conversation in a thread a few days ago, but I think it deserves its own thread. As we (or at least I) start to get prematurely nostalgic for Jonathan Lucroy, an interesting question is whether he's the best catcher in Brewers history. My instinct going into this was that he is. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "best" -- how much you care about peak vs. career value, offense vs. defense, etc. As a conversation starter (NOT stopper), I did some quick back-of-the-napkin math on Fangraphs about the guys who seem to belong in the conversation. This is really basic -- games played as a Brewer and fWAR. One huge caveat is that I didn't have an easy way of looking strictly at how these guys performed as catchers. Most of them spent a lot of time at other positions. Anyway, this is through last night: Jonathan Lucroy: 802 games, 19.0 fWAR Charlie Moore: 1283 games, 9.1 fWAR Dave Nilsson: 837 games, 10.0 fWAR Darrell Porter: 537 games, 9.8 fWAR Ted Simmons: 665 games, 6.1 fWAR B.J. Surhoff: 1102 games, 14.1 fWAR If you believe these numbers, Lucroy has been our best catcher, and it isn't close. When you consider that he's caught the vast majority of his games, which I think only Porter could say among the other guys, he pulls further away. Also, the new info for catchers is framing. We don't have those stats for the older guys, but we can at least say that Lucroy would be very unlikely to lose ground by that metric. A different interesting question is which player that caught for the Brewers had the best overall MLB career, and how Lucroy fits into that conversation. I'm assuming Simmons, but Porter has always been massively underrated. Now I'll check numbers. Here are the guys with the most significant careers: Rick Dempsey: 1766 games, 27.7 fWAR Jason Kendall: 2085 games, 39.5 fWAR Darrell Porter: 1782 games, 40.8 fWAR Ted Simmons: 2456 games, 54.2 fWAR Jim Sundberg: 1962 games, 37.8 fWAR B.J. Surhoff: 2313 games, 31.4 fWAR If you're interested, there's a clear second tier that clusters pretty closely: Andy Etchebarren: 948 games, 11.6 fWAR Ray Fosse: 924 games, 10.6 fWAR Damian Miller: 989 games, 12.5 fWAR Charlie O'Brien: 800 games, 10.7 fWAR Gregg Zaun: 1232 games, 12.2 fWAR Lucroy, right now, is on a pace that would put him right with the best of these guys. To extend the simple math a little further, here's the career games per fWAR for the best players from the career list, and Lucroy: Jason Kendall: 52.8 Jonathan Lucroy: 42.2 Darrell Porter: 43.7 Ted Simmons: 45.3 Jim Sundberg: 51.9 I threw in Kendall and Sundberg for perspective, because both of them had excellent careers, but Simmons and Porter are the clear class of our catching alumni. Lucroy's career to date looks very impressive. So far he's performing at the level of the best players ever to catch for the Brewers. The key, obviously, is longevity. Porter is underrated and excellent, but Simmons put up similar performance over 700 more games. So far Lucroy has only had not quite half of Porter's career, only a third of Simmons' career, and he's almost certain to decline through his 30s. Also, by my very rough math, Simmons had already played 1459 games by the end of his age 30 season. To match Simmons' career, Lucroy will have to hold much more of his value in his 30s than Simmons did. Still, it's pretty cool. Let's enjoy watching Luc tonight, because he's a special player who may not be around tomorrow.

If anybody wanted Garza, I'm sure he would be gone. I'm annoyed that he's blocking Hiram Burgos and Brent Suter, and those aren't even guys you worry about blocking. I bet Nelson and Guerra stay put. I think we value them more than other teams likely do, and I'm not sure who's right about them.

I agree. I'd hold onto him, shift him into a higher-leverage role once we trade Jeffress and/or Smith, and then deal him (assuming we're still in that mode) once he's established himself in that role. I think he's one of those guys who's worth more to us to keep right now than he is to deal. Of course, if somebody wants to back up a truck, I'm not purist about any of this.

Wren was acquired by Melvin and never played in Houston organization. Broxton was acquired by Stearns. Stearns has blinders on. Now I'm not saying other GM's don't want to make themselves look good too, but knowing when you made a mistake is the sign of an exceptional GM. Maybe that's right. On the other hand: (1) as others have said, Broxton is on the 40-man, Wren isn't, and July 25 is about the worst possible moment for a seller to add a guy who's already in the system to the 40-man; (2) we're talking about the 24th or 25th spot on the roster, which makes this a patently absurd move on which to base any judgment, let alone a sweeping generalization, about a GM's real or imagined tendencies; (3) Broxton has a slightly higher AAA OPS this year than Wren does in slightly more PAs, and he's just shy of a year older than Wren, which suggests that a reasonable person could easily conclude Broxton was more likely than Wren to help the Brewers going forward (though a reasonable person could also reach the opposite result).

This is good for us, right? For three reasons -- (1) As others are pointing out, it sets a high market for quality late-inning relievers. (2) It takes the best (known to be) available reliever that isn't ours off the market. (3) It removes an obstacle to maximizing our return for Lucroy, because we weren't trading him to the Cubs, and none of the teams we might trade him to used their trade chips on Chapman.

I'd never say it's wrong, but I don't think it's very relevant, because Ramirez is more than four years older than Nottingham. When Ramirez was the age Nottingham is now, he tore up the Pioneer League, then put up a .599 OPS in low A ball, two levels behind where Nottingham (and Ramirez) is now. A couple of people have pointed this out, but Nottingham is young for AA at 21. He hit very well last year, and this is his worst year hitting as a pro. That could mean he won't solve AA, but I'll take that possibility a lot more seriously if he doesn't improve substantially when he repeats the level next year. He has plenty of time to figure it out. He also has time with his defense. BP Milwaukee's midseason prospect report quoted a BP scout as claiming that Nottingham had worked hard and substantially improved his overall defensive package: http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2016/07/12/midseason-prospects-3-up-3-down/ I'm not holding that out as authoritative, because I don't know how much it should offset his passed balls and errors, but it at least provides a data point in the other direction, which is enough to convince me that the absolute pronouncements above that he won't stick at catcher are premature.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but Dave Cameron says in a Fangraphs chat from yesterday that Swihart and Devers could work as the main pieces to get Lucroy plus a reliever. I don't know why we'd want Swihart. Devers looks great, but is he enough to make up most of the value in that scenario?

I want Lucroy traded, and I can't wait to see who we get for him, but man I'm going to miss him when he's gone.

I think media proposals like this usually focus on the needs of the contending team and just fill in what the rebuilding team is getting as an afterthought. Which makes the whole exercise pointless, like most sports media commentary.

Wow. I like those guys fine as the third and fourth pieces of the package in that trade, I guess.

It's a great question. I'm with the people who say "it depends," which I know isn't much of an answer. If your scouts and analysts think "the guy" on offer is as sure a perennial All-Star thing as you can get, and if you're getting at least five years of control, that's hard to pass up. If "the guy" isn't at that level, I probably want the package. I'm starting to think we use the term "lottery ticket" in a way that underrates package trades. For example, IIRC several people said our return for Lind was three lottery tickets. I don't think that's right. An actual ticket in a lottery of any size has zero economic value, because risk of losing approaches 100%, so I'm not sure what we mean when we use the term as a trade metaphor. Every player has potential and risk, from Joey Gallo to Freddy Peralta. Every trade evaluation has to consider both factors as to each player. The FO presumably looked at the players in the Lind trade and decided that their potential was high enough to be good value (compared to other offers) for Lind despite the obviously high risk of low-level pitchers. High, not total. The goal in a trade should be to bring back maximum value. Baseball isn't the NBA. One transcendent player, by himself, doesn't get you very far (ask the Angels). If you get back one player with high value X, that's good, because you can plant that value in one roster spot and then pursue other ways to optimize the other spots. On the other hand, three players who add up to high value X may optimize, or at least improve, three roster spots. I don't see a categorical reason to prefer one approach to the other.

Fantastic stuff, splitterpfj. Thanks for sharing it. I think your source's impressions, for a lot of us here, aren't surprising but definitely are reassuring. Also, this is the best deadline anxiety brain candy I've seen all week. How the hell is any Brewers fan supposed to be getting any work done now? Also, great back-and-forth on Theo. The points about financial advantages are strong, but money has ruled baseball for a long time, and the Red Sox couldn't win until Theo came along. If he wins with the Cubs, I think he's a no-brainer Hall-of-Famer. Having advantages is one thing; using your advantages to do things no one else could do is something else.

The cratering of Davis' walk rate is really disappointing. I've always liked him, and I hope he can put it together. Right now, though, I'm pretty sure his value has diminished since the offseason. You can't be a so-so defensive LF and put up a .284 OBP, even in Oakland and even if you do hit 19 first-half HRs. I'd say if Nottingham can stick at catcher, or if his bat plays well enough to justify moving him off catcher, we'll be happy with this trade. (Or if Derby somehow emerges as a strong starter.)

As everybody is saying, there are a lot of judgments we won't be able to make for a while. If you grade transactions by ultimate productivity, that information obviously isn't available yet. Without arguing which kind of analysis is more important, we can make certain present judgments about a GM's approach. Thinking about Stearns' transactions right now, I'm a fan. I'm a big advocate of diversification in any uncertain process. Stearns has taken a very diverse approach to transactions. He trades for players up and down the range of ages and levels. He isn't afraid to deal younger players for slightly older ones (Villar, Flores). He'll take on salary to get the prospect he wants in the right deal (Hill). He shops not just his obvious trade assets but also less obvious ones (Rogers). Without making stupid, big-splash free agent signings, he bargain shops the major league free agent market (Carter). He mines nuggets (Guerra). Not one of his transactions looks bad so far. Would anyone here trade Freddy Peralta for Adam Lind right now? How about Peralta plus the other two guys we got? Maybe Cy Sneed emerges as a star, but Jonathan Villar is playing close to that level already, and he's only 1.5 years older than Sneed. Maybe Jean Segura has a great career, but I don't know a single person here who didn't want to deal him last winter. Stearns turned 2015 Segura, plus some cash and a 25 year-old with a so-so minor league K rate, into two (one soon-to-be) MLB rotation experiments and two well-regarded (one very well-regarded) middle infield prospects. He traded Khris Davis after his strong age-27 season, which right now looks like an outlier among his full MLB seasons (OPS+ 2014-2016: 106, 123, 103). Maybe some of these deals go south long term. But Stearns' approach, judged from the present, looks to me like a smart one.

Sounds plausible. We should call that strategy "k-rodding."

I think these exact words ran through my head last night. I don't get the argument that Garza just had one bad year, so we should expect him to bounce back and earn his contract in the rotation. He only had one truly excellent season, at age 27 in 2011. Then for three years he was the definition of a not-especially-durable mid-to-back-of-the-rotation starter. Then he turned 31 and stunk up the joint, which is a fairly old and familiar story. This is not the profile of a guy whom you can reasonably expect to come back and entice contenders at the deadline. I was thinking about Burgos too. He's taken his lumps better than anyone else at Colorado Springs; for two years he's basically been the picture of unexciting competence. Probably he's not much better than Garza, and I can understand giving Garza a bit more rope, but I think giving Burgos a shot makes more sense. Then part of me wonders if we should just bring Hader and/or even Lopez to the majors. Obviously Lopez hasn't earned a promotion, but what I care about is developing him, and I wonder whether MLB bats, offset by MLB coaching, could be any worse for his development than pitching on the moon. Yeah, I know -- some guys are tough enough to handle that kind of pitching environment. But most good pitchers never have to try.

Does the service time matter once his pension vests? Because in addition to djoctagone's $24k idea, the Brewers could promise him some extra service time if he flamed out within ten days of the pension's vesting, if that's all that's at stake. Boras is a tool, but I suppose he's doing his job. I'm glad Stearns isn't letting an agent roll him. This is a perfectly sensible move (leaving aside whether they chose the best bench player to bring up) in an era of eight-man bullpens. I like having management that knows how to play the margins to give the team an advantage.

I love this, both as humor and as insight. All I know about Coulter is his numbers, and I understand there may well be good coaching-scouting reasons to leave him in Brevard. But sticking a power prospect in that power-sucking hellhole for two seasons sure seems like a weird way to try to develop an asset. Our minor league affiliations at A+ and AAA are a big problem. Maybe Lopez would be struggling just as badly if he didn't have to pitch his home games on the moon, but no one can tell me this is optimal. I've always thought (maybe incorrectly, who knows) that extreme hitters' and pitchers' environments were bad for building successful teams, let alone developing talent, because your information is skewed and your strategies are accordingly distorted. I worry that we're rebuilding with one hand tied behind our back.

He admits to being “kind of your standard college right-hander, 88 to 92; I’m not going to blow guys’ doors off.” He will, however, fill up the strike zone with an artist’s touch. Interesting article on Perrin Excellent read -- thanks. Here's a follow-up piece from yesterday: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/a-brewers-prospect-and-his-law-school-application/ Perrin shouldn't be so fixated on Harvard, in my humble and professional opinion, but I'm glad he is, because I want him to stick around.

Malik Collymore. Because I want to beat the Cardinals at something.

Me too. The front office should make decisions like this season doesn't matter. The players should play like it does.