Fear The Chorizo

Saw the title of this thread and immediately wanted to counter with a Justin Bieber for Carlos Santana trade...

Wasn't that the whole narrative of last offseason, to assume regression from a handful of key contributors to the 2017 team and wonder why more wasn't done to improve overall roster talent? That was even a concern after the Yelich trade and Cain signings. Well, that regression actually did happen, and the Brewers won ~ 10 more games despite that. Stearns proved last offseason he's capable of needle-moving deals, and honestly last week's release of Schoop paved the way for them to add significant payroll via trade or FA acquisition. The 40-man roster construction currently screams for a needle-moving trade for a starter along with a smart FA signing of either a catcher or 2B. I expect both to happen well before spring training opens, which is still months away - and it's not like the prime starting pitcher trade targets have already been dealt elsewhere. Are you serious about the Brewers signing Harper? Sure, let's have the smallest market in baseball give out the largest FA contract in the history of the game, just one year after spending heavily in payroll and prospects to solidify the OF. And at this point, why in the world would the Mets trade DeGrom or Syndergaard after the moves they've just made, unless in Syndergaard's case they feel like he's on the verge of being damaged goods? I agree on seeing pitchers like MadBum, Ray, Bauer, Kluber, etc as impact fits for this team, but only if the price is reasonable.

I really hate this argument with the shifting stuff. You don’t think major league players have thought about this? It’s incredibly difficult to hit a baseball, especially in the current environment where you are facing more different pitchers through a game/pitchers with splits to neutralize you. It’s not easy to “just go the other way with it against the shift” if it was more guys would be doing it no doubt. It just isn’t that simple to do it with how ridiculous pitchers velocity and stuff is now and facing 2-4+ different pitches a game. Sure hitters think about this - in fact machado thought about it in game 7 of the nlcs, executed, and scored in a big spot of the game. I don't buy the argument that it's more difficult to punch a ball the opposite way or get a bunt down than it is to hit a hr - the approach is different and hitters need to make the effort to practice it, no doubt. Hitters have by and large gotten so far away from the small ball approach in today's game that it may be more difficult. When you see hitters routinely driving pitches on the outer half of the zone to pull fields, that's about approach and nothing to do with pitch velocity or location. Can a hitter adjust his approach from their typical pull-heavy, slugging swing during a pitch and execute hitting to the opposite field? Hell no. But a hitter sure as hell can go up to the plate with a mindset that if a defensive alignment screams for an adjustment, a hitter can do alot of things to take advantage when game situations call for it. Stand off the plate more to combat pitchers working inside, shorten your swing and sacrifice slugging for better bat control. If people don't think this is possible, they haven't watched baseball near enough to remember what the game looked like for most of its history.

Not surprised schoop wanted a 1 yr deal at all considering how many options there are to play 2nd on the fa market. Have himself another solid year and go into free agency next offseason when he was expected to all along to go after a big contract. Best of luck to him... To me this is an example of an antiquated arbitration system...I bet the brewers would have happily kept him around for next season if they could have offered him that amount and he accepted...no way they could have without the players union throwing a fit while he was under arbitration control in a system that essentially guarantees a raise based off prior production.

Thought this was interesting considering how shift-heavy the suddenly solid Brewers' defense has become: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25463813/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-backing-rule-change-limit-defensive-shifts I think it's kind of silly to try and make a rule to restrict shifts - what would it be, 2 infielders have to be on each side of 2B at the time of the pitch? What about OF shifting? Are there going to be markers or boundaries added to the field where fielders need to be? If players wanted to see their offensive stats go back up, maybe spend a little more time working on your approach and becoming a better hitter at either going the other way or getting a bunt down in certain spots to force teams out of the shift. Sure, that may come at the expense of more chances to swing for the downs and hit HR, but if your OBP increases by 50 percentage points because you hit to all fields you're probably a better and more valuable offensive player. It seems like MLB is at the point where heavy defensive shifting is industry standard across MLB - there will come a point where statistical/spray chart analysis determines that having a more balanced lineup of hitters whose approach forces teams to scrap or dramatically reduce shifting is a better approach for scoring runs than trying to hit through/over it. There will be a team that applies that strategy and succeeds in doing so..

I agree with your hyperbole, but understand my point that as an offensive coach, McCarthy's offenses haven't been consistently elite for several years - I don't worry about their performance in games Rodgers missed due to injury, although McCarthy's failure as a whole to have a viable backup QB option since Flynn's departure in 2011 is a ding on him as well. If it takes 53, part of the blame for recent woes falls on McCarthy and Packer personnel people for Hundley not being what they thought he was last season. If the team was scoring at a rate normally expected from a team with a HOF-caliber qb in today's game, this season would have wound up much differently and he'd still be coaching the Packers. All the plays you mentioned from the 2014 NFCCG are absolutely true. That was an epic collapse, and blame for that no matter how undeserved ultimately falls on the coach's shoulders. Turtle calls to get timeouts off the board are great, but when you are dominating a game like you indicated, why even give them a prayer when you could make an aggressive call or two to earn a 1st down and end the game without relying on a tiring defense to make a stop? Opting for 6 points via two field goals from the 1 and 2 yard line to open a game almost NOBODY game them a chance to win was a failure by a passive coaching strategy. That failed passive coaching strategy carried through the course of the entire game and gave the Seahawks more opportunities than they deserved to beat the better team that day.

Sorry, but if McCarthy winds up coaching another team and they play the Packers, there is no way way he will not take extra pleasure in putting 40 points on them. I don't care what he publicly says. Given the fact that the Packers haven't scored 40 in a game since the 2014 season, recent history suggests a McCarthy-led team scoring 40 on anyone would be a shock. Sure, it's human nature for a guy to want to win big against a former team no matter what kind of a former relationship they had or how things ended...but the fact he's had one of the best 10 QBs in the history of the game for his entire 13 year coaching tenure (Favre, Rodgers) and hasn't had an offensive output over 40 points in 4 full seasons says alot more about why he was fired than anything. IMO, McCarthy's biggest weakness as a coach is in-game management - he constantly seemed to lean heavily on a defense that was basically never the team's strength to close out games or even halves, particularly in the postseason. The only postseason it worked was the 2010 super bowl run when they actually had a solid defense. Go up 14-0 against the bears in the NFC title game, then go into an offensive shell and manage to win by only a touchdown that was provided by a BJ Raji INT return. Go up 16-0 against the seahawks in 2014, passing up several early game 4th and goal situations to completely step on their necks, only to watch the Seahawks battle back with a slew of crazy plays aided by over-conservative/bone-headed decisions (on-field by players and coaching). Countless games burning 1st half TOs to try and get the ball back one more time to score before the half, only to see the opponent convert or make a big play on a bad defense and wind up scoring themselves when they would have been content letting time run out. Stupid challenge calls and even more stupid passes at challenging plays. There were several years where injuries and schedule forced McCarthy squads to "coach up" whoever they could drag in off the street or off the practice squad, and he seemed to do a good job at having his teams prepared to play. However, that has even seemed to wane in recent years. I'm sure McCarthy will get another opportunity to coach in the NFL if he wants it - I really wonder if he'll be able to come close to replicating the success he had with the Packers unless he's given a HOF-caliber QB to work with.

I recall a few situations where he just walked 1-2 lefties in spots he was brought in to get them out - in particular the Cubs game 163. The seeing eye grounders I don't mind, that happens - but you can't walk guys.

The spotlight was too bright for Cedeno on several occasions in the postseason...LOOGY is still an important role, but you need one that can get it done when it counts.

Now I'm fully expecting next year's al or nl 2b silver slugger to get awarded to Schoop, given brewer luck with sending MIF's packing after disappointing production. Hopefully both the brewers and Schoop benefit from this move, provided schoop's career year isn't with someone else in the nl central so we have to watch him kill the brewers in 2019. Hiura isn't far away, and frankly they still have enough internal options to play 2nd until super 2 passes without spending any more on the position if that's the route they plan to take.

Slightly less than the $2.7mil estimate for him that I've seen a few times. He's a good fit in the role he has with this roster.

It's strange you felt compelled to make a post like this in a thread about Badger football. Why, when I specifically mention the Badgers' disappointing season several times within it?

They are the Phillies of about 4-5 seasons ago

The Brewers' 2018 season coupled with the Badgers' and Packers' disappointing years sure has solidified football at the bottom of my list of sports entertainment I actively follow. Kiddos have alot to do with it, but I'd guess I've watched about 10X more 'Tru and the Rainbow Kingdom' programming in terms of actual time logged in front of a TV than Packer & Badger games combined this fall - and the kiddos don't have much time at all to watch a show between dinner and bedtimes! It didn't help that the Packers' NFL season kicked off with several unwatchable game outcomes due to officiating nonsense and typical early season McCarthy-led team underachievement, and the Badgers wasted no time in proving to be posers with the BYU loss just as the Crew was on fire in late September.

Russell was indeed tendered by the Cubs following the La Stella trade - Theo and company have to be hoping there's a team willing to part with a decent prospect or two to trade for Russell + whatever his arbitration salary would likely be for 2019 from them, because I don't think there is any chance he suits up for the Cubs again given his baggage. He's already missing the first 40 games of 2019 due to suspension, and he made $4.3M in 2018. In addition to that, he just hasn't developed into a good offensive player that most assumed he'd become.

That was indeed significant in late July - as Schoop got a decent amount of starts early in his Brewer stint at SS. I think the fact he proved to play a passable shortstop should be considered for 2019 as well - he gives them a reverse platoon option spelling Arcia there on occasion and would give the team less reason to have a roster spot dedicated to a backup MIF of Saladino/Sogard's ilk. If nothing else the Brewers shunned some of the positional norms to get bats in the lineup down the stretch - while relying on shifts to mitigate what would traditionally be perceived as defensive liabilities (i.e., Shaw at 2nd, Perez at SS, etc)

Cots projects the Brewers' current roster would cost $110,250,000. The Brewers have only had an opening day payroll over $100M twice in their history (2014 & 2015), with their highest opening day payroll being $104,237,000. That includes Schoop at $11M, right? So adjusted for inflation and MLB/team revenue, $110M is actually much less of a hit to the organization than either of the other two $100M+ payrolls you mentioned. Maybe I'm shortsighted, but given the team payrolls during 2016 (~$62M) and 2017 (~$57M), I don't see how Schoop's 1 year cost would cripple any other plans to add talent/payroll for 2019 and longterm. And regardless of who's at 2nd for 2019, in 2020 you're replacing that cost with the MLB minimum in Hiura at that position. If they think Schoop's going to stink in 2019 and have a good idea whether his camp is open to a 1 yr contract well below his projected arbitration amount to avoid being thrown into free agency a year earlier than they initially expected in a market loaded with MIF options, then sure, non-tender him - but dollars and cents shouldn't be a factor at all whether they hang onto Schoop's control into December, 4 full months before opening day 2019 and 2 full months before Schoop's actual 2019 pricetag via arbitration would be decided.

I'm sure he does, and if "those guys" are Thames, Anderson, and Davies there will absolutely be teams interested in them at the pricetags they carry heading into 2019. My point is even if Schoop isn't plan A for the Brewers at 2nd, they shouldn't non-tender him today - it's not like tendering arbitration to him today means they have to cut him a check for $10M tomorrow. Even if you truly feel like Schoop is the worst option of anything the Brewers could do at 2nd and the Brewers figure that out in Spring Training and aren't able to trade him due to his arbitration number, they could cut him and be on the hook for what, $2M tops? That would essentially be this year's version of the 2017 Boone Logan cash burn, and I think it's worth keeping options open as the offseason heats up.

The point in trying to put a future value on any prospect right now, even ones far away from the majors with a variety of possible outcomes, is because Major League front offices do the same thing & this acts as an approximation thereof. Yes, but having two guys do it for all MLB teams leads to giving a pile of young prospects auto-30-35 FV evaluations simply because they don't have the time or organization-specific knowledge on individual players to differentiate them at all. Then you slap the evaluation on a Fangraphs page and it's viewed too much as gospel as others have posted. I maintain that even with the presumed graduation of Hiura and potential callups for guys like Ray/Dubon in 2019, the Brewers system will be more highly rated at this time next year simply because other in-house prospects at low & development levels will dramatically improve their stock simply by playing more. That's without any new adds from next June's draft, international signings, or offseason trade acquisitions. Their ranking may have taken a hit based on how these sites evaluate systems based off all the trades using more established prospects that brought them the NL MVP and within 1 game of reaching the world series, but the talent level within the system hasn't drastically declined - it's just centered lower in the system.

I mean, I know it's the Mets - but if they actually deal for Cano and Diaz can we just bury the thought of them trading away either Thor or Degrom at this point? I've never thought they were ever seriously considering trading away these arms, because big market teams don't let young or in their prime pitching with ace potential go via trade unless the trade offer is just absurdly high...it's just too easy for larger payroll teams to be competitive by spending in other places if they have a stable of young and relatively inexpensive starting pitching.

Unless it dramatically affects their 40-man roster flexibility due to some potential trades that could require a bit more room to add players to it, I don't think Schoop gets non-tendered today even if the Brewers don't have him in their plans for 2019. There is too much time between now and opening day to just launch a viable starting 2B due to his potential payroll hit without first having a legitimate improvement already in the fold. I can see him being part of a trade, too - if that's the case you tender him to keep that control while a deal is worked out. I also don't agree with the thought of his likely $10M price tag for 2019 via arbitration severely strapping the Brewers' payroll that they can't make other moves to improve their MLB roster at C or P. Part of me wants them to just tender Schoop and roll with in-house options for 2B, then focus on significant upgrades at C, starting pitcher, and reliever via trade or intelligent FA signings. Trading guys like Thames, Anderson, even Davies over the course of this winter would more than offset Schoop's payroll hit. Schoop is still an asset with value - IMO it would be silly to just let him walk today for nothing.

Trout as the PTBNL? Apparently this has something to do with giving the Cubs the roster space to tender a contract to Addison Russell, who is suspended until May for league policy violations on domestic abuse. There's no way Russell suits up for the Cubs again and this has to be a way to try and get something of value in return for him via trade later this winter - but which team in their right mind sends them anything of value for him? If I was the Cubs I'd have just as soon kept LaStella, who is actually a very good and vesatile bench player, and just non-tendered Russell.

Meh, I'll put as much stock into Fangraphs' minor league system evaluation as their MLB team record projections for the Brewers...which is just about none. The Brewers are in a spot as an organization where they can afford to be patient with all their young prospects in low & development levels. The fact this assessment surprised a few posters who are very informed about the organization by ranking relatively unknown, unproven, or oft-injured prospects ahead of the more established ones isn't surprising. I personally think there is tons of high upside talent sitting below high A in this organization right now, which is very difficult to slap accurate 'future value' ratings on given how little data is actually available to assess on those type of players. Their careers still range across the full spectrum without even factoring in injuries, from totally flaming out to far and away exceed their current projections - having a ton of those kind of players is a great thing for a farm system. With so many of the Brewers' current 'top 32' being well below 20 and some even well below 18, I just don't see the point in trying to come up with a projection on them and worrying about what that value is right this minute. Take their ranking of Caden Lemons at #32 for example - He's a 2nd round pick out of High School in 2017 that basically has been on a conditioning and mechanics/delivery program before they even let him start logging significant innings to develop as a pitcher. He could either flame out and never see AA, fully realize his potential and be an Ace, or fall just about anywhere in between. Based on 34.1 IP in two years largely focused on developmental leagues, what's the point in trying to put a future value number on him right now?

I still think the plan for Schoop is to tender him and then try to negotiate a palatable contract amount for 2019 before his arbitration hearing arrives. He made $10M based off a very good year in 2017, 2018 was poor. The Brewers could submit a lowball arbitration offer, and Schoop's camp would be wise not to try and submit a figure much over $10M - then the two sides could hopefully iron out a deal at or even slightly below $10M to avoid the hearing. If that doesn't materialize, the Brewers could either win the hearing and have Schoop for $8-10M, or lose the hearing and have him potentially at $12M. If they lose the hearing and don't want to pay him that amount, there are plenty of routes they could take at 2B that would be solid options and include just cutting Schoop during spring training and paying him the $1.5-2M salary. Schoop's team would be wise not to let things get that far, because he'd probably have a difficult time finding another team to sign him for a value anywhere near the $10M he made in 2018 right before the 2019 season starts. Tendering Schoop and taking this approach gives the Brewers time to sort their 2B situation out, and I think it's in both sides' best interest to make it happen.

Pretty much guarantees the Rangers deal him to the Cubs for nothing at the deadline again...