Fear The Chorizo

Brewers at 81.5 wins, only 12 games behind the Cubs (which I realize could be a bit inflated due to public team nature). 81.5 seems like a solid over/under win total for the Brewers as currently constructed, which should readily climb after the rotation gets improved with 1-2 more arms before opening day. This Cubs' projection still feels high to me based on their team as currently constructed - if everything breaks right for them, sure, they're a 90-95 win ballclub. However, they have very little depth and nothing ready to contribute in the minors via callup or trade, and are already getting long in the tooth at a few positions/rotation spots. Quintana for a full season - he's projected to go 10-10 with an ERA just shy of 4...to me that's not a drastic improvement to what they got from Arrieta last year. I still think they are going to regret letting Jimenez go to acquire Quintana - if he avoids injuries he's going to be a perennial all star. This is probably also the year where it becomes obvious just how much a loss Gleyber Torres is to the Cub organization - it won them the world series by bringing Chapman into their bullpen for 1/2 a season, but imagine how much rosier things would look for the Cubs currently if they had the current #4 and #6-ranked prospects sitting in AAA or potentially available to headline a trade for an impact starter. Obvious qualifier, I fully expect the Cubs to go out and sign another starter to improve their rotation.

100% agree something also needs to be done with teams gaming the current minor league control system. The difficulty MLB has is that there are often 3-yr gaps in ages that players get drafted/signed (18 out of high school, 20-21 out of college). Reducing minor league control for a kid who signed out of high school in the mid rounds that needs 5-6 seasons of development isn't really fair to both the organization and the kid. Same goes for the college senior who signed and could potentially be in the minors until he's almost 30. I wonder if they could set up some sort of tiered system of minor league control based on the age a player was when he signed. Signed out of high school, change nothing. Signed as a junior in college, 4 yrs. Signed as a senior in college, 3 yrs. Truth is, the minor league control rule only becomes an issue with the small percentage of minor leaguers who actually get to MLB and have extended careers. Where it's an issue in terms of MLB free agency is when a premium player is intentionally held back from MLB when he's obviously ready for the show. A player like Kris Bryant was in the minors probably 1 season longer than he needed to be simply because the Cubs wanted to delay starting his service time clock while their MLB team was horrible. Most premium prospects tend to be called up a bit late based on their development to optimize arbitration control.

Yes, pushing for free agency after 4-5 years instead of 6 would significantly alter free agency, and you'd see a lot more spending in that way. You could argue, though, that this creates a pretty big disadvantage for small market teams who really rely on that cheap labor. That's why any change in arbitration/team control would require an increase in revenue sharing to even the financial playing field. I want to see free agency after 4-5 years instead of 6, because it will lead to players getting paid what they're worth in the prime of their career, not forcing teams to pay that rate based on past performance typically at the start of their decline. Revenue sharing has to improve, which is where small and big market club owners have issues with each other (let alone the players/players' union). Perhaps getting rid of the luxury tax is a carrot big market teams would like in exchange for significantly more revenue sharing, or at least capping how much of certain revenue streams teams can use on player payroll that tend to be the biggest financial differentiators based on market size alone (i.e., TV deals).

I think even if Hiura excels, the earliest he gets to Milwaukee is 2019 - remember that while the bat may already be good enough for the show, he spent a good portion of his collegiate career as a DH due to throwing arm issues...he needs seasoning in the minors to play viable 2B defense, or enough reps for the organization to know he needs to be given a different position. I agree that what made Diaz "expendable" was a combination of his roster status and Hiura likely breathing down his neck as a better 2B prospect. Walker and/or Kipnis would be ideal fits if the Brewers don't want to roll with a Villar/Sogard 2b situation in 2018.

One way or the other, MLB needs to get both of its leagues playing under the same set of rules. I like the concept of tying the DH to a particular player at the start of a game, not necessarily to a position. 98% of the time, a DH would replace that game's starting pitcher in the lineup. However, once said pitcher leaves the game the player serving as his DH is done - he could continue in the game at his same batting order position if he's inserted into the field after said pitching move is made, with a different bench player serving as a DH/pinch hitter for the reliever the next time the removed position player's spot in the lineup comes up. As the game progresses, teams could still pinch hit for relievers using the rest of their bench, and make adjustments to their lineup/defense following typical rules accordingly. In addition, there may be ~5% of games where teams want their starting pitcher hitting, and prefer to use a DH for a weak hitting position player who plays great defense. I think the carrot that really makes a scenario like this work is for MLB to adopt a 26-man game-day roster. This was something that the players union backed out of a few seasons ago during CBA negotiations, but it's been widely discussed and will eventually happen as well.

The NFL has had a salary cap structure for decades, yet still over 1/3 of its teams haven't won a super bowl... The NBA has gone through many iterations of team payroll structure, but everyone basically knows who will be playing in the NBA finals before each season starts. "competitive balance" is a catch phrase those two leagues actually don't have. The NFL's even field more or less muddles the distinction from bad to decent teams, while the cream still consistently rises to the top provided key players don't get hurt. To me it's less about the NFL payroll structure and more about their scheduling that allows for teams to get back into contention quicker in that league.

Kipnis missed basically all of spring training with a balky shoulder, too. He got off to a slow start because of it, and just when he was heating up the hamstring issue flared up. 2017 was completely injury-marred for him. If healthy he'd be by far the best 2B option for this team amongst current Brewers on the roster or anyone else they may be looking to sign, even with his remaining contract. His age and injury concerns should merit Cleveland being willing to eat at least some of his salary in a trade provided they want something of value in return. This is why the idea of Salazar + Kipnis for Santana + mid tier prospect has some traction in my mind. Salazar and Santana are in very similar situations with service time - both Salazar and Kipnis are injury risks. I feel like Santana's value eclipses Salazar's 1 for 1, but Salazar + Kipnis & some cash would probably require Stearns to pony up a decent prospect to get a deal done.

So between archer and nelson, the pitcher with injury concerns going forward is somehow archer...got it. Let me know when nelson starts throwing off a mound this year. If you polled 30 gms who they would rather have going forward, archer or nelson, 35 of them would state archer and they would give you their answer in less than a second. I'll be done with sidetracking this thread about a potential trade, but nelson isn't in the same league as archer is - unless the brewers bias is oozing from everywhere.

I agree. He's a bit like Jimmy Nelson, kind of a top-end #2 starter. I'm sorry, but that comparison is ridiculous. Nelson hasn't come close to 200IP in a season, and it took a fantastic season stats-wise for him to get his career ERA (a stat naysayers constantly harp on Archer for) down close to 4.1. Nelson's 2017 K/9 = 10.2, career average of 8.1. And, this is basically his 29-yr old season that he's opening up on the DL, with no definitive timeframe when he'll be back after getting his throwing shoulder cut on. Archer is basically 0.5 year older, under more team control on his current contract than Nelson is with arbitration, has gone over 200IP each of the last 3 seasons, his career ERA is 3.6 pitching in the AL east, and his career K/9 is 9.7 pitching in the AL (11.1 in 2017). He simply is much better than Nelson. Might still be considered a high end #2, but that means Nelson, Anderson, etc aren't in that category. I'm as big a Nelson fan as anyone, but he's produced at the current rate you're apparently expecting him to continue at/improve upon for about 5 months. Archer has been producing at or above that rate for about 4 seasons. Now, when it comes to what it should cost to acquire Archer, I agree that the Brewers shouldn't just send any and every prospect/player just to get him. I don't really hear much noise about other teams pushing hard to trade for Archer, so I think the Brewers need to avoid competing against themselves, particularly right now. If the Brewers sign one of the FA starters, I don't think they need to sign/acquire another one at the start of this season - they may have a better play revisiting the SP market come this year's trade deadline, when there will likely be many more quality SP options available as teams who are paying lip service to contention are no longer interested and looking to make more palatable trades for starters who may have less team control, but could be better options to anchor a rotation and likely wouldn't cost as much than what some of the current Archer proposals are rumored to be.

Part of the delay with fa starter signings this offseason has to do with how the game is evolving, too....bullpens are becoming more prominent, and even the best starters aren't being asked to go as deep into games - so they essentially become less valuable compared to how quality starters were perceived years earlier. When the top of this crop is asking for their offers to be structured based off how the starter market was established in prior years, they are opening negotiations from an unrealistic position. Bullpen arms are getting paid much more because they are being relied upon more, so the shift in on field value from starter to reliever is also being followed by the shift in contract values, too.

"No comment"

2 weeks until pitchers and catchers report, than about 6-7 more weeks until opening day...plus haudricourt is about as worthless as it gets when it comes to breaking any brewer news accurately. Brewers have tons of time to make a deal and may even benefit to hold awhile before pulling the trigger on a few trades. Plus, still lots of fa moves will have to happen here soon. Patience, that tweet is a nothingburger.

I think regardless of an archer trade, the brewers will sign a fa starter...it's not either or, it's whether they make both moves now or hold off on an impact trade until they are into the 2018 season and see how thing are going across mlb.

The more I think about this, the more I want the brewers to sign a free agent starter and then sit on their hands on trading for another...at least until this year's deadline. By then, more teams will be honest about not contending that may have quality starters available for far less than what tampa is apparently demanding for archer. If their asking price is that astronomical, wait them out until more teams have quality starters on the market instead of bidding against yourself. And I'm coming from the point of view that I'd love to have archer on the brewers...the trade has to make sense for them in what they give up, though.

This yrs fa class is bitter that they aren't getting more than what prior contract precedents were for marquee free agents at their positions...problem is all of this year's crop are either older or not as good as the precedents they are seeking to eclipse. The agents are miffed that they can't get teams to pony up regardless. When the best FA's don't sign it makes little sense for the mid and lower tier FA's to get contract offers because there are better available options. In sbort, blame agents like boras for trying to pass off good players as great players

I most definitely didn't call kopech a top ten overall prospect at the time he was dealt in my last comment in this thread. At the time, kopech profiled as a lotto ticket if he could develop command of his overwhelming stuff - burnes isnt in that category at all, he's a polished collegiate pitcher that has dominated milb lower levels, but his stuff most definitely does not profile as TOR -caliber. Burnes would be rough to give up, but you'd be getting a finished mlb product for 5 seasons starting opening day 2018 instead of waiting two more years for burnes to reach mlb and two more for him to establish himself, most likely. I'd hesitate to pull the trigger on a trade involving burnes if more pitching than him is included, but he's not untouchable.

Bauer for Santana is a much more reasonable 1 for 1 trade proposition, IMO. Santana is more valuable than Salazar due to Salazar's injury concerns. Bauer probably wouldn't cost the brewers any of their prime arms in a trade.

This is Santana's last pre-arbitration season - so while he's still cost-friendly that part of his value to whichever organization he's a part of will start decreasing rapidly after this year. Plus, having to put Santana in the field as an NL team diminishes what he gives you at the plate. He profiles as an ideal DH candidate in the AL - IMO a right-handed hitting Schwarber with a better average/OBP. That definitely has value to AL teams, but not enough to have them just ship a talented and cost-controlled starting pitcher in his prime to Milwaukee in return. The issue with Santana as a centerpiece to Tampa in a trade is that his current MLB service time clock isn't what Tampa would want in return for dealing a quality rotation piece who's under a fantastic contract currently. The problem with Santana as a centerpiece to Cleveland in a trade is that the Brewers should demand more back from the Indians than Salazar, which is where things get dicey with remaining prospect packages/salary relief. It's not that brewer prospects/Santana are undervalued - it's that the best potential trade fits don't cleanly match right now, so people are trying to fit square pegs in round holes to make trades work and the more complex a potential deal gets the less realistic it becomes. Truth is very few teams are rushing to deal impact, controllable starting pitchers that are already in the majors for a bat two months before the regular season starts. Doing so essentially waves the white flag on the 2018 season unless you have a surplus of pitching (extremely rare). I wouldn't be surprised if Santana is in Milwaukee opening day, and eventually becomes part of a trade to acquire an impact rotation arm with more limited control at the deadline from a team that drops out of contention - like I expect the Giants, Orioles, Blue Jays, Royals, Mariners, Rangers, and others to be.

All it took for Anderson was going from 91-92 to 94 everyone picked up a few mph on their fastball, because MLB started measuring it differently last season I shouldn't really bother, because the Santana=moncada and kopech=burnes at the time comparisons at the start of your post probably mean it's not worth reasoning too much with your opinions. Moncada as a prospect routinely ranked #1 overall across MLB for an extended portion of his minor league career....that's Bryce Harper/Kris Bryant territory. Santana has 3 years of MLB service time already accrued, meaning that while his bat is a proven MLB commodity it's going to start getting expensive after this year - and he should probably make his career as a DH. That's nowhere near as valuable as what Moncada was at the time he headlined the Sale trade. The reason the list of top Brewer prospects is so long in a potential trade with Tampa for Archer is that at this stage, none of them are sure thing, top 10 overall prospects. They are in the current Brewer organization, NOT across all of MLB. The Brewers' system is deep but relatively light on unicorn prospects (Obvious Cy Young contenders if they stay healthy, perennial AS players for their position). There may be some at their lower levels (Hiura, Lutz, etc), but it's too early in their professional careers to know for sure.

Bundy?

That statement makes me smile - you know how players could make alot more money based on the same actual $ offers provided by owners? Eliminate the agents or renegotiate their cut of these contracts. They're the biggest squeaky wheel that has nothing to do with on-field performance and entertainment.

Burnes is one of his draft picks, so I'd hope Stearns would hold onto him with tighter claws than usual...

injuries and age are his biggest issues. Shoulder, hammy, back issues (I probably missed something, too) cost him in 2017, and at his age those type of problems aren't too kind to middle infielders. If healthy, he's a great offensive 2B that can still play serviceable defense, but he's about to be 31 and has alot of $ left on his contract. If its just Kipnis coming to Milwaukee in a trade, there shouldn't be a ton headed that direction if they take on most of his remaining salary.

And it's just difficult to project how quickly college or slowly developing but talented high school arms jump through the minor league ranks - unless you're a can't miss top of the draft arm (well, Appel's recent "retirement" kind of even negates that), arms often come out of nowhere and then move up through the ranks quickly. More often than not, command is what holds starting pitching prospects back from realizing the potential that got them drafted - command sometimes never develops, sometimes it just clicks at various stages of a pitcher's career.

You aren't wrong but you have to admit it'd be very very unlikely we promote anyone to the MLB rotation off that list in the next 2-3 years. If the Brewers winded up dealing for Archer and signing a FA starter to a 3-4 season contract, their starting rotation would essentially be under team control for that entire time, too - Archer, FA starter, Nelson, Chacin, Anderson, and Davies. That's six legit MLB starters without even considering whether Woodruff or Ortiz is part of a deal along with Burnes to Tampa. That also completely omits Hader from any starting role consideration in 2019 or 2020 - something I'm not ready to do yet. factor in swing guys capable of starting on occasion like Suter That would allow younger starting pitching prospects to develop without feeling a need to rush them to extend a window. Guys like Ortiz, a healthy Kirby, or a Modeiros that puts it together could progress quickly in that timeframe.