bill hAll Star

Cardinals?

Rogers has a pretty similar ERA/FIP/xFIP to Hader recently, over his career, etc. The difference between the two is that Rogers is a good strikeout guy but does not have the insanely filthy stuff like Hader, an elite strikeout pitcher. Hader's stuff is borderline unhittable but he'll walk a lot of guys missing the zone. Also, if you get into one, it can turn into a 3 run inning quickly because the ball leaves the yard a lot. Rogers doesn't walk as many guys, doesn't strike out as many. He'll have bad stretches when the BABIP luck hits him the wrong way.

This one is much riskier, but I remember when there was shock and awe when the Brewers traded a utility player (but he was batting .340 at Colorado Springs!) for a pitcher that had a 5.87 ERA with the Giants. As usual, Stearns knew he had something with Pomeranz. Could very well be the same with Lamet.

Look, I do get that the most dominant closer (well, Diaz is this year) is just different than discussing value of relievers, but... ...we're talking about 15-20 innings pitched, in which Rogers is probably 90% the pitcher Hader is. If that costs us the division...well, it wasn't meant to be. Maybe it will matter in the playoffs. Or maybe Hader will give up a brack-breaking homer for the Padres. It's such a crapshoot and the difference between Hader and Rogers is pretty slim.

What if Lamet was simply a dominant or good reliever now? I'd take that. Of course he struggled earlier this year, but he has gotten it together in AAA.

Maybe they'll go back to playing matchups.

Lamet and his elbow likely make him a reliever for the rest of his career.

This. I'm not buying that month with anything serious. And I side with Mercedes over LaRussa in general...but outright quitting is also probably not the best idea. I guess I'd ask to be traded, though maybe this is his way of doing it...I don't know.

Just because this is true doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean those teams would have interest. San Diego is paying Hosmer gobs of money, and I'd be astounded if they chose to push him to the bench. Doesn't mean it won't happen, just that I think it's exceptionally unlikely. Well, his no-trade clause likely limited that possibility in a lot of ways. Then again there is not a team more "ALL IN" than San Diego this year, yet they find themselves in 3rd place in their Division with Hosmer's play having been awful. I suppose it comes down to how badly they want to win and only the ownership and GM can answer that question. As for no trade clauses, they are nothing more than tools to give players leverage. Players don't want to work where they are not wanted, in fact the only player I can think of who exercised his no trade clause was Lucroy, and they still traded him anyways Saying the Padres are "3rd place in the division" is quite misleading. They're a top probably 7 or 8 team in baseball. I'd argue if they were healthier in the pitching staff they'd be top 3. It's not their fault they are in with the Dodgers and now the Giants who seem to be back ahead of the curve in analytics (rebuilding up a bunch of "failed" high-upside pitchers) and/or stealing signs (a bunch of solid hitters having career years). There are always reasons for signing guys when you aren't in a competitive window and/or when the guy is going to spend most of his contract beyond age 30. I'm glad it happens in most cases because otherwise everyone would be the Rays. That said, I'm sure lots of these teams when they are "all in" or are having their year regret having a guy that is now below league average at a position but is still owed $75 million dollars. You're kind of stuck there unless the guy gets a long-term injury or you have balls of steel to trade over the top of him and relegate him to a bench role/cut him.

That's the right move by both sides. If Rizzo wants to play to the very back end of his prime with you and give you another chance to see if you've got a contender but easily deal him if not, fine. For Rizzo, at worst he can sign 1 year/$12-15 million deals for 4-5 more seasons. At best, he signs a 5 year/$90 million deal somewhere this offseason and he was right to pass on the Cubs' offer.

As far as long term planning, the Cubs have not been remotely smart for probably 6-7 years. I think we sparred on this in the past and I'll agree that they may have chosen the wrong targets, but I do think there is a very specific time to overpay players and it is when you have a 3-4 year window of controllable, cheap players. The Yankees seem to be OK almost always paying the luxury tax and sneaking under for a year or two. The other bigger markets are OK with it for 2-3 years. So maybe the Cubs chose wrong on some (Heyward, maybe) but the one time I am OK overspending is if you have a Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, Contreras to build around for a small $ amount. Then you can overpay and know you're going to dip into luxury tax with Lester, Heyward, Darvish, etc. In the end, the Cubs' demise was not having enough pitching come together at the right time. Hendricks was a great home-grown pitcher but that is honestly about it. Kimbrel was an overpay that somehow didn't pay off for 2 years. This is also why I laughed at the Arenado move for the Cards. They already had an aging roster where they've dealt away minors depth. They're not a team that's going to go into the luxury tax often. So they dealt for Arenado to be an 80-85 win team and not much room to grow. Then they'll deal with 4 years of crap Arenado contract on the back end. Bad timing. For the Cubs the timing was right, the players were not the best.

From a pure baseball standpoint you’re right, but reality is a little bit in between. When the team owns a hotel across the street where they book at $700/ night on weekends during the season, it would likely hurt their occupancy rate to have a bunch of no names getting killed every night for the rest of the year and into next. Not to mention their rooftops, bar, restaurant etc. Which doesn’t mean to say the Cubs will pay Rizzo and Baez whatever it takes. If that were so both would be resigned already given prior comments about preferring to stay in Chicago vs. free agency. Obviously, if a team blows their Front Office away with an offer they’d move all of their “Big 3”. However with a realistic chance at resigning those two and their intrinsic value to the franchise I think they may go the way of the Nationals with Harper, let them play out their contract, make the Q.O. and take the draft pick if they can’t work out an extension. Yes, it may be reasonable to try to get a QO and deal them next year, but given all 3 of those guys are likely going to get 3+ years (probably more like 5-7 year deals) - it doesn't make sense to plan on signing them again. I'd take the lower hotel occupancy and trade it off for not being at the lux tax threshold in 2024 with a team of a bunch of washed up infielders.

If the Cubs are selling, they'd be foolish to not deal Rizzo/Baez if there are offers. It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now. Rizzo, Bryant, Baez were all instrumental players to their run and will be revered there forever...but I don't think the Cubs see the point in bringing any of them back. It became clear the past 2-3 years that they could not win the division with those guys in their mid-late 20s. Now imagine all of those guys hogging a starting spot at age 34 in 3-4 years at an average of $25 million/year. It'll only get worse. "Well, yeah, but they're the Cubs and should spend big" would be the rebuttal or most Chicago fan responses. Problem there is if you are paying to keep Rizzo, Bryant, Baez...that means you should be all-in to try to keep winning. So now you add an ace pitcher for $40 million/year and you are already about to hit the luxury tax as an 83 win team. The Cubs are better off tearing the rest down and starting over like they did in the early 2010s. They should trade all 3 if possible. And that does pain me to say given that I would love for them to invest heavily in 30+ year old position players that already all look to be on the decline.

OK, are you ready to slot him in as an everyday MLB contributor prior to 2023? I really didn't mean for this post to get nitpicked away. I do know these things you guys mention but I think the point is fairly obvious that the Brewers have a loaded front-end of their pitching staff, Hader/Williams, and some vet bats all for roughly ~3 years. What was missing was extra help in the lineup and they won't have a ton of money to spend.

Peralta signed an extension with the Brewers. Peralta doesn't really get expensive unless you count $5m as being expensive which would be in 2024. Both Woodruff and Burnes are going to be making about double to triple that in 2024. Yeah, meant to change that...the options might be but otherwise he's pretty cost-controlled.