bill hAll Star

The general point here is every team has their core of 15-20 players built from rookie, arby, cheap, and underpriced contracts at $70 million, let's say. Some teams like the Marlins just stop there as they are tanking or just want to be cheap. That means the Yankees have $130 million more to spend and if the Brewers are contending, they have $60 million to spend that year. Throw on garbage from the past and it's more like the Yankees have $80 million while the Brewers have $40. There is a limited pool of players to sign or maybe absorb via trade. If every team like the Brewers said, "well, I don't want that to turn into a bad contract!" you'd have Cain going for 3 years, $15 million and everyone would be freaking out that the Yankees just got Cain basically for free. So instead, smart teams bid knowing that they will have to pay market value (or maybe over market value) for said player. They know the back end has risk of being a dumpster fire. Granted, teams are doing a little bit of what I suggested of not wanting to sign the bad contract with the recent offseason/CBA stuff, but it still is not absurd enough that great players are going for free. That's what the Brewers did with Cain. If you told me Cain would put this season up again for the next 3, I'd consider cutting bait if this theoretical option existed...but I think everyone is forgetting part 2. The Brewers have Christian Yelich and they're hoping for a title. So what as fans do we expect the savings from Cain? Well, you'd have to compete in that exact same market that you got Cain from! So you're going to have to do the same thing most likely to add value from this limited player pool...and you're going to have to replace Cain on top of it all. So it is just weird to see a lot of Brewer fans saying, "look at me, woke baseball fan...I would like to rid myself of the player that is delivering less value than what he's being paid" when they really don't acknowledge that if that came to fruition, the next step is an extra yacht for Attanasio or just going right back out and signing just as crappy of a contract.

The Dodgers are lighting about $50 million on fire right now with Pollock, Hill, Bailey, part of Kemp, and all of their prospects like Olivera from a few years ago. Friedman is playing this smarter than the last regime, but they're going to have some other dead money soon. The Astros hit the jackpot in building with young talent and Verlander turning out well, but they could be burning $70 million on Verlander/Greinke if either of those guys fall off a cliff. Boston won a World Series with about $40 million lit on fire last year. The Yankees have Ellsbury and Stanton could easily turn into an albatross if he doesn't actually play in games. Plus tons of other injured guys making $5+ million. The Cubs are lighting endless amounts on fire. I love how every team you mention is in a different stratosphere than us financially. The point was to mention contending teams. A lot of small market teams have just as bad of albatross deals riding out. If you can't do the math and realize that $50 million lit on fire in Los Angeles or New York is comparable to $25 million lit on fire in Milwaukee (proportions!), then I'm not sure...go ahead and keep thinking you've dunked on me.

Given that the Brewers aren't tanking, the alternative is playing Keon Broxton and eventually Grisham (who could be good but is a long ways from Cain's level) but raising a banner because you won 87 games with a $100 payroll instead of 94 with a $120 payroll last year. Imagine if we'd gone with Brinson/Phillips/Broxton the past 2 years. *Shudder*

The Dodgers are lighting about $50 million on fire right now with Pollock, Hill, Bailey, part of Kemp, and all of their prospects like Olivera from a few years ago. Friedman is playing this smarter than the last regime, but they're going to have some other dead money soon. The Astros hit the jackpot in building with young talent and Verlander turning out well, but they could be burning $70 million on Verlander/Greinke if either of those guys fall off a cliff. Boston won a World Series with about $40 million lit on fire last year. The Yankees have Ellsbury and Stanton could easily turn into an albatross if he doesn't actually play in games. Plus tons of other injured guys making $5+ million. The Cubs are lighting endless amounts on fire. Some of the worst teams in the league are sitting on horrible contracts as they rebuild. The Brewers really might only have Cain's deal after Braun's next year. The Brewers can only afford to have half of the dead money that those bigger markets have, but it's a fact of life. You take your shot at a star player and hope he ages better than his peers. You pay him under market value for the first 1-3 years and hope for the best after that while you overpay him. I'll agree that the Brewers could've tanked and gone Astros Lite (they could not have gotten Verlander and/or Greinke and would already be losing guys at a faster pace) and have a healthier long-term payroll, but that also involves a ton of luck on the front end. The savings from Cain's deal will just go to other 31+ year old players if they even spend it.

The one positive spin on him is that he's had seasons like this before and bounced back. The one giant asterisk is that he had those earlier in his career. I'm hoping it's a thumb thing and he just isn't hitting the ball as hard, because even with speed probably diminishing in the next 3 years, he should still carry a high BABIP if he hits the ball hard. Currently he has a very low BABIP in comparison to his career.

That's a very unfair way of characterizing that side of the stance. Cain has showed some significant signs of age-related decline this year, the 2nd of a 5-year deal. There were already concerns regarding what the production would be in the back half of the contract, which are well-documented in the signing thread from winter 2018. I think those that are interested in trading him are interested because though he might be productive in year 3, there are very legitimate questions regarding whether he'll be a high-priced albatross in years 4 and 5. If their was a theoretical trade where the Brewers could rid themselves of his contract, I'd probably do it. By no means am I suggesting that I'm happy to have a bad contract on the team, but teams can plan these risks at the right times. Right now, the Brewers have $35 million committed to a Braun buyout, Cain, and Yelich in 2021. Knebel and Davies might still be around at let's say $8m on their final arbitration year. Hader might command $5 in his first year of arbitration. Shaw would have to rebound greatly to get back to being tendered for $7-8 million. Now, a lot can change until then given trades, extensions, and signings, but the Brewers have probably $70 million to spend on 10-15 players on their roster in 2021. They have a core of veterans + a handful of guys on their rookie salary that will be eating up probably $50-60 million in 2021. And if the Brewers are rebuilding by then, I don't think I'm going to care if Cain is a 1 WAR player making all that cash. If the Brewers had Moustakas and Grandal signed to 5 year deals right now at $10-15 million/year, I might be trying harder to get rid of Cain's contract if my personal cap was roughtly $135 million. Any signing Mark allows now is knowing that we may be lighting $17 million on fire for Cain so I'd assume that if he signs Grandal to a 3 year deal after this season, he's still willing to keep spending on top. It's maybe gonna be an albatross but I'd guess the Brewers have one of the lower % ratios of albatross dollars to general salary ceiling in the majors.

If he's trending poorly in the next couple years and we have a chance to get rid of that problem with minimal or no incentive added now, why wouldn't we do that before it becomes a problem for us? But how much of a problem is it if: -The Brewers fall apart again next year and consider trading Yelich in 2021, starting a rebuild. If they're rebuilding in 2021/2022, what do I care if Cain is rotting for $17 million? Maybe they push some of that cash savings forward to 2024 but I doubt it. -If that's not the case and they're in the mix, I understand there are better ways that it can be spent if they make the right moves, but looking at the free agent market and players that can be taken on in trades, what are you going to spend it on? There's probably an equal chance that Cain returns to being an absolute stud CF in 2020 and whatever 2-3 players that you spend your cash savings on end up busting. If Mark puts his hands up and says, "sorry, we're rolling with Pina, Arcia, Spangenberg, Saladino, Shaw to round out the C/SS/3B/util roster because we're out of cash" then Cain's dead money could prove costly. If they spend on improvements anyways, what does it matter?

As a fan of the team, I'm not sure how happy I'd even be about this. Odds are, if they give Cain away, they're just going to pocket the money. Second best odds would be that they sign...another player(s) of Cain's age/risk stature with the money. There are some good things they could do with the saved money but I'm not sure they'd happen.

Home runs are up 22% this year and closer to 40% if you compare back about 5 years before they juiced the balls the first time. Batting average is up much less but there are some guys that get a boost in average because of how they hit it and I think Galvis falls in that category. Anyways, this is not that big of a deal given that the point does remain in each player's standing among league shortsops, but I wouldn't be surprised if Galvis puts these numbers up again next year if they keep the balls the same.

These were all rule 5 pick options. So you are not going to get perfection and there are going to be warts. Yes, understood, that's why I gave the disclaimer. I understand you're just presenting options (rule 5) but I can't imagine any scenario where I'd be interested in really any of them. Send Arcia down to AA or AAA and as bad as he is in the majors, he'd blow those numbers away. Arcia was a better hitter than those guys at AA at age 21 and those guys have all probably been stuck in the minors for years and still cannot hit.

I'm on your side here, mostly. I agree that farm rankings can be off in baseball (though maybe not to the degree you had suggested). I was mostly responding to the idea that, "they were wrong about Grisham! [maybe?] Never believe a word they say again!"

The draftniks were wrong about Tom Brady, so if they tell me that Trevor Lawrence will be a stud and top 3 pick, I will not believe them because of that one time.

I think Flaherty would be the Cards' first choice. Also with the Nats/Mets, if you face them, you could get deGrom for 5 and Thor for 3 or Scherzer for 5 and Stras for 3 if those teams are willing to pull out the stops. Or if it's against the Brewers, maybe Corbin would come in in the middle of the game to mow down Grandal/Yelich/Mous/Thames in some order.

Man, with all due respect because I know you're just posting some options...players that are slugging sub-.360 in AA or horrible AVG/OPS should not be major league options. Gordon seems to be the only player that I could see as an option and I'd imagine that the Twins protect him. That's like going after Luis Sardinas to start for our contending team.

Juiced baseball Eric Sogard is a good player. The ball has turned several players that were contact hitters that can hit the ball to all fields into superstars or useful players.

There is almost no proof of this other than an old baseball adage that is suddenly disappearing as analytics continue to infiltrate baseball. Kimbrel only has 22 innings in the 8th inning over his career, but he certainly isn't a bad pitcher in that inning. I understand the idea that a certain guy wants to warm up at a certain time or his adrenaline is higher in the 9th, but it's not as if they're pitching on mars when they come in for a different inning. It's still a major league baseball game. In fact, we need to look no further than Wade Davis, who was an absolute stud in 2014 for the Royals in the 8th inning when they made it all the way to the World Series and lost in game 7...and he did fine in the 9th inning the following year. I don't agree wholly with xisxisxis 100% on the #2 vs. #3 hitter thing (even if he is right, it is a very small matter IMO) but at least he has presented some data. Almost every other complaint on here is, "I think Counsell is a bad manager because [insert pre-2010 baseball adage here]."

Sogard has a relatively even split over his career in RHP/LHP splits. Average a bit higher against RHP but does slug better most years vs. LHP.

Yes there are. Have you looked at how they did their analysis or just looked at the conclusion? How many here actually looked at the methodology and the assumptions when looking at these analysis vs. just restating the conclusion? I have a problem with their methodology and we could go into it in another forum/thread, but when one of the most referenced studies says you put your best hitter at #1, #2, or #4 you have to wonder what did the #3 do to them as a child! Someone brought up the Angels and Mike Trout. Here's some data: What this table summarizes is the LA Angels players from 2017-2019 with the highest opportunity to knock in a baserunner (baserunners on for each) and their Plate Appearances (PA). I've included a BR/600 PA to normalize the data to compare easily across batters. I think we can all agree that Trout is the best hitter on the Angels by a long-shot. I think we can also agree that players like Kole Cahoun, Andrelton Simmons, Albert Pujols and Justin Upton are significantly average/below average batters. What is shocking in these number, is the number of baserunners that poor hitters "see" where they bat compared to Mike Trout at the mostly #2 spot in the Angels lineup. In 2018, Justin Upton, Pujols and Ohtani had about 100 more baserunners on when they batted in the #3/#4 spot compared to Trout at #2. Trout obviously contributes to that due to his high OBP, but if you adjust for his OBP compared to an average hitter in his spot, he is accounting for only ~40 of the 100 and probably less as you likely wouldn't/shouldn't put a league average player at #2. One of the assumptions of the previous analysis which lead to the selection of #2 as the best slot for your best hitter was that the opportunities for having men on base was not significantly different from the 2&4 slots. In reality, the Angels have introduced a worst case scenario (almost). Mostly the difference for Trout in number of runners on when he bats is the fact that the OBP for the #1 hitter in 2019 is the highest it has been in the last 3 years and if you look at OBP of runners before trout and number of baserunners when Trout bats you get this graph: This isn't rocket science. Higher OBP, higher baserunners for Trout. Which is exactly the point I was making with Yelich. Put high OBP guys in front of him (not just 1 at the #1 position), but also at #2 to increase the chance of baserunners on when an elite hitter comes to the plate. (BTW, in 2019 Moustakas has had 50 more baserunners than Yelich in almost identical PA's - it would really be nice if Yelich was hitting with more batters on than a worse hitter). Is this a major factor in the teams success? No. The overall impact is likely in the 10-15 runs a year. So about 1-1.5 games. So what many will say, but that's an important 1-1.5 games. Brewer shifting is probably in the same ballpark of impact, but most don't question that. So why is putting your best hitter in a position to have the most impact so controversial? Also, most managers get the big things correct. Where a manager can stand out is getting those last few win(s) out of each and every situation. Counsel does the big things just fine, I think he needs to work on this. And the issue of lower hitting position = lower Plate appearances, that is correct. On average there is a 15-18 PA drop for each batting position, but the reason you don't put your best hitter #1 (especially in the NL with the pitcher hitting #9) is that there's much fewer baserunners for them to drive in. As you drop in the order the baserunners go up and the PAs go down so it is a balance, but looking at the baserunner numbers, it would be easily justified to lose 15-18 PA from Yelich/Trout if dropping that 1 slot increase the number of baserunners they see by 50-100. Have you considered the fact that Upton, Pujols, etc. see more runners to knock in because they're...batting behind Mike Trout? EDIT: OK, I do see one reference to it in the middle of the post but...that is a massive deal in this analysis. Trout gets on at about a .450 clip these days. 600 PA * 45% = 270 times on base 600 PA * 33% (Calhoun/Upton territory) = 200 times on base. That basically makes up your difference of guys on base. There is also the idea of one of your guaranteed at bats (the 1st inning) could result in 2 out, nobody on for Trout or Yelich roughly 10% of the time making it very easy to pitch around them and just live with facing the next guy.

Sogard is in the interesting category of DJ Lemaheiu, Tommy LaStella, Urshela, and a handful of others. If they keep the same baseballs next year, I'd pay Sogard $10 million. If they change the balls back to whatever they had before, I'd pay $10 million for someone else to take him.

I also think the Brewers don't include cash on trades because they have not signed too many terrible contracts and are selective when they do it. They usually kick off their assumed competitive window with these contracts. Lohse, Garza, Suppan all were 3-4 year deals with "OK, we've got our core and here is our extra contract to try to bolster the rotation." By the time the wheels completely fall off on the contention window and the signing they made, the guy has something like 1-2 years, $25 million left and the Brewers are looking at a 1-2 year rebuild. So there's no point of throwing money in to get rid of Garza. Instead, just let them rot and pray for value to trade away later.

I'm pretty sure we can just get Jesus Aguilar back when he's non-tendered by the Rays given that he's out of options and probably will be nudged off the MLB roster by their plethora of young position players. He may survive with the 26 man roster, maybe.

Santana has hit 14 of his home runs in "low leverage" situations. Gamel has hit his best in high leverage. The Mariners have a lot of low/medium leverage ABs, probably against poor pitchers.

Well, you're half right here. Just like, "really good teams don't pull their starters in the 5th every night." That's because those teams have Verlander/Greinke/Cole or Clevenger/Bieber/Kluber (when healthy). They still pull Adam Plutko in the 5th because it's the best thing you can do to win in modern baseball. Same thing here...Houston doesn't platoon as much because they have about 7 All Star caliber players that hit both hand of pitchers pretty well. However, a lot of contending teams in the past 5 or so years have platooned their lineups to the gills. If you don't have the money or the fortune of being loaded with 6-7 guys that shouldn't be platooned...you platoon. This is how Tampa and Oakland have been competitive in a lot of the last 5-10 years. The Dodgers have platooned half of their lineup in recent years and have done just fine.

I think in some cases where a guy has the talent and is hitting, you keep him in the lineup, sure. Or maybe a hitter that relies on timing just has his locked in then maybe he should ride the hot streak. Outside of that, I think the fact that a lot of smart GMs (passing info down to managers) DON'T play a "hot bat" in a bad matchup is probably a pretty good indicator that the "hot bat" idea is just a cliche that fans have made up and is just not true. I'll bring it up again - everyone wanted "hot bat" Grisham to stick in the lineup more against lefties and he couldn't even keep it going only facing righties. I think the response to that was, "yeah, he was messed with by being on the bench" which is very likely not true if he couldn't even hit the guys that should be easier for him to hit.

Unless one believes that a manager can motivate his team to have otherwise bad players play well enough to win a bunch of games, what else is he supposed to do? They have a largely negative run-differential and still have a winning record. That generally means that almost every victory has been squeezed out.