bill hAll Star

There was a pretty legitimate chance that we'd have missed the playoffs even after making a bigger move last year. Get ready for minimal splash again this year. Weaknesses: Elite starting pitching - this is probably going to cost way too much. I'd take Tyson Ross, but it's basically a modest upgrade over someone like Davies for 5-6 innings. 2B - It's barely a weakness. I'm not even sure Lowrie is an upgrade. SS - I doubt anything is gonna be available. C - Maybe Realmuto but I think it's gonna cost too much again. I understand the idea of never making a move and saying "we need to save up for the next 3-5 years" and then never making the playoffs...but I think there is way way higher of a chance than you think that we empty out our farm system, miss the playoffs last year and this year, and are back at square 1 if you're running things.

^^ Yup. The larger market teams are getting a bit smarter with some of the contracts, but there's nothing wrong with sitting on $50-100 million/year of dead money or fringe starters like all of the big markets are doing. The Red Sox are paying David Price, Pablo Sandoval, and Dustin Pedroia, Hanley Ramirez, and Rusney Castillo $100 million dollars this year, so they're basically paying a #3 starter $100 million. The Yankees have less bad money on the books right now, but they've had their share and will be signing more in the near future. Ellsbury and paying $5 million to McCann to play in Houston are the only terrible ones right now for the Yankees. I'd count CC, Walker, etc. but those guys are on a 1-year deal. The Cubs as mentioned are paying about $100 million this year to Heyward, Darvish, Lester, Zobrist, and Smyly (potentially a good investment for next year). That's better than the Red Sox, but those guys aren't worth that. The Dodgers under previous management built up the first wave of their run with a bunch of giant contracts that they're just finishing paying off. Of course you've got teams like the Tigers that have sat on $70 million of declining trash and have been riding in the basement for a few years, but that's the price that a mid market paid for having a nice 5-7 year window to win it all and fell just short. I think if I was a big market, I'd do it as Friedman has been doing it with the Dodgers...but you can absolutely win by overpaying vets as long as you're smart about it and also pay attention to your minors system.

For whatever it's worth, Ross would probably be a modest upgrade to this rotation. I'm not that interested in doing it since it is at best a slight upgrade, but you could argue he's a #2 or #3. Straily wouldn't crack the rotation.

Their GM denied that it was a certainty yesterday afternoon, but I would think that it will probably happen.

Not sure if I'm kidding or not, but I would rather lose a game or two this year with Arcia than watching Miller/Perez play SS the rest of the season. I know I've used Aguilar as an extreme example of why defense matters at the SS position, but in all seriousness we are better off completely punting on defense at SS and putting Aguilar there than having this platoon happen. This isn't fantasy baseball where just because a guy has positional flexibility means he can actually play there. Oddly enough, the GM that has turned this franchise around very quickly and seems to be on the cutting edge of analytics does, in fact, believe he can at least play 2B and also probably SS. There's also this: Obviously Rays' brass vs. Baseball America Glaser/Stearns in opinion of where he should play. I think some of the Rays moving him off 2B and maybe SS was the glut of middle infielders that they had.

Right, they're basically doing what they've always done but they're short on the MVP offensive player on their roster. Their bullpen may be worse than what it used to be, but to compensate, they may actually have a better spread-out collection of hitters (again, minus a Pujols) and a slightly higher end starting staff if healthy than they had in some of those years. All of that adds up to a ~90 win team, which they are on pace for. Put Reyes in that rotation and they may be close to 95, though that is making an assumption as to how good he truly is in the majors at this point.

First off, Miller is not a SS. He's worse than Sogard...and saying he's not that huge of a dropoff from Sogard shouldn't be used as an argument in favor of using him at ss, moreso that Sogard is at best the baseline for the minimum defensive caliber player that we should allow to play the position. In reality, he probably should never be playing SS. Villar is not a bad defender at 2b. He was slightly below average last year and has been slightly above average this year to date. For me, he passes the eye test as well. A strict platoon basically has Villar starting what 20% of the games? I'm not sure the ratios of starting RHP vs LHP, but 20% probably isn't far off. He should be playing more than that, especially considering he's a superior defender to Miller. Villar's OPS against RHP is around 680, Miller is around 780. Clearly Miller has been better, but it's not all that drastic. Plus Villar's OBP is only 17 points lower than Miller and Villar is an asset on the base(at least when he isn't a headcase). He makes up for some of the power by stealing bases. Also consider how good Villar is at taking pitches and working the count. The argument I stated above in favor of Miller getting 40% of the starts at 2b and PH duty I noted as the only argument that really makes sense for bringing him on. Playing SS regularly, super utility, PH off the bench, none of those make sense...bringing him in only really makes sense as a 2b rotational guy. I should have pointed out that I don't agree with that usage of him. I still don't like the trade, and if Miller makes it to the mlb roster I don't think he should take more than 1 start a week from Villar at 2b and should never see a single inning at ss. I understand that you are suggesting that defense is important and that you think Miller is really bad, but I don't really get the idea not liking the idea of dealing a guy who has the ceiling of Justin Bour at absolute best and has no path to ever playing on this roster for a guy with essentially the same bat...but he plays multiple positions and has a MLB track record. And you said you preferred Orf a few weeks ago and admitted that may not have been the best choice. Orf's decline over the past month since the hysteria of those wanting to bring him up back to being a zero power minors hitter that probably won't see the majors was somewhat expected...but if you wanted to get excited about some good minor league numbers, have a look at Brad Miller's. What a guy did 5 years ago in the minors shouldn't matter, but just use that to frame the "I kinda wanted Nate Orf" compared to the "Brad Miller is terrible" thought process. Miller is an MLB bat with below average defense. I trust our management will weigh bat vs. defense and plan accordingly. I know that you don't completely like WAR and I agree it shouldn't be taken literally in all comparisons, but I think Sogard having a 2 career WAR and Arcia having a 1 career WAR is not too far off. Miller's is 7.2. He has more years accumulated over Arcia, but Miller is a 2 WAR player and I'd agree with that given our roster.

Are you saying Miller would weaken them offensively at 2B? Seems like it would be a push at 2B offensively between Villar/Miller. For me, the best argument in favor of adding Miller is a soft platoon or 60/40 split with Villar at 2b...with Miller only playing against some RHP. Maybe that's enough PT that he remains sharp and can have quality PH appearances. The other argument being our FO sees something in Miller that they tweak to yield significant improvements. This super utility thing is nonsense as Miller shouldn't play SS, I don't think Villar is moving back to SS sometimes...if the Brewers ever considered it we would have probably seen it by now. All this said, I've been dead wrong about the Brewers intentions before and it will happen again. I hated when we brought up Saladino because I wanted to see Orf. I'll be hoping for the best if/when Miller comes up to the big league club. Miller should be getting all almost all RH pitching starts if he is strictly a 2B. Villar has generally been a bad fielder. Miller is a bad fielder at 2B or SS. Brad Miller hits righties fairly well over his career. Villar his lefties fairly well over his career. Villar's splits are closer over his career but it seems of late is a much better right-handed hitter. His vs. RHP splits are somewhat propped up by 2016 in which he was respectable. Depending on the matchup, you could play Miller at SS and Villar at 2B against a RHP. Otherwise go with Arcia at SS and Miller at 2B. Villar/Perez and Arcia play LHP no matter what.

It's hard to line up those guys you listed against guys like Craig, Freese, Jay, Motte, Lynn, Garcia, Miller, etc. Their hitters are more solid contributors versus the type of guy you fill in 3-5 in the order. Their starting pitching is still a bit crazy, but they also have a dreadful bullpen. Apparently nobody in AAA they can bring up to bolster. I'm not trying to say they are bad by any stretch. I just don't view it as an elite front office anymore. Even if they are still one of the top teams at developing talent, they aren't light years ahead of everybody anymore and they are closer to average in FA signings and trades and other methods of talent acquisition. I think you're a bit nostalgic on some of those names and it is clouding your judgment. These are the same types of good MLB players coming up, they're just missing that one big piece. Honestly just compare some of the players you listed in that list of well-developed Cards players of 5 years ago and put them side-by-side with some of their current, good players. Jose Martinez is pretty much a carbon copy of that prime 2 year window of good Allen Craig. Both terrible defensive players that could rake. You're maybe overrating Freese a bit because of that playoff run. He only had one fully healthy, really good season and then a few partial decent seasons. I know that they technically traded for Gyorko, but he brings essentially the same impact and potentially a superior bat. Jon Jay was no better than a Pham or a Piscotty in his good years. Someone like Bader is probably not far off, though he has less of a hit tool but probably more SB and a bit more power than Jay. They've had some pitching injuries and underperformance in the bullpen, but their starting staff has been great. I don't see a huge difference between guys like Flaherty or a smart FA signing like Mikolas being any different than what Lance Lynn brought. They've had flaws/warts like this bullpen before. Their 2 World Series titles in recent history came after limping into the playoffs and arguably shouldn't have even been in the playoffs both years.

While the Cubs' run is likely constrained to a handful more years anyways with Kris Bryant and some of their other prime talent getting older and some of them becoming free agents and giving them the opportunity to leave or put another bad contract/starter on the board, I don't think "Darvish will sink them." 1. I think they've been planning to go over the luxury tax threshold all along in 2019 or later. 2. Their payroll situation still isn't bad. If you're looking at year-to-year payroll, they frontloaded Heyward, Lester, Darvish, and Zobrist. Those frontloaded deals do still get averaged out in luxury tax calculation, but they should at least have some breathing room next year if they want to stay under the threshold and make a signing or two. If they want to go a little bit over they could go after a Machado or Harper if they wanted to. On top of all of that, it's still early with Darvish. He still could get right this year or over the life of that contract.

The Brewers have made a few mistakes as well so I wouldn't really beat the Cardinals up over a bad contract or two, even if they are long-ish. Cain's deal could look terrible in 2 years even though I don't expect it to necessarily. The only difference between the early/mid-2010s Cardinals and the mid/late 2010s Cardinals is that the earlier 2000s Cardinals had a prime, roided up, Hall of Fame player in Pujols. They've basically transferred that money that Pujols had later in his time there to Fowler or Peralta. They still won 90-100 games most years up until the last 2 years but seem poised to at least tick back up towards 90 (and maybe more if Reyes ever gets healthy by next year). The Cards of old won divisions because their competition stunk if the Cubs were down and they won World Series by sheer volume of playoff appearances and luck when they got there. The reason they had to pay guys like Peralta and Fowler is their farm system stopped producing as well. For years and years, it seemed like anytime they needed...they could dip into AAA and pull out a stud. Carpenter, Craig, Miller, Rosenthal, etc. It was ridiculous how often a guy would get hurt and the next guy up would fire a 2 ERA or 900 OPS. It just hasn't been quite the same as years past. I don't feel like they are light years ahead of everyone else in player scouting/development anymore. And considering they aren't adding value by swindling teams left and right in trades like Stearns, I just don't view the FO as elite anymore. They're still doing that. They went to DeJong after Aledmys Diaz and now Yairo Munoz isn't bad after DeJong got hurt. Jose Martinez replaced Matt Adams who replaced a few others like the Allen Craig few year explosion dating back to Pujols. Pham and probably O'Neill after Grichuck (traded at the right time), Piscotty (professional courtesy trade), etc. Bader isn't bad, either. Reyes, Flaherty, Weaver are all good and they have brought out C-Mart a few years ago. Reyes is just hurt. I think this is the same that they've always had, they're just missing out on having Albert Pujols right now. I think they're still focused on draft and development, they just may be missing that slight oompf over the top like a Pujols and unearthing the next superstar every few years is a very hard thing to sustain anyways. Reyes might have been that to make their pitching staff absolutely filthy but they at least have the groundwork to have a decent team the next few years. I actually was banging the drum before this season that I thought Stearns was going the Cardinals route - always have a stock of MLB-ready players. You can grab your Matt Holliday or Fowler or Lorenzo Cain when applicable to fill in the gaps. This Brad Miller trade could work out as the Jedd Gyorko trade did for STL. More MLB depth at a position of need in return for an unnecessary and potentially overrated player (Choi/Jay).

A relatively bad Dexter Fowler deal and a 1-year Greg Holland contract has really made you think this? Since I can remember, they've seemed to be a team that makes 1 splash either by bringing back a guy they traded for (Matt Holliday) or one signing that they think fills a longterm gap, even if an overpay (Jhonny Peralta, Dexter Fowler). The two that stuck out to me were the Fowler and Peralta deals, which those 2 deals generally hadn't been the cardinal way of doing things. The holland deal is whatever, it's a 1 year deal. 5 years ago, this was probably the best front office in baseball. You could easily argue them ahead of the Pirates and possibly convince me of it, I just don't view them as an elite FO anymore. The Brewers have made a few mistakes as well so I wouldn't really beat the Cardinals up over a bad contract or two, even if they are long-ish. Cain's deal could look terrible in 2 years even though I don't expect it to necessarily. The only difference between the early/mid-2010s Cardinals and the mid/late 2010s Cardinals is that the earlier 2000s Cardinals had a prime, roided up, Hall of Fame player in Pujols. They've basically transferred that money that Pujols had later in his time there to Fowler or Peralta. They still won 90-100 games most years up until the last 2 years but seem poised to at least tick back up towards 90 (and maybe more if Reyes ever gets healthy by next year). The Cards of old won divisions because their competition stunk if the Cubs were down and they won World Series by sheer volume of playoff appearances and luck when they got there.

A relatively bad Dexter Fowler deal and a 1-year Greg Holland contract has really made you think this? Since I can remember, they've seemed to be a team that makes 1 splash either by bringing back a guy they traded for (Matt Holliday) or one signing that they think fills a longterm gap, even if an overpay (Jhonny Peralta, Dexter Fowler). They did get a 1 year trial out of Kyle Lohse but they eventually brought him back at 4/$40 million. They've done stuff like this for a fairly long time.

I understand that Santana's value is way down, but I'd rather just run Suter or any of our AAA depth guys out there and hope for a decent 5 innings rather than...running out Dan Straily and hoping for a decent 5 innings and giving up value for an identical or potentially inferior pitcher. I'd basically take Straily for a low-ceiling AA prospect or something like that if we think there is some improvement that can be made that would make him an upgrade over Suter or anyone in that tier of pitchers that we have.

Morrison signed late, got off to a horrible start but has been around an .800 OPS guy for the last month. He's not ice cold. Definitely. He's gone a bit cold again in this past week but he just put up a good month of May so it isn't completely beyond him to be good.

Logan Morrison is not simply having tough luck. If his launch angle thing worked, he'd be hitting more balls out...but he's on pace for maybe 18ish. Balls out of the park can't be defended, so you can't just say tough luck. If Morrison got hot in July and hit over 300 for the month, that absolutely matters. That's how we were able to move Aramis Ramirez a few years ago, he was bad most of the year but showed enough in July to garner interest and carried that momentum through the season. It's a rental...you are getting 2 months of a guy. You don't want to trade for what might be a significant cold streak. You don't trade for a guy based on an extensive track record and say "well eventually he'll figure it out". Eventually may never happen, and it definitely might not happen over a 2 month span. Not everyone is mediocre at age 36, gets traded, and immediately turns into Cy young like Verlander did last year. As for Thames 2 years of control. It does add a bit of value, but not like it would if you were trading for a stud. If I'm the Astros, I'm not trading for Morrison or Duda because I simply don't view them as upgrades. I'm looking at Thames or Bour or another LH option that's playing well. If it came down to Duda or Morrison, I'd rather give up nothign and roll with the equivalent options that I have. I agree that giving up nothing and seeing if in-house options are better may be superior than trading for Duda or Morrison. But if they have to make a trade, I can bet you it isn't something like Keuchel for Thames. Morrison is having a bit worse ability to get the ball in the air, but his BABIP is way down. He will likely have a much better batting average as the season goes by. I agree that some guys simply just don't have it anymore. But chasing hot streaks or shying away from cold streaks without looking at underlying splits/ratios/luck is something that a novice fantasy baseball manager does. Maybe Keuchel and Morrison's bad numbers are truly due to career decline, but Gerardo Parra's Orioles stats can tell you all you need to know about "well, he's hot this year...better trade for him" without factoring in what guys generally do and the luck that comes with the 1st half stats. You consistently rip the Cubs' strategy of the past few years and now you're suggesting that the Astros throw some more prospects at Thames?

Your analysis of "rental" vs. "control" is off here as many people made the mistake with Keon Broxton. Eric Thames is relatively replaceable. Not for free...but you can find something that is 75% or better of what Eric Thames is next year and not give up a prospect to do it. We'll never get the "2 years of control on Thames" value because nobody is going to be willing to pay it. They'll just take Lucas Duda instead this year and re-sign someone of that ilk this coming offseason. You're knocking Morrison for only having 1 good year where he did the launch angle reformation. He's having a tough luck year but he should be much better than he currently is. Thames has technically only had "one good season," though maybe he'd have had 2 or 3 more given that he made his adjustment several years ago not in the MLB. This is going to go nowhere though if you can't understand/acknowledge that what a guy does over 60 games does not necessarily predict what they will do once traded for. See: Jed Lowrie's start to the year. He was looking like an MVP candidate and now he is back to looking as he always has on the whole: A decent hitter. Keuchel is having issues getting the ball on the ground as he normally does. If he was a serious trade target for the Brewers, the analysis is not "well, he has a 4.00 ERA this year" - it comes down to whether or not scouts/management believe that he is unlucky or that his groundball style has truly faded or has been figured out. I could bring up 100 guys being talked about as trade targets this year like Manaea, Liriano, Lowrie, etc. that were having exciting seasons one month into them...and then...once the luck evened out, they were right back to career norms. Even Nick Markakis is on his way back down. Now, Morrison may have fit that mold from last year, but he's similar to Keuchel: is his launch angle revolution enough to trust that he'll regress to the mean and be a .750-.850 platoon guy? It's not "he's hitting .197 right now. Trash." So again, if I'm a GM, give me Duda or Morrison for a bag of baseballs and I'll keep my pitcher and comp pick and also see if Gurriel et al can turn it around. Nobody is going to give up a large package because Eric Thames has a team option next season and he's a modest upgrade over those guys.

Come on man, Duda and Morrison...really? 256/317/398 with 4 bombs for Duda(who is injured anyway). 197/309/348 with 6 bombs for Morrison. Justin Bour is doing ok 245/371/439 and may be a decent option, but he's also going to be fairly expensive in prospects. Meanwhile, Thames is hitting 250/351/625 on the season. If he returned from injury and picked up where he left off...he's far and away more valuable than Duda or Morrison and arguably more valuable than Bour. What most of us are saying from a logic standpoint, is both teams would be trading from a position of strength and depth for a position of need. It's altogether possible that the Astros trade a SP and the Brewers trade a 1b but not with each other and for different returns. As for general 1b potentially available. The cream of the crop is Abreu, next tier includes Thames, Aguilar, Bour, then there's the tier of mostly useless guys like Duda, Morrison, Cron, Ramirez, etc. I don't think Abreu moves, the White Sox have generally made clear that they won't make a move unless it's a drastic overpay. The other bonus to trading with the Brewers over the Marlins/White Sox is you can include MLB players if it fits our needs. Like in Houston's case having an extra starter, or maybe the Indians including Kipnis or a backup catcher. The White Sox and Marlins likely have little to no desire to bring back mlb players unless they are very young. Morrison and Duda are coming off seasons nearly as good or better than Thames had last year. Thames is also coming off an injury that many say can linger for a long time - that's a risk for a buyer. Duda was doing great against righties this year and should be back from his injury soon. Cron is having a decent season, though he does have the problem of being a RH hitter so less platoon advantage. You really think it's worth the small upgrade of Thames over one of those guys to give up a potential ace pitcher if he gets it right AND the comp pick you'd be handing away? Gurriel probably also is not this bad, though maybe his injury is a true concern. Would you give up Albers for Jed Lowrie or would you rather just get Starlin Castro for free if we pay half of his salary? This is not a perfect analogy but the best that I can come up with. You also knocked Duda for being hurt while...Thames is also hurt. And your stats for Thames is 22 games where he happened to be hitting well. It's very possible he'd have had a cold May and be right along the .800-.850 mark. I think you'd probably agree that Thames is probably somewhere around an .850 OPS hitter when platooned. I don't think teams trade for players based on what has happened in the first 60 games of a season. While I do think one can make assumptions where the careers of Thames, Duda, and Morrison are going, there is not nearly as much of a difference as your Brewer-tinted/short season sample googles are showing you. Maybe this is the cliff and Morrison has fallen off of it at age 30 (where he supposedly refined his swing last year) or Duda has fallen off at age 32...but it's nearly as likely that Thames has after his injury in that case.

I'm guessing they probably wouldn't either, but the difference in value isn't nearly as significant as you're making it out to be. Rentals by nature lack significant value, and Kuechel is having somewhat of a hot and cold season. Starting pitching is an area of great depth for them, 1B is a black hole and Thames would be a major offensive upgrade there and come with 2 additional years of control at a cheap cost. So yes, there's absolutely logic, I'm not saying they would do it but I do see the logic. I'd generally agree with this, plus they specifically could use a LH bat considering how many RH players they have. Correa, Altuve, Bregman, Springer...all their best players hit RH. I also see a need for SP for the Brewers, I just don't have any interest in Keuchel. If give them choice between him and Suter for one start, ignoring all other factors...I probably pick Keuchel but it's closer than you think. I don't believe in that guy. But...there is still no logic. Because the logic would be, why would the Astros just give away a guy that could return to dominance if his groundball stuff is on? At the very least he's a great bullpen option. Also, why would they give up the comp pick on him? So the Astros could just: 1. Take bag of baseballs 2. Offer it to KC for Duda, MIN for Morrison 3. Sign said player next season for $4 million if they are very interested in having an extra season of said player Yes, those 2 are having a worse year than Thames but there isn't a huge difference. There are other options if they don't want those 2. Those are 2 that I'm specifically picking out. OR 1. Trade some decent prospects for Justin Bour if they want some team control And keep Keuchel for their playoff run.

This is the old BleacherReport I know and love, with casual fan trade offers galore. I understand that the premise of this article is some off-the-wall ideas that may work, but I like how a likely back-end or worse starter in Barria is being anointed as a solid MLB pitcher after 7 lucky-ish starts. As for the Keuchel/Thames trade, the Stros can probably just buy some slightly inferior power bat for a bag of baseballs at the deadline.

A crisp 7 ER and counting for Shields today.

Jed Lowrie is now down to barely over career expectations after a bad month of May and early June. I'd imagine his cost probably goes back closer to "older veteran rental" if it wasn't already seen as that by most GMs. Now the question is whether he's worth it as an upgrade over Villar? Probably in the same way that Neil Walker was, but the question can be asked pending what it would cost in trade/salary.

He likely has just as much value for the Brewers as an emergency or future option in AAA than whoever he would have been traded for would have. I'm sure he was dangled in trade talks but nobody was offering much for a right handed platoon bat that could be replaced by just signing a cheap journeyman.

But Shields goes deeper into games generally because the White Sox are tanking and don't care much and have not completely enacted the Brewers' stragety (partially due to not having as dominant of a bullpen). He's not a bad option to leave in there for the 6th/7th, but given our bullpen options, he's an inferior choice. Now, Shields is pitching fairly well currently when he makes it to the 6th/7th, but that is beside the point. We have a loaded/deep bullpen. If the game is close, we are tied or ahead, and Shields puts a man on base in the 6th with the meat of the opponent order up...which do you prefer? Unhittable Josh Hader to put the fire out, followed by Jeffress, followed by Albers or Knebel? Or do you want to see if you can get 15-20 more pitches out of 4.50 xFIP/ERA James Shields and then turn to the bullpen? Severino, Kluber, etc. do not get pulled at 80 pitches because leaving them in is essentially as good as bringing in Josh Hader. There does reach a point where we may need to have starters that can go deeper to maintain the bullpen throughout the year but I do not think that is an issue for our team this year. We are likely going to make it to September with a fresh enough bullpen because it is so deep. Maybe this is what you meant and I'm misunderstanding. If so, apologies.

I came up with this in about 30 seconds so if anyone has disputes, they are probably warranted. In: Hader Probably in: Cain In if positions aren't overloaded with big market votes/1 representative guys: Jeffress, Yelich Probably not in, but in play: Shaw Longshot: Aguilar Even longer shot: Guerra