bill hAll Star

I think whatever the number is, as long as it isn't astronomical, is acceptable. If one is "OK with 4/$45 but not OK with 4/$60" then you might be in Attanasio's ownership group. I'm not saying to just light money on fire just for the sake of it, but I think if Attanasio is willing to bring in Cobb at any contract within reason of what we posted above, that means that they are willing to do that with maybe space for filler players in the next few years. Point being, I don't think much changes if Cobb gets $10-15 million more than we think other than you may see a league minimum utility scrub instead of Hernan Perez the next few years. Cobb will nearly cap us out regardless and if we're going to make the move, I trust Mark is still willing to pay for an extra vet here or there, but whether it's $45 million over 4 or $60 million over 4, our outlook over the next 4 years is about the same.

So if Cobb is 100%, does that mean they may add one of those other guys in addition to Cobb? I would tend to assume that they wouldn't add Lynn after signing Cobb so I'll assume Cobb is 95% and Lynn is a smaller percent, but I get the general idea here.

We'd have 2 years left of control on Gray with less of a farm system. I was advocating for not making the trade and I'm glad we didn't. We'd be 0/1 in our 3 chances to make the playoffs with Gray and would've paid dearly to do so.

Souza should improve outside of Tampa - and in Arizona, he could be a 35-40 HR guy. Yes, he's going to strike out 180 times, but he should be able to improve his power and batting average by going from one of the worst places to hit to one of the best. And while the guy isn't a great defender, he's adequate at this stage of his career - certainly better than Yasmany Tomas. I think he will produce similar to Domingo Santana - but with better defense. Well, what do we think about the humidor being installed in Arizona, though?

Wasn't Greinke injured to open 2011?

The only similarities between Archer and Yelich is the amount of control and a below market contract. Archer is not young. He'd be under contract through his mid-thirties, while Yelich is under contract for the rest of his prime years. Not to mention pitchers are much more volatile in general. Archer would be a far bigger risk than Yelich was. And while Yelich was costly in terms of prospects, while the Rays definitely could come down from their asking price, I think Archer may end up costing more in prospects.

If he opts out, that means he's done well, and thus we'd be able to tender him a qualifying offer. And thus get back an even better draft pick. I agree with the first half, but I thought I read that a player can only generate a comp pick once?

Well, two other front-loaded Boras deals have come together with a 2-yr opt out. How do we feel about Arrieta on something like this? 2018 - 30M 2019 - 30M (Player option) 2020 - 15M 2021 - 15M 2022 - 15M I'm a fan of it, but I don't know if Mark can handle those short-term.

I'm not really trying to be some sort of elitist fan. Marlins Man is a great fan to the team. You don't have to be Bill James to be a fan of a team. That said, sometimes a less-informed fan of the actual way a team is developed can not understand what's going on. The media saw [not as rich] new owners step in and trade away franchise players. Even most national media is less informed on this matter. Most of the boilerplate writers do not follow the pitching prospects coming up in the Marlins system [none] and didn't step back and say, "how are the Marlins going to get into the playoffs?" They connected the dots and immediately blamed greedy profit ownership for the moves. And they aren't fully wrong. The new group will profit some. But all of that said, they'll be better for this in a few years rather than inevitably winning 75 games for the next 2-3 years and then tearing it down.

The thing is, if they don't do it now, their options will likely be equally risky players in the next 2 years. Gotta take the leap at some point. I get that it could rule out getting maybe a safer pitcher via trade at a certain point, but if it's someone like Archer or Stroman, they can probably find a way to shed a bit of salary if they really, really need to. I'll live with minimal flexibility the next 3 years. The only way it backfires is if the other 24 players look very good but Arrieta is a bust. We're taking a 3 year shot here and I'd rather have our farm system waiting on the other side if it fails (i.e. not trading for Archer). I would rather take a leap on the cheaper, less year (hopefully) option in Cobb. I just don't see how in any way that Arrieta earns his contract moving forward. Too many indicators pointing in the wrong direction for this guy to get the money and length of contract from a franchise like the Brewers. Hopefully, Philly outbids us. No sought after free agent ever "earns" their contract in today's game. If they sign Arrieta, IMO it means that they have the budget for Arrieta and a little wiggle room. He only should cost a little bit more than Cobb, so if they go for Arrieta, I trust that means that Mark can still pick up a reliever or something if they need one next year. I'd prefer Cobb as well but I'm going to be happy with any of them that they choose to go for.

Yes, it mattered so much when Corey Knebel took the role last year. It's 3 outs in a baseball game and a very overused cliche. The pressure or fact that guys face the best pinch hitters does mean something at times, but not nearly that much. And I can list a whole mess of setup men who couldn't handle it. It matters. And yes, as I said, I think Edwards will take that role and is very good. There have been some that either aren't good enough and a handful that couldn't handle the pressure. It's not a huge list, though. It's 3 outs in a baseball game and the guys generally already pitched high leverage situations before they got there. It's not like they're pitching on Mars.

The thing is, if they don't do it now, their options will likely be equally risky players in the next 2 years. Gotta take the leap at some point. I get that it could rule out getting maybe a safer pitcher via trade at a certain point, but if it's someone like Archer or Stroman, they can probably find a way to shed a bit of salary if they really, really need to. I'll live with minimal flexibility the next 3 years. The only way it backfires is if the other 24 players look very good but Arrieta is a bust. We're taking a 3 year shot here and I'd rather have our farm system waiting on the other side if it fails (i.e. not trading for Archer).

I would hope that Attanasio has gone into this with the cost ceiling in mind. So far I've really liked what they've done. Yelich is affordable and I'm a fan of Cain's deal, even if it's maybe a year too long. I've been a fan of a FA signing over trade because that means Mark's budget is high enough anyways. I can't imagine he'd go half in knowing that adding another pitcher may cost $10-20 million more/year. If we're stuck having to trade for Archer to round this thing out due to salary difference, I'll be really mad at Attanasio. Boxing yourself in with an "all-in" roster where you have to empty out your future cheap players to probably attain 2nd place would crush me. They'll probably trade Santana if they sign Arrieta or Cobb and while '18/'19 are challenging financially, it starts to ramp back down around then. I've been all for hitching their wagon to free agents this offseason because I don't think they'll be in play for many next offseason and they can get the bigger money out of the way now and then reassess in 2020 when Braun and several other guys will be getting set to leave and empty some of the payroll out. I hope Mark was willing to go to $120-130 for 3 years here before Braun's deal ends. If not, this could be depressing.

Yes, it mattered so much when Corey Knebel took the role last year. It's 3 outs in a baseball game and a very overused cliche. The pressure or fact that guys face the best pinch hitters does mean something at times, but not nearly that much.

The Cubs had very little interest in bringing back Arrieta. They wanted to do something like Cobb/Chatwood early, but Cobb was pricing himself too high and Darvish price was coming down, so the Cubs pivoted to Darvish. (Note: I find it funny that some Brewers fans--not sure if it is this board or not--are talking themselves into believing the Cubs bullpen will be bad.) It will be. Watch. Hanging your hat on Brandon Morrow and Justin Wilson is bad business. No ones talking themselves into it. It's just the way it is. I mean Wilson is like their #6 reliever out of the bullpen, but sure. I think they'll have a good one. Morrow is a risk, but even good relievers are very volatile. Cishek, Strop, Edwards, Deunsing as a LOOGY guy, plus Montgomery is very good when he's not a starter. At the very least it should be pretty stable.

It didn’t? Seems like he got a good contract even if Boras said that with a straight face.

Tradeoff of not facing a DH and not having to pitch ~20 games in the other AL East parks makes it closer to a wash.

Well, they're possibly still going to get something (small) for Dickerson, but that's a way to leave out a lot of relevant details.

This is a good point. I've thought a similar thing as everyone has argued about TOR over and over. We really can't acquire this person in any reasonable way and keep long term. So we're kind of left filling out a deep rotation with good but not great Ps. Teams like that can still win. Yes, and if we're going to trade for an ace, it likely will be on a small or arbitration contract (either Archer or Aaron Nola or some other young-ish pitcher) just by the nature of the fact that anyone signed in the Scherzer/Verlander stratosphere will never be available to us by any means unless we draft one. The only thing that getting Cobb does is kills any opportunity to do something like absorb most of Greinke's contract. I'd bet Mark would acquire 2 years, $40 million of an ace on top of already having Cobb if the opportunity was perfect.

Away games with the Rockies (small sample): 76 PA, .238/.355/.317/.673 0 HR. Of course Rockies hit worse on the road (most players do) playing in a string division with pitchers parks mostly Sure, but I guess the idea is that he was still 2017 Lucroy in that small sample on the road. His bump up in production was the Coors effect that any other player that contacts the baseball well has, probably. Small enough sample that we'll never know, but just saying his time on the Rockies does not sway me that he "figured it out" again.

They have Chase Anderson at 9-11 and a 4.76. Archer is at 12-11 with a 3.49. Those projections amount to a hill of beans. I think the point is Cobb is just a guy who no one would realistically see him as an anchor to a rotation (4.16 FIP) so a 5 year deal isn't something one would expect. I'd definitely take him as our 3/4 but never at a big money long term deal. Too many arm problems and not enough upside to see him beyond a nice pitcher to have. If we ever have a 1 or 2 to go with the 3/4 that you are assuming Cobb to be, that player will very likely come up on a rookie contract/pre-arby contract. There are very few pitchers that I see that we could trade for that would come at a high salary cost. And if we aren't getting one now, we never are getting an Arrieta or even better "1 or 2" type in free agency.

HH19 went back and said Cobb will be a Brewer and if not he'll delete the account similar to the tweet from a few days ago. Seems to maybe just be more of an assurance that they've signed him on his side if he's to be trusted.

The 2nd one "Stean'[sic]s waiting on on Cobb's agent" might suggest that the Brewers have offered a 5th year.

You've followed up one condescending remark with another. I'm not crapping on Marlins Man or the Door Man or whichever super fans that dump $25k into season tickets. That's a type of fandom that I don't have the financial means for nor the time on my hands for. But there are a lot of people that cannot separate a long-term plan from one that is actively crushing the fanbase. If the Marlins continue to run a $55 million payroll for 5 years after this and trade away good players to save money in 2022, we can talk then. The Marlins were not getting anywhere close to the playoffs this year. Jose Fernandez's death was a gigantic butterfly effect on that franchise. The clock ticks one year further to Ozuna, Yelich, Realmuto being gone or older and Stanton getting to the point of being old and overpaid. These moves will pay dividends down the road.

Thompson did build a great team through the draft. This debate could split off elsewhere, but somewhere in the 2014ish timeframe, the drafting started to fail and Thompson didn't adapt. I'll leave the Packer comparison at that. There are only 3 ways to acquire players in baseball (most sports): You're absolutely right that there is more than one way to rebuild. But saying "didn't work for some other teams!" is not great logic. It is clearly the best way to win (especially for a smaller market) in today's MLB. It comes with a pretty massive risk, though and I am not one that is chomping at the bit to do it. The mixed approach is great but it usually involves trading away your best players/tanking/not signing immediate impact players to start your core team. I think the problem here is with your suggestion of the panacea of the salary floor. Teams will still be bad. Teams not trying to tank will still "alienate their fans." Teams will tank in other ways because if you want a 5 year championship window, you absolutely do it through tanking or trading your franchise away for future players (which then breeds tanking). I was not one asking Mark Attanasio to tank. I think Stearns is doing a great job. I'm happy with it. I do think that we now have an empty void of elite elite prospects to have a long window like the Cubs or Astros (the Cubs were able to supplement with higher payroll and the Astros likely will). It's not even all about the draft picks. It's the idea that being worse now (i.e. trading someone such as Jonathan Lucroy or Carlos Gomez or Greinke) can help later. I don't really even care about the draft picks in that case. It helps, but the key is the prospects in return for those guys that have helped build the core of the current promising team. The Marlins took several lotto tickets for Gordon/Ozuna and the return on Stanton was not having to potentially pay a 34 year old RF $30 million dollars for several more years next time they're good.