bill hAll Star

Even if it costs less than Archer, it had better cost a very small amount in prospect capital, or I'd rather just overpay one of the free agents.

It sounds like Archer would cost pretty much our entire farm, and the 31-year old free agents on the market are looking for long-term, nine figure deals. That sounds like a "king's ransom" to me. If we get a ridiculous deal on a free agent, then fine, "strike." If the FAs were looking at signing for ridiculous deals, then they wouldn't still be unemployed. I want the Brewers to add a starter because they need someone else to fill out the rotation. I don't want them to do something that will hurt them in a couple of years just because they feel the urge to "win now." The Braun contract isn't going anywhere, and we just signed Cain. If we add Arrieta, we will have three 30-somethings taking up over half our probable max payroll for the next half-decade. That could get really ugly. Braun's isn't so long anymore. I tend to look at contracts in nimbleness for 2-3 year spans. I personally think that if Mark wants to sign Arrieta, they're hitching their wagon to him. They're gonna have to do that at some point. If this current crop of later-prime guys (Shaw, Knebel, Anderson, Thames) is not as good as we think, we'll be shifting/reconfiguring in 2020 probably anyways. Going into 2021, Braun will be gone ($4 million buyout), Cain will be on a 2 year, $35 million deal, and Arrieta would probably be on a 2 year, $40 million deal. Obviously I'd rather not have those if we're trying to shift, but it's not going to doom the franchise. Point being, if they sign Arrieta, they're pushing their chips on to the table with this group (but I like it because we aren't spending must prospect capital). So you're taking a 2-3 year shot. There are scenarios where I could see it being frustrating. If Arrieta is a huge bust and next year they need to plug in 1-2 more relievers or have the opportunity to acquire someone at the deadline but can't, I can see where it hurts. But they basically have one more bullet to fire salary-wise. If they do it now, it's closer to off the books by the next possible window arrives. If they don't spend on Arrieta or another free agent pitcher, they're likely just saving money to...overpay a different free agent. Everything begins to reset in 2021 anyways.

I think this is all a good point, except I personally would take the part where you said the owners took the suggestion about long(er) contracts and said "that's a good idea" [wink wink, nudge nudge] and insert that it's more about the luxury tax. Nobody was bidding on Darvish except for the Cubs, the Dodgers (but only if they got a taker to get them to fit Darvish under the luxury tax threshold), and some small market teams. That throws everything off for Darvish and the entire market beneath him. I think next year we'll see long contracts again. The owners wanted to reset the number and in a sense they colluded to all [wink wink, nudge nudge] conveniently do this when they knew they'd maybe boost spending again for the big free agent crop next year.

He likely would only accept a trade to the Dodgers, so I’m not sure there’s a chance.

If your owner is willing to pay it, given you expect your window to only be 3-5 more years, you absolutely could. You think the Giants/Red Sox/Dodgers/other team are gonna sit back and let the Cubs win the bidding? They will all be very involved and all have equal if not more resources than the Cubs. The cubs already project to be 10-15 million over the luxury tax line WITHOUT Harper. Good for their owner if he's willing to go nuts and try to get involved...but they still have less resources to work with than the 3 teams I mentioned. And they can't really attach a prospect to try and trade a contract because...well...all their prospects are pure trash. Im not saying it’s some sort of forgone conclusion, but they definitely could do it. They’ve probably been on the lower end of what they could afford for some of the last few years. The Giants/Dodgers/Sox/Yankees are all right around the luxury tax threshold themselves next year. The Cubs will probably try.

If your owner is willing to pay it, given you expect your window to only be 3-5 more years, you absolutely could.

Gross. If that’s all that Santana is used for. Gross. The update/article seems to suggest more would have to come back to the Brewers.

As far as I can tell, this was from random guy on twitter trolling/joking.

$260 million peanuts.

I think Lester is on his way down, but it can also be spun that he had a bad luck season. Higher HR/FB, poor LOB%, slightly high BABIP. He had a nearly identical year in regard to those numbers (and ERA) in 2012 and he did pretty well for the next 5 years. Doesn’t appear that he was giving up harder contact in 2017, either. I am not making the Cubs a World Series favorite but I do think they’re head and shoulders above the rest of the division.

Why would their chances of signing Harper be zero? Maybe they’ve been biding their time all along to go over the luxury tax threshold next year if Harper or Machado wanted to come.

Here's the kicker, it's not an overpay. Darvish will be making about 1.5--roughly---less than Mad Max and he'll make similar money to Homer Bailey, James Shields (Shields/Bailey, wanna take overpay?) and Jonny Cueto. And he'll be making around a million to million five more than Wainwright and Strasburg. (Darvish was looking for 6/175 to begin the off-season.) Overpay? It's closer to being a steal than an overpay. Throw in the opt-out, and it's a clear steal. The Cubs did not react to the Brewers Cain/Yelich moves, so the Brewers cannot knee jerk react to the Darvish move. How does the opt out make it a clear steal? The opt out makes it much, much worse for Chicago. I think it's a fair deal for a non-super-elite (which isn't to denigrate Darvish, he's just not a Kershaw or Scherzer tier SP) with major durability issues whose never had a 5+ fWAR season. Here’s where the opt-out can be good: Darvish has 2 excellent seasons. Darvish opts out. Darvish signs somewhere else. Darvish flames out as he crosses age 34. Obviously a team option would make this better (and obviously this was not available) but you can get the best of both worlds. They got burned by Heyward but this could work. Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

Obviously player opt outs are great for the player, but not terrible for the team. If a guy opts out after 2 years, he likely has earned it and you may be off the hook for the regression years.

I’ll be so happy to celebrate how much Darvish is being overpaid the next 5 or 6 years when the Brewers likely still are not winning any divisions.

Those numbers look far more reasonable than the crap fangraphs is using. Pitching is still a big issue, and I'm sure there are specific player projections I'll nitpick when I read the whole article, but overall result is reasonable. You can also argue that unless the Cubs add another starter, they got slightly worse(losing arrieta/davis) while 3 teams in the division are likely to improve. Sure they added some solid pieces to replace those guys, but nobody up to the caliber of Arrieta or Davis. Davis > Morrow. Chatwood will probably be a reasonable replacement for Lackey. They’ll also have Quintana for the full season, Lester’s peripherals suggest he’s not as bad as last season, and Chatwood replacing Lackey is a very low bar.

Here’s free money for those that are certain of how bad projection systems are. Brewers at 81.5 wins, only 12 games behind the Cubs (which I realize could be a bit inflated due to public team nature).

I think that's a light package for Odorizzi. He's still a solid MLB pitcher even with some recent injuries/not great years whereas Aguilar and Broxton are still guys that teams know we may have to DFA/option since demand isn't that high. Flip it around - would you take some team's 4th or 5th OF and platoon 2B + one lower ceiling prospect for Davies? Slightly different arbitration situations, but you get the idea. Look how Odorizzi is trending, and in a pitcher friendly environment. The ERA didn't look terrible but look at FIP, bb rate, hr/fb rate, LD rate, hard contact rate, and then his absurdly unsustainable BABIP on the year. If he had posted an upper 3's or lower 4s ERA with those other measures remaining more consistent with 2015-2016 levels...completely different conversation. Maybe then it's Broxton, Aguilar, Ortiz for Odorizzi. The reality on Odorizzi, he was closer to a 5 ERA pitcher than 2015-16 Odorizzi...he was extremely lucky from a results standpoint given the trends noted above. After looking at him further, I'm not sure I'd want Odorizzi and would be more inclined to take my chances on Woodruff. Ortiz would make it closer to realistic. They have minimal use for Broxton there. Souza will play everyday. Kiermaier will most, you've got Dickerson who will play some OF, Mallex Smith, while not a true RH platoon guy, still plays plenty in the RH platoon side, and you have Span who will get a few spot starts. Guys like Aguilar and Broxton I would imagine - most teams are more willing to go to the waiver wire and pay 1 year, $600k for slightly less of a player. You don't trade something for Jesus Aguilar, you just go and pay a cheap deal for Chris Carter, Mark Reynolds, or you scrape deeper for someone like Brett Eibner who is not bad against lefties if given a longer leash. It takes a specific team looking for a specific thing when Aguilar truly brings value in a trade. There are a lot of teams that are just willing to live with trying out 8 different guys that have had a taste of the MLB with moderate success in the past and see if you can get one to produce close to Aguilar - that's the position that Aguilar was in before this season with the Brewers.

Slightly different? Odorizzi is going into his age 28 season and has two years left of team control. Davies is going into his age 25 season, makes peanuts and has four years of control. That's a pretty big difference. And the trade still isn't even close. There's been a debate as to whether the Rays would tear it down (meaning they wouldn't want Santana in any trade) or not, but let's imagine that they're still gonna be competitive. Does a RH platoon hitter and an OF that (probably doesn't make sense with Mallex Smith) won't play a ton really move the needle? Doesn't help long-term rebuild either, really.

If it's for Odorizzi, Aguilar could be a piece to that puzzle. Currently the Rays don't have much for a DH, maybe Dickerson. Their 1b is also a LH hitter and he kinda sucks. At worst, Aguilar could start all games against lefties for them and get some time against righties as both DH and 1b. Aguilar + Broxton + Houser for Odorizzi. Then trade Santana to the Red Sox for prospects(Groome+)...use your prospects at the deadline to get a high end pitcher if needed. I'm sure we could get decent packages from other teams for Santana, it's just hard to want to deal with any other GM when Dombrowski is out there. I think that's a light package for Odorizzi. He's still a solid MLB pitcher even with some recent injuries/not great years whereas Aguilar and Broxton are still guys that teams know we may have to DFA/option since demand isn't that high. Flip it around - would you take some team's 4th or 5th OF + a limited platoon 2B + one lower ceiling prospect for Davies? Slightly different arbitration situations, but you get the idea.

I'm the guy on this board that always does this but I'm floored that every time a guy that I'd have a hard time starting or having in the majors on many other teams is mentioned in that other group. Anyway, carry on.

I'd do Corbin for Broxton. I think Broxton's value is as a platoon hitter, which we do not need anymore and which I don't think carries a ton of value around the league. Corbin is underrated and I realize only a one-year guy, but I think he'd do pretty well.

Well, I completely disagree that your rival adding a great player to their roster is somehow good for your team. I want to watch great players on my team. This concern over millions of dollars that aren’t yours is so asinine from a fan perspective. All of these owners can afford to pay their players, you don’t have to cape for ownership by hoping they somehow can pay great players less than they’re worth to increase their profit margin. I'm in the middle here. I do think that the Cubs signing huge contracts may hurt them down the road, but I think they've managed this thing so well that they can tread water on some for a while and Darvish will help them for at the very least 1 year, probably 3, which is in the Brewers' window. That said, I do want the Brewers to make smart decisions. Even if Archer helps the current vibe of "win now," I am not sure it's the smartest move. Darvish I believe might be.

He's one I thought of, but he had velocity issues for portions of the last 3 years. He usually ramps it back up for the 2nd half of the season to compensate.

Your better than that - His avg FB last year was the fastest its ever been and his BABIP was little higher than average (.325) His xFip compares him to Strausberg and Carrasco and lower than Darvish Can you find a starting pitcher that threw 95+ for 8 or 9 straight years in recent memory? Strasburg is in the mix for that, I guess, but he's had many bumps in the road along the way.

I don't even really have an opinion on Burnes other than the fact that I trust the rumors that he's their top prospects internally. I just know that if you trade 8 minor league players with good/great ratings, you'll inevitably have traded away 2 good MLB players and 2-3 solid ones at the very least. See: Trades for Sabathia, CC combined with trade for Greinke, Zack* * - I was not against either of these trades at the time.