bill hAll Star

No he isn't. Like hasn't even been close. Age 27 - 23.9 UZR/150 - 17 DRS Age 28 - 18.7 UZR/150 - 14 DRS Age 29 - 14.5 UZR/150 - 18 DRS Age 30 - 13.6 UZR/150 - 8 DRS Age 31 - 2.4 UZR/150 - 5 DRS Does that mean he's going to continue to decline? Not necessarily but why the hell would we take a risk that the last couple of years have been an aberration? Let some other team that actually needs an outfielder take that risk. If the Brewers get Cain, it would be because they need an outfielder. You cannot assume Stearns to be so stupid that he signs Cain and does nothing in trading other players. I agree that this is probably just Cain's agent trying to drive up the value. What you say about his defense is very relevant, but his bat has markedly improved in that time period as well. Lorenzo Cain was not someone I was clamoring to get before the offseason started, but I do think that if somebody signs him to a 3 year deal, they'll get good value.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseballs-new-leadoff-hitters-dont-need-to-be-speed-demons/

Santana if still on the roster or Thames are both good ones.

If he gets over $50 million, the Giants have stated that they don't want to sign a free agent. Giving up a comp pick is a big deal when they're drafting at the top of the round. I don't think they said they wouldn't do it, but they suggested as to being very cautious when signing free agents because of this.

Why would Cain sign a two year deal when this is his first and only big contract? Why would a team give up worthwhile value when they had a chance to just beat the Brewers offer? I'm not so sure that Cain is going to get better than a 2 or 3 year deal based on how his market is developing. I still am not interested in him on a 2 year deal, OF is not a position we should be targeting even if we trade Santana and Broxton. We'd be better off rolling out both young guys and bringing in a veteran as the 4th. As much as I hate to say it, a Jon Jay type would make sense in this case. Say Santana and Broxton were dealt in some sort of Archer or Salazar package. You'd pass up a 3-5 WAR player on a 2 year deal while our payroll is still one of the lowest in baseball? 4.8, 6.5, 2.5 (injuries so only 115 games), 4.1. Those are Cain's past 4 years of WAR. He's getting older but if it's a 2 year risk, I don't think he's going to fall off a cliff. I'm really only suggesting Cain coming to the Brewers in not realistic (right now) situations, but he's being severely undervalued even if he is getting a bit older.

I'll amend my statement before to say that it is more likely that Santana is dealt for a controllable arm, but I do think that in more of a vacuum where Stearns has job security for 5 more years, there could be one more prospect stash here. But yes, probably for a pitcher.

No way Santana gets traded for low level prospects or a 2B. I tend to agree, but if you believe that Cain can be an elite RF for 3 years as he exits his prime, you basically are swapping out equally valuable players, paying a little bit more, but getting more potential elite players in your system. Lots of uncertainty of course. Can Cain remain valuable given that he's a speed/defense-oriented player exiting his prime? I'm still penciling Brinson in at some CF (or maybe he goes to RF). Are you "wasting" one of those guys' elite defense in RF at Miller Park? I tend to think Santana's bat staying what it is (and maybe improving) is more of a sure thing, but there is still uncertainty there. A lot of ifs there, just a hypothetical. I don't see any other reason to go after Cain. Obviously you could have the Santana for Salazar deal as rumored as well and it still serves a similar purpose to grab Cain and put him in RF (with plenty of CF as well if one wants).

Only plausible scenario to me: -Santana is dealt for either low minors prospects or similarly aged 2B or pitching. -Broxton dealt. Cain comes in on a short(er) deal and plays some RF. Braun/Brinson/Cain with Phillips getting a lot of starts against RHP. Braun gets some 1B time (pipe dream). One more prospect stash while still keeping a pretty competitive 2018 roster. You probably don't get full value out of Cain in RF, though.

Arizona has zero desire to make that trade. They went many years with no pitching and all offense (and were terrible), finally got good pitching, and they’re gonna give it away to go back to the olden days? I’m high on Santana but they probably lose in value as well. Arizona has hole in OF left by Martinez and uncertainty over Tomas' health and production. They are actually pretty deep in starting pitching especially if they decided to move Archie Bradley back to the rotation. Brewers have pieces that could sweeten the pot too. The D-Backs were having a great season before JD Martinez's inclusion and explosion. Would you trade Chase Anderson for Jonathan Schoop because we have a hole at 2B? That's not even comparable because Ray is more valuable than Anderson. The D-Backs can go to free agency for a bat if they need one. They're not going to rob Peter to pay Paul.

If the Mets trade deGrom they’re starting over and I don’t think Knebel interests them. Probably would need to add just a little bit more.

Arizona has zero desire to make that trade. They went many years with no pitching and all offense (and were terrible), finally got good pitching, and they’re gonna give it away to go back to the olden days? I’m high on Santana but they probably lose in value as well.

I guess I can formally state my plan for 2017-2018 after I've debated/argued this point that I'd like to just keep the majority of these prospects in our system and hopefully 1 or 2 will rise to the top as a good MLB player at every position...and maybe some depth will amass behind it. At that point, I may consider dealing from positions of strength. I think people are all too confident in one particular player at one particular position. Give me 5 candidates for a position in the minors system and maybe we'll have one good MLB one with one in the pipeline after him out of those 5. Doesn't mean I'm not for a prospect(s) for All Star trade down the road or even now, but we seem to be heading towards a great pipeline of players in the organization. I don't think it's the time to cash out of that to still likely play 2nd fiddle to the Cubs just yet.

MAX: 2 years $20 million Hopefully could get him for 2 years $14-$15ish as that would be better than his highest one year of $5.25 million and double his career earnings of ~$16 million. They inexplicably kept 5 catchers on their 40 man. You don't do that if your plan is to sign one in FA. There were reasons to protect all of them (2 of them acquired in trade with "potential" and Vogt was an undervalued scrap-heap pickup). If they signed Lucroy they can dump Vogt's non-guaranteed deal and probably cut Bandy since he's got 1 year left on the 40, max. Problem solved. Susac probably could be on the chopping block as well, but as long as they've got some space they can try to turn an asset they traded for into something.

Pre-2017, Baseball America had the following rankings: -Moncada #2 overall propsect -Brinson #27 overall prospect -Kopech #32 overall prospect With Burnes 2017 season and Hiura coming off his initial season in the minors, I will not be surprised to see Burnes top 50 and Hiura top 75 for 2018. Three top 75 prospects versus two top 30 prospects...I don't think it's that far off especially given Sale is undoubtedly the better pitcher between him and Archer. The #1 or #2 prospect in all of baseball holds massive value, though. Kopech is staying the course. Brinson's been fine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's knocked down the BA rankings a little bit prior to the season.

Are you really surprised that a prime-age, currently performing, relatively cheap, good pitcher with dominant stuff, that has 4 years of control exposed in the offseason to the entire MLB has generated an extremely high price tag? Chris Archer has 2 ASG appearances and a 3.6 ERA/3.46 over the past five years. Chris Sale, was coming off 5 straight ASG and a 3.04 ERA/3.06 FIP over the past five years when he was dealt for Moncada, Kopech, Diaz and Basabe. A package of Brinson, Burnes and Hiura + appears to be better than what the Red Sox received for Sale...so yes I am surprised that the lesser pitcher could command more in a trade. Really?

It's hard to "draft well enough" to replenish trading away several prospects. The Cubs are going to feel the pain soon and they're a well-run organization. Sure, good organizations can do it, but it's not something that can be banked on. I'm not saying I'd never trade prospects for a stud player. I was fine with 2008 and 2011. That said, it's not called "hoarding prospects." It's called "organizational depth." You bring up LaPorta as a bust, but we also gave away Brantley, Odorizzi, Escobar, and Cain. We had Gomez to play CF which was fine, but when Gomez got hurt we played: Elian Herrera and Logan Schafer We played Khris Davis (not at his hitting peak yet) and a regressing Aoki in the OF instead of having Brantley. We signed Kyle Lohse and Matt Garza to fill the Odorizzi void. We eventually got Segura (yes, for Greinke, that whole trade worked out fine down the road) and debates can be had about why he struggled for 2 years, but during what could have been Escobar's tenure we played Yuni Betancourt, Alex Gonzalez, and some bad seasons of Segura. Lawrie ended up being nothing special, but we did blow $40 million on Aramis Ramirez, who was fine for a good deal of his tenure, but that money could've been allocated elsewhere. Lawrie's defense may have almost equaled that production. We ended up starting Mark Reynolds and Lyle Overbay in an otherwise competitive season. Sure, none of those guys we traded away were 1B candidates, but it's possible that we don't have to pay for Lohse if we have Odorizzi and therefore we can overpay a 1B. Point being: We had no organzational depth. A lot of the other guys we thought we had at the positions (Taylor Green, Gamel, Schafer, Heckathorn, Wily Peralta, etc.) that didn't pan out. Again, I was fine with the 2008 and 2011 trades, and we got something back for Greinke down the line and turned into Anderson/Diaz, but the point is that organizational depth is heavily taken for granted here. I understand that some people wouldn't have spent money on Garza and Lohse, but if we trade for Archer and maybe others, we'll start getting to the point where we have to spend to fill the holes and we will have to keep patching different holes with lesser and lesser free agents/prospects.

The difference however is IF you give 20 million/year to Cobb, then you HAVE to spend more money elsewhere on multiple players or the move makes absolutely zero sense. You can't sign a mid rotation guy and then be done. With Archer we give up prospects but we don't need to blow our budget in order for it to work. I think the exact opposite. If you trade prospects for Archer, it's time to try to win a World Series. You've turned the clock on and the countdown timer is at 4 years (maybe less). Time to start dealing more prospects for other players and spending money. Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in. If you sign Cobb, you still have the entire future in front of you but still can win with Cobb. On top of all of that, keeping said prospects when not trading for Archer means you have more cheap players to fill holes in your organization. Not necessarily this year, but definitely beyond. So you save a lot of money in 2020 for instance on the players other than Cobb.

Are you really surprised that a prime-age, currently performing, relatively cheap, good pitcher with dominant stuff, that has 4 years of control exposed in the offseason to the entire MLB has generated an extremely high price tag?

Not that we couldn’t draft/acquire sign more, but chances are that the depth will not look so great there in 2 years. We’ll just say for sake of example that Ray and Stokes never make the majors. Brinson’s a 2 WAR guy, Phillips is a 4th OF, and Broxton is dealt. Now what do you have for your 2020 and beyond outlook? Not much. Maybe Harrison is the bust of the group and we luckily trade him away, but I just won’t etch the depth in stone. I don’t think this list has several sure-fire All Stars in it, so one could argue keeping as many as possible may still be advantageous. I’m not arguing against dealing from a position of depth to fill another position, but I’m just saying the “well, we’ve got a bunch of em” argument usually does not end up becoming true. You make a great point regarding OF prospects. We might feel more comfortable trading someone like Harrison at the deadline if other prospects bounce back or one of Phillips or brinson establish themselves to some degree. A couple years ago, I felt fantastic about our bullpen depth at all levels. A few trades later(good trades mind you) I'm clamoring to pay sticker price for a high end setup guy because we need it. The same could easily happen with our outfield situation if we make a couple trades and certain prospects don't pan out. Further, I've stated my cautious optimism about this team being a little bit below the Cubs and maybe on par with the Cards right now but a lot of uncertainty. I'd rather wait until the trade deadline to make this deal. How depressing would it be to make this deal prior to the season and find out that we're still 5 games worse than the Cubs?

Either way they will overpay. If you look at Cobb vs. Archer, they are actually very close performance wise. One has a 3.50 career ERA and a 3.68 caree FIP and the other has a 3.63 career ERA and a 3.46 FIP pitching in the same park. Their career WHIP is nearly identical. Archer is the flashier of the two because he strikes out a lot. I'd roll the dice on Cobb, because if he fails or gets hurt, he can be replaced with a minimum salary young arm. If Archer fails or gets hurt, they'd have one or two less young arms around to replace him. Cobb is another year removed from surgery and thus some progression from a decent 2017 is reasonable. They actually aren't all that close performance-wise. One guys consistently posts high inning totals while the other you'd be lucky to get 160 innings from. Those 40-50 innings might be filled with someone like Wilkerson/Jungmann and a likely low 5s ERA. Cobb got drilled in the head by a liner and had Tommy John. So he's over Tommy John for a little while, we'd hope, and had a fluky liner to the head. Archer has been healthy. However, he throws a ton of hard sliders and high velocity. If his elbow starts to weaken and the slider % goes down or velocity goes down that is cause for concern. Plus, that many sliders still scares me that he'd have Tommy John somewhere in the 2019 range. You're right that he's been more durable than Cobb but I almost think he's a higher risk for the next 4 years.

I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.

Not that we couldn’t draft/acquire sign more, but chances are that the depth will not look so great there in 2 years. We’ll just say for sake of example that Ray and Stokes never make the majors. Brinson’s a 2 WAR guy, Phillips is a 4th OF, and Broxton is dealt. Now what do you have for your 2020 and beyond outlook? Not much. Maybe Harrison is the bust of the group and we luckily trade him away, but I just won’t etch the depth in stone. I don’t think this list has several sure-fire All Stars in it, so one could argue keeping as many as possible may still be advantageous. I’m not arguing against dealing from a position of depth to fill another position, but I’m just saying the “well, we’ve got a bunch of em” argument usually does not end up becoming true.

Not advocating going after him, but... 2016 1st Half (w/ Brewers) - .299/.359/.482/.841 (120 OPS+) 2016 2nd Half (w/ Rangers) - .276/.345/.539/.885 (128 OPS+) 2017 1st Half (w/ Rangers) - .242/.297/.338/.635 (66 OPS+) 2017 2nd Half (w/ Rockies) - .310/.429/.437/.865 (115 OPS+) At least offensively, I wouldn't say he's looked "totally cooked" for two years and I understand why some people haven't given up on him. I don't disagree that he could recover and hasn't been cooked for that long, but I'm OK completely disregarding the bolded part. We've seen other zombies like mid 30s Michael Cuddyer put up way better than numbers with Coors aiding them. Lucroy was just as terrible as his Rangers 2017 stint while on the road while on the Rockies.

2 things: 1. No player with as much value will only cost that much. The Rays are also an MLB franchise trying to win. They aren't going to say, "give me a bunch of guys from your system that you don't even value that much." Yeah, you may have a few potential blue-chippers, but we'll take the guys that you're counting on as maybe backup options if those blue chippers fail for our franchise pitcher. 2. "Replaceable organizational depth" is also a term that I don't understand in a lot of cases. While in a lot of the Greinke/Marcum trades, the Brewers kinda knew they were emptying the system out at certain positions, there is always the mantra of, "well yeah, we're giving up Odorizzi, but we still have Jungmann (drafted later), Peralta, Heckathorn, Thornburg, etc." You need to have a lot of guys at a position because 70% of them will probably flame out and bust. It may not seem like giving up Ortiz is a big deal, but if Perrin, Woodruff, Burnes are not as good as hoped, it's entirely possible that Ortiz was the guy. Or maybe 2 years from now we have a few injuries and Ortiz would've been the guy that would've been good enough to be the #4 starter to patch the hole for half a season to make the playoffs. Also, in these trade scenarios, it always seems like the perceived 2nd or 3rd guy in the org pecking order is offered. Circling back to #1, if the Rays ask for Ortiz in the package, my guess is that an MLB talent evaluator things that Ortiz is the best one of the bunch. They could be wrong, of course, but we're not going to be giving up our 3rd or 4th pitching prospect option, we'll probably have to give up one of them that becomes the best.

Personally, I'd take Cobb if that was the choice. Would love the pitching depth.