bill hAll Star

Just put "Nelson" in for Archer and you have the 2017 rotation, essentially. Chacin is probably better than Garza, but I personally can't guarantee myself that Anderson will repeat. We need to shoot higher. Enter Josh Hader in the 5th spot. And the 2017 rotation got way too many dreadful starts from Guerra/Peralta. So it wouldn't quite be the same. And as you noted, Chacin will probably be better than Garza. They went 10-11 in games started by those 2. I think there will be regression to even some things out. I'm on board with you that it would be an improvement, I'm just not sure it's enough for me to push the chips onto the table yet.

Just put "Nelson" in for Archer and you have the 2017 rotation, essentially. Chacin is probably better than Garza, but I personally can't guarantee myself that Anderson will repeat. We need to shoot higher.

The example I generally give, and yes, I know Kershaw is 8x more valuable than Davis, but if the Brewers had a 24 man roster that won 88 games and had a payroll of $20 million total...Clayton Kershaw comes by and says, "I'll come chase a World Series ring, 1 year, $100 million." Mark OKs the deal as he is willing to pay $120 million this year. Would you turn it down because he probably will not be "good value" for that cost? Would you instead sign Jhoulys Chacin for $15 million/2 years as your #4 starter because he'll be a better WAR/$ guy to be the 25th man on your roster? There are also considerations that you have only 25 roster spots and a relatively fixed payroll. I get the rest of what you're saying. I would just assume that given the owner is paying up to $130 million to "finish off" this roster for 2018 that given some room that they have afforded in '19 or '20 that they won't have any problem patching holes if they need to.

It's funny that I just mentioned in a different thread how these top free agents were setting ridiculous asking prices and hoping one dumb GM would make a bold(or stupid) move and pay near that asking price. I figured it would be Dombrowski or Epstein, but looks like this new Rockies GM is the guy. Most of these contracts should clear before they impact the ability to sign their big free agents. Blackmon and Lemahieu's contracts could be backloaded a bit to ease the burden the first couple years. They probably can't afford Arenado and his likely 250 million or more regardless, so considering him is pointless. The problem for me is their ability to patch any holes in 2019 and 2020 if some players underperform. They generally seem stuck with what they have in the system and roster for the next couple years, they can only add by losing in other areas. It's quite possible that if they're "a hole patched away" that ownership would allow it. They have a lot more money than you suggest next year and they went up to $155 million last year by the end of the season for their 40. I think people need to look at baseball free agency with some nuance. There is too much: "smaller market, lots of money = this very bad" simple equations. We all get it. Every casual baseball fan goes around and trumpets this idea as if they understand how it all works. Teams that aren't massive markets should not be living off of huge free agency deals, especially of guys over 30 and even the big markets get burned on value. But if you're a payroll nerd like I am, this deal totally makes sense. I wouldn't call this GM dumb. Again, if some players underperform going into 2019 and 2020, they need to start over or at least retool anyways. The funny thing is that the money they'd have saved by not paying Davis very likely would be used to "patch a hole" by signing a similarly overpriced free agent in the Alex Cobb mold.

Because they can literally do everything you said while also paying Davis, one would assume. It could cost them if they're in it and some team offers Cole Hamels as somebody said earlier, but the list of players that have too big of a contract and could affect them is small. I don't know who you are referring to that they could buy out years of to lengthen the competitive window. The only guys that qualify probably are Blackmon and Arenado and those guys are going to play this out into free agency. Their pitchers are all locked up for 4+ years (several of them 5 or 6). If they bought those guys out the $ wouldn't really come into play until well after Davis leaves anyways.

He's a solid defender at 2B, but about the only compliment you can give is that he's the perfect Coors hitter. High contact guy that controls the bat well to absolutely dominate the cavernous outfields to an insanely high batting average at Coors. If we think Sogard is the ~.275 hitter with an excellent OBP that he demonstrated last year, then that is what DJ is. Sogard probably would be better at getting on base, but DJ is a better defender.

They had a Wild Card team that was driven by a deep staff of young, solid pitchers and their 2 offensive juggernauts are nearing the end of their deals. Why not throw some money out there if you have it? One could argue that there are a few positions on the field where they should worry if the prospect will be good enough or if the starter is truly good enough, but bullpen is basically their only need.

If their young pitching actually is fickle and stinks, their payroll doesn't matter in 2019 or 2020. They'd be in the midst of another long rebuild. They could pay Davis, Shaw, and McGee a combined $30 million to be bullpen catchers and field their $90 million payroll while they win 70 games.

Did you forget LeMahiu? Arenado will get Harper/Stanton kind of money. I don't think the Rockies can afford that level no matter how little they are paying their starters. You also failed to mention Freeland among their pitchers. Lemahieu is terrible (hyperbole, but he's barely over a replacement-level player). They have Rodgers to fill in there and it would be instantly one of the worst contracts in MLB history if they signed Lemahieu to what he "deserves" given inflated Coors numbers. Away from Coors in his career: .270/.313/.351./.669. He's barely better than current-day Eric Sogard.

That's generally fair, but what if some of these bullpen pitchers struggle? What if one or two of their young starters regresses or doesn't work out or gets injured? Same with position players. Spending too much now handicaps their ability to spend to fix issues over the next couple years. The Brewers for example project to around $75 million depending on arbitration and Logan's contract. If we start the year around there and are in it at the deadline, heck we could trade for Hamels and his likely significant contract without blinking an eye. Or if we need to look to free agency or take on contract in a trade in 2018, we can do that. The Rockies, yeah not so much. They are doing all their shopping for the next couple years right now. I can see the argument for the Rockies to spend a bit on short term deals, and I thought their moves were generally prudent and wise up until this signing. This is the one that I feel pushed them to the point of going overboard with their payroll. In 2019, the Rockies have everyone that matters sans Blackmon signed for about $70 million. I wouldn't touch a Lemahieu extension/signing. Their payroll is $130 million right now. Throw in $10 million of guys to fill the roster and $25 million for Blackmon and that's $100 million. 2020 would be interesting if they also wanted to keep Arenado. If ownership wants to pay it, I think their payroll gets manageable again after that. I agree that it does tighten up the rainy day fund, but I guess my concern as a fan is that if these signings crashed and burned and Arenado/Blackmon left that my team would be in dire financial straits. If that happened, they're going to be overpaying a few relievers for 2021 as they likely rebuild with the Arenado trade haul (they'd hope) and still have their pitching intact.

The Rockies 7 starting pitchers that are effective, in 2020 will make $25-30 million combined (Anderson, Senzatela, Marquez, Pint, Hoffman, Bettis, Gray). They don't need to spend anywhere else, really other than to try to keep Blackmon and Arenado if they want to. I agree that in terms of value it may not equal out, but this is one that if the owner wants to spend it, it's not going to kill their long-term outlook.

Like this move for the Rockies due to 3 years (he'd earn the vesting option if he really got it). They will be paying a good rotation and probably 6-7 position players (Story, Rodgers, McMahon, Dahl, Tapia, maybe Murphy) next nothing. They can pay Arenado, Blackmon, and 4 top relievers an average of $15 million/year and have a nimble payroll over the next few years.

Their solid rotation is all in pre-arbitration. They are nearing the end of the Arenado/Blackmon era (Blackmon is overrated, but still valuable). All of the guarantees are short. I don't have a problem with it.

I think the big key this year is all of the teams trying to get under the luxury tax threshold. Taking out a lot of key bidders. I think GMs have always known these guys are overpaid but for once they have a bit of a motive not to spend. I think most know that when the pitcher heavily regresses in year 3 of the contract that they may be rebuilding anyways.

Catcher (3) - Pina, Nottingham, Susac 1B (2) - Aguilar, Thames 2B/SS (4) - Arcia, Dubon, Diaz, Villar 3B (1) - Shaw OF (6) - Braun, Perez, Brinson, Phillips, Santana, Stokes P (24) -Ortiz, Derby, Perrin, Ponce, Bickford, Yamamoto, Medeiros, Supak, Pennington, Kirby, Anderson, Davies, Suter, Nelson, Chacin, Barnes, Diplan, Hader, Houser, Jeffress, Knebel, Peralta, Williams, Woodruff ? - Webb, Wilkerson, Wang, Vogt, Lopez, Guerra, Gatewood, Lara I left Broxton out as he will likely be dealt. Could be a different OF. I probably leave Gatewood and Lara open to being plucked, but I could be wrong. The current 40-man has 22 pitchers but 5 catchers. So just have 3 catchers (may not be those 3) and 24 pitchers. Can use a lot of shuttle relievers out of that list. There are guys like Villar and Perez that may price themselves out so you may have more spots there. Obviously a ton will change and you have free agents, but you can keep pretty much the core group in tact. I'm not sure if that's too few MLB arms or not. I count maybe 15 or 16 and it's probably more like 18-19 since we're talking about 2019. A lot of those guys could come up midseason and start pitching out of the pen, etc.

So I know it has been discussed maybe earlier on this thread and in others, but I'm not sure there was much of a formal discussion of the "40 man roster crunch" coming up after this season. As I understand it: Gatewood Diaz Lara(?) Stokes Ortiz Derby Perrin Ponce Bickford Yamamoto Medeiros Supak Pennington Kirby That's 15 players and some are a stretch Here are next year's free agents/non-tender candidates: Sogard (FA) Gallardo (FA) Guerra Bandy Drake Jungmann Lopez Wang Webb Wilkerson Villar Perez Vogt Susac Just mostly trying to open discussion and also coming to the conclusion that the roster crunch shouldn't be that bad. Still will likely be some prospect consolidation, but I could see getting almost everyone that we care about on the 40. I'm not sure if you want all 12 or so of the ones I'd be certain about getting on the 40 given that many may not be ready for the majors, but I think it could be doable.

This might be a sidebar, and I can't say that every big $ signing in a vacuum is a great idea...but I'd say basically all of the top 10-15 payrolls in baseball have put several massive signings like this out there. All of these teams knowingly overpay a bunch of tier 2 free agents and just live with the idea that they're going to be expensive DL/bench/mop-up players for the back end of their deals. Over the past decade, you look at the top 10-15 payrolls: They've all either had very consistent success like the Nats, got to one or more WS (Tigers, Mets, Rangers), or won some. I'd say the only teams that have failed are the Angels, Blue Jays, and Mariners. The Blue Jays and Mariners are more in the 10-15 range. Look at the bottom 15 payrolls and you've got Cleveland, St. Louis (they are almost always top 10 in payroll but dipped down last year), and Houston (they'll be a top 10, maybe top 5 payroll very soon). Philly is down there but their payroll was huge when they won it all. Rays and A's had nice runs but you can only do that for so long. The Royals probably belong down in this discussion, to be fair. Point being: you may feel the backlash of some painfully bad contracts as you tear it down to rebuild as Detroit is doing right now, but you have some very good seasons to show for overpaying a bunch of guys.

I think if we didn't have this bonanza for teams to get under the luxury tax threshold, they'd still get signed. If I'm the Yankees, I know that Arrieta may be garbage in years 4 and 5, maybe even year 3...but I can absorb it. None of the big dogs are out there to bid against each other, really.

Liking this more and more. If he's a bust as a starter, he's a $6 million reliever to get righties out next year.

That war came from Petco. No one thinks he is a 3 war pitcher away from there. He is a solid 5th starter. However he is currently our replacement for Nelson. Now do the math. WAR factors in park.

I'd be ok getting 2 or 3 high ceiling, young, pitchers for him. Kinda like the Lind trade. That seems reasonable. And I'd make that deal.

I'm hesitant to anoint Wilkerson with that value. Stearns has a better sense, of course, but he seems like a guy that just is capped out with AAA stuff. I am not certain of that, but the fact that he still hasn't been handed a role in the majors does give me that sense. Also, at a certain point, if you've got a $55 or even $80 million payroll and the owner is willing to pay more, getting a 5 xFIP for the league minimum might not be preferable over getting a 4.4 xFIP with a bit of upside for 2 years/$16 million. I'm not saying spend just to spend, but at a certain point you have to pay a bit more to get more given that you have a finite allotment of roster spots.

I think most MLB GMs see Keon Broxton as a RH platoon bat. He's affordable and could maybe be replacement level the full role if it was given to him, but I don't see GMs giving a ton back for him. I'm also not sure he's built for that park, offensively. As a HR-dependent hitter, it's a little bit easier to hit it out to left field there than it would be if he was a lefty hitting it to RF, but a low-contact hitter is the last thing I want in San Francisco.

Substitute Gallardo for Hader, Gallardo to the pen. That makes more sense. Just have the feeling that it is not going to be that though. That they'll keep Hader pen't up. Extremely annoying to continue down this road of pitching guys that have little to no upside. I don't think Stearns is that dense. It may fail, but there is at least some shrewd method to the madness. I think Hader is in the rotation, and if he isn't, there's probably a really good reason for it. Maybe we're going full-blown analytics mode on pitching if so and Hader pitches innings 4-7 every 5 days on average.

I don't think Arroyo is that special, but even so, they've got Bumgarner/Posey/Cueto/others all aging and/or on short deals. Similar to the Angels with Trout, push all of your chips on to the table and just be ready to field a minor league team on your major league roster from 2020-2022 as you go into nuclear rebuild a la the Tigers right now.