bill hAll Star

Moore has been a bad pitcher since he stopped throwing his slider, so unless he starts throwing that again, I’m out. I could see them trying to get out of half of that or something if a team would bite. I wonder if the Marlins would be taking on Moore and/or Pence in the deal. It’s interesting because they’re clearly all in yet again and are 3-time luxury tax offenders so they’d owe big time...but they’re kinda all-in, so would they really want to give away a solid pitcher in Samardzija? That’ll be interesting. I’d have been all over absorbing his contract if so. I'm not sure on the exact luxury tax rules, but I'd think if you are gonna go over...might as well go over big like int'l signing a few years back where teams completely disregarded the rules and signed like crazy 1 year and just didn't do any signing the next 2. Yeah, the problem is that they're a 3rd time offender and they pay 50 cents on the dollar on anything over the threshold. The last few years they've offended, I think they barely went over. If their ownership wants to pay that, more power to 'em. Most teams like the Yankees and Dodgers want to get under that bar because it resets the counter. Those teams are also 3-time offenders, so if they go bonkers and go over with Bryce Harper next year, they want to only have to pay the 1st-time offender fee, which I believe is 20 cents on the dollar. I guess if I'm the Giants, I'm just saying I'm out on the Harper/Machado/Keuchel sweepstakes and I'll just take Stanton and pay through the nose for a year or two. Bumgarner's deal is almost up, Posey is getting older, Samardzija and Cueto are around for a few years but are getting older. I guess they can just put the rest of their chips on the table for '18 and '19 and probably collapse after that. Maybe they can try to repackage Stanton again or pray that he opts out.

Moore has been a bad pitcher since he stopped throwing his slider, so unless he starts throwing that again, I’m out. I could see them trying to get out of half of that or something if a team would bite. I wonder if the Marlins would be taking on Moore and/or Pence in the deal. It’s interesting because they’re clearly all in yet again and are 3-time luxury tax offenders so they’d owe big time...but they’re kinda all-in, so would they really want to give away a solid pitcher in Samardzija? That’ll be interesting. I’d have been all over absorbing his contract if so.

Cubs and Rangers are also supposedly in the mix.

I'm well aware of that. I still would have thought the return would be comparable, if not better that what Detroit got for trading away a, at the time, 34 yr old pitcher who was owed around $85 million in Verlander. 3 years for a pretty good pitcher is a risk, but won't cripple your franchise. They also didn't take on all $85 million, which is why they gave up some prospects. Verlander's likely was only $56 million (and I think they got $16 back from Detroit making it $40). I think the final year only vests if Verlander is a top 5 Cy Young candidate, which is possible, but he'll be quite a bit older then and he seems to really sandbag half of the regular season these days. If Stanton's play declines over the next 3 years, they'll still have 8 years left to pay him. Much, much bigger risk.

Oddly enough, both Fister and Fiers pitched on playoff or WS title teams this past year. I'm not suggesting either are a possibility, but again I'll preach the same thing, and that is that we have a bit of money to spend. If we don't think that Burnes is ready to be a great MLB piece or that Wilkerson is any sort of MLB pitcher or that Suter is as good as last year or that Hader is ready...why not spend on a short-term guy as insurance? If given the choice, I'd rather have a free agent fill out the rotation and then if said acquisition is a complete flop, go to Wilkerson or maybe Burnes is ready by midseason. The more options, the better. I trust Stearns' judgment that if he thinks we have 5 good pitchers then by all means, save Mark a little money. I'd rather have 8 options and settle on 5 with some depth than say, "well, I don't want to spend money on a guy because it may be more than I think he's worth" and then be throwing Taylor Jungmann and Aaron Wilkerson in the rotation in May when Chase Anderson pulls a hammy.

If it addressed that necessity, then it's a superior strategy. There's no reason to believe starters are regularly going to go 7 innings because people have figured out that the more complicated strategy of selective bullpen use and specialists has worked better. Those that understand it will implement it and be successful. Those that are stuck in their ways who can't understand or accept that the standards have changed will survive only as long as their bosses don't understand the changes either (see: Baker, Dusty). I guess what I was primarily getting at is you are still better off having the Kershaw/Bumgarner caliber pitcher and having them go 7-8 innings than having a worse starter and 2 good bullpen arms cover those same 7-8 innings. It's just those pitchers are becoming less and less common...and more evenly spread amongst all 30 teams. Hence, teams adapted and learned bullpen arms will be more effective than a starter his 3rd time through an order. I think those pitchers are becoming less and less common because technology, scouting, and matchups have improved for hitters making the pitchers need to throw more sliders and more velocity to survive. I'd also have to believe that there were only 10-15 aces in those days anyways. They just pitched more guys 7 or 8 innings because that's what you did.

It wouldn't hurt to put Panik in there, but if they're truly trading arguably the two most recognizable faces in the franchise in a franchise that doesn't have a large base...I think they'd be OK starting a journeyman AAAA guy at 2B. If that's the breaking point between getting $250-300 million off their hands + Gordon's deal eventually (which isn't that bad), they'd live with a bit of that backlash. They were starting guys like JT Riddle and Miguel Rojas for large portions of last year. The fans will live with a journeyman 2B for a while while Jeter rebuilds.

We shouldn't be approaching a SP pitcher with the mentality "which pitcher can we get to put up an upper 4's ERA for the cheapest?". With how good the team was last year and the firepower we have to work with(payroll and prospects), we should be aiming for a higher quality player than that. Fiers, Fister, Hammel...we might as well keep Garza or roll out Wilkerson if we are going to aim that low. I don't mind bringing those guys in on a minor league deal that stipulates $3-4 million if they make the team, but we shouldn't be trading for them or taking on a significant guaranteed salary. If you think Hammel is slightly better and this is one of the final pieces for the roster, I personally don't mind if the payroll is $84 million instead of $81 million this year. It's still well under the budget.

Getting Panik allows the Marlins to trade Gordon and further offset salary and acquire talent, or to flip Panik for more minor league talent. I imagine the former is more likely. Beede and Shaw are very good prospects, though all of the yankees top 5 are better to varying degrees. Maybe it would be more like 2 of their top 5, not 3...at least to top the Giants offer. But there's also no guarantee that the Giants offer is the best one on the table...or that other teams don't see that offer and try to counter. I can't imagine the Dodgers letting Stanton go to the Giants without putting up a fight. Panik doesn't matter that much since this is somewhat of a lost year for the Marlins and Panik is kinda just a guy. Shaw and Beede are decent prospects. Not elite by any means. The Yankees' top 5 probably has more higher ceiling guys. Regardless, the point stands that Heyman's suggestion is realistic for the Yankees.

I guess I don't see the 'east coast bias' thing here. Yes, he probably is hoping the Yankee-related news helps with his clicks. But I don't see it as 'bias' or anything. In reality, the Yankees are probably the biggest force in baseball. He says that they have spoken to the Marlins about Stanton. I mean, should he NOT report what he has heard? To speculate how a deal would work isn't outrageous. Ultimately, Heyman is just saying that if the Yankees are serious about Stanton, they need to move some salaries in the deal - which means they include better prospects in the return as well. He mentions 'some combination of Jacoby Ellsbury, Chase Headley and maybe Brett Gardner' would need to be involved. And he stresses that Ellsbury (who's owed around $90M over the next four years) is hard to move because of his no-trade deal. That leaves Gardner (who is not a 'bad' contract) and Headley - who are due $24.5M next year - plus a $2M buyout for Gardner. Taking back $25M in salaries in 2018 might be too much for Florida, but there are ways to mitigate that. It's not hard to see Florida being able to flip Gardner (and unload his salary) for something decent. Headley would be tougher. But even if you're left covering only $5-8M or whatever of those two salaries - it might work for Florida. I acknowledge that people will write stuff that gets themselves coverage - and that the coast markets, which are bigger, tend to get more written about their teams - but to just say everything is 'east coast bias' just seems to be stretching it. Heyman covered the Yankees as a beat writer for a long time. He has interest, sources and a following from that market. If he really got wind that the Yankees are asking about Stanton - he's foolish not to report it. Reporting it is fine, I'm sure the Yankees have checked in. Outlining how a deal could work absolutely makes sense as well. But that to me isn't really what he's doing. He's outlining how a deal could work from the Yankees perspective only, in a manner that makes absolutely no sense for the Marlins. I'd bet every dime I have that the Yankees aren't unloading multiple of those bad contracts on the Marlins in a Stanton deal unless the Marlins get an absolute kings ransom in prospects. I'm talking 3 of their top 5 plus sweeteners MINIMUM. And even still, I'm not so sure the Marlins want to deal with a team trying to dump bad contracts on them when there are at least a few other teams reportedly offering good prospects for Stanton without trying to dump bad contracts on them. If he doesn't want to appear biased, he should approach an article like this from both viewpoints rather than the one favoring the big market. I can admittedly get a bit over-reactionary when it comes to big market bias. It's probably not as bad as I make it out to be, but it bugs me and I try to shine a light on it when I see it. I don't see haudricourt making ridiculous trade proposals in his articles, and he's actually a Brewers beat writer and not at a national level quite like Heyman. I'm not so sure about that. The recent report is that the Giants have gotten the asking price down to paying $250 of the $295 (and giving up a few prospects) and there still isn't agreement. None of the headlining prospects are anything special in the rumored Giants deal. So what's the difference between that and the Yankees taking on all $295 (maybe they could talk that down) and including $20-30 million in salaries that can expire after this year or next? The Marlins can probably flip those players during the season. He mentioned that Ellsbury isn't likely but they could probably throw Gardner and Headley in there. The Yankees could make that deal and still have a little breathing room under the luxury tax threshold. The only reason the Marlins would hate that offset is if they are so dead set on balancing their books this year that they can't take a 1 year for 10 year tradeoff.

I guess I don't see the 'east coast bias' thing here. Yes, he probably is hoping the Yankee-related news helps with his clicks. But I don't see it as 'bias' or anything. In reality, the Yankees are probably the biggest force in baseball. He says that they have spoken to the Marlins about Stanton. I mean, should he NOT report what he has heard? To speculate how a deal would work isn't outrageous. Ultimately, Heyman is just saying that if the Yankees are serious about Stanton, they need to move some salaries in the deal - which means they include better prospects in the return as well. He mentions 'some combination of Jacoby Ellsbury, Chase Headley and maybe Brett Gardner' would need to be involved. And he stresses that Ellsbury (who's owed around $90M over the next four years) is hard to move because of his no-trade deal. That leaves Gardner (who is not a 'bad' contract) and Headley - who are due $24.5M next year - plus a $2M buyout for Gardner. Taking back $25M in salaries in 2018 might be too much for Florida, but there are ways to mitigate that. It's not hard to see Florida being able to flip Gardner (and unload his salary) for something decent. Headley would be tougher. But even if you're left covering only $5-8M or whatever of those two salaries - it might work for Florida. I acknowledge that people will write stuff that gets themselves coverage - and that the coast markets, which are bigger, tend to get more written about their teams - but to just say everything is 'east coast bias' just seems to be stretching it. Heyman covered the Yankees as a beat writer for a long time. He has interest, sources and a following from that market. If he really got wind that the Yankees are asking about Stanton - he's foolish not to report it. Amen. And I think if the Yankees were offering the most "we'll pay x of the deal" that they'd maybe take on $25-30 million for a year or 2 to clear themselves of the $300 remaining million and get a few prospects. Once again, the Yankees are one of the suitors (just like for Otani) and the article is basically stating a way it could happen.

If Quintana does not recover a bit or Lester does not, you could be right. I think you're severely underrating Contreras, Baez, Rizzo, Happ, Bryant, Almora, Schwarber, Russell. Not all of them are MVP candidates, but that's a very very good team all smack dab in the middle of their primes right now. They may not be the top World Series contender due to lack of ace pitching at this point, but I'd put them as the division favorite for each of the next 4 years, pending the Brewers and maybe Cards roster makeup going forward. Obviously plenty can change halfway through that span of time. They can just overpay for pitching. It'll still be an Achilles heel, but it'll be good enough to get them to the playoffs each year. We've seen this before, a team full of star players without enough good pitching. I feel like this club is following a very similar track to the 2008-2012 brewers. Star players across the board, but not enough pitching. They even have 2 stars that shine brighter than all the rest. Having all those great position players is all well and good, but pitching wins championships. If Lester and Quintana don't return to at least mid-rotation form...it doesn't really matter who else they get, this team won't make the playoffs even next year. But even with decent performances from those guys, they need at least one more good pitcher to be considered a division favorite. The 2011 Brewers started Yuni Betancourt at SS for most of the year and Casey McGehee in probably his worst career season at 3B. Lucroy wasn't ready yet. That was their best season in that window. They unloaded all of their assets for future years into 1-2 year rentals of Greinke and Marcum on the back end and got one good year of pitching that got them to the NLCS. The Brewers also didn't have the defense the Cubs do. The Cubs can afford to overpay either a middle-of-the-rotation pitcher every year or an overpaid guy like Arrieta or Darvish every other year. They do have depth issues if some injuries hit but their core group of starters is better than what the Brewers had and they have money to overspend on pitching.

If Quintana does not recover a bit or Lester does not, you could be right. I think you're severely underrating Contreras, Baez, Rizzo, Happ, Bryant, Almora, Schwarber, Russell. Not all of them are MVP candidates, but that's a very very good team all smack dab in the middle of their primes right now. They may not be the top World Series contender due to lack of ace pitching at this point, but I'd put them as the division favorite for each of the next 4 years, pending the Brewers and maybe Cards roster makeup going forward. Obviously plenty can change halfway through that span of time. They can just overpay for pitching. It'll still be an Achilles heel, but it'll be good enough to get them to the playoffs each year.

They've got one on their roster right now that was due over $100 million going into the 2017 season. Exactly. And they don't want a second one. Putting $50M into a pair of aging players isn't the best strategy. They might be saving up for Harper or Keuchel. Otherwise, something like this might be their best chance. They've got a 4 year window right now. Basically all of their offensive core will be a free agent after 2021 and some of them like Rizzo, you're not sure that you even want to retain. I'm not sure it's Arrieta, but I'd imagine they spend big on pitching this year or next. The only other thing I can think that they're doing is they think signing 2 middle-priced pitchers is better since their pitching depth is thin. Their payroll is projected at $130 million right now. They have to worry about rising arbitration costs over the next few years, but they've boxed themselves into this window. They'll spend big, IMO. The only other way I see them going forward is a major trade overhaul.

They've got one on their roster right now that was due over $100 million going into the 2017 season.

Yeah, I just like to play out all of the salary cap situations. I was not really agreeing with the plan or the "it's not my money" comment.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or shake my head. The Brewers don't have that much money, so they can't spend that kind of money. This isn't a situation of "the owners won't make as much money," this is a situation of purposefully losing $30M+ on an annual basis, driving the franchise to bankruptcy. The other owners would force Attanasio to sell the franchise if he did something like that. I could maybe...maybe imagine Mark going to $130-140 2 years in a row before letting payroll sink back to the low $100s if he really wanted to go for it. However, all of the stuff to come together right now to make it work probably won't happen. My issue is that those trades are not realistic. Even on a high dollar, 1 year deal, I'm not sure CC is coming here. He might get 2/$25 from someone. We'd have to unload the farm for the listed trades. The "+" in those would equate to half of the farm system. For 2018, if we made all of the moves listed, we'd have about $50 million before all of those guys join the roster when you factor out Villar, Thames, Vogt, and a few minimum contracts no longer needed from the $65 million projection that cot's has right now. Yelich 7, Hernandez 4.5, Abreu 17, Darvish 25 (slightly backloaded), CC 13.5, Lucroy 10, Swarzak 5. That'll get you to around $130. 2019 would be a challenge. Yeah, CC's deal is gone in this scenario, but you'd have a lot of arbitration raises to have a hard time staying under $140/150. The bad TV deal ends in 2019, so maybe if the bubble has not burst yet, the Brewers will really start to spend after that season.

Sano might have to play some DH. There likely will be an opening at 1B/DH if Mauer is gone after next year. I like what Minnesota has done with the elite defense, but they may have pitching depth issues in the near future. It's not lazy or pandering to readership, it's logical. If there's a huge high school running back recruit that wants to go to the NFL, an article may read, "look for Ohio State, USC, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, and Alabama to be the leaders" and to present some reasoning as to why each school would be a fit for him (proximity to family, coaches, running style, etc.). Would you also want the writer to say, "don't count out Florida International, Idaho State, Virginia, Cal Poly, Georgia Southern, Navy, Texas Tech, Western Michigan, Toledo, Tulsa, or a handful of division 2 schools...just because maybe something we don't know about will happen." No. I don't see Otani going to the Pirates or the Royals. The Cubs are listed as a darkhorse because they're a good team and there still is a large Asian population and a listed Epstein connection (albeit not major, which is why they're listed as a darkhorse). If the Cubs were not good right now, they probably would not be listed in this. My shock level would be low if he chose the Cubs for some reason. If he chose the Royals or Brewers, I would be shocked.

It's not biased. Save calling things biased for things that actually may be biased. Not only are those big cities with winning teams and marketing opportunities, but those cities have a lot more Japanese people and culture just by sheer volume. That list of 8 teams basically coincides with the density/volume of Asian/Japanese populations in cities. Chicago has 500,000 people of Asian descent (I don't have a specific Japanese number). I don't really think it matters which guys were "brought over" but Fukudome was a Cubs player brought over. There is now an ESPN big market bias bias. No matter the article, even if it makes 100% sense, will be labeled as big market/east coast bias by some looking to call it so. It's extremely logical to say that a Japenese player will likely go to a large market with a large Asian/Japanese population and given the fact that he can't sign a huge contract, will have better marketing opportunities there. On top of that, most of the teams listed are successful current teams. They didn't suggest the White Sox.

If you are Ohtani’s agent, are you advising him to sign in Cincinnati? Where do you think shoe companies, sport drinks companies, car companies, etc. that will be providing a majority of his income for the first few seasons want him? Its not really big market bias, its just the best guess as to where he will land given all the inputs. Not only that, but while even every small market has some sort of Japanese presence in its town, the big markets have large Japanese populations. I'm sure I'll get a variety of answers like "I actually am a small town guy" or "I really like all Japanese food" on this, but in general, if you were forced to move to Japan for work (but barely speak Japanese), are you choosing some smaller city with 3% of the people speaking English and no American/English amenities, or are you going to one of the bigger cities that you can ease into that has a lot of English speaking areas and people you can befriend/speak with?

I'm still curious why you guys are bringing up east coast bias. Anyone can rightfully bring up that the Fangraphs WAR projections have issues, but this is like saying that your thermometer has a hot temperature bias in Arizona. They are literally taking a computerized system and spitting out the results. That system happens to like how some of the bigger market teams are built due to the player projections. I guess the only argument that can be made is that the projections of the players, which may have some human elements to them, are being juiced up for the big market/east coast teams.

Yeah, this is the one that confuses me. I guess the theory is Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Baez, Contreras, Happ, maybe Almora all having lofty WAR projections as they are all established (except Russell maybe) and that adds up to a pretty high number. The one thing is that if any of these guys get hurt, they're out of replacements. Or even if Lester is still in good form but gets hurt, they have no one to dip into the minors for. I think a 97.1 win projection probably assumes too much health.

Looking at the Fangraphs projections, I see: Arcia slight regression Anderson -1.5 wins Davies -1 win Nelson loses nearly 3 wins due to coming back at the end of the year. Woodruff with +1 win by virtue of playing most of the season. Brinson is only worth a win - basically Broxton of 2017 Phillips - 0 WAR Santana - 1.5 wins less Shaw - 1.5 wins less Knebel - 1.5 wins less Yeah, I'm always a fan of using advanced numbers to project things. I also agree that a handful of guys are prime regression candidates. I don't think every key player from last year's team is worse as Fangraphs thinks, though.

Before I look at it, I'm going to predict that they tab the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees/Red Sox, etc as division winners all primed to win 100 games. And the Cardinals are project for 88 wins... I hate ESPN People have rightful objections with Fangraphs projecting records as there are some flaws that even Fangraphs would concede...but this isn't ESPN big market bias. They are literally using one of the best tools that is available today to make these projections. I think many might admit flaws on projections for some of the Brewers, but there are some on the other threads suggesting possible regression as well, so it's not completely unwarranted.

Before I look at it, I'm going to predict that they tab the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees/Red Sox, etc as division winners all primed to win 100 games. And I'd agree with those projections.