bill hAll Star

If Stearns/Attanasio go into the season with Jungmann and Suter as known commodities in the 5 man rotation with a $70 million payroll, we can just pack this thing up and rebuild again. I guess you're adding Walker so we'll say $80-85 million. Suter has probably earned some confidence but I'm not there yet with him. If an injury occurs, it could get real nasty with rotation depth. You have a small bullpen with Suter who only is a 5 inning guy and I would assume Jungmann should only go 4-5 innings most games if he's even an MLB pitcher (I don't think he is). Woodruff might also be a concern to go deep into games.

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make. I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated. That being said, I can't fault the Dodgers for pitching their lights out closer two innings. If you lose the lead with your rested, best pitcher in the pen, so be it. I agree with most of this. I sometimes wonder if teams take not bunting too far. Sometimes I'm wondering why a team isn't bunting with essentially the winning runner on first late in the game. However, I generally defer to the professionals that maybe they know more than I do on this...that said, I agree with the general premise of nuance here. All of that said, Garvey here and Smoltz (in my example) are taking a swing at the entire approach of the Dodgers and baseball. It just has too much of "back in my day, we didn't need all of these fancy-dancy numbers and we gritted it out and played baseball the way it should be." That's great. I'll bet if Garvey managed and built a team in 2017 it would underachieve. It's pretty clear that data-driven baseball gives teams an edge. It keeps getting more and more in depth, making the edge harder to obtain, but bashing the entire idea of it is silly. I am all ears to the idea of "teams are shifting too much or an argument like that. I'm not going to listen to some fossil of baseball tell me that the way to win in baseball is to rub some dirt on it and play like it's 1975.

That trade makes a lot of sense for both sides. Obviously Boston will try to hold them over the fire for more prospects knowing that the Cubs are desperate for better pitching. The Cubs will want some $ thrown in.

Tanaka had a terrible May for some reason, but otherwise was his same old self. He has an opt-out this year that I wouldn't be completely shocked if he took. He might be able to do better than 3/$60 on this market. Maybe 5/$100 with another opt-out in 2 years. Point being, if Tanaka does not opt out, I think it would cost far too many prospects for our liking. The contract doesn't scare me, but the injury listed in the post above does.

What use would the Yankees have for Villar?

Yeah, as I was saying a few pages back...the most beneficial thing for both parties may be to offer Lynn or Cobb a frontloaded deal with an opt-out after 2 years if they were interested.

We're still in a position where we can and should take the long view for the team. I would not suggest that we have to spend big to win right now. Getting Lance Lynn probably isn't taking the Brewers to a World Series (he does improve playoff odds, which does give us a chance, though). That said, the pitchers I trust going into next year are Anderson and Davies. I think Woodruff is good but there's probably an innings limit and some concerns with him. Ditto on Hader. Suter still scares me but he's for sure in the mix of starter/long relief that we should have and I wouldn't be surprised if he had a good season. Guerra could factor in. We could trade Broxton for a pitcher, but otherwise, the list of pitchers that might be available for 1-2 years is a bit scary. Trevor Cahill? Jason Vargas? Jeff Locke? The point is that there just aren't many vets that are available for short-term deals that have a likelihood of actually paying off, either. Sure, I'm all in favor of taking a risk on a guy from that list that Stearns sees something in. I guess my point is that it's nearly a guarantee that even with good farm system management, we're going to have 4-5 holes on the 25 man roster in a given year. How do we address that without going to free agency?

I don't disagree with this but does Lynn push us over the top to be a legitimate contender? The answer is no for me and is therefore not worth the money or risk. I agree, but I guess one could argue that Lynn's second year, where you're hoping he's still good, he may be a pretty helpful piece with more of the young guys up and playing their best. The best strategy may be to wait one more season to spend on long-term contracts, but that does mean spending some money one year further back into years where we may need some $ in the 2021/2022 timeframe.

Well, there's also the opportunity to use some of the team's extensive minor league depth to improve the ML rotation with a younger controllable piece who doesn't break the bank. I think that is a better option than going out and spending just for the sake of spending. I think overpaying for Lance Lynn falls into that category. Granted he could come in and be good, but there's just not much of a track record there. We do have a bit of depth right now, but take a look back at our pitching depth 2007-2016. Were there always 5 or more "good" pitchers in our system or on the roster? The answer is no. The Brewers don't get to hang a banner for winning 85 games with a $55 million dollar payroll. So you knowingly overpay a pitcher. Sure, the risk you're taking is 2 years later when maybe you need it more, you're overpaying Jeff Suppan to be a fringe #5 starter...but you could also just never get to use that extra $ if you don't decide to spend it at some point. Matt Garza did not impede the Brewers from signing anyone. They signed him at the back end of a window of trying to compete and failed. He basically was a rotting contract for 2 years while the Brewers had a tiny payroll and weren't playoff competitors. The only complaint you could have is that they stuck with him late in the year because he had a big contract instead of going to Woodruff. Of course, that money could be used elsewhere if you're more shrewd with your money...but...where would you use it?

Really depends on what you're looking for and how you project each player. Schwarber could reach the line you stated, and Broxton could hit .250/.340 with 30 HR and 30 SB while playing good defense at all three OF positions allowing a team to rotate their OF/DH to keep everyone fresh. Or, either one could end with a career average around .200. If Schwarber only hits around .200 then he's basically a Chris Carter type, and we saw how much value teams give those players these days. If Broxton only hits around .200, then at least he can add some value on defense and the basepaths. I think that either of these players will have to prove themselves some more before anyone will give up good value for them. Schwarber may get a little more right now because he was higher rated as a prospect and hit a World Series HR that people remember, but I don't think he has nearly the value he had two years ago. Plus, his market is limited to the AL, because he is horrible on defense. But all it takes is one GM who loves the potential and either of these guys could bring back more than I expect. Part of your guys' annoyance with Schwarber being overrated coming up may be due to the fact that he played catcher. Even if he was a bad catcher, teams would probably take a shot on a catcher that could hit 45 homers. Schwarber is 24 and put up video game numbers all the way through the minors. Broxton is 27 and put up decent numbers all the way through the minors until he got to Colorado Springs where they got the CS inflation. Now, nobody is saying that Schwarber will hit over .335 with a .430 OBP like he did in the minors, but I think that is what is leading the potential talks. Broxton is a finished product. He's a right-handed platoon hitter that helps on the basepaths and can play decent defense at a premium position. Schwarber had struggles after missing nearly a full season of baseball with an injury (and bad BABIP luck) and got back to what he put up in his rookie season in the second half. I would expect Broxton to put up the .250/.320/.430 line if he was mostly shielded from right-handed pitching. I would rather bet on Schwarber sticking at the .250/.350/.475 line he showed his rookie year and got back to in the second half of 2017 and he's a lefty, so he doesn't have to sit nearly as often to avoid bad situations at the plate. It's possible that he regresses and ends up being Oswaldo Arcia, but I'm willing to bet on him being the player that he's been 66% of the time he's been in the majors and potentially improving. He slugged .560 in the second half this year with a nearly .340 OBP. Like I said, it's a risk...but it's one that has payoff for Schwarber. Keon Broxton is a trade chip basically to a team that needs a cheap 5th OF that they can play against lefties.

I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse. All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something? I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.

I don't get why Schwarber has any major value at all. He wasn't an elite prospect, he can't hit a lick, is so-so at getting on base, can't steal a bag and can't play defense. He's got one tool, some pop. I don't understand reports that the Cubs traded Torres over Schwarber for Chapman, if true. And I agree if Schwarber is worth anything at all, Broxton should be too. Schwarber was the #4 pick overall in the draft and a top 20 prospect per baseball America (lower in the rankings on other publications). It's possible that Schwarber is basically an Oswaldo Arcia clone and he's basically out of baseball in 5 years, or maybe his .900 OPS with 17 homers in the 2nd half and promising rookie campaign tell us what he can do. He had bad BABIP luck to open the year last year. If you could get a left-handed DH that can put up a .250/.370 line with 40-45 HR...isn't that more valuable than Broxton and probably Aguilar? Aguilar is on the wrong side of the platoon and 3 years older...and does not have the HR power or on-base ability of Schwarber if Schwarber is right.

I'm a fan of Chatwood, but the problem is that it's very, very hard to find an affordable guy that hasn't hit 30 yet. Hosmer is 28, Moustakas is 29, JD Martinez is 30. The last year of one's prime as a position player, I believe, is 31. Pineda is probably the only other somewhat interesting free agent under 30. Those guys will likely all get over $100 million dollars (not Pineda). People will be in on Chatwood for the reasons that are obvious to many and he may end up not being as cheap as we all think. These days, most free agents are north of 30 because a lot of the decent/good ones are locked up earlier for an extra year or two. The Brewers have a bunch of back-end prime guys right now (Shaw, Anderson, Nelson, Thames, Pina is past his but a contributor). Davies and Santana are the only guys that the Brewers have that will still have some prime left when they hit free agency. They've got a bunch of guys coming up that will probably hit their primes in 2 years or so. Point being, the Brewers should just continue to cycle in their new players. They have almost zero significant free agents to worry about keeping for 3, maybe 4 years...and most of them like Shaw are going to be in the same position we see current FAs are on the market are at (32-33 years old). Keep all of your young talent (do not trade for shorter term control unless totally worth it), keep cycling in, and knowingly overpay free agents to fill the gaps. That's what I'd do. It doesn't have to be Lynn, but I think that we can keep cycling a good roster of 20 young players in from our own system and then fill accordingly with past-their-prime, yet still good players. The Brewers can sustain a good roster of 20s/early 30s players from their own system for maybe a decade. For the last few roster spots, if you have $40 million left over every season, would you rather have Lance Lynn or see if Taylor Jungmann can be your 5th starter? I'd take Lynn, and if he begins to struggle 3 years from now, don't hesitate to replace him with Peralta and trade Lynn away for a bag of baseballs and 50% of his final year eaten or make him your mop-up man. Sure, I'd love to get external, productive 27-year-old players to fill areas that we have weaknesses, but...are there any available that don't cost a king's ransom of prospects?

I love it. I love when the data is presented RIGHT ON THE SCREEN and the guy commentating on the game says "I don't agree with this." "Here, sir. Here's a card that gives you the odds in blackjack and what you do." "I don't agree with this. I would like to hit on this 18." The only argument is that Hill was pitching fairly well...but with the benefit of hindsight, Morrow and Jansen blew the game late. Those guys would've pitched anyways. Any argument about that basically suggests that you were playing for extra innings, which is silly.

Let me explain: 1. The Brewers have $50-60 million in theoretical space for 2018 and 2019 and many things could change but let's say we only want to spend $30-40 million on external players or contracts not yet on the team for 2020-2022 given that we may have other needs or extensions to sign. IF the Brewers wanted to sign him for 5/$95 million, wouldn't $25, $25, $15, $15, $15 make more sense simply from a budget standpoint? 2. OK, now assume he signs the contract above with an opt-out after year 2. Let's say he dominates. Great! We just signed a dominant or good pitcher for 2 seasons. He walks away at age 33/34. Probably a good thing! 3. Say instead he's solid for years 1-2 and is probably going to just be your overpriced #4 starter for the next 3 years. Now you're paying him less when you need the $ and when he's not as important to your team. 4. The listed contract is obviously beneficial to Lynn. Again, IF we are interested in signing him, it's just another incentive for us to get a good free agent if we believe him to be that. I'd try this with the upper-tier free agents as well, though I know we wouldn't get many. I don't care what his cost is compared to performance level per season. If we could pay him $60 million this year and $7 million for the 4 seasons following that (I know not possible, but let's just say), I'd do it. It's about money in context of your space available, not "he's earning what he's paid." We can and will overpay some players for the next two years. It's the nature of baseball. The two World Series teams are sitting on tens of overpaid players. Yes, they're large markets, but we can take a few risks as well.

I think you have the pieces here but not the right name. I think the Cubs move Schwarber to an AL team for that pitcher. Yankees-Cubs match up too well to not have a deal for Schwarber and I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if the Yankees offered Gray for him. Happ/Jay-Heyward-Almora in the OF, Happ/Zobrist at 2B with Gray, Lester, Hendricks as the top 3. Not necessarily dominant but fills the role. I don't think Schwarber is enough for Gray. Also, the Yankees probably know that they're signing Harper or maybe Machado. DH may be more of a rotation for them given that they're going to be overflowing with good MLB bats over the next few years.

I am not a huge fan of Lynn, but I agree that we can overpay/overspend now as long as we don't go too crazy 2-3 years from now and we could do worse than Lynn. This discussion of frontloading does bring up an interesting idea that piggybacks on what I've thought. Maybe this isn't something that early 30s pitchers want, but frontloading with an opt out can be beneficial to both parties. We might be able to get an upper end free agent, he can dominate and leave if he wants, and if he becomes a mediocre free agent, then at least he's making less than he might have for the final 3 or so years of his deal.

It's supposed to be $206M in 2019, fwiw. I'm not sure if that has to be finalized or something but that's the figure that I see everywhere I look. To your other point about them not having many good pre-arby players if they really chose to go out and sign 2 more huge contracts, the 2010-2017 Tigers are probably a good example of stars and scrubs. They found a few diamonds in the rough and had a few prospects coming up, but in general they had 12-13 pre-arby guys and probably 8-10 of them were replacement level or worse most years. It worked for a while but there were down years for sure.

They might be best off going with buy-low cheaper pitching (I trust Epstein to find talent a bit more than others), pay for relievers, and let their defense do the talking for the time being. Either way, there is an opening for the Brewers.

Remember, these are early contract values, though. I imagine Harper starting at $30 and ending at $40/year. Maybe I'm undershooting that a bit, but they could backload their two big deals to make it work during the Heyward years. Yeah, and it's possible that somebody goes insanely high for Harper like maybe the Phillies. I think Arrieta goes 6/$175 and starts in the high 20s and ends in the mid 30s per year. You're probably right, though on Harper and also it's possible that the Cubs should use all of that money to overpay bullpen help. Might have been a bit off on Quintana/Rizzo, but that's pretty negligible in the projection. I'll again note that Harper isn't going to take a backloaded deal. He's going to want cash up front with opt outs. With the type of money he's going to command, he will surely have full authority to basically write out the contract however he chooses. I also don't think Lynn or Arrieta get the type of money you are referencing. The Zimmerman contract is awful. Awful contracts shouldn't be used as comps. Lynn will likely shoot for inflated Matt Garza money, 4/64 type of deal. Arrieta probably gets 4/80, maybe 4/90. I highly doubt anyone goes 5 years for a guy that will be 32 before opening day. In that case, it still works for the Cubs. Heyward ($20), Lester ($20), Harper ($40-45), Arrieta ($20). That goes back to my $185 for 12 players leaving them about $20 million to fill out the roster. Maybe they pay the tax for two seasons to try to fill out a competent bullpen. Harper has an opt-out around the end of the Bryant/Rizzo years and the Cubs rebuild if all 3 leave. I get the sentiment that Harper can write whatever contract he wants and that if I could get $450 million or $425 million, $25 million is a lot of money...but it may also come to the point where he is the type of guy that will take a backloaded deal to try to win with the team he signs with. Given that he probably wants an opt-out so that he can go elsewhere to a winner if the Cubs (or Yankees or Phillies) begin to falter, maybe you're right, though. Obviously I'm taking more money up-front if I want an opt-out. What about Manny Machado for a little bit less money? Trade Russell for a back-end, controllable starter or good relief pitcher. I'm not saying I'm certain the Cubs will do it...but if they get creative, they may be able to build a top heavy roster if they so choose to go all out for the next 3-4 seasons. Or maybe they sign Darvish or Arrieta this offseason and sign another high-priced pitcher next offseason.

BRef shows Quintana at 11.5, Rizzo at 16.5. Arrieta I'm guessing will approach 25-28mil. Harper 37-43mil a year. 41 for Heyward/Lester. Hendriks who has Cy Young potential stats, could be close at 15, but I'd think he's closer to 17mil if not 18mil because of yearly inflation on arb. David Price was worth 14mil at that stage what will be 6years earlier and for a poor team vs Luxury team. That would be 28/26/40/41/17 roughly or 152mil vs the 100mil you are guessing. You may think I'm over-reaching on Arrieta, but Lynn is seeking a 5/110 type deal as Jordan Zimmerman got. Never gotten a cy-young top 10 vote whereas Arrieta has a win and two top 10s 3straight years prior to this year. Bryant at 20, may actually be a touch high but pretty close. Considering how they did in '16 with Chapman and the dominance faced by Dodgers bullpen, I'd likely flip Arrieta for a Bullpen stud like Davis. Or in reality they aren't signing Harper. Just can't fit that contract...which likely is a 9-12 year deal because of age. Talking a 400+ commitment over next decade. A weakened system, with garbage draft picks/lost picks with signing QO types. They can't sustain the holes that will be and has already been created by age. They need to sign contracts they can move when needed, vs albatrosses that they are stuck with. Remember, these are early contract values, though. I imagine Harper starting at $30 and ending at $40/year. Maybe I'm undershooting that a bit, but they could backload their two big deals to make it work during the Heyward years. Yeah, and it's possible that somebody goes insanely high for Harper like maybe the Phillies. I think Arrieta goes 6/$175 and starts in the high 20s and ends in the mid 30s per year. You're probably right, though on Harper and also it's possible that the Cubs should use all of that money to overpay bullpen help. Might have been a bit off on Quintana/Rizzo, but that's pretty negligible in the projection.

I think it'll be close as to whether they can add two massive contract guys and hang around the tax threshold. I could see them going over for one or two years if it means they can bring in Bryant's buddy Bryce Harper. Arrieta, Heyward, Lester, Harper about $100 million in 2020. Bryant is probably another $20 in arbitration, Quintana is $10, Rizzo is $15, Hendricks is $15. Baez, Russell, Edwards, Schwarber will probably all be in the $5-7 million range. Hand-wavy, but that's probably about $185 million for 12 players. That means they'd have about $20-25 million for the other 12-13 players if they wanted to stay under the threshold in 2020. They could do it. 2019 is similar to the example above. They'll still have Zobrist and Lester makes more (adds up to $20 million extra) but they probably save that in earlier arbitration rates for Bryant, Baez, Hendricks, etc. A lot can and will change. They may shuffle things around a bit, of course. I think if they're real creative they can probably sign 2 more massive contracts and maybe even squeeze in a high priced reliever and make things work. Of course, that example above basically shows you that they'll have no bullpen at that point. They'll probably have to shuffle some things around. Or maybe they'll just pay the tax for a year or two as first time offenders.

It's going to be a compromise either way. Do you want to knowingly overpay a salary dump (that is still pretty good) like Samardzija or overpay Lynn/Cobb or do you want to trade valuable future prospects for 3 years of a slightly younger/cheaper pitcher? I'd ask the Giants to kick in some $, but that money doesn't really scare me away 100%. I wish it was 2 years and not 3, but this is why I was on the Verlander bandwagon back at the deadline when it was an assumed salary dump. You get probably the same pitcher (well, Verlander brought his 2nd half magic again and is way better) than the overpaid guys on the free agent market, but you get a few less years of commitment.

Talented pitching is extremely coveted in baseball even if damaged goods. If the Rays were close to accepting a spare part from the Brewers, somebody else from around baseball would offer more. The Rays shouldn't just give him away if they're once again in a rebuild/retool mode. I think it would take something closer to what the article mentioned. I'm not sure they would want to give away a guy that's been a good pitcher for a "stopgap" if they aren't planning to compete. Might as well hang on to Odorizzi and see if he can find his groove again and trade him down the line. You do have a decent point in Aguilar, but I think they'd rather have him play DH. He may hold some value there but I just don't think it's enough. I'd be in favor of trading Villar if that was in play.

Ah, yeah. I was under the impression that the new rules only restricted the negotiating fee. The fact that it also impedes the contract dollars is very interesting. The Cubs might be one of the top destinations for Ohtani. Obviously the west coast teams and New York teams also will be in play.