bill hAll Star

I fully acknowledge that Chatwood is a risk, but one that I think could pay dividends as an undervalued asset. That said, his years away from Coors are generally pretty good. He had 2 bad years on the road and they were in 33 and 11 innings, respectively. Granted, his "good" years are only ones where he pitched 60-80 innings on the road, but I think it's a good risk to take. Other than Darvish I'm not sure who we can pay big money to in the coming years unless Cueto or somebody like that opts out. We're probably stuck at the Lance Lynn/Alex Cobb tier of pitchers.

If that's your opinion on Villar, that's fine, it is possible to stick with him and allocate the money elsewhere. I am saying that it's time to sign some vets to fill the few remaining holes on this team. It costs essentially zero prospects to do so. I think people are confusing the smart, homegrown approach that is necessary and I 100% support and what that approach actually provides. If vets are willing to come for 2, maybe 3 years to the Brewers, this is what the homegrown approach provides for a few years. You have some money to spend to keep your own guys or get external vets. In our case, we don't have to worry about re-signing anyone of importance for at least 2 offseasons.

Most people are simply saying don't make a bad deal just to spend all the money earmarked for this year. I don't think anyone is opposed to addressing areas of need by signing quality players to fair value contracts. You're really just arguing semantics. Fair value for a veteran is generally overpaying them when you compare it to the production we're getting from Arcia or Shaw as compared to their pay. I'd love to sign all fair value contracts and I know that's what Stearns is going to do. That's still going to be on the order of $5, $10, up to $15 million/year for some guys to help short-term. I'm saying use the excess space to fill positional needs. There are 29 other teams competing for the services of a bunch of non-elite relief pitchers in the next few offseasons. They'll be overpaid but productive and very necessary.

But by the logic of the poster you're agreeing with above, these players will be overpaid. The reliever market isn't great the next few years so we're likely going to have to settle for the Swarzaks and not not the Kimbrels of the world. I think that keeping Swarzak would help as he's one of the top names on the market. I can guarantee that if you plug in his expected production to the contract he gets (if we can hopefully get a shortened deal) it will be an "overpaid" player. Mike Cameron was overpaid for his production in 2008 and 2009 but nobody cares because his production was much, much better than the minimum salary or fringe-MLB veteran we'd have had to have filled in his position if we decided that overpaying Mike Cameron was not worth it.

I don't think you guys are understanding this. I'm strongly assuming that Mark Attanasio has earmarked about $90-100 million (or a little bit more) per season when the Brewers are competitive. That's how it has gone in the past. It's a year-to-year thing. If we have a $60 million payroll this year that doesn't mean he'll add $40 million a few years from now on top of his $110-120 million max if we really need it. Knowing that, the Brewers have every offensive position but maybe 2B solved or it has a young player that clearly has the position locked for next year and probably 2019. The rotation could be improved but we have plenty of depth. RP is a weakness. The Brewers have $50-60 million tied up in the majority of their roster for each 2018 and 2019. You're telling me that if Mark Attanasio has earmarked $100 million for those rosters. You're telling me that you'd decline short-term signings of earmarked money? There is no conceivable downside to this save for the veterans being worse than potential replacements.

It actually is completely the right thing to do if: A. Mark is willing to pay $100 million or so for contending years which he seems to want to do. B. The contracts are not prohibitive of future years of being able to keep your young players. The Brewers have a ton of money to spend (assuming A) for the next 2 offseasons and only 3 or 4 roster spots to fill with them. Get the best player money can buy if it's a short contract. I think you'd agree that bullpen is one of the biggest issues right now. You mean to tell me that you'd rather roll with Blazek, let Swarzak walk, Barnes, Jeffress, and all of those other options next season instead of 2 guys that are much better pitchers that would only be 1-2 year contracts and Mark has earmarked the money for 2018 and 2019 payroll?

Veterans by definition and rule are overpaid. Anyone that is a good MLB player past their arbitration days is close to or actually overpaid. Cody Bellinger and Corey Seager make $500k. Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford (out of baseball), Andre Ethier all make in the range of $20 million/year. How is that working out? The Astros paid Carlos Beltran $16 million to fill in as DH this year. Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, John Lackey all make 15-20 times more money than Kris Bryant annually. Arcia, Santana, Nelson, etc. will all get their payday. That's how this works. We have room under Mark's yearly budget to fill some holes. Would you rather Neil Walker play 2B and Swarzak + 2 good pen arms come to the Brewers or would you rather stick with what we have and let the ownership group buy a few more yachts? Now, if the Brewers sign several guys to big 5 or 6 year contracts we have issues because then it will affect our ability to bring Nelson, Anderson, Arcia, Santana, etc. back.

If you put a good defense behind Chatwood, he's probably a little bit better than Davies. He does have the walk issues, but he's a better groundball pitcher than Davies and loses out on an insane HR/FB rate in Coors and average against given all of the extra hits that fall in. I'm assuming his sinker doesn't sink like he wants it to there as well. His ERA away from Coors with the Rockies is 3.24. FIP and xFIP are a bit higher, but part of that is because groundball pitchers trick FIP/xFIP a little bit. If Chatwood is affordable, then you can deal Suter, Guerra, Garza for future minors depth and bullpen help and still have plenty of rotation depth. The reason I do it is because you get another Davies-type pitcher (though I think better than Davies) in years that "overpaying" a pitcher is not an issue. Adding $10 million/year (or whatever he costs) is almost meaningless for the next 2 years. Adding $10 million to payroll in 2022 or 2023 might start to cost us the ability to keep Nelson or Santana or Arcia. You can flip some of your excess at the position to fill other needs or to backfill in the minors.

Exactly. I'm looking at an offseason like this: Walker at 2 years, $30 million (a bit more $ to keep the contract short) Chatwood at 3 years, $30 million (this one is a bit of my own obsession) Swarzak at 3 years, $18 million Pick up Garza's option and trade him for Mark Rzepczynski given that Seattle is probably desperate for MLB pitching Trade Suter and/or Guerra for lower ceiling guys that are in A or AA ball to fill those roles later Sign another guy out of the Cishek/Reed/Nicasio mold for 2-3 years. I do not expect the relievers signed or Walker to "live up" to their contract but I do not necessarily care as you've turned your bullpen from a weakness into at least neutral and probably a strength. That roster costs somewhere around $90 million after non-tendering some of the relievers that you don't need anymore.

Competing with those teams also requires smart asset management. Keeping Garza and then flipping him for 1 or 2 lower ceiling Suter/Davies type-guys or a flamethrowing reliever that might need a change of scenery is a better idea than letting Garza walk and probably not spending the money that you've saved up to what your owner is willing to pay anyways. And again, you want to have 8-9 guys that can pitch in the majors and not kill you. That is almost as important as having 1-2 top-end pitchers for the regular season, at least. If the Brewers can navigate the roster crunch for the month or two that they need to, they'll then have the depth to survive the regular season and get to the playoffs. The Brewers' problems 2007-2015 weren't really lack of elite players (a huge issue was lack of elite pitching, that is true) but rather team depth. There were plenty of years that the Brewers may have been a playoff team in 2009, 2012, or 2014 if they didn't have to turn to Yuni Betancourt or try to call Randy Wolf out of retirement when an injury occurred. The lack of depth in the system was an issue.

I've kinda gotten into this debate on other threads/twitter/boards, etc. but if one thinks that 2B is a need, why not overspend on 2B? This assumes that Mark is willing to pay his usual $100+ million on the roster, but it's time to overpay a few guys hopefully on short deals to fill short-term roster holes. We can dump a ton of money into relief pitching, maybe a starting pitcher if we feel it's an upgrade, or 2B. Nowhere else justifies $ spent right now. If Walker is willing to stay for 2 (3 max) years then it's a perfect situation. If he's truly washed up then you go back to Villar or Dubon but you're no worse off than you were before because adding Walker to the payroll for 2-3 years is not prohibitive of keeping any player we value over that timeframe and probably doesn't stop us from adding anything at positions of need. It's more of an opportunity cost thing. Money spent on 2b is money that can't be spent on pitching. Imagine where this team could be if all else remained the same, Villar become a solid 2b option(or someone internal did) but we add a TOR pitcher and rock solid LH setup man in free agency heading into 2018? It's harder to make moves for impact talent when you $5 and $10 million your payroll away. We need to have as many solid guys on minimum and arbitration contracts as possible, and ideally only having one or two holes and being able to fill it with expensive impact talent to push us over the edge rather than back end starting pitching. I agree going forward, but right now the payroll will be somewhere between $45 and $65 million for 2018 and 2019 for 18-22 players depending on if we non-tender Vogt or most of the relief options (Torres, Hughes, etc). Of course, plenty will change, but the fact remains that we'll have 85% of the roster solved for $50-60 million for the next 2 seasons. Now, I wouldn't have a problem overpaying one of the top pitchers on the market just if we can, but the years likely will bleed into the years that it matters because a player like that comes at 5 or 6 years of commitment. That's probably even fine for one guy. The only names out there are Cobb, Lynn, Chatwood, Darvish (probably not), maybe a few others...but not many names that will fall to us and come at the right price. Point being, if we can fill the bullpen, maybe a starter, probably 2B with guys that will only be 1-2, maybe a 3rd year committment (this assumes Mark wants to pay his usual $100-110 million competing price, then overpaying Walker to hang around for 2 years does not affect any of the desires that you mention above. You could pay Walker 2 years, $30 million (total) and still have plenty of money to sign the top setup man on the market and maybe buy a cheaper starter or 1-2 more relievers if you so choose. Also trading for guys that cost a bit more is an option.

Yes. We can forfeit the one game he may have to pitch at Coors every year but otherwise he's a #3 starter and may be a bargain in his prime.

Nothing really screams starting 2b. He's a solid hitter with speed and plays good defense. His career minor league slash line is 299/349/404/753. He's probably more of a Perez type guy in that super utility role when he fully develops. His career SB% is around 75%, which is very good if that percentage translates to MLB. Dubon isn't nearly as dynamic as Villar or have nearly the upside of Diaz/Hiura, he could be a decent stopgap option if Villar fails in 2018 rather than spending a bunch on 2b. I've kinda gotten into this debate on other threads/twitter/boards, etc. but if one thinks that 2B is a need, why not overspend on 2B? This assumes that Mark is willing to pay his usual $100+ million on the roster, but it's time to overpay a few guys hopefully on short deals to fill short-term roster holes. We can dump a ton of money into relief pitching, maybe a starting pitcher if we feel it's an upgrade, or 2B. Nowhere else justifies $ spent right now. If Walker is willing to stay for 2 (3 max) years then it's a perfect situation. If he's truly washed up then you go back to Villar or Dubon but you're no worse off than you were before because adding Walker to the payroll for 2-3 years is not prohibitive of keeping any player we value over that timeframe and probably doesn't stop us from adding anything at positions of need.

I'd be a fan of bringing Walker back for a 1-2 year contract. 3 max. There is plenty of room to spend the next few years. I think the issue is, depending on what Neil wants, this is his last year to cash in on a 3-5 year contract. I'd pay a higher dollar value to make it a 2-year contract.

Boras would absolutely lose his mind if Davies was sent to the bullpen with Garza given a rotation spot over him. I would have some interesting and hilarious tweets rolling through my feed to say the least. We certainly do have a problem of too many back end rotation/fringe MLB starting options. I agree it would be nice to see some traded for value if possible. Davies could potentially take the #5 spot and Woodruff could start in AAA if he hasn't yet lit the world on fire by the end of the 2017 season. The rotation will sort itself out early in the season with a few injuries or possibly a trade or poor performance (maybe Guerra's velocity is still way down and he gets DFA'ed).

I'm assuming that Guerra and Suter's final options will be maintained for 2018. Nelson Anderson Chatwood (3 years/$30 million) Garza Woodruff Hader is either in the pen or in AAA getting ready to be in the rotation Davies (?) - noted below Suter Guerra Jungmann Wilkerson I realize that's a bit of a logjam, so it is not the exact rotation. 1-3 of the guys between Davies, Suter, Guerra, Garza, Jungmann, Wilkerson based on their options remaining get dealt for either a low-ceiling AA-ish pitcher to be our next depth guys or for bullpen help from teams that are desperate to fill out their rotation. Some of these guys could also sit in the MLB bullpen for a bit as long relief until needed.

I get wanting to have higher upside players in the rotation, but the reasons why it's still fine to have a "back end of the rotation" guy like Garza in there are: 1. We should have so much room to spend that saving $5 million by declining Garza's option likely will not do us any good. If Mark is willing to spend $110 million during contending seasons, I'm not sure that we can even get there with or without Garza's deal. 2. I think Suter is really a AAAA guy and unless Guerra's velocity returns, so is he (see how this matters in point #3). 3. Most good teams have 8 or 9 MLB caliber starters these days. Either you make it through the season healthy with 5 or 6 of them and deal with the other ones by optioning them, giving them long relief bullpen roles, or dealing them...or do what a lot of teams are doing and string the season along with 10-day DL stints. Nelson, Anderson, (probably) Hader, Woodruff, Garza can start the season. If there are no injuries to start the season, Davies maybe replaces Woodruff or Hader who eventually come up to fill a role at some point. Suter and Guerra hold their options hopefully and remain AAA depth or relievers early in the year. There are one or two guys I'd even consider adding in free agency (I would love to overpay Tyler Chatwood) given that the Brewers have some room to spend this offseason. If there is an overflow of guys that have to be in the MLB rotation, you can deal Garza, Davies, Suter, Guerra, or Jungmann for younger guy that has a Suter ceiling to be your future #8 starter or for a reliever to a team that is desperate to fill out the back of their rotation in the offseason.

Sure, it's Kinsler who we now know isn't an option and also is an expensive upgrade over Perez, who, while I do understand his OBP is bad has put up said .750 OPS the last few years with lots of steals. If we were 6 games up on the Cubs with 2 months left I'd be all over Kinsler, Phillips, anyone... Given where we are now just pray for a miracle with Villar and Perez. Heck, Phillips could come over and randomly hit like an MVP and it still may not be enough.

It appears that Villar is back in there today, but what if Hernan played 2B and put up a .750-.775 OPS and played great defense?

I think they're trying. I agree that if Mark wants to spend a few million bucks to bring Kinsler in and probably keep him around with not much in the 2018 pipeline (Dubon is OK, but I'm not expecting stardom) and throw zero prospects at it...completely fine by me at this point. If it starts to cost prospects I'm not a fan. If Mark doesn't think it's worth the investment I actually understand in this case. I think they're going to try to make a small move like this, though.

There's an extremely high chance that Santana or Arcia or Thames get on fire without the presence of Ian Kinsler. There's also a high chance that Ian Kinsler comes in and is "just OK" for the rest of the season. I'd say Villar's head is pretty messed up but who's to say that Hernan Perez couldn't catch fire? That's pretty much just as likely as Ian Kinsler at this point of Kinsler's career.

I haven't assumed a damn thing. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth? We could've went out and got Gray and Quintana and missed the playoffs. Not sure when anything close to what you stated above was ever said. That wasn't my point at all. I've even said it's a chance at the right mixture or a kickstarter for the guys on the team. Whatever you want to call it BUT a gaurentee. Never, ever... EVER came close to saying that. Just said that trying something COULD be better than doing nothing at all. And with what I stated about about low payrol, still in the mix, yada yada yada... I don't see the harm in it. And like I also stated, it looks like the Brewers are already checking in on a possible move. Well, it's possible that we'll have Phillips or Kinsler within a few days/hours, but harm can be done and that is why I would assume no move has been made to this point. If those guys cleared waivers and required $0 and 0 prospects to trade for, I'll bet Attanasio would have made the deal. I think he'd even put some $ down for those guys. I think once you talk about picking up all of Kinsler's contract is where I don't blame Mark from saying "OK, this probably won't help us nearly enough for me to burn $15 million bucks on" and I'd be fine with that. The fact that it hasn't happened yet means acquiring those guys is either: A. Not possible due something like not getting them on waivers or Kinsler saying he'd reject trade to Milwaukee. B. The asking price being 2 good prospects or covering all of Kinsler's contract + a good prospect.

The whole argument on this thread revolves around "just little upgrades to shake things up" getting the Brewers over the top.

Let's make a deal. I won't mock the idea of it if the idea of it doesn't involve calling a GM and owner stupid or cheap for not wanting to sink millions of dollars into shuffling deck chairs around and paying millions of dollars to do so to find the right mix. If you want to think that adding an older, mediocre player will fix things, fine. Calling the owner and GM stupid for not doing such things is overboard. I'm not saying that because I feel like defending DS and MA...I just thing it's kinda weird. And yeah, generally teams win divisions and get to the playoffs due to talent. Adding different personalities can maybe get you over the top. Everyone hated Curt Schilling and the BoSox won plenty of championships with him. Pujols knows the Cardinal Way™ but suddenly his team filled with veterans in Anaheim is garbage. The Brewers aren't in "get me over the top mode." They're in the mode of maybe accidentally stealing a playoff spot with 83 wins and if Mark wants to spend his own money on Phillips or Kinsler, I'd be OK with it...but I'm not going to call he or DS fools for not wanting to part with $ or future prospects to chase this idea. To each their own. And I don't have to make a deal on these boards with someone who is actually trying to belittle another poster, all because they don't agree or understand their thinking. Pretty small stuff right there. I didn't mean to offend you by saying our owner was cheap, even though I believe he is to some extent. If i had the means, my payroll was extremely cheap, and I was 2 games out (at one point up 5.5), I would be using some resources (no top prospects) to give myself the opportunity for our fifth playoff team in the Brewers existence. If it didn't work out, so be it. But I wouldn't just stand pat and watch the "Titanic" sink without doing a few things. Swarzak wasn't enough. It just wasn't. And by the new reports, it looks like they might still add someone. Question is, will be it too late. I think the main assumption (backup quarterback theory) here where we differ is that you are applying way too much certainty to modest upgrades getting the job done. The idea of, "we had a real chance at a fleeting [for this franchise] playoff spot for the playoffs and it would've happened if we made these little moves" is A. ignoring that they possibly tried to make those moves and the teams returned with absurd offers and B. assumes that those moves unequivocally would have put them over the top.

A few questions: I'm not a huge fan of Phillips in his current state but surely would take him to finish the season for the heck of it. A. Does the "free" thing really transfer? Is it possible that his contract gets dealt to the Brewers but the portion paid by the Reds stays with the Braves? B. Now that he's cleared waivers, is it possible that teams that passed on the last round of waivers will be bidding for him, allowing the Braves to drive up the asking price to being a prospect or two? I'm just scratching my head on how a solid player that would cost basically nothing completely clears waivers and would be given away for nothing after clearing waivers. I'm not a fan of him but I feel like at least 4 or 5 teams would take him for free.