Oxy

Mike Cameron? I think we had Diego Edmonds' expiring contract and Carlos Gomez at the time we got Greinke. And Carlos still wasn't good enough to play in front of T Plush the next year.

Aye. I was very "meh" or worse about Chacin, Miley, Lyles, Pomeranz...but the Stearns has earned my optimism about moves like that now. Or else most people go, "well, I hope it turns out..." then see above. It's worked out enough times (not ALL the time, but enough times) to be optimistic.

Right. Pitchers are more likely to challenge guys w/o power (or more likely to pitch around guys w/power...same thing). One still needs a good eye to take those BBs, but it isn't ALWAYS just because a guy has a good eye. The pitcher plays a part as well by not throwing strikes.

Nope. That would be a "full rebuild" type of move. I WOULD do it if you felt the player you're getting is actually a better player than a cheaper replacement (or at least is possibly better if things work out). Say, a Jed Lowrie. He's not worth $10M, but his versatility easily makes him a player worth rostering--even on a playoff team he'd be a nice bench bat/glove. I'm not sure that Seager or Belt have a spot on the roster of a playoff team even if they were cheeep.

That would be way too generous. A lot of teams don't have what would qualify as a #1 and you have innings limits that stop some of the better pitchers in the game from counting. There are fewer than 10 ace pitchers in the game. Now if you want to go with say 20 #1's it wouldn't bother me, but 30 is too many. It is going to skew things to where a lot of really mediocre guys look like #2's. These labeling argument are always silly (unless you're lawyer), but I'll partake anyway. By definition there are 30 #1 pitchers. As Ennder said, not all #1 pitchers are aces. Also, they are obviously not evenly distributed, as last year just between the Astros, Nationals, and Mets they had at least 9 #1s, and probably 9 "Aces" even--which I would classify as a guy capable of winning the Cy Young.

Because when a large contract player fails or even just doesn't live up to the contract--you have to continually live with bad results. You can't cut them and you can't trade them. You are stuck with them AND you have to pay them, which means that money you are paying for BAD results goes against your budget and keeps you from getting ANY other player, cheap or not. The Miami Marlins are paying Wei-Yin Chen $22,000,000 next year. Do you know who Wei-Yin Chen is? Me neither. How many WS have the Yankees won in the last 10 years?

Why does a rotation need to be filled, in order, from top to bottom? The Brewers lacked a 3 yesterday morning, and they went out and got a guy that performed like one last year for a very affordable rate. Check. Doesn't exclude them from pursuing additional SP help. Because it's Woodruff, and then all a bunch of "flyers" in reality. They may work out fine, they may not. It really amazes me how so many Brewer fans like and get excited about these "cheap" signings, and how they are "great value". Well, for one thing, they are cheap for a reason. Could they be good?? Sure they could be, and that would be fine. But when it doesn't work out, it will be disastrous. Not in terms of money(which to me is irrelevant, results are what matter), but in terms of results. Going on what we know now, and who will be in the rotation, what happens if/when 2 of 3 of Lindblom, Lauer and Anderson don't work out?? You are down to one reliable starter in Woodruff, and no real remedy to fix the disastrous results the other 3 gave you, as the hole they have dug you is likely too deep to get out of, even if it's fairly early. Look what happened last year in going with the 3 young arms to start the year. Burnes was an unmitigated disaster and so was Peralta in the rotation. It took an unprecedented late season run to get into the wild card game and even though the team had other problems, to me, the decision to go with those young guys in the rotation was a big reason they had to make a late season run. The Brewers give themselves such a thin margin for error every year with putting a staff together, sure they may have decent depth if one or two guys go down, but you are just replacing them with another guy that's virtually the same pitcher and one who makes you hold your breath damn near every time he goes out there because you worry about them getting lit up. I guess I don't really understand the organizational philosophy to essentially "ignore" pitching and focus so much on hitting. Yes, I love a team that can put up a lot of runs, that is always fun, but i also dislike having a staff in which you never know what you are going to get on a night in night out basis. One night you might get a gem from one of the castoffs, the next night one of them gets lit up, essentially negating the gem you got the night before. I would like to see them have at least two top end guys who you pretty much know what you are going to get every night. Sure they will have bad nights, everyone does, but you know it's an anomaly as opposed to the norm. Others in this thread have said it..at some point don't you HAVE to take pitching more seriously, and make a splash signing?? Especially with 3 more years of Yelich control. Yes, TOR guys are expensive, I get that, and maybe Mark A would have to raise payroll levels higher then he would like(even though their payroll COULD be higher, he just doesn't want it to be) for 3 years, sometimes you have to take chances to be successful, good business people like Mark A know that. Cheap contracts can never be a disaster. If they are no good, you cut them and try again. Darvish, Cueto, Chris Archer and Jordan Zimmerman can't really be cut. Those teams are stuck paying them for poor to middling results. https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/contracts/starting-pitcher/ A. Which of these contracts do you wish the Brewers had? Do you think that player would have signed with the Brewers for that contract? B. Which of these contracts are you glad the Brewers DON'T have? C. What makes you think if the Brewers "make a splash" by signing a free agent it will end up in column A 2 years down the road instead of column B? D. Imagine that the Brewers had signed Yu Darvish (or John Lester or Johnny Cueto or Chris Archer) instead of Joulys Chacin before 2018. How many playoff appearances would we have made in the last 2 years? Would you still think the Brewers needed to make a bigger splash than they did by signing Darvish? E. Do you see now why it is better to have a cheap player fail than it is to have a long-term expensive contract player fail?

It's not just the pure numbers, it's the entire profile that has me worried. It's one pitch from a goofy, gangly delivery from a funny angle. He throws hard, but not completely overpowering by any means. If his slider becomes just a hair snappier with a little better control or he uses his changup more effectively then I'll completely change my tune but right now I have a difficult time seeing Hader maintain his dominance. If he is traded to the AL he is FAR more likely to continue dominating as well, since they've barely seen him over there. If I were a contending team in the A.L I'd offer the Brewers a big package to get him and I'd be happy to have him. He just seems like a perfect trade candidate for everybody involved.

Narvaez is a lefty, which helps, but you are correct that they need another lefty, preferably a power stick (like Thames), then maybe a utility switch hitter like Jed Lowrie, then get the best 3rd basemen you can get.

This would be a great value add. Sign Thames for something reasonable and then the holes are down to 3B and starting pitching with lots of cash still available.

Bingo. Great post. Instead of banking on 1 mediocre guy for $9M to suddenly find it, you need to spread out your risk and sign 3-5 guys on MiLB contracts with an invite to big league camp. Or else you sign a Josh Lindblom type for $3M/yr. Pitching is just too volatile. Put your money into well rounded position players and fill in arms where you can and constantly trade for high upside very young arms who may develop into aces.

Do not want. We would need seriously good prospects as well to take on the contract. There is almost no upside to getting Seager. He was good in his career year in 2016 at age 28. If he was likely to replicate that year he could be an option, but I just don't see it. If this was the last year of his contract he could be a decent stop gap player for a year as well, but I don't want to have to deal with his contract for 2 or more likely 3 years.

They wouldn't, unless he's overpaid. I think the Astros are a better match than the Yankees. They've got young talent all over the place...and veteran talent all over the place. Try for something like McCullers, Yuli Guerriel, Tyler Ivey and Abraham Toro.

I want multiple high upside prospects--Urias types would be ideal. If you get an established player for Hader that's all you are going to get for him unless that guy is already making market value for his services...or perhaps he's even slightly overpaid, then the Brewers could get an even better prospect haul. That's probably the ideal scenario as it would keep the pitchfork fans at bay while also significantly improving the roster situation for years to come. The Yankees aren't the best targets for this strategy though, as they are mostly immune from "salary relief," so it's not like they'd see it as a benefit to them to clear a contract.

The problem with NOT trading him is that he is a super 2 this year and he profiles as a guy who has a higher likelihood to bust from here on out than most other players who have had similar levels of success. If he does bust this year, now you are paying a reliever ~$6M with 3 more arby years where he can't take a pay cut. Even if he does great, the roster right now is not a WS roster, and an elite reliever is more valuable to good to great teams than teams with gigantic holes in their position player and starting pitcher groups. Trade him now while is value is still high and plug multiple holes for the next 5-7 years for cheap (or try to).

Exactly what needs to be done... multiple times in order to catch one that becomes "lightning in a bottle" in addition to the Moose/Grandal type signings from last year and excellent scouting/trading for amateur/young players. Sprinkle in a Cain type signing every few years and eventually a title will come.

I was thinking a Hader for Betts deal could be worked out. No way it would cost Turang as well though, unless we get Chavis, Casas or Dalbec back in return, which would be interesting.

I agree with your point, but disagree that we got "caught" last year without guys to patch the dam. Gonzalez and Lyles saved the season by patching the dam...but both were mid-season acquisitions, so perhaps that was your point. You'd rather start the year with those options rather than scrambling to find them.

Well, 1/4 means that the C is close enough to the break even point to prevent guys from running who shouldn't be running. 1/6 means that it's almost guaranteed that good base stealers will run all over him and even many others should take the chance. The chances to throw guys out won't be equal, which furthers the gap even more between good/poor catchers. SBs are a minor and decreasingly important part of a guys skillset though. At least until every team starts to use more decent hitting poor throwing Cs, at which point more guys will steal bases. It's one of those self correcting balances that make the game of baseball great.

They still have Cespedes under contract for another year as well. Obviously may not be healthy, but if he is that's a lot of OFers.

I'd offer Donaldson a 2 year deal for $44M. Might go as high as 2 yr/$50M if he is interested but holds out for more. He might be old-ish, but he's still a near MVP caliber player who is good at everything. I think he fits our budget and competitive window and barring injury I have more confidence in him living up to a big (but short) contract than almost any pitcher.

Didn't we once have Betancourt, Weeks, Fielder and McGehee on the IF and we won 96 games? Not that I want to try to do that again, but it is possible.

Zack Greinke might have picked Milwaukee over a large market if we offered the same deal. Will never know that, but that is about the only elite guy I can imagine. Some guys also want to win, particularly veteran guys who haven't won before. If they've already made life-changing money, then it makes a lot of sense to go to a place where you are happy playing everyday where you enjoy your teammates, etc. It might even be as simple as not wanting to live in a downtown super urbanized area yet still wanting to get to the ballpark with a very reasonable commute. Tough to do that in NY, SF, LA, CHI, BOS, etc. There are probably fewer of these guys than the opposite (those who WANT to live in a high rise condo downtown during the season), but it's different for everybody.

Your idea of "best case" is odd. Yeah, that seems to be the worst case scenario.

There is a lot that could be unpacked here. You do both. WAR is a counting stat dependent upon playing time and the situational context of how that players skills were used by a team's manager. If a different team thinks they can get more value from that players skills than how he was used previously, then they will value his $/WAR differently than "the market." If his original team has a cheaper up and coming player to replace the other players production, then that will decrease his value to the original team, making him more expendable. Basically "market value" is an average of how all team's would value the player, but obviously every team will place a different value upon the player, that's what makes trades possible and beneficial for both parties. I'm not sure how either of those are relevant. Narvaez (and for that matter, Adam Hill and the comp pick) are not on the free market. Hosmer and Grandal signed 2 years apart so of course their values are going to be different now than when they signed. The other aspect, and probably more important aspect, is that the estimated market value is always seen from the outside while trading partners see things from the inside. There might be reasons outside of WAR that Hosmer (or Urias or Narvaez or Adam Hill or whoever) is valued or devalued that only the owner of that player can know. Thus, after a transaction occurs that seems to belie the previously ascribed "market" value, it would be wise to adjust that market value accordingly (not COMPLETELY, but at least a little bit)