Brew Kricket

To me, it seems Adams could help if injury to Vaughn, Pratt, or Ortiz. Possibly Bauers as well despite righty. I understand avoiding adding prospects to the 40 in heneral, but one with looming rule 5 status as a right power bat, Adams would be one I would like to start getting some ABs to see how he looks.

The theoretical lockout would/could begin on 12/1, correct? So before the rule 5 draft, meaning Adams could go through the offseason not needing to be added to the 40 man?

My 8 year old son was suspicious of the Tigers motivations. He told me to find out where their boss was from. Looks like Tigers president of baseball operations Scott Harris is from California and went to school at UCLA. Coincidence??? Or not???

I guess I would interpret this data not so much as "will a 32yo player decline" - it is highly likely that the player will - but will the player decline too much? Extreme back of the envelope math tells me that Braun would have to produce about 8 WAR between '17-'20 to justify the remainder of his deal. Yes, the production is likely to be front loaded, but if he eclipses 8 WAR all you're doing is saving on the first bit of good production and eating the last bit of bad production. Assuming there is inflation, this is not a bad move. There is also the fact that he has a significant chunk of deferred compensation. This also works in the team's favor. Given the players on that chart, using WAR provided, this is how much they produced in their 33-36yo seasons: Walker: 19.9 Berkman: 8.9 Holiday: 6.8 Lee: 3.3 Mondesi: -0.5 Bagwell: 17.3 Guerrero: 5.2 Edmonds: 19.2 Giles: 13.2 Alou: 6.8 5 of the 10 cleared the 8 WAR hurdle, most of them pretty easily. Holiday and Alou were pretty close. And I'm not sure Mondesi is a great comp because he was toast physically by that point. The contracts he got from the Pirates and Braves in the '04 and '05 seasons gets to that point. Given that extremely small sample size of information, it appears to me that Braun is a little more likely than not to be worth the remainder of his contract. That does not mean he won't decline. It just means that the level of his decline will be acceptable. Which is what Braun's suitors are attempting to determine, and what the Brewers are attempting to value. Excellent post. In a vacuum, I agree with you that given average decline, Braun's contract still seems to feel like close to market value. This would mean he is overpaid for the Brewers, given the '17/'18 production is significantly less valuable to them than the '19/'20 production. It would also point to a contending team seeing present value/accepting the risk on the back if Braun has a 14 month window of healthy, productive baseball. I would feel so much better about a deal if we had 2 AL teams as the most interested clubs, as opposed to SF and LA.

Impact of defense in LF is minimal and provides very little overall value. See Kyle Schwarber. I do not understand this post at all. Kyle Schwarber has played 50 games in the OF in his entire career, including 2 last year and 9 this year. Your point is that there is a team (perhaps the best defensive team in baseball in '16) that has decided to put a power hitting/poor fielding LF into the everyday lineup, so LF defense has little value? If Schwarber had done this for 8 years and was getting 30 million a year despite his defense, that would make more sense. A more accurate statement would be, impact of LF defense is low on the defensive spectrum but can still provide overall value. See prime Carl Crawford, who signed one of the largest contracts for a non-power hitter in baseball history at the time. He was a good hittiing/elite fielding LF. Value is value anyway you can find it. Side note: The fact that Crawford was awful in Boston does not mean the Tampa version of him did not bring immense value as a defensive LF, which is why het got paid.

I do not believe it necessarily would lead to a trade of the new closer, but it would lead to a noticeable bump in salary in the arbitration process for potentially 3 years (or 2 for Peralta) due to the arbitration process valuing saves like it does. The 4 million being paid to Feliz will be offset by suppressing the salary of any potential new closer we wish to develop, thus neutralizing the minimal downside of the salary. If we put Chris Paddack level return as a reasonable expetation (50 fv prospect averages .5 surplus WAR over controllable contract thus averaging approximately 4 million in value), with 20% potential outcome of one 55/60 fv prospect or two 50 fv prospects, and worst case of 30% chance Feliz struggles, and is not movable at the deadline, I do this signing in a second. It is worth the risk to me. I also am not considering the experience for a younger reliever getting save opportunities in '17 as adding much to their ability in '19 or '20. To me, this is minimal. Their will be plenty of high leverage situations for the younger relievers this season, even with Feliz. Again, I would value Paddock return as a 50 fv prospect with helium looking to be 55 by seasons end. Also, the chance exists that we are competitive this year at the deadline, and want to keep Feliz for the stretch run, but I do not think that is reasonably considered "the plan" for this year.

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup. We have no chance of 75 wins with these projections. This projection shows our lineup combined will supply the WAR of '16 Daniel Murphy. If a replacement level team is worth roughly 52 wins, and the lineup is 5.3, that projection of the offense alone is showing us a 61ish win team. The 5.3 WAR for hitters is roughly half the worst team in baseball last year, and about half the 2nd worst team in baseball this year by this same projection. Nothing about this shows us anywhere close to a 70 win team. With that said, our hitters will not accumalate less than 6 WAR. Thames projection is off due to lack of data (and if he slugs .342 he sure isn't getting 560 plate appearances), Arcia's defense will give an extra half win, Villar's defense at 2b may generate value if it can be league average. Too many unknowns for this group to have a decent "projection". With Braun, I'd take the over on 10 war, and without I'd take 8.5. Higher than this projection, but that number will still put us at the bottom of the league. You honestly don't think the everyday Brewer lineup is better than the Padres? Seriously? The Brewer rotation is much, much more accomplished than the Padres as well. The Pads at best are a 62-65 win team. The Brewers are easily 10 games better than that especially in a division with the Reds and Pirates who are equally as down. No, the first part of my post was from the view of the projections taken at face value, and what to take from that angle. The 2nd paragraph was me saying I feel the Brewers will easily blow past the projection due to defensive value, legitimate change in skill/approach in 2016 from Perez, Villar, and Broxton that the projection is underrating due to the manner this system evaluates past performance, as well as Thames being a significant upgrade over what they are projecting (he has a 96 wRC+ so far in his MLB career so even with no skill improvements, projecting a 63 wRC+ seems just silly). I was arguing to NOT take this at face value based on my interpretation. I would dispute the Pirates being equally as down as the Brewers.

IMO, 5.3 WAR is incredibly awful for your a starting lineup. We have no chance of 75 wins with these projections. This projection shows our lineup combined will supply the WAR of '16 Daniel Murphy. If a replacement level team is worth roughly 52 wins, and the lineup is 5.3, that projection of the offense alone is showing us a 61ish win team. The 5.3 WAR for hitters is roughly half the worst team in baseball last year, and about half the 2nd worst team in baseball this year by this same projection. Nothing about this shows us anywhere close to a 70 win team. With that said, our hitters will not accumalate less than 6 WAR. Thames projection is off due to lack of data (and if he slugs .342 he sure isn't getting 560 plate appearances), Arcia's defense will give an extra half win, Villar's defense at 2b may generate value if it can be league average. Too many unknowns for this group to have a decent "projection". With Braun, I'd take the over on 10 war, and without I'd take 8.5. Higher than this projection, but that number will still put us at the bottom of the league.

I think any projection with Thames using his KBO numbers might be shaky (even relative to projecting numbers from the minors) so I dont much weight into the -1.8 for him. If you take the -1.8 and change that to 1, that's out you at 67 wins, which seems reasonable to me.

Well, it comes back to the basics on assigning value. What would YOU sign Braun for right now if he were a free agent? To me, even as an elite hitter, he is also an injury prone (played 135-140 games from '14-'16, but needs rest often) 33 year old who is already a poor fielder at a spot like LF with this amount of guaranteed money and past steroid use, I just don't see a scenario with a decent trade haul without taking money back.

If Enrique Hernandez would not have been quite so awful in '16, he would have been a decent looking platoon mate with scooter. Hernandez mashed lefties in '15 in 87 plate appearances to a tune of .423/.471/.744 for a .1215 ops. Obviously, small sample and he regressed last year to a point where I doubt the Dodgers are comfortable handing him any guaranteed AB's. A scooter/hernandez platoon at 2b with Braun in left is a tough call verse Dozier at 2b with an OF platoon. I would think the ability to have Braun solidify LF leaving CF/RF to matchups would be welcomed given the heavy splits of all their OF bodies. Joc Pederson has his strengths, but he hit .125 against LHP last year. On Paper, Pederson, Tholes, Thompson, Ethier, Puig, Van Slyke, and Ruf is a flawed group that I doubt the Dodgers will take into the season as their OF group.

Does anyone think the announced signings of Turner and Jansen change the potential trade situation? I am not sure I expected Hill, Turner, AND Jansen all to be back. If the Braun/Dodgers trade is a net zero for the Dodgers, it doesn't change their situation, in theory. Practically, it would eliminate the opportunity they have to make a different trade of either McCarthy or Kazmir they could be a net reduction of payroll. For example, they eat half of either contract for a low level scrub to another team that can take on the money (also an option for the Brewers).

I think we also may be focusing too much on McCarthy or Kazmir each as a bad contract that will be a sunk cost for the Brewers. We are looking at the 1st level value to the Brewers, which is to take on the guaranteed contracts of these players, which is significantly more than their market value, to increase return in a trade for Braun. The 2nd level value is once we have decided to take these contracts, there is a chance either McCarthy or Kazmir could bring value on the field. Kazmir had a solid run from '13-'15, and McCarthy was a solid rotation piece as recently as '14 before injury. If either of these pitchers could remain healthy and show the ability they have recently displayed to get outs, we could decide to trade them to a contender. Offering to eat one third/half/two thirds of the contract would at least give us a chance to lessen our financial burden slightly and bring back another prospect or two. In essence, we could be turning dollars into prospects for a 2nd time with these guys. The same logic applies to Puig, but my hope for him would be full time at bats in '17 until July and deal him as soon as possible to avoid blocking any of the youngsters.

Simply outstanding information. This is why I have been a visitor of this site for years. Thanks for the info. The earliest we could see an additional affiliate would be for the '18 season, in your opinion? Given the repeated comments that Stearns has made on building organizational depth combined with the stockpiling of arms, it would make sense to happen soon. Mass Has, you mentioned some of the organizations with 8-9 affiliated teams have an additional DSL squad. Any insight on how the new CBA/international signing rules may affect the Brewers willingness to add an additional squad? I have been trying to determine if the new rules will swing the Brewers more towards quantity over quality in the international market given the limitations of big market teams, or if the number of international signees will be largely unaffected by the new structure (likely, imo).

That's why I think we are the absolute perfect partner for them because we should have the ability to eat a bad contract or two the next couple of years here since our payroll is going to be so low. I realize it isn't my money, but if you were already planning to pay Braun his salary the next couple of years, what does it really matter if that money is going to be allocated to guys like Puig and McCarthy? Sure, neither are as good or productive as Braunie, but if that is the price we have to pay in order to get a couple of good prospects back, then sign me up! Who says no to this deal: LA gets: Braun Scooter MIL gets: Kazmir or McCarthy Puig Bellinger or Alvarez Buehler Will Smith Am I getting my expectations too high here on what we could expect in return? That prospect package is what I am hoping for. I was also worried my expectations were a bit too high, but taking back that amount of money swings this into relatively safe territory for the Dodgers. The more I think about this, for just Ryan Braun, at least 1 of Bellinger/Alvarez/DeLeon (Also prefer it not to be DeLeon) would be in deal with at least 1 second tier prospect, and Bueller seem like a good fit. Scooter would have to bring at least 1 third tier prospect such as Smith. I like where your head is at, Madtown. Is it bad I come on this site everyday hoping to see a headline that Braun has been dealt to the Dodgers? To me, it makes so much sense on so many levels to deal Braun now(competitive window, prospect depth in OF, relatively cheap acquisitions of Thames and Shaw, opportunity to rebuild value of McCarthy/Puig, Stearns' team building of athleticism/versatility, potential future Braun 10/5 rights). Is the consensus on Bellinger's profile as a corner OF at the major league level still look to be average-ish?