JosephC

I don't think the drop in velocity and surgery impacts Duffy's value at all. Very minor procedure to just remove some bone chips. It was reported that he'd just be shut down for 6 weeks and the surgery would not impact his off-season routine at all. Elbow should be good and the velocity should be back. I don't think there is any chance that he is valued at less than a 3 WAR player and if so the asking price will be pretty large. The Ortiz/Woodruff/Harrison for Duffy/Alexander suggestion from BrewCrewBlueDevil probably isn't too far off the mark. Brinson would not be included, but 3 top 10 organizational prospects with 2 of those 3 as back end top 100 prospects (or maybe 1 or those 2 barely outside the top 100) seems about right.

I like Fulmer but there are many numbers that suggest the ERA is a bit better than it should be. 6.2 K/9, .273 BABIP, 8.8% HR/FB...the low strikeout rate combined with BABIP and HR/FB ratio moves towards the average probably puts him with an ERA somewhere in the low 4's. I see projections for next year have him with a 4.24 ERA. Certainly nothing wrong with that, but a player the Brewers would have to be careful and not overpay for. Fulmer also finished the season on the DL and then had elbow surgery (ulnar nerve transposition). That's the same surgery Jacob deGrom had, and generally isn't a big deal. Still something to consider.

I'd be interested in Herrera. Had a down year last year and would probably only be valued at a 1 to 1.5 WAR player. Estimated to make 8.3 million in arbitration, so he doesn't have much surplus value and it wouldn't be shocking to see the Royals only ask for a couple attractive fringe prospects. The issues that bill HAll STar mentioned are a concern, but that's what physical examinations are for. Will turn 28 years old later this month. I'd still prefer some free agents like Anthony Swarzak, Tommy Hunter, Pat Neshek...but if the Brewers strike out there then Herrera would become one of my heavily preferred trade targets. I know there have been reports that Scott Alexander may be available, but I question why the Royals would be looking to trade him since he's controlled for five more seasons? Either they don't think he can repeat his 2017 performance...if they do the asking price would have to be pretty significant. Interesting that Alexander is older than Herrera is.

I think the upper-4's ERA is likely with Fiers and specifically stated that I would rather just go with Aaron Wilkerson. But Fister had a 3.98 FIP last year, Hammel had a 4.43 FIP over the last two years and a 4.37 FIP in 2017...I feel safer projecting those pitchers to be more in the 4.20-4.50 ERA range and in that area I wouldn't mind seeing them added to the staff to fill out the back end and eat up some innings.

Interesting offer from the Giants. Really all depends on how one values Panik. Average WAR between Baseball Reference and Fangraphs over the last three years is 2.3. If that's what Panik is moving forward, this is a pretty good offer from the Giants. But Panik's best year by far was 2015, if the average WAR is limited to just 2016 & 2017 the average drops all the way down to 1.6. Even if one takes the 1.6 WAR value for Panik and projects that over the next three year, the Giants would still be giving up 53.12 million in surplus value which isn't a terrible offer (Panik = 30.22 million, Shaw and Beede at 11.45 million each).

I'd argue that trading for an 8 million dollar Jason Hammel (meaning the Royals would have to include 3 million dollars) would be better than trading for a 5.7 million dollar Mike Fiers. Over the last two years Fiers has really fallen off. 4.84 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 4.91 FIP, 81 ERA+. Last year the FIP ballooned to 5.43. Over the last two year Hammel has a 4.59 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 4.43 FIP, 94 ERA+. Last year his FIP was 4.37, and I think chances are very good that he'll be a full 0.5+ runs per 9 better than Fiers in 2018 but obviously time will tell on that. Big enough difference to justify the additional 2.4 million, but even so Hammel would probably be about Plan E on my list of starting pitcher wants. Fiers arbitration estimate is pretty much irrelevant because of the Doug Fister deal. Fister is guaranteed 1 year, 4 million with an option for a second year. 4 million would have to be a high side number on Fiers. Have to believe that everyone will pass on the trade market and eventually Fiers is non-tendered and signs a free agent deal somewhere in the 3-4 million dollar range. Even at that bargain price I don't know if I'd be interested. 4.91 FIP over two years is a bit too much Matt Garza-ish for my taste (and actually, Garza's FIP over the last two years was 4.64). I think I'd just go with Aaron Wilkerson rather than try Fiers. Actually a bit disappointed that the Brewers didn't seem to be in on Fister. His 2018 ERA was very ugly (4.88), but the peripherals were solid leading to a pretty good 3.98 FIP. Strikeout rate was a bit scary when put in context, 8.3 K/9 but lifetime it's only 6.2 K/9 so that number looks a bit fluke-ish and one has to wonder how a normal Fister strikeout rate will affect the 2018 ERA. But at a 4 million guaranteed deal, that has the look of being the best starter bargain signing of the off-season. Just looks to be a better performer than a similar costing Mike Fiers and a way cheaper option than what will probably be a similar performer in Jason Hammel.

It is pretty interesting looking at the MLB numbers of Manaea and Davies over the last two seasons. Sean Manaea = 303 1/3 innings, 4.12 ERA, 4.09 FIP, 101 ERA+, 1.30 WHIP, 9.0 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 2.7 BB/9, 7.8 K/9, 2.87 K/BB Zach Davies = 354 2/3 innings, 3.93 ERA, 4.07 FIP, 109 ERA+, 1.31 WHIP, 9.4 H/9, 1.0 HR/9, 2.4 BB/9, 6.6 K/9, 2.78 K/BB Manaea born in February 1992 and Davies born in February 1993 so Davies is a year younger than Manaea. No question that when watching these two players that the difference between them is like night and day. But so far the effectiveness as MLB pitchers is nearly identical. Maybe Manaea takes that next step and becomes an ace pitcher? But after last year's All-Star break Davies posted a 2.87 ERA. If he can do that over roughly half a season, why would it be impossible for him to do that over a full season? If a team trades for Manaea, they will be paying the "what Manaea could be" price because the A's won't be selling him for less. While I'm perfectly happy with Davies and think he's a very valuable player for the Brewers, if a team trades for "what Manaea could be" and ends up with a Zach Davies level performance they will very likely have overpaid and it will have been a disappointing trade from their end.

Only thing that could keep Manaea's price down a bit is that he's a virtual lock to be a super-two so he's only cheap for one more year and that fourth year of arbitration could be a really big number. I only think the A's entertain trading him if another teams is willing to over-pay to get him. Probably would have to pay at a 3 WAR average over the next five years and even with super-two status it would put the price-tag in the Jose Quintana range.

Abreu in 2017 = .304/.354/.552/.906, 33 HR, 102 RBI Brewer first basemen in 2017 = .268/.360/.544/.905, 41 HR, 96 RBI

I'd pretty much have to be overwhelmed to trade any of the top 15 or so prospects in the system. Rather hang on to all of them and have them available in July if the Brewers are competitive again.

1 - Tyler Chatwood. Wouldn't want to go above 2 years, 20 million or 3 years, 27 million. Fully expect to get outbid with those offers. 2 - Doug Fister. Wouldn't go more than 1 year and would probably top out the offer at 6 million. Ugly 4.88 ERA last year but had a pretty decent FIP and xFIP (3.98/4.18). Only list him ahead of Vargas because I'd guess he'd be cheaper. 3 - Jason Vargas. Was great at beginning of last year and then bombed in the second half (2.62 ERA before All-Star break, 6.38 ERA after All-Star break). If he repeated that performance he'd bridge the gap to when Burnes/Ortiz may be ready. Maybe a 1 year, 7 or 8 million dollar offer. Outside of those three all the rest would likely be too expensive for me. Would rather just roll with Aaron Wilkerson at that point. 4 - Brett Anderson. Maybe take a shot at him as a grand reclamation project. Never came close to living up to the hype outside of one pretty good year in 2015. Was beyond awful in 2016 and 2017. Is he down to split contract level yet? If so I think he'd be worth giving a shot to in spring training. Next year will only be his age 30 season. And ahead of all of these guys, number one preference for starting pitching would be to try and swing a deal for Hyun-Jin Ryu.

Arrieta from 2015 to 2017: ERA = 1.77, 3.10, 3.53 Innings = 229, 197 1/3, 168 1/3 FIP = 2.35, 3.52, 4.16 WHIP = 0.87, 1.08, 1.21 H/9 = 5.9, 6.3, 8.0 HR/9 = 0.4, 0.7, 1.2 BB/9 = 1.9, 3.5, 2.9 K/9 = 9.3, 8.7, 8.7 The fastball velocity has gone from 94.9 to 94.3 to 92.6 over the last three seasons. Perhaps Stearns is looking at all of this and thinks it might limit what Arrieta can get on the open market and if it does then maybe the Brewers can be a player for Arrieta. There are some numbers that indicate that Arrieta's performance could level off and he'll keep performing at his 2017 level over the next couple seasons. For example, his HR/FB rate has gone from 7.8% to 11.1% to 14.0% and that last number is pretty close to league average. His BABIP has gone from the .240's to .279 which is still below league average but not a ridiculous number. His GB% dropped to 45% last year after having been 56% in 2015 and 52% in 2016, it's very possible that the GB% is better in 2018 and 2019 than it was in 2017. Many of these peripherals indicate Arrieta's drop-off will stop and he'll continue down the same statistical path as 2017. And the only bad number there is the low amount of innings, 168 1/3, and one would like to see the FIP be a bit better (4.16). But outside of that, he was a 3.53 ERA, 1.21 WHIP pitcher who can still strike guys out and has decent control and teams will take pitchers like that all day long. So when looking at the whole picture, maybe Stearns sees a situation where other teams might be a big hesitant and Arrieta might be limited to signing a three year deal, and if that's the case, Stearns might want to make sure he is in the mix if Arrieta falls into the 3 years, 65-70 million area. Personally, I think he'll get paid like a three WAR player and gets one year too many. I'm like the majority and think a contract in the 4 year, 108 million dollar range is probably the end result. Stearns probably just doing the due diligence here. I'd be pretty surprised if Arrieta is wearing a Brewer's uniform next season.

Even if I had a terminal disease I'd dislike the Darvish/Arrieta/Archer suggestion. Considering the way the offense played in the second half I'd be against dumping 100% of the resources in the starting pitching. And does a bullpen of Knebel, Hader, Jeffress, Hughes, Barnes and Suter scare anybody? Would rather take all that money and trade chip prospects and (1) sign one of the two big free agent pitchers, (2) use other free agent money to sure up the bullpen and maybe grab Avila as a left handed hitting catcher compliment, (3) use Archer trade chips to obtain a decent middle of the rotation guy and a second base upgrade.

reillymcshane brings up a great point, people have to account for arbitration raises over during the next few off-seasons because there could be some pretty big yearly increases in payroll just based on that. The trio of Shaw, Davies and Santana could cause the payroll to rise 12-15 million each season over the next three years if they keep performing at their 2017 levels. And obviously those aren't the only players that will be arbitration eligible. If Attanasio goes into free agency with a couple long term contracts and just pushes the payroll to 90 million in 2018, there is a pretty good chance the same group of players cost 105 million in 2019 and 120 million in 2020. So if the Brewers start at 115 in 2018, they are probably looking at a minimum payroll of 145 million in 2020 unless they are then trading away Shaw, Santana, Davies or these big name pitchers that people are talking about. Blowing up the payroll now also would likely really limit what the team could do at the trade deadline if a couple weak spots show up on the team. Fans also seem way, way too focused on the pitching. I would agree 100% that the most significant holes seem to be on the pitching staff. But after the All-Star break the Brewers were 29th in runs scored and 25th in OPS. It would be a real shame to dump all those resources in a pitching staff and then struggle to win games because the same group of players that had trouble scoring runs in 2017 also have trouble scoring runs in 2018. Personally, for the long haul I think Attanasio should "hard cap" Stearns at 90 million heading into this season and would prefer the Brewers stay under the 85 million dollar mark.

Fulmer ended the season on the DL and then had elbow surgery and while the surgery generally isn't considered a big deal (ulnar nerve transposition, same surgery Jacob deGrom had), I wouldn't be eating 74 million of a bad contract to land a pitcher that's coming off surgery. Maybe if it was someone who had the look of being a real superstar but Fulmer had a 6.2 K/9, .273 BABIP and 8.8% HR/FB in 2017. I like the guy but he's coming off surgery and then the Brewers are giving up prospects and taking on what could be the worst contract in MLB? No thanks. I also don't see Zimmermann being a bounce-back candidate. He's like Odorizzi in that pretty much every number screams to stay away. The one difference is that if the Brewers trade for Odorizzi and he bombs they are out about 8 million dollars. If they get Zimmermann odds are that they just obtained about a negative 60 million in surplus value. Therefore, one could argue that Odorizzi is worth the gamble but it would be real, real hard to justify that Zimmermann contract. Before last year's trade deadline I was trying to work out a three team type deal where the Brewers would get Zimmermann and J.D. Martinez and a prospect from the Tigers and then would flip Martinez to a third team for more prospects but I could never get it to work because that Zimmermann deal was so bad there was never a way to get the numbers to match up.

The Twins had given one of their signees a 3 million dollar bonus and that was voided when they discovered he has a vision problem. Since they don't figure to be a player in the Otani sweepstakes, speculation is they will throw a huge chunk of money in Maitan's direction. I'd love to have Maitan but the money the Brewers have left in this year's pool won't be enough to get it done and I'm not really in favor of them throwing over half of next year's bonus pool at Maitan. I think the Brewers are in-line for 5.75 million of bonus pool money next year so if the Twins throw their remaining money from this year at Maitan (reported to be 3.245 million), the Brewers would be forced to throw 56% of next year's bonus pool at Maitan to match the Twin's offer. On November 8th USA Today had reported the teams with the most international bonus pool money available were. Since then some money has changed hands in trades (Miami traded 250k to Yankees), and best I can tell the teams with the most bonus pool money available stack up something like this: Rangers = 3.533 million Yankees = 3.50 million Twins = 3.245 million Pittsburgh = 2.227 million Seattle = 1.558 million Miami = 1.49 million Philadelphia = 900k Milwaukee = 765k

I think it's kind of crappy that teams can use pool money from 2018-2019 on these players. Maitan gets to keep his original bonus, and now teams being able to use their 2018-2019 money Maitan will likely get another pretty big bonus. Maybe he wasn't aware of what was going on, but certainly his "representative" was. So why should a player that was involved in a transaction that was clearly against the rules be able to double-dip the system and get another big bonus? It's just like MLB is inviting representatives to keep "bundling" these player when the ramifications result in the players (and likely the representatives) getting paid twice. IMO the league should work towards putting a pretty low cap on a bonus the player can sign for if caught in an illegal transaction. Also, Maitan is still highly regarded but slashed .241/.290/.340/.629 in rookie ball this year and has had some detractors popping up. I'd still absolutely love to see the Brewers land him but he's lost just a bit of luster. The information is a year old now, but the Baseball America 2017 Prospect Handbook had C-Abrahan Gutierrez as the Braves #26 prospect. Gutierrez played in the Gulf Coast League and slashed .264/.319/.357/.676. The Braves got hammered more on the international side than I expected. No surprised that they lost these prospects but I didn't think MLB would come down so hard in limiting their international bonus pool through the 20-21 signing period. On the flip side, I am a bit surprised that they only lost a third round pick in the Drew Waters situation. Since Waters was a second round pick, I figured MLB would take a second round pick away from them.

I agree that I wouldn't trade Woodruff or Davies in a deal for another starter because as has been stated, it's just opening a hole and then spending resources to fill that hole. But this is Chris Archer. He's a hot name, has some eye-popping numbers, has youth and an extremely attractive contract. Would have to think that the Rays would get at least a half dozen big offers for him (at least 100 million in surplus value) and then they could pick whatever package would be the best fit for them. And if they deal Odorizzi as well, they would only be left with Blake Snell, Matt Andriese (only 17 starts last year), Jacob Faria, Brent Honeywell (0 MLB innings) and Jose De Leon (19 2/3 MLB innings). If that happens, odds are overwhelming that a deal which includes an immediate rotation piece would end up being the most attractive. And I don't think they would be all that hot for Brent Suter. But if they keep Odorizzi, that definitely would change things.

Orlando Arcia isn't going anywhere. Proven MLB everyday player with considerable upside under control for 5 years and 2 of those years at near minimum salary pay. Agree with the previous post, Rays also have top prospect Willie Adames ready to play shortstop in the majors. While Arcia would have value to any major league franchise, the Rays would likely be less interested in him than most teams. It doesn't make much sense for Arcia to head there. I think their DH spot is open, but who wants a young shortstop DH'ing? I've seen comments the Rays don't need an outfielder, but they only have 4 outfielders on their 40 man roster and picking up another young outfielder will fill a 25 man spot and could end up filling the DH spot (likely one of their current outfielders moves into that spot). Corey Dickerson had by far the most DH at-bats for the Rays (55 games, 229 at bats) so if he sees more time there it definitely opens up playing time for another outfielder. On the last page I thought the swap would be something like Archer for Lewis Brinson/Luis Ortiz/Isan Diaz. Now I think the Brewers would have to swap out Luis Ortiz and insert Brandon Woodruff instead. With Cobb out and potentially Odorizzi out too, it's hard for me to believe the Rays would move Archer and not get an immediate rotation arm back in the deal. Maybe Davies instead? But I would think the Rays would rather gamble on 6 years of Woodruff rather than take the safer route with Davies for 4 years. Personally, I'm not big on an Archer acquisition. It sucks because the Brewers do have a gap and appear to be short on pitching in 2018. But with Burnes and Ortiz right around the corner, and hopefully Nelson back at full strength in 2019, I'm more for bridging the gap with cheaper options in 2018 rather than making a big-splash type trade.

I think it's necessary to keep the opening payroll in the 80-85 million range. The Brewer need flexibility to make some in-season moves and even more importantly, have space in future years for arbitration raises. Putting the payroll at 110 million now would really end up crunching them when players like Santana and Shaw start pulling in fairly significant money as arbitration-eligible players. I would only non-tender Oliver Drake and Stephen Vogt. I also would not have re-signed Eric Sogard. Really went back on forth on Jared Hughes. The peripherals keep saying there will be a decline but he's had such a long run of pitching well above the metrics. He's had at least 63 appearances in each of the last four seasons and has pitched to a 2.55 ERA and a respectable 1.26 WHIP over that time-frame. Just too good and reliable to let go instead of paying a seemingly bargain 2.2 million. Only would be looking to make one trade. A fringe prospect or two to the Dodgers for Hyun-Jin Ryu. Some will disagree but I don't see him going for much more than that when considering all the negatives which I discussed here : viewtopic.php?f=66&t=36077 . It's essential the Brewers pick up one starting pitcher. If the Dodgers demand too much for Ryu (anything over one "role player prospect" or two "fringe prospects), then I would look at Tyler Chatwood in free agency as plan B and Jason Hammel via trade as plan C. I'll probably find some more options but that's all I have for now. I like these three free agents and the contracts are the predictions given at MLB Trade Rumors: C-Alex Avila (2 years, 16 million) RP-Tommy Hunter (2 years, 12 million) RP-Anthony Swarzak (2 years, 14 million) I'm not sure if Avlia's slugging percentage from last year is a fluke. But even if that goes backwards he's a lefty-swinging bat with a .351 lifetime OBP and IMO is a real good compliment to Pina. I really think Hunter is a bargain at that price and Swarzak is a bit risky because there isn't a long track record but he seemed to fit in real nicely as a Brewer. I still also like the idea of having both Phillips and Brinson on the opening day roster and hopefully they perform well enough to push Broxton to the fifth outfielder spot. With Braun's injury history I tend to think there will be enough at-bats to go around for the young guys. If there isn't enough at-bats or one of them flops, they both have options remaining so sending one of them down after the first 4 to 6 weeks is no big deal IMO. Pitching: 1. Chase Anderson = 4.25 2. Zach Davies = 0.55 3. Brandon Woodruff = 0.55 4. Hyun-Jin Ryu = 7.0 (Jimmy Nelson = 4.7) 5. Josh Hader = 0.55 6. Brent Suter = 0.55 7. Jacob Barnes = 0.55 8. Jared Hughes = 2.2 9. Jeremy Jeffress = 2.6 10. Tommy Hunter = 6.0 11. Anthony Swarzak = 7.0 12. Corey Knebel = 4.1 further options = Aaron Wilkerson, Taylor Williams, Tyler Webb, Junior Guerra (if not picked up by another team) and later in the season Corbin Burnes and perhaps Luis Ortiz Catchers: 13. Alex Avila = 8.0 14. Manny Pina = 0.55 further options = Andrew Susac, Jett Bandy (if not picked up by another team) Infielders: 15. Eric Thames = 5.0 16. Jesus Aguilar = 0.55 17. Jonathan Villar = 3.0 18. Hernan Perez = 2.2 19. Orlando Arcia = 0.55 20. Travis Shaw = 0.55 further options = Mauricio Dubon, Nate Orf (I'd likely add him to the 40 and remove an excess pitcher like Jorge Lopez) Outfielders: 21. Ryan Braun = 19 22. Domingo Santana = 0.55 23. Keon Broxton = 0.55 24. Brett Phillips = 0.55 25. Lewis Brinson = 0.55 further options = none really. Maybe Kyle Wren and Clint Coulter? Total payroll of 25 plus Nelson = 82.2 million

Another potential trade-low candidate. I don't know what the Royals intentions are at this time but they were a sub-.500 team last year, are facing huge free agent losses and just might have the weakest minor league system in all of baseball. Looks like time for a re-build. Hammel was pretty bad last year. 5.29 ERA, 1.43 WHIP, 4.37 FIP, 4.92 xFIP. However, the previous two years he had a 3.79 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 4.08 FIP, 105 ERA+. His fastball velocity is still sitting in the 92's. Average year over the last three seasons would be 31 starts, 172 2/3 innings, 4.31 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 96 ERA+, 4.18 FIP, 9.0 H/9, 1.3 HR/9, 2.5 BB/9, 8.0 K/9. 2018 will be his age 36 season. He's at the point where he could see a rapid decline, and it's possible that last year was the first year of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if his 2018 would be like the average of his last three season...30+ starts and an ERA in the low to mid 4's. If that's his projection, I think he's a decent pitcher for the Brewers to target by trade. He will make 9 million in 2018 and then has a mutual option year for 2019, 12 million with a 2 million buyout. Easy assumption is that this will end up being a 1 year, 11 million dollar contract with 9 million paid in 2018 and 2 million paid in 2019. Hammel has been an average 1.7 WAR player between Fangraphs and Baseball Reference over the last three seasons. Assuming he's a 1.7 WAR player in 2018 that would put his value at 15.572 million, subtract out the 11 million he will make and he has roughly 4.5 million in surplus value. That is equivalent to one "role-player" prospect or two "fringe-player" prospects. I'm not sure the option year in 2019 factors into the equation. It's for 12 million and after figuring in some regression in his age 37 season it would likely wipe out any surplus value he would have at a 12 million dollar price-tag. I really doubt the price on the trade market would be that much higher considering his age and the fact that he just wasn't very good last year. It becomes a matter if the Royals want to trade him for a low price and dump his salary or if they figure they need his experience to eat up innings. One of the "role player" prospects that could head to Kansas City would be Taylor Jungmann or Jorge Lopez (I would think the Royals would prefer Jungmann), and the Royals could just stick that player into their rotation with a "sink-or-swim" attitude for the first couple months as the substitute for losing Hammel.

Olney reported that the Padres wanted a Ken Giles type return. Astros got: P-Ken Giles IF-Jonathan Arauz (was #21 in Phillies system, "role-player" prospect) Phillies got: P-Vince Velasquez (recent graduate, would probably been a top 50-100 prospect if still eligible) P-Mark Appel (#8 prospect in Astros system, lost much of his luster by this time but still considered a solid "top 10 organizational" type prospect) P-Thomas Eshelman (#17 prospect in Astros system, "role-player" prospect) P-Brett Oberholtzer (had 3.94 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 3.72 FIP, 100 ERA+ in 253 2/3 innings when the trade occurred, rotation/long-reliever swingman) P-Harold Arauz (not listed in Baseball America prospect handbook, "fringe" prospect) Velasquez was a recent graduate that had #2 starter upside but potentially a dominate late-inning reliever and kind of fit the same mode that Hader currently does. Appel was a dropper but still well regarded...maybe if you have soured on Corey Ray then the two can be compared even though one is a hitter and one is a pitcher. Oberholtzer really crapped out following the trade, at the time he would not have been considered anything special but was better than "just a guy." I don't think there is a good comparable to a current Brewer but would maybe say he had similar value to current-day Jared Hughes? Jonathan Arauz and Thomas Eshelman cancel each other out. I'd probably say the best overall comparable in a Hand to Milwaukee swap would be Hand for Josh Hader, Corey Ray, Jared Hughes and a fringe prospect...but the Ray part of that is real debatable (I'd argue he currently has much more value than what Appel did but someone could make a reasonable argument the other way). That being said, I think the Padres asking price for Hand will be way down. I really think they were hoping the crazy Chapman/Miller market would repeat itself and it obviously didn't. That being said, it wouldn't at all be unreasonable for the Padres to demand a back-end of the top 100 prospect plus another role-player prospect. In terms of surplus value, Hand's average WAR between Baseball Reference and Fangraphs in 2016 and 2017 is 1.925. Project that over the next two seasons and his total value is 36.498 million. He's projected to make 3.8 million in 2018 and I'll guess 5.6 in 2019, so the cost is 9.4 million. 36.498 - 9.4 = 27.098 million. That's pretty close to the one back-end of top 100 prospect plus a role-player prospect.

Brinson seems to be the best trade chip the Brewers have (by far), I wouldn't move him for anything other than pitching. Last year Ozuna was a .312/.376/.548/.924 but the previous three years he slashed .265/.316/.433/.749. Did he have his big break-through year in 2017? A look at the numbers reveal a high .355 BABIP and a high 23.4% HR/FB ratio. He's better than the .265/.316/.433/.749 but some regression should be expected from last year. The Steamer projection for 2018 has him at .288/.351/.508/.859 with below average defense and baserunning.

I'd avoid Cashner. Terrible strikeout rate (4.6 K/9) and strikeout/BB ratio (1.34) in 2017. Had very low BABIP and HR/FB ratios last year. In 2015 and 2016 he had an 11-27 record, 4.72 ERA, 1.48 WHIP, 81 ERA+ which are bad but a fairly reasonable 4.27 FIP. Maybe he'll maintain what he did in 2017, but I'd lean towards thinking he'd revert back towards the 2015/2016 level of performance. 2017 = 11-11, 3.40 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 138 ERA+, 4.61 FIP 2015-2017 = 22-38, 4.26 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, 97 ERA+, 4.38 FIP Not unreasonable to think he'd be a solid 4.20-4.30 ERA pitcher and give a team 170 innings based on the 3 year splits, which for 10 million per year is more than fair from a club's perspective. There are just too many scary peripherals from last year that indicate his performance could fall off of the cliff.

All the reports are that there shouldn't be much of a market out there for second basemen this off-season. Not sure if that's true or not. But if a weak second base market drives down the price for someone like Dee Gordon on the trade market, one also has to figure it would limit the top end of offers that Walker will receive. Walker obviously has versatility, but a team that signs him will very likely be looking at him playing second base the vast majority of the time. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out. 3/40 isn't crazy for him but I don't think 2/20 is crazy for him either, especially if the second base market will be what they seem to think it will be. Swarzak just doesn't have enough of a track record to go much over what they are projecting IMO.