KeithStone53151

Right, I feel like most of our weakest spots were addressed to the point that even if we have regression in a couple other areas...we'll be net ahead of last year. Don't forget, the team we had at the end of 2017 was better than an 86 win team. We had so many players perform very poorly early on in the season, once we trimmed those guys and added guys like walker...the team was a serious playoff contender.

I don't view McHugh as a #3/4 type. He's probably relatively on par with what we'll get out of Chacin, maybe slightly better. He's going to cost probably $11-12 million over 2 years while Chacin is getting $16. So not much surplus value to be had for starters. As has been noted, we need to be aiming higher than these #3-5 types if we're serious about competing. If the right trade doesn't materialize, we save our chips and make moves at the deadline. Once these FA's sign, I suspect many of the big market teams that are contending will be extremely strapped for cash if they want to stay under the luxury tax. We will have a massive advantage over many teams on our ability to trade for high end starters at the deadline.

You make good points on Walker/Villar and I generally agree, but one thing Villar has that's best on our team is base running/stealing ability. That would be extremely valuable late in games and could tilt at least a few games in our direction. Even if he doesn't steal, the guy on the mound KNOWS he can steal...that certainly helps the guy in the batters box. Also, I would probably rather Villar fill in in the event of injury than see Perez get a ton of starts. Perez versatility won't be as critical with Sogard on the team and a true 4th OF(along with 3 that can play CF). My reasons for moving Villar over Perez would be geared more toward Villar having more value on the trade market. I think you could use the sell that he's an expensive lottery ticket for a 2nd division team that could move him at the deadline if he returns to 2016 form...or keep him for when the rebuild is complete depending on the specific team situation.

I don't think living off $40k/year in retirement is a wise move. At least half of that could go to health care in any particular year, especially if you have any health issues...which is more and more likely as you age. That's one thing I think people can miss looking at retirement is healthcare costs. It's easy to forget about when your employer is paying 80+% of your premiums.

Im not even going to remotely disagree with you about dombrowski, but I suspect Martinez would dh for the red Sox quite a bit... which would add value as he isn't losing any by stinking it up on the field.

To me, that sounded like the high end pitching prospect would be the alternative route. But I'm not going to deny you your dream, heck I'd take McKenzie over pretty much every pitcher we've been linked to except maybe Stroman.

Guys coming on at an age like his are the exception, not the rule...that's undeniable. He could be Guerra, or he could be Arrieta-lite who's adjustments stick and are incredibly effective. Like Guerra, his sustained success relies heavily on him maintaining that velocity. 95-96 instead of 90-92 makes everything else play up.

I'd rather go back in time and draft Puk instead of Ray. But I would definitely be open to that type of move. Puk is gonna be a stud, I think in time that guy will smoothen out his mechanics and be a star SP. It's already starting to happen. And Puk/Groome can be further traded for prospects at the deadline if needed...or kept and let develop into a useful player. I think Groome+ makes more sense for Santana than Puk though...I'm not sure the A's contend anytime soon.

I'm not doubting the source, but what he stated could be just about anybody. JD Martinez will earn more than almost any corner outfielder in baseball, and saying via trade or free agency leaves all avenues open. Santana seems to fit the bill, I just don't see a good match with the D backs for Santana.

Welcome to the board You make a good point, add to that the dropoff from Santana to the next corner outfielder is steep...especially considering Bruce came off the board already. HH may not have been referring to Martinez, but he absolutely could be holding up a trade. Problem is, i doubt he signs anytime soon. I think that guy wants like 200 million or something, he's reportedly been offered in the 120 million range and hasn't picked yet...some kind of off season.

Well that's my general stance as well. We don't HAVE to move Santana, only do so if you can get reasonable value in return. I suspect we can probably get some pretty good prospect packages for him, though we likely can't get any elite prospects like Mejia or McKenzie for Santana alone. As for SP, we likely can't get a TOR starter but we can probably get a solid #2/3 type. Most people tend to agree that Santana has relatively similar value to Salazar. Some people think slightly more value, some slightly less...but it's not all that far off in most bf.net people's eyes. I'm curious how this plays out, I'm sure one way or another the Brewers will add one more SP before opening day. If it's via trade, Santana will likely be involved. If it's via FA, maybe we keep him until the deadline.

Welcome badger - There are a number of good reasons to trade Santana for something other than SP now. I like the idea of trading Santana as it allows more playing time for phillips/thames. You can rotate those guys in for significant atbats with Braun/Cain/Yelich playing almost everyday(braun will get more rest than the other 2 guys). Ideally, Braun and Perez would play against lefties(Perez in RF) and Braun would split time against righties at 1b and RF...with Phillips/Thames playing when Braun rests. With Santana, Phillips probably has to open in AAA or be glued to the bench...and it would also be tough to get atbats for Thames. Also, provides more balance with potentially 4-5 lefties in the lineup against RH pitchers. Ideally, we get a starting pitcher for Santana. If there isn't a good match for starting pitcher now, we can trade for a prospect package that can be used at the deadline to acquire SP if needed. Even though we are in win-now mode, prospects are still valuable as currency in trades...and for all we know the prospects we'd get don't end up being traded and turn into quality major leaguers.

You shouldn't look at WAR/projections as the sole factor in determining a players value. That stat is useless as a stand-alone stat. There's way more to a pitcher than projecting WAR.

I absolutely think the Red Sox have some interest in him, especially considering the outlandish contract demands of JD Martinez(who they are publicly targeting). I'd be open to dealing for prospects now, signing a FA, and dealing for another pitcher at the deadline depending on our situation.

I'm going to take that as "as the season gets closer, they will start to sign for what they are actually worth"

Unrelated to Cobb...oh my goodness will Holland feel stupid if he settles for 2/25 instead of the 3/52 that was reportedly offered to him before it went to Davis. I wouldn't hate that contract, I'd prefer lower dollars as I don't think he's worth $16 million per year. As for the rest of the predictions, most of them seem fairly logical except the Moustakas one. I don't know why so many writers feel like the yankees deserve all the good players for extreme discounts.

So you'd prefer the teams with the most resources to continue to have a significant advantage and end up with all the best players? The "great" teams that get created by a cap/floor are almost always going to be larger market teams due to them having a significant advantage.

It's definitely possible. I don't know how much value Pina would have. I also don't think he makes a ton of sense in a deal to tampa considering they have Ramos, though he will be a free agent after this year. I personally would rather hold onto Pina, in addition to his breakout I suspect his game calling plays some part in the success of our pitching staff. I would agree it's possible one of the two is being shopped...likely Pina as he probably has more value.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-rumors-j-d-martinez-fed-up-with-red-sox-who-discussed-encarnacion-trade/ I know this is unrelated to Santana or the Brewers, but wouldn't moving Encarnacion to the Red Sox open up the DH and make Cleveland an even better fit for Santana? Bradley would be the target coming back in the rumored deal, but he's more apt to help out in CF than anything. Santana could DH a decent amount and play the field against lefties...also an open DH slot allows some of Cleveland's more injury prone players to DH sometimes if they are dealing with minor tweaks and help keep their guys fresh.

I'd agree this is a valid point. Teams can still delay a player in the minors to try and get their peak seasons with the team control. Drafted players can be held in the minors and on the 40 man with options until they are 26-27, add in the team control and their primes are completely gone...you still are deciding how many years this 32-33 year old player will be good before he falls off a cliff. I don't really have an idea for a solution for that specifically. I agree it's a fair point to review minor league control.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the signing team loses a pick as long as it's more than a 1 year deal. The team losing the player only gets a pick if the deal is $50 million or more. I have no idea where you got that information, but no. You lose a pick if the player declines a qualifying offer. A player must be with a team the entire year to be eligible to get offered one. Yu Darvish was traded mid-season which meant the Dodgers could not give him a qualifying offer. I stand corrected. I looked a bit further into this, I have no idea where the 1 year part came from. The pick(s) lost by the team signing the player and pick received by the team losing the player vary significantly based on revenue sharing, luxury tax, and the $50 million threshold I noted. The rules are a bit complex, you can go to the link below if you want to dig into the specific compensation details. https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-qualifying-offer-rules-explained/c-259650658

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the signing team loses a pick as long as it's more than a 1 year deal. The team losing the player only gets a pick if the deal is $50 million or more.

That was the basis for my comment. I had read/heard somewhere that he looked good during instructs but I would figure things like turning A DP would take some time to work through. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm guessing he spends the year in the minors. It's absolutely fair to be concerned about his fielding and how long that might need. It's fair to be concerned that he doesn't even stick at 2nd and needs to move to LF or 1b. I don't think it's fair to say he absolutely needs a full year in the minors for defensive reasons, I honestly don't think enough information has been made available even for the diehard milb followers to make that definitive statement. He hasn't played defense enough for an affiliate whereas you could have an milb subscription and watch him play, and most of the national prospect guys probably haven't seen him enough to make definitive statements on him. It almost makes you wonder how they can properly grade his arm/field tools. Anywho...I'm sure many people saw the results from Rickie Weeks bat forcing him to the majors when the glove wasn't ready...and don't want to make that mistake twice.

I agree, well stated. But here is the larger question for the player side: what items are they willing to either give up or give in to? A CBA is full of give & take and each one is built upon the one preceding it. They do not go back to a blank sheet of paper & start over each time. Yes the Players needs to approach certain areas and try to make changes but the Owners will need to get something in return for each of those items. The International draft - that will cause even larger headaches due to the large Latin American contingent (& their groups not wanting it). Pace of Play - a large aspect of that will be in place before the next negotiations & if its helpful for the fans, the players will not want to be seen as against the fans Where can the Players give up something (something of value in the owner's eyes) to get changes in other areas? I don't think the owners should have to get something to give higher salaries in earlier years. If the players can show proof that their percentage of revenues is decreasing, the owners should be reasonable and allow for increased wages earlier on to get players back to historical percentages. Not to sound overly entitled, but it's absolutely fair for players to maintain X percent of revenues. I don't know what that percent is or what is fair, the players and owners can figure that out. But also, keep in mind that giving players more money in their team control years(or reducing team control) damages competitive balance...so small market teams won't want that. The ideal system is obviously a salary cap/floor with significantly expanded revenue sharing, but the big markets won't want that. Keeping all 3 sides happy is going to be very difficult next CBA.

We shouldn't be looking for swingmen, we have like 4 decent ones and can't keep them all as is.