KeithStone53151

What I want to see disagrees with just about all of this, but all of those things could make some degree of sense except the Lucroy piece. Why Lucroy? I personally don't want him to work with our young pitchers as I firmly believe he's a terrible game caller. All his pitch selections are way too obvious, every hitter can see them coming from a mile away. And his bat has significantly regressed. We have pina and other solid/unspectacular options behind the dish. Spending like that on what very likely could be a downgrade in Lucroy makes zero sense to me. Walker and Archer make sense to me for different reasons. Walker to cover the time until Hiura gets to Milwaukee and Archer because he is a cost and team-controlled high end pitcher that wouldn't (in this scenario) require us to give up anything more than replaceable organizational depth (Brinson, Phillips, Burnes, Hiura, Dubon all could replace Harrison, Ortiz and Diaz). Lucroy because offensively he looked back in Colorado and I am afraid of the combination of potential Pina offensive regression, Vogt's age and D and Bandy and Susac's 2017 performance. In 142 ABs after the trade, Lucroy hit .310/.429/.437. I think catcher is a position where it could cost "relatively" little to provide some insurance. I see your points on Walker and Archer. It's not a route I'd personally prefer to go, but I get it. Lucroy however, I don't. The stat line you list of 310/429/437 is solid, but not in Colorado. That slugging % is abysmal considering his 310 avg and he's in Colorado. There's a reason he was consistently batting 8th in that lineup. The power is gone out of his bat. A good offensive line for him not in Colorado is probably 280/350/400. That isn't bad by any stretch, but then consider he's a liability behind the plate and he's not worth the contract. Not only is he not worth the contract, but it's probably more likely than not that at least one of the four catchers on the roster is more valuable than Lucroy in 2018.

I like Pina as much as the next guy but he has offensive regression written all over him. Vogt, Susac and Bandy all have their warts as well. I am only advocating for Lucroy to guard against that potential regression especially given the Brewers currently can afford it. Except Lucroy would never ever consider coming here with Pina present. It just isn’t a realistic proposal. Pina May regress, but the Brewers seem pretty content with him and already signed Vogt. I think Plush is right on. Bringing in Lucroy makes little sense for either party. Lucroy doesn't have a very strong arm, calls a bad game, and didn't hit well last year. Pina will certainly be better than Lucroy at the first two of those three things. The bat could go either way. As Plush noted, no way is Lucroy going to go to a timeshare situation if he can help it. He'd take a 1 year rebuild deal before he did that. Plenty of teams are rolling with far worse options and could easily send the current starter to a backup role.

What I want to see disagrees with just about all of this, but all of those things could make some degree of sense except the Lucroy piece. Why Lucroy? I personally don't want him to work with our young pitchers as I firmly believe he's a terrible game caller. All his pitch selections are way too obvious, every hitter can see them coming from a mile away. And his bat has significantly regressed. We have pina and other solid/unspectacular options behind the dish. Spending like that on what very likely could be a downgrade in Lucroy makes zero sense to me.

I wouldn't slough it off that easily. Comparing it to Harper? Be real. Stearns has stated publicly that they had offers on the table for guys they had interest in. I'm pretty certain that includes Cobb. He's not going to go fishing for Harper. Before the winter meetings, Cobb to the Cubs was reported as a mere formality. But the Cubs obviously balked as his asking price and now they seem to be focusing on Darvish. No other teams out there stepped up to meet his price either. Some teams want to avoid the luxury tax and others are either in early stages of rebuilds or trying to shed salary. That puts Brewers who have the salary room and the need in prime position if the price is right. But the reported price isn't even close to right. Plus, we are giving up a draft pick to sign Cobb. The phone call probably went something like "Hey Cobb's agent, have you come down significantly from your obscene asking price"..."Nope"..."Ok let us know if you do". As another poster noted, this feels like an attempt to stoke the market a bit and get the Cubs to press. It's an even better strategy to list a specific rival team as "interested" than to simply float the "mystery team".

Calling it interest is probably a major stretch. We might have called to check in, due diligence type of call. We'll probably make a similar phone call on Harper. I would virtually guarantee that some other team is willing to pay Cobb more than the Brewers.

They went 10-11 in games started by those 2. I think there will be regression to even some things out. I'm on board with you that it would be an improvement, I'm just not sure it's enough for me to push the chips onto the table yet. I tend to agree. I'd be inclined to be a bit more aggressive at the deadline than last year if we are in a similar position though. Also Nelson said in an interview today that his rehab was going very well and he'll start a throwing program in spring training. I would get the sense from that maybe a June return. That's my own speculation. With potentially Nelson and Burnes primed for rotation spots in May/June, it makes way too much sense to me to roll with what we have at this point and not make any more moves for SP.

Just put "Nelson" in for Archer and you have the 2017 rotation, essentially. Chacin is probably better than Garza, but I personally can't guarantee myself that Anderson will repeat. We need to shoot higher. Enter Josh Hader in the 5th spot. And the 2017 rotation got way too many dreadful starts from Guerra/Peralta. So it wouldn't quite be the same. And as you noted, Chacin will probably be better than Garza.

I'm not so sure the Rays wouldn't be interested in Santana as part of a swap for Archer. Trading Archer doesn't necessarily mean a big rebuild. This team could very well re-tool with Santana among other pieces and contend again in the near future, maybe as soon as 2019 which Santana will be around for. Honeywell is basically MLB ready and projects top of the rotation. Archer for Santana+ is a trade of their strength for our strength. I can understand them entering a more extensive rebuild and targeting prospects versus a guy like Santana, I just don't think I'd completely dismiss that notion of Santana being in play.

Thats absolutely much closer to reality than his proposal. It's a buyers market for 2b, a couple good ones available in free agency and a few other good ones being actively shopped... while few teams have that need. Getting the Phillies to take an outfield prospect isn't realistic, that's their strength as well. They might get one of peralta or Ortiz, maybe. More likely they get someone like diplan and a lower level guy. Maybe Peyton Henry. Or maybe dubon as the throw in. This proposal is laughable, what a clown.

They've all set unbelievably high prices that no team is willing to bite on. Cobb and Lynn are mid tier FA. Neither should sniff anything over $15 million per year. But they're out there thinking some team will come through with $18-20 million per year. Arrieta and Darvish too are unrealistic in their demands. Both want 5 or 6 year deals at around $25 million per. That isn't going to happen. They will both be lucky to crack $88 million over four years. I'd much rather give Arrieta 100 million than Wade Davis 50 million. I would completely agree with that statement, but I hope we avoid both contracts.

Whit Merrifield has 5 years of team control and will be 29. Had a couple good years in his peak age seasons. His 19 Hr last year after hitting single digits his entire minor league career, including hitter friendly PCL for 2 years. I don't buy this most recent season. Regression candidate to say the least. Their package has value, but they are dreaming if they think they are landing 3 top 100 guys for that.

Danny duffy...front of the line starter...that's a reach. Merrifield should play outfield very sparingly, and almost never should start over Braun. It's almost like they don't realize we have Phillips/Brinson. And Herrera only has one expensive year remaining on his contract and therefore shouldn't have much value. I don't like the idea of giving up Burnes in this deal, nobody in this deal warrants giving up a young/impact pitcher like Burnes. Go from Burnes to Ponce and tack on one other lower minors player...and it's closer to something I'm comfortable with. Or maybe try to send Villar in the deal as he'd be redundant in this case.

Every time one of these relievers signs for a big contract I wonder about what kind a package Knebel is worth. Only thing against him is he had just the one big year. If he repeats in 2018, he could be flipped for a massive haul at the deadline. Good thing about that is even the small market teams in contention will compete for him, since salary isn't an issue. The only trade in recent memory resembling what that might look like is the Giles trade. You could look there and get an idea of the value he's worth.

It's funny that I just mentioned in a different thread how these top free agents were setting ridiculous asking prices and hoping one dumb GM would make a bold(or stupid) move and pay near that asking price. I figured it would be Dombrowski or Epstein, but looks like this new Rockies GM is the guy. Most of these contracts should clear before they impact the ability to sign their big free agents. Blackmon and Lemahieu's contracts could be backloaded a bit to ease the burden the first couple years. They probably can't afford Arenado and his likely 250 million or more regardless, so considering him is pointless. The problem for me is their ability to patch any holes in 2019 and 2020 if some players underperform. They generally seem stuck with what they have in the system and roster for the next couple years, they can only add by losing in other areas. It's quite possible that if they're "a hole patched away" that ownership would allow it. They have a lot more money than you suggest next year and they went up to $155 million last year by the end of the season for their 40. I think people need to look at baseball free agency with some nuance. There is too much: "smaller market, lots of money = this very bad" simple equations. We all get it. Teams that aren't massive markets should not be living off of huge free agency deals, especially of guys over 30. But if you're a payroll nerd like I am, this deal totally makes sense. I wouldn't call this GM dumb. I would call this a bad deal because they significantly overpaid for the value they are likely to get. Davis benefited from pitcher friendly conditions and an elite defense behind him. He was also much worse in the 2nd half and gave up 7 homers from August through the playoffs. I don't think he's going to be a consistently sub 3 ERA pitcher for Colorado, so he's not worth that money based on that alone. The short term deals for the other relievers made a ton of sense to me. This is a bad deal and this is the one that puts them over the top to overspending on payroll in the near term. They would have so much more flexibility without this deal and flexibility is extremely valuable.

It's funny that I just mentioned in a different thread how these top free agents were setting ridiculous asking prices and hoping one dumb GM would make a bold(or stupid) move and pay near that asking price. I figured it would be Dombrowski or Epstein, but looks like this new Rockies GM is the guy. Most of these contracts should clear before they impact the ability to sign their big free agents. Blackmon and Lemahieu's contracts could be backloaded a bit to ease the burden the first couple years. They probably can't afford Arenado and his likely 250 million or more regardless, so considering him is pointless. The problem for me is their ability to patch any holes in 2019 and 2020 if some players underperform. They generally seem stuck with what they have in the system and roster for the next couple years, they can only add by losing in other areas.

He's a solid defender at 2B, but about the only compliment you can give is that he's the perfect Coors hitter. High contact guy that controls the bat well to absolutely dominate the cavernous outfields to an insanely high batting average at Coors. If we think Sogard is the ~.275 hitter with an excellent OBP that he demonstrated last year, then that is what DJ is. Sogard probably would be better at getting on base, but DJ is a better defender. I'm not going to try and argue that Sogard is better than Lemahieu, because he isn't. But strictly looking at defense, Sogard is a much better defender than either of you are giving him credit for. Extremely consistent, made 3 errors last year. 2 at 2b and none at SS despite 160 innings there. He graded out as a positive WAR player defensively for what that's worth, he definitely passed the eye test as a solid defender for me as well. I'm expecting Sogard to regress a bit from his stat line last year, so Lemahieu is clearly better...but from a defensive standpoint it's definitely closer than either of you think.

I'll add to your support. Guerra as a reliever in 2017, .617 OPS even with the 2 HR. Allowed 3 hits and 2 bb in 24 PA in 2017. As a starter in 2017, 1st PA of an outing 643 OPS, 2nd PA of an outing 856 OPS, 3rd PA of an outing 1178 OPS. These splits become much less drastic when looking at career numbers(2015-2017), but he was operating with more heat and better stuff those other 2 years. I'm completely open to Guerra competing for a bullpen spot. I was before looking at these splits but even moreso now. We should have quite the competition in ST for the remaining 2-3 bullpen jobs, 2 if we sign someone else and 3 if we don't.

That's generally fair, but what if some of these bullpen pitchers struggle? What if one or two of their young starters regresses or doesn't work out or gets injured? Same with position players. Spending too much now handicaps their ability to spend to fix issues over the next couple years. The Brewers for example project to around $75 million depending on arbitration and Logan's contract. If we start the year around there and are in it at the deadline, heck we could trade for Hamels and his likely significant contract without blinking an eye. Or if we need to look to free agency or take on contract in a trade in 2018, we can do that. The Rockies, yeah not so much. They are doing all their shopping for the next couple years right now. I can see the argument for the Rockies to spend a bit on short term deals, and I thought their moves were generally prudent and wise up until this signing. This is the one that I feel pushed them to the point of going overboard with their payroll.

Well said, I find this aggravating too. It's probably just part of their war against the greedy rich owners that are providing us with baseball and are at least partially responsible for the jobs these writers have...but how dare they! What 'media' people are saying that baseball players are getting screwed for asking for a lot of money (and not getting that much)? - This is a bit indirect but I definitely get the vibe he has a pro-player anti-owner stance. https://www.royalsreview.com/2017/12/26/16812704/are-baseball-owners-colluding-against-the-players - Article about owners being evil. http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/12/18/marc-carig-mets-owners-are-cheap-unaccountable-unconcerned/ - Mets owners are cheap and terrible. One writer says it and another justifies it. These are 3 examples I found in about 5 minutes. The common theme is pro-players getting paid and anti-rich greedy owners. It's not exactly as specific as you are stating, but the premise is there.

I believe both would.

Holy mackerel. This contract is so ridiculous, especially for a closer on the fringe of the top 10 at best. 3/52 with a vesting option that could push it to 4/66. I honestly don't think the Cubs are planning to target a high end bullpen arm. I think they intend to have Morrow close with Edwards/Strop/Wilson as backup options. They are probably more likely to make a splash in the SP market, as that is where their team is weakest.

Well said, I find this aggravating too. It's probably just part of their war against the greedy rich owners that are providing us with baseball and are at least partially responsible for the jobs these writers have...but how dare they!

I remember from the winter meetings, can't remember if it was an owner or a GM, someone said, "five year contracts for pitchers don't end well". I think other teams are doing the analysis - looking at prior longer-term deals for pitchers - on the contracts (performance, age regression, subtracting DL time, etc.) and finding out what the real cost of those longer term deals are. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you look at the peripherals and somewhat advanced stats Cobb's comp is a 30-year-old Matt Garza. Looking back, Garza wasn't worth 4/$52M, so Cobb can't expect to get even that. What someone like Cobb is counting on is one dumb GM(example: Dombrowski) to make a "bold" move and meet their asking price. For Cobb specifically, I've heard $20 million per from one spot. Then another reporter said that asking price was false and he's seeking Mike Leake money 5/80. It doesn't take a genius to compare performance to value on similar past contracts. Even Leake, in the first 2 years of his deal(which are supposed to be the "good years"), post a 4.7 and 3.9 ERA his first 2 seasons. That's not TERRIBLE considering he took the ball 30 times each of those 2 years, but is it worth $32 million combined? Absolutely not. At age 30 he might have another season or two left performing at this level before he drops off, but he's not worth the contract. Looking at the Leake contract makes the Chacin contract look that much better. A very reasonable expectation for Chacin would be to take the ball 30 times and post high 3s or low 4s ERA, that would be better than what Leake did the last 2 years at half the cost.

Yeah, with the current state of MLB salaries, "bargain" can only be used in a relative sense. And your point on these FAs' contract demands are probably precisely why they're locked into a game of chicken. I know his resume has its warts, but Chacin is looking like a steal at this point. Agreed, I'm very happy with that chacin deal right now. And it will be very interesting to see how this game of chicken ends. Gm's are generally getting smarter and can look at a history of a large percentage of these ridiculous free agent contracts turning out poorly for the team. Guys get old, and honestly I think many start coasting once they sign the big contract.

MLBTR had a piece today with an interesting note about this. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/12/jake-arrieta-alex-cobb-free-agent.html A "bargain deal"? The asking prices I've seen are far beyond reasonable and approach comical. If any of these guys "settle" for 75% of what they are asking that should be considered a good deal for the player. I know you are quoting trade rumors, I just find the word choice amusing.