KeithStone53151

Then why did they win 86 games? You're not making any sense. Perhaps it's because Sterns managed to put a solid team on the field? Yes, we all know last year's team had its warts, including streaky hitting and a lot of swing-and-miss tendencies, but overall besides a little swoon after the All Star Break, it was a consistent team. Saying a player that is in the prime years of his career age-wise, such as Santana, Shaw, Knebel and Anderson, is due to regress just isn't very realistic. Now if you are arguing that Braun, Sogard and Thames are due to regress due to age, then you probably have something. Your hypothesis also doesn't take into account young players such as Arcia and Phillips that can realistically have break-out years, or talented bounce-back candidates like Villar. Even Broxton, should he not be traded, is at the age where he could realistically improve. Luke, I feel like you must have looked at fangraphs and seen all their nasty projections for our young players and assumed we would be terrible. Fangraphs is absolutely awful at projecting young players accurately. In fairness, it isn't easy to do. It's hard to know if/when Arcia will break out, or what Phillips will do offensively when he comes up. Fangraphs tends to assume all young players will be awful until they prove otherwise, especially on small market teams. For me, the only guys who's production was overly surprising last year were Anderson, Villar, and Sogard to some degree. Guys like Shaw, Santana, Pina, Nelson, Knebel, etc...had track records/talent that told us they could potentially produce like they did. Just because fangraphs probably said Shaw and Santana would post mid 700 ops numbers, Nelson would post a mid 4s era, and knebel mid 3s...doesn't mean these guys are all regression candidates.

My understanding is that they get to keep their bonuses. I could be wrong but I believe that to be the case. I think DocLuna is right. Paying back the bonuses would be penalizing the players. Especially if one of the players was a Gilbert Lara situation, where he was absolutely terrible 2 years later and not worth 1/10 of his signing bonus. Mildly annoying that the agent of the players get to double dip on signing bonuses, but it's better than potentially penalizing the player.

The only teams that might take Archer/Uhen/Spurlin are teams with terrible farm systems and poor MLB pitching. Maybe the Orioles, Angels, someone like that. Wren I feel like is highly likely to tag on somewhere. I also think Orf is more likely than any of those pitchers to get snagged. Overall, I don't think there's any sneaky low level talent that someone could sneak in and take...like Miguel Diaz last year.

Only by the most technical of technicalities is the statement that he improved on offense a correct statement. By any measure he is a terrible hitter. Again, he is 22! And at AA. Catchers regularly mature late. Man, you really, really hate him. Or do you just love Khris Davis, and hate that Nottingham was the main return? Bubba Derby positioned himself as a future contributor as well, so that deal isn't looking half bad. Also catchers are highest on the defensive spectrum and generally are one of the worst hitting positions in the lineup. The midpoint slash line by position in MLB in 2017 was roughly 245/310/420 - good for 730 OPS. How many catchers do you see roaring through the minors with high 800s or better OPS at every stop? It almost never happens. Nottingham's OPS improved by roughly 50 points while his BABIP dropped 70 points. If his BABIP is even league average, that 695 OPS is probably closer to 750-775 range.

To me it's hardly relevant. I would actually be less inclined to target Archer if Nelson were healthy. Hader needs a shot in the rotation, we have 3-4 quality arms at the upper levels of the minors that should be ready in the next year or so. We are already going to have issues making spots for these talented arms without Archer. I agree. I think Hader should be in the rotation, so the only reason I'm advocating looking at another SP option is because Nelson is injured. If he was 100%, we'd have our rotation set. As it stands, we could fill that "hole" with Suter or Wilkerson, but I would prefer we get a reasonably priced alternative. That could be a free agent, who would "only" cost us money, or a trade that won't "sell the farm." I am elated that we have quality arms at the upper levels. While all of them won't work out, hopefully those who do work out will allow us to trade some of our "proven" MLB talent in the future as they force their way onto the MLB staff. Agreed. To add to your point about the rotation being "set", I anticipate someone mentioning that you don't go into camp with 5 starters as you should anticipate injuries and such. Suter/Wilkerson are much better being the 6/7 starter than 5th starter. Burnes could probably be pushed into the rotation right away if we got desperate, making him a viable 8th starter to open the season. So going to camp planning on Anderson/Davies/Woodruff/Hader/1 isn't unreasonable by any stretch. We just definitely need 1 more arm for the rotation this off season, and ideally someone on a 1 or 2 year deal.

It's pretty common for the Brewers to keep a couple pitchers and position players that are guaranteed to not make the final 25 with the team to the very end of spring training to fill in where needed. Wren being a guy that can play all the outfield spots well makes him ideal to be an extra outfielder to carry to the end of camp. It's generally more necessary for pitchers, as in spring training guys have a very specific schedule/regimen. What happens if a pitcher is planned to go 30 pitches in 2 innings and he has a bad inning?...someone has to fill that gap. I don't think DJ is trying to argue that it makes him more likely to open on the 25 man.

To me it's hardly relevant. I would actually be less inclined to target Archer if Nelson were healthy. Hader needs a shot in the rotation, we have 3-4 quality arms at the upper levels of the minors that should be ready in the next year or so. We are already going to have issues making spots for these talented arms without Archer.

A lot of pitchers have opted out of their deals early. If he gets more money up front, he could easily leave for one more big deal and then completely fall in the tank on that one. Easily? Just don't see Arrieta at the age of 34-35, pitching well enough to earn more than $20M per season after that. He would love to be guaranteed that money and more than likely love to have the Brewers pay him that while he stinks up the joint later in his career. Playing with fire. It would be more accurate to say there's a chance that Arrieta posts a couple seasons in the low 3s ERA and thinks the market is willing to pay more than 2/40 to him at age 34. I personally think it's very unlikely. Stearns basically shot down these rumors yesterday, look for the tweet from Haudricourt.

This is a great point, and kinda what I was getting at to some degree. Our roster was generally young compared to other teams in the league, and looks as if it may get even younger this year.

I looked back 2 years at the 2015-16 offseason. There were 10 FA SP signed to deals of 3 years or more. Of those, 2 were downright disasters chen(5/80) and zimmermann(5/110). The 3 biggest ones price(7/217), greinke(6/206), and cueto(6/130) were solid overall the last 2 years(combined ERA's in the mid-upper 3s), but paying $25-30 million per year for solid overall isn't a winning formula. Cueto was also notably much worse last year. 3 guys besides Chen signed 5 year deals, probably the Cobb/Lynn tier for 2017. Kennedy(5/70), Leake(5/80), Samardja(5/90). All 3 guys ended with ERA's in the low-mid 4's combined over the 2 seasons since their deals. The last 2 guys were JA Happ(3/36) and Scott Kazmir(3/48). Happ has been surprisingly good, low 3s era combined over 2 years. Kazmir pitched to a mid 4's ERA and didn't pitch at all this year due to injury. Keep in mind with the big $ deals and those 5 year deals that generally seem to be reasonable production for their cost, that this is the front end of the deals. Production is likely only to go down from here. And there's always the chance that the guy we pick to sign is the Zimmerman or Chen of the FA class and just falls off a cliff immediately. In this exercise, that chance is 20%.

Nice article, I didn't realize he graded out so favorably framing pitches. Very interesting bit. I've been to the Shuckers stadium, the field is mostly facing the ocean. The game I went to, many guys hit the ball hard but there were few hits in the game. Seemed like everything in the air hung up forever for the outfielders to catch.

Nottingham has improved significantly since last season. Keep in mind he was a 21 year old catcher in AA last year, obviously still young for the league at 22 this year. His slash line improved from 234/295/347 to 209/326/369. Avg went down slightly, but the other number improved. His BB rate increased from 6.4% to 9.6% and his k rate decreased from 30.3% to 22.6%. His BABIP also went from .320 down to .255 last year, suggesting he was very unlucky on balls in play last year. And that doesn't mention his fielding, which improved significantly from last season. He dropped from 21 PB to 9 and improved from 29% CS rate to 40%. I wouldn't be surprised to see him bumped to AAA to start next season and potentially enjoy a breakout year. A sub 700 in AA means he is not 40 man worthy. If it wasn't for what we traded to get him he wouldn't ever be in this conversation. Oh cool, you grabbed one stat that supports your opinion and ignored all evidence to the contrary. Monte Harrison posted a 631 OPS as a 21 year old in Wisconsin last year. That's after posting a sub 500 ops in Wisconsin the year prior. We probably should have just cut him right? OPS is all that matters when evaluating prospects. How do scouts even have jobs when all it comes down to is OPS?

Except that by next year, in theory we'll have Anderson, Davies, Nelson, Hader, Woodruff, and Burnes as established guys in the rotation with Ortiz and Peralta waiting in the wings. None of those guys will be expensive, and they can all be every bit as successful as Arrieta will be going forward. If everything breaks right, we'll have to figure out which guy or guys to trade to clear space. If one or two guys fail, well I have eight names listed and five rotation spots. And every one of the guys I listed has had significant success in the upper levels of the minors, and therefore they aren't as likely to fail. We really shouldn't be targeting anyone on more than a 2 year deal with the pitching we have on the way. I think alot of folks are fooling themselves thinking Hader is definitely moving to the rotation. He's way more valuable doing just what he did for us at this point than creating another mediocre starter. Come the second half of the year if his results are still pressing the issue then MAYBE consider it. Hard to envison a AA guy being called an "established" rotation guy at this point too ain't it? The more good bodies the better IMO, Arrieta isn't the same type of player these bums like Suppan were That's fair on Burnes, I did in fairness say "in theory" though. I think what we all hope to happen is Burnes is successful the first half of 2018 and forces his way into the rotation. And with Hader, he is absolutely without question more valuable if he fulfills his potential in the starting rotation than doing what he did last year. It's not even up for debate. TOR SP > RP, even the very best RP. If he ends up being much more hittable as a starter, if control is a serious issue, if fatigure becomes an issue, I'm sure the Brewers will make a sound decision at some point to move him back to the bullpen. That fallback isn't going anywhere. You are right that if he's a middling starter posting a low 4s ERA, then we are better off putting him in the bullpen where he can post low 2s or better and be our version of Andrew Miller. If you start him in the bullpen, you can't easily bring him into the rotation and expect him to eat innings. It's much easier to go from the rotation to the bullpen. And a rotation arm is of greater need to start the season than halfway through, when Burnes/Nelson in theory will be ready to contribute.

Because NFL contracts are meaningless. Most players can be cut for little to no money after the first year or two. There is very little risk to signing an NFL free agent. All money is guaranteed in an MLB contract. When you sign that free agent, you're paying him every penny of it no matter how bad he is or if you release him. The team takes on all the risk and the player takes on virtually none. Okay but this is my point, why do fans care so much about who the Brewers sign...?? I mean, if they sign Arrieta or Lynn, what's the big deal?? It's Antanassio's money, not ours. Plus, they could actually be helpful. Seriously, you need someone to spell this out to you? The Brewers are going to spend a finite amount of money per year on payroll, call it X. Because while Mark Attanasio clearly wants to win, he is a business man first and isn't going to spend into oblivion and lose a ton of money in the process. We all collectively want the Brewers to spend that money in the most efficient way possible to maximize our chances of winning. We have all sorts of different ideas on how to do that, but we all want the same thing. You on the other hand, are so off base that you can't even grasp that we have X amount to spend on players...and then you talk down to the rest of us for actually understanding a concept so simple.

You didn't explain it, you just tried to convince me. Those are two completely different things. Nearly every guy on the team far exceeded any projections you might have had based on their previous work. That's why the Brewers won about 15 more games than expected, which is a huge swing. We're talking a lot of career years, and not just barely there career years, but by a wide margin career years. You might be right about Santana, but nearly everyone else on that list is a clear regression candidate. There's a reason they were all cast-offs. They could continue to excel, but it would be unexpected. I'm not sure you even know what regression means. It doesn't mean they can't/won't improve or they're bad players. It does mean what they did last year was above and beyond what their careers suggest they will do next year. And signing some great relievers and a starter doesn't change the fact that much of the current roster is likely to regress. It could counterbalance it and I support trying to compete next year, but I'm not betting on guys duplicating their success. Literally almost 75% of the roster had career years. That's a lot. This reminds me of the Fear-The-Deer Bucks. It was a good year, but it wasn't built around great young prospects and it's not really a sign of many good years to come. They'll need to get lucky again to duplicate this. It reminds me of arguing why I thought Braun, Villar, and Guerra were major regression candidates last year. A lot of people didn't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue. The big breakouts last year include Shaw, Santana, Pina, Chase, Knebel, and Hader to some degree. You could say Sogard, but he was a bench bat for the most part. Of those guys, Hader and Santana are by far the most likely to have similar success. Pina and Chase likely to regress. Knebel, Shaw, and possibly Sogard I would think are most likely to remain flat where they were. Guys like Braun, Villar, Arcia, Broxton...regressed last year. At each of those positions I would anticipate significant improvement this season.

Nottingham has improved significantly since last season. Keep in mind he was a 21 year old catcher in AA last year, obviously still young for the league at 22 this year. His slash line improved from 234/295/347 to 209/326/369. Avg went down slightly, but the other number improved. His BB rate increased from 6.4% to 9.6% and his k rate decreased from 30.3% to 22.6%. His BABIP also went from .320 down to .255 last year, suggesting he was very unlucky on balls in play last year. And that doesn't mention his fielding, which improved significantly from last season. He dropped from 21 PB to 9 and improved from 29% CS rate to 40%. I wouldn't be surprised to see him bumped to AAA to start next season and potentially enjoy a breakout year.

Financially front loading is a poor choice for quite a few reasons...simply put. I believe the MLBPA will help players in determining the current value of their deal to help figure out which offer is best. Not much different than helping a player determine tax implications at the state level based on the team they sign with. An easy example being a 3/30 deal with 15-10-5 is going to be more valuable than 5-10-15. It's possible you could entice a player to take slightly less overall dollars by frontloading, but I tend to agree with plush here. Very few cases does it make sense to frontload a deal, and having a low payroll currently that we expect to increase isn't one of them. It might make more sense if MLB had a hard cap like the NFL and we were trying to squeeze under a cap, but it doesn't.

Who are all these regression candidates? Pina, Chase, maybe knebel, who else? You generally don't expect young guys to regress unless they have crazy good years. Meanwhile, we have villar, santana, arcia, shaw, brinson, phillips, hader, woodruff all as guys with somewhere between a realistic and likely chance of improving in 2018. We don't have a team full of 30+ guys that we are hoping don't fall off a cliff. Regression Candidates: Santana: He is a guy I like a a lot but when a player does something he has never done before you have to call him a regression candidate. Shaw: virtual lock to regress though still certainly a good player. Pina: obvious regression candidate Phillips: his peripherals suggest he won't make enough contact. Yet. I do like him long term though. Knebel: only because he was so great last year to the point of record setting Nelson: obviously Anderson: he is guy who has done it for a year and a half so that's plus, but he never profiled a a legit 1/2 before so that is something to worry about. Hader: only if he is starter. Suter: way below average stuff typically doesn't translate long term. Thames: already did after April. Swarzak if they resign him as his only good year was 17 and he was a NRI type a year ago Braun: could go both ways I suppose but I think we have seen the last of 130 game 4 plus WAR Braun Walker: back issues Sogard: already regressed which why Walker needed to be traded for in the first place. Break out/Rebound candidates: Brinson Woodruff Broxton though I don't think he will be on our roster by opening day. Villar if he gets it, but I think we saw the best we will ever see in 16 I really don't understand all the anti-Santana sentiment on these boards. I already explained to another guy why you are wrong on the majority of your regression candidates. Below are some stat lines from the minors for Santana. 2012 - 302/385/536 - A+ Age 19 2013 - 252/345/498 - AA Age 20 2014 - 296/384/474 - AAA Age 21 2015 - 333/426/573 - AAA Age 22 But apparently him putting up 278/371/505 this past year is something he's never done before and couldn't possibly repeat? If anything, his track record suggests he is more likely to improve on his numbers than regress. Don't forget, 2016 was an injury plagued year for Santana...and he's approaching those peak 26-28 years.

Just a note that the Wolf signing wasn't a terrible one. Wolf was solid for the first 2 years and really struggled his 3rd year. The others were clearly awful though. Wolf is the only FA pitcher i can think of that we signed to a more than 3 year deal that actually worked out...in the history of the franchise.

Ummm....I'm pretty sure that Broxton is going to be a ways down the Giants backup plans for their OF if they don't (or should I say, when they don't) get a deal done for Stanton. I think we'd be lucky to get two lottery ticket type prospects for Broxton. The lind deal wouldn't be a bad haul for Broxton. I could see the Giants targeting Broxton even if they bring on Stanton. Stanton doesn't play CF last I checked, and Broxton would be cheap.

Next off season, Shaw/Santana/Davies all hit arbitration for the first time. Those 3 alone likely increase our payroll by $10-15 million in 2019. Other guys currently in arbitration will also get increases. Guarantees salaries on Anderson/Thames go up a bit. I get that currently we project in the low 60s in 2018 at the moment. Let's say we add Arrieta at only $20 million per(will probably be closer to 25), and then add 2 relievers at $7 million per for 2 years. With increases in arbitration etc, we project around $110 million in 2019. All of a sudden, we have almost no flexibility in the 2018 offseason to make moves to improve the club. 2020 wouldn't be much better, all the arbitration costs would still be high and we'd have a number of holes to fill in the bullpen and at 1b. The idea of adding Arrieta and trading for Archer and spending a bunch of money because we have a low payroll and young talent is no different from a 13 year old getting their hands on their parents credit card. We can make additions, but we need to be smart about how we do it and make good sound decisions...and definitely not overextend ourselves and waste this advantage that Stearns has created. I think if Mark approves of the signing of Arrieta that he is willing to go up to $120-$130 in 2019 or 2020 if the situation arises to need one or two more relievers and then the payroll begins to clear itself out again in 2020 and 2021. If Arrieta is a bust contract, I doubt that the Brewers will be "one or two relievers away" from contending in 2019 and 2020. Without Arrieta, you're probably a good/elite pitcher plus more away from being good in 2019 and 2020 anyways. The payroll implications are only one piece of this. I don't think Arrieta is that good of a pitcher. He had massive command issues early in his career. Even with the Cubs he's had some command issues. I feel like those issues will only get worse, and he'll get away with far fewer mistakes in the zone as his stuff gets worse. He will be 32. Haven't we learned from all our other bad SP contracts that these contracts aren't a good idea. When have we signed a FA SP to a 3 or more year deal and it worked out well for us? I can't think of one time that it's ever happened.

Exactly. Swarzak and Walker could be gone and the others are fringe roster guys. And yet those players alone were the difference between 86 wins and <80. They were that good, despite only being with the team for a few months and/or being fringe roster guys. You can't count on that production again, ergo, regression - unless they walk, in which case there's absolutely no guarantee you can replace them, which is another type of regression. Hader was a high WAR reliever despite not playing the full season. He had a lot of great outings in absolutely pivotal situations. There's no guarantee they're even going to try starting him, but if they do, there's no guarantee he will replace last year's WAR. I would probably bet against. And I guess you don't define being injured as a type of regression, but you certainly can't expect Nelson to duplicate last year's performance or even come close to it. That's regression in my book. Based on long-term data about their performance and talent, the odds of them improving are probably very slim. The odds of them being a little worse than last year are pretty good. That's what being a regression candidate means. It could happen, but the evidence doesn't support it. Nobody said they don't have upside, and I've had this debate before where I argued against people projecting massive regression and suggesting they trade Shaw, Knebel, and Chase. I am optimistic about some other guys stepping up as well, but you shouldn't be betting on the team to duplicate this year's success. The smart money is definitely on some regression averaged out over the roster, with some individual exceptions. To your last point, I think we have more guys with upside that are likely to improve than significant regression candidates. Of Arcia/Phillips/Brinson/Hader/Woodruff, I would be surprised if at least one of those guys didn't put up an allstar caliber season. I would be equally surprised if Villar was not significantly better than last season. He might only hit 240, but that would still be significantly better. Those improvements alone will likely negate any regression from some of the prime regression candidates. Add to that the fact that Stearns is going to do some spending, notably in the bullpen, which should improve our outlook there. Replace some of the 5+ ERA guys like Torres/Drake/blazek/etc with established relievers likely to post something in the 3s. That's notable improvement.

Next off season, Shaw/Santana/Davies all hit arbitration for the first time. Those 3 alone likely increase our payroll by $10-15 million in 2019. Other guys currently in arbitration will also get increases. Guarantees salaries on Anderson/Thames go up a bit. I get that currently we project in the low 60s in 2018 at the moment. Let's say we add Arrieta at only $20 million per(will probably be closer to 25), and then add 2 relievers at $7 million per for 2 years. With increases in arbitration etc, we project around $110 million in 2019. All of a sudden, we have almost no flexibility in the 2018 offseason to make moves to improve the club. 2020 wouldn't be much better, all the arbitration costs would still be high and we'd have a number of holes to fill in the bullpen and at 1b. The idea of adding Arrieta and trading for Archer and spending a bunch of money because we have a low payroll and young talent is no different from a 13 year old getting their hands on their parents credit card. We can make additions, but we need to be smart about how we do it and make good sound decisions...and definitely not overextend ourselves and waste this advantage that Stearns has created.

If the Cubs wanted to keep Jake, they absolutely could have. Word is they aren't seriously pursuing him in FA either.

Hard pass. These 2 moves would basically open up a 2-3 year window of contention, followed by a nasty rebuild. It also significantly limits what we can do to bolster the pen this offseason and probably isn't enough to make us a favorite to win the NL central in 2018.