MrTPlush

Because it is by far the sport to watch and I believe it is actually live in prime time. That’s just the reality. You can watch whatever you want via NBC online. Grab an MDMI cord and hook that puppy up to the TV. Figure Skating will be done in a few days.

Can someone explain the Garcia love? I know it is off topic, but I’m curious why a few want him so badly? I get he is cheap, but where is the upside I imagine you guys feel he has? Too lazy to look up advanced stats myself right now.

If I was a Cubs fan I would think that's a good thing. I think the team that overpays for Harper is going to regret it big time. Depends on what the contract ends up being. Harper will only be 25 though next year while most free agents are nearing 30 or over 30. He's an ideal guy to pay IMO. Harper is athletic, hits for average, hits for power, and walks a ton. In 2015 and 2016, he walked 232 times combined. He'll get 8-10 years and should be good for most of them so long as he has reasonably good health. He won’t get 8-10 years, makes zero sense for him. He will either get a 5 year deal allowing him to hit FA at a decent age again or he is about to get a 15 year contract or whatever. He would take a long contract as long as he can(probably 38-40). In reality he will get the mega contract for 12+ years with an opt out to make it 4 or 5 years if he wants.

Incorrect FIP is just like ERA if you want to predict a future ERA for a pitcher yes use FIP over ERA. FIP actually does win games and reduces runs because FIP is heavily dependent on strike outs, walks, and home runs. xFIP takes out the home run portion of the equation and replaces it with a calculated how many home runs the pitcher should have given up from their fly balls. xFIP formula is below: xFIP = (13x(Fly Balls x LgHR/FB%) + 3x(BB+HBP) - 2xK / IP) + FIP Constant So as you can see there it actually is a measurement for winning games and reducing runs. xFIP and FIP show you the same thing as ERA does it just gives you more in terms of a calculated expectancy on what the pitcher can control. Strike outs and Walks have the highest correlation to winning for pitchers than any other stat so you are incorrect in stating FIP doesn't win games or reduce runs. FIP by definition is more accurate at determining winning games and reducing runs. Yes, but the point at the end of the day is how many runs you scored and how many you gave up. FIP and xFIP make assumptions on what should have happened etc. and ERA tells me how it was. You can argue they weren’t actually elite, but reality is they limited runs at an elite level. This is getting a bit off topic, but sometimes I think there is too much love for FIP and xFIP. Some guys consistently overperform or underperform this number. At some point you have to take into account a guy historically doing one of those things.

Are we referring to the Cubs offer this offseason? He likely never had a chance to actually accept it because Darvish went to Chicago. Arrieta was likely the fallback option for them if they lost out on Darvish.

FIP is absolutely worthless when looking at past results. FIP doesn’t win games or reduce runs. If we are talking about future performance or what should have happened sure use FIP. The Royals bullpen put up elite results in 2015 with a 2.72 ERA(#2 in baseball). Heck only one has sniffed that low of an ERA for a bullpen the last two years. In 2016 the best bullpen ERA was 3.35.

I’d feel a lot better about Arrieta if he had a solid month of September. Then I could get on board with Arrieta adjusting in the second half and maybe he still is ace-like . However he instead was terrible which makes me not feel as good about him.

I don’t get this 2/50 3/70 talk. Sure that would be cool, but entirely unrealistic. The later his market would have to be absolutely dead. A two year deal would have to be 2/~65 and a three year deal 3/~80 if you ask me. Even then I bet he would just prefer to tack on a fourth year, hit nine figures, and not risk decline at his age. Taking a shorter deal and hoping for another shot at FA seems dangerous. Maybe then he would bite on such a short term deal. My guess is teams want to go 4 years instead of 5 years. 4/100 would be my guess, maybe a little less. If it goes higher than that the Brewers won’t be getting him.

Not that it really matters, but an opt out almost surely means the deal is front loaded. I’m guessing it is more like 2/50 minimum if he opts out. So I doubt they are paying Darvish $21mil in years 5 and 6.

Again you are incorrect. It wasn't because of the rotation that the Brewers missed the playoffs last year it was because of the offense. The offense fell off a cliff a few times last year and the Brewers as a whole only had a WRC+ of 93. No team in the modern era has had a WRC+ lower than 98 win a world series. Majority of playoff teams have had a WRC+ of about 100 and there usually very few teams that make it who are below that mark. The worst xFIP to win the World Series for starters belongs to the Royals at 4.48. A staff of nothing but #3 pitchers has about the same chance as a team with multiple #1's to win in the playoffs. The Nationals didn't make it to the World Series again last year they only made the playoffs and were beat by a team that didn't really have a #1 type pitcher. The Cubs pitching staff last year was a bunch of #2's and 3's that beat a staff that has an ace and an almost ace. Yes, the offense was a big factor that the Brewers didn't get into the playoffs as a whole, but down the stretch they suffered big time by not having a consistent rotation. They missed by ONE game, and maybe if they didn't have to start guys like Guerra, Jeremy Jeffress, and Aaron Wilkerson they could have done it. I'm not saying the Pitching right now is terrible, what I am saying is we have the resources to improve - we should take major steps to do it. The outfield was decent last year too - and we took a major step forward to improve it. We can do the same with pitching rather than recycling the same guys and "lesser" guys. Once again it just isn't true. Their entire pitching staff was #5 in all of baseball in September. And August we were #7. Pitching was not the problem. It also seems a lot of people want to wait it out for the deadline or until Nelson is back. Ok fair enough, but then again we want to blame our inability to make the playoffs last year on Neftali Feliz being in our pen etc. to start the year. Waiting months to fix something is going to cost your games. That is a big deal when everything will come down to a few games come October.

No, this is why: http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/split/182

See my second post. I looked it up and you don't lose a pick if you wait until after the June draft. I'm down with that. Make sure you're reasonably decent before going nuts for a pitcher. If they can't stay around .500 with Suter for a few months, Arrieta or Cobb or Lynn wouldn't make a big difference anyway. Then you aren’t getting a pitcher. Because they won’t be there in June.

Nah, it's human nature to value location more than a few extra million. It doesn't happen often in baseball because there's no salary cap and the most desirable destinations also are usually able to offer the most money, but in the rare instance where a less desirable market is also the highest bidder, it's not at all surprising. It happens all the time in the NBA, for example. Well Darvish followed the money, so looks like location did win out. Not sure where the Dodgers ended up, but probably wasn’t terribly off.

I don't know if that is as needed as before. Stearns already has the green light to spend the money.

It means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

IMO an "ace" is the same thing as saying someone is a #1 pitcher. By definition with 30 teams that means there are 30 #1 pitchers. There is such a steep drop off from the top going towards #30 at some point though. IMO those guys have to be seperated by definition of "ace".

Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports reports that the Dodgers were in the bidding on Yu Darvish right until he decided to sign with the Cubs. That could mean that the Dodgers will still be in the market for pitching help and will turn to one of the lesser names available on the free agent market. Source: Jon Heyman on TwitterFeb 10 - 3:10 PM I am guessing lesser than Arrieta. They don't want to go over the luxury tax and Arrieta won't really be any better than Darvish in that repsect.

Jake Arrieta is assured a 4 year deal now of at least $80mil in my opinion. Thinking it might take about 4/$90mil Hoping for a 3 year deal is crazy talk in my opinion. I have no idea why anyone would think that is possible after Darvish got 6.

So the $90M over 4 years the Cubs fans wasn't too far off, it just went two years further essentially. That is really far off. 2 years further for a 30 year old pitcher is a looooonng time.

Sounds like it could be a straight 6/$126mil deal

He will be going to his next option he wanted, possibly Arrieta...and it won't be a reactionary move. Not a terrible deal honestly.

That’s not true. Suter could very well be a quality #5 guy. Numbers suggest it and he competes his butt off. The guy started 14 games last year and gave us a mid 3 ERA with a 1.2 WHIP. #5 starters average less than 5 innings per start and the manager has to shield them from getting lit up once the 5-6 inning hits? His stats are painfully sugar coated. Because the league isn’t familiar with him and we pull him before he can’t get lit up.

Look I agree you can win without a true ace, but I don't think we should be trying to be the next 2015 Royals. They were a very unique case and if we are looking to be the next exception to what it usually takes 99% chance we never see a World Series. That 2015 Royals team had an elite bullpen. I think ours is great, but not on that level. That is a huge reason they won't it all(love elite bullpens). Also they did have an ace(Johnny Cueto) who single handedly got them 25% of their World Series wins. If Jimmy Nelson can come back strong and Chase Anderson can be a low 3 ERA guy then maybe just grabbing a Cobb/Lynn is sufficient. That is a big assumption though.

So? If he doesn't feel like the offer is high enough he isn't going to take it. You don't think our offer has been matched or close to it by a glamour city? Except the fact he hasn't signed with a glamour city either. It's common sense. Once players have earned as much as he has, it's very common for them to accept less money to go somewhere they want to be. That's not even remotely controversial. It is called severe speculation with nothing to back it up. Very Common? That is pretty generous. I am guessing our definitions are pretty far apart on that one.

I agree with most of this. I would sign one of Cobb or Lynn for three years. The look at mid-season to trade Santana for a rent-a pitcher or maybe Archer. With Nelson coming back and a potential big arm added, we could be really strong for the second half without having to overspend. I am going to tell you right now the odds of that happening are <1%. In the offseason MLB players for MLB players are possible, but in season it is almost impossible to rationalize. You would be making a move that would hurt your roster while trying to help it in a postseason push. In the offseason there is time to find a free agent to replace the player you got rid of or find a trade. Good luck trading MLB assets for MLB assets in July as we already are having difficulty doing so.