anglotiger

I've always had the feeling that the Yankees try to make everyone else think their prospects are all future HoFers. Then they wait for someone stupid enough to believe that too, and include some of their more mediocre ones in trades for quality players... ?

This is true, but we also need to take into account the improvement the Brewers made with those trades, compared to how hard it was to replace the players they gave up, and the impact those trades made upon their ability to make the post season.

I was just about to say the same thing. "You want what...? *click* "

Not even close to Molitor. Braun had 7,340 PAs with a 135 wRC+ / 134 OPS+ good for 311.7 / 316 batting runs by FanGraphs / BRef. Molitor had 8,443 PAs with a 125 wRC+ / 122 OPS+ good for 250.8 / 269 batting runs by FanGraphs / BRef. Molitor got hits very slightly more adjusted for era with a 116 AVG+ vs 113 for Braun while striking out significantly less (77 K%+ for Molly vs 97 for Braun) & walking a bit more (104 BB%+ vs 93), so I can buy that Paul was a better pure hitter, to say nothing of the juice, but Braun's power production puts him over the top for overall production with a 150 ISO+ vs only 104 for Molitor accounting for Braun's 10-12 percent edge in wRC+ / OPS+, which allowed him to produce greater value in over 1,000 fewer PAs. It's a little sad that baserunning is overlooked these days. I don't dispute the power disparity, but Molitor was widely regarded as one of, if not the best, base runners (as opposed to base stealers, although he was no slouch) of his time. At the time, a great leadoff hitter was a prized asset and, had it not been for Rickey Henderson, he might have been considered the best leadoff hitter in the game. By Braun's time, the focus had already shifted much more towards power. My point is that it's hard to compare players from different eras because of the way that the game has changed.

I do. I'd been in the country less than a year, and even I sat in the stands wondering "why doesn't Cooper get on the field" and "how has he not even had an AB since July"?

Just because a team unwisely overpaid someone for production doesn't mean that other teams also need to do so for an unrelated player.... Maybe someone should tell the MLBPA that...?

Lost in all of this is the amusement that one gets from the reaction of Cubs fans to this signing. I spent a little time today perusing some blogs and articles, and reading the comments in response. Any reasonably knowledgeable Cubs fan who talked about the value that the Brewers got, and how disappointing it was for them to see a rival make a good move, was immediately and mercilessly shouted down by what seemed like ten others - all scholars of the game, as the most vocal of Cubs fans are(n't). I didn't see any of the critics call one of them an "idiot" or a "moron", but they certainly implied it strongly. The jealousy was so amusing. According to the naysayers, Bradley is one or more of overrated, overpaid by the Brewers, past it, never was as good as touted, in decline defensively for years, barely average in the field, a a poor-man's Joc Pederson or - and this was my favourite - the Brewers' version of Jason Heyward (never mind the massive contract difference) - and those are just the insults that I remember... If it gets under the skin of Cubs fans that much, then the move is worth it for that reason alone...

I think that most of us are not missing anything - there's always risk, but that's the price of getting to keep your superstar player, as a small market team. As an owner and/or GM, you have to decide whether or not keeping that player for the long-term is worth that risk to you. Thankfully it's not our money or decision... I do agree entirely with the rest of what you say.

Not here... I seem to recall being one of those suggesting, a few months ago, that the reason for the lack of spending might be preparation for a Yelich extension. Given that we're already seeing $30M+ p/a contracts being handed out to the superstars of the game, how much (barring injury) would Yelich have made as a free agent in three years time? This contract is probably going to look like a great deal in three years time. Will it still look like a great deal in six years? Who knows? For now, let's just enjoy it...

The CBA is expiring. It's already likely to be a contentious negotiation. Could it be that the lack of player suspensions is somehow linked to that? And how many players would they have to suspend? An entire team? Just thinking aloud...

Indeed. If you're unsure because of Gamel, then you're probably rating Gamel far too highly... As always, the cost would be the issue. I wouldn't imagine it would be too painful, considering they (apparently) feel a need to shed salary.

I'm right there with you. Before I saw this thread, I replied to a post in the Major Leagues forum, espousing something like this... "I think that you make a similar deal - take Pederson for a year to get Stripling. Stripling is interesting and Pederson isn't exactly a scrub sitting on the bench - in fact he could turn out to be an asset that you can use or flip at the deadine."

I agree with your idea here but I have no clue what we could trade that the Dodgers would actually want. The major idea of this trade was to salary dump Joc, Stripling was just a minor part of the deal. I think that you make a similar deal - take Pederson for a year to get Stripling. Stripling is interesting and Pederson isn't exactly a scrub sitting on the bench - in fact he could turn out to be an asset that you can use or flip at the deadine.

I'd be all over that if I was one of their rivals. I have no sympathy for those players who regularly pulled that crap and are going to skate off scot free. Obviously Bregman and Altuve are mentioned the most (along with Beltran), but have their been others accused of the cheating? There's a lot of options for mocking songs. Ace of Base, The Sign is another one. I like that one. You could even have some local band cover it with mocking lyrics... "I stole the signs, used electronic eyes, I stole the signs"

Curse of a small market team in today's MLB economic landscape. I personally would rather have a team with a bunch of bounce-back candidates than one with a bunch of guys that have nothing to bounce back to. I am not disagreeing with you. It just feels like half of the roster could be described that way, which is funny when you're talking about a playoff team from the prior year...