beekay414

1) Nobody said Archer was an ace. 2) Nobody said Burnes was a "maybe" #3. I've fairly clearly said he was a 3 with a shot at being a #2. 3) How are you getting 3 above average pitches for Burnes? His FB and Curve are above average pitches with his slider having a shot at being above average (meaning it's not there yet). His change is a get me over pitch so it's not a true 4 pitch mix. 4) Archer's slider is elite. You can't downplay that. He has a true out pitch which is something Burnes still lacks. Burnes is a good prospect, no doubt, but he's not an untouchable type. You guys also realize that overpaying a free agent hinders us far more than giving up prospects, right? You can always purge the MLB team to replenish the system and take a shot later down the line but an albatross contract can kill a small market franchise by severely limiting flexibility.

If the team signs Arietta or Cobb, they surrender their 4th rounder ... the round Burnes was drafted in two years ago. That's on top of the $100+ million contract. So free agency is not the be all/end all either. I think they will probably sign a free agent (losing that pick) and make a trade (losing a haul of prospects), and posters here will be upset about both. But it will position this team to be a contender for the next 4 years, which is why you have a farm system. Exactly. The sole purpose of a farm system isn't just to develop talent. You also use that talent to add proven MLB talent. Stearns has given us no reason to think he doesn't know what he's doing in the trade market. If he feels comfortable with a deal, we should as well. Again, people forget Burnes was an advanced college arm. His success vs minor league bats isn't surprising. However, his HR/FB rate isn't sustainable either. If we deal him, it's capitalizing on his likely elevated value. He's not a TOR arm. Never was.

Send me to the Nut House. Baseball Reference puts Archer's WAR at 1.8 for 2016, and 1.2 for 2017. If that's an ace, what does that make Zach Davies, who's WAR the past two years per B-R is 5.2 and that number doesn't even include his +0.4 WAR he got as a hitter in 2017 thanks in large part to his league leading 14 sacrifice bunts? Don't think his ability to get bunts down have something to do with Davies having a splendid .633 winning percentage? Think again. That's winning baseball and part of the reason Davies is so underappreciated. BR's analytics are bad. FG blows BR out of the water with true value.

This is an assumption by you that Tampa would only ask for this. They very well could have little or no interest in Santana, but instead just want 3-4 of our better prospects. Or expect Santana/Burnes/Woodruff and another talent. Until a trade actually happens, it's really hard to say pro or con. The exact details are what matters. I still don't lose sleep over that deal.

The thing about that 13 fWAR is it's based on FIP, which is obviously going to make Archer look really good because of the high strikeout and low walk rates. The problem is he gives up a lot of hard contact, so when hitters do actually hit him, it's a lot harder for the defense to actually make a play and convert it into an out. Over the last three years he's 5th out of 110 qualified starters in percentage of hard contact Compare that to 42nd out of 110 in hard contact rate from 2012-14. That's still in the bottom half but at least you could manage that with the strikeouts he was able to get. That's not going to be calculated in FIP. His soft contact rate dropped to a career low 13.9% in 2017. So his FIP is going to be excellent which means his WAR is going to be excellent which makes him look like an ace or at the very least an extremely valuable, high quality #2 starter on a great contract. The problem is he hasn't pitched like that the last two years. So the question is, do you want to pay the price of an ace/high quality #2 starter and hope he gets back to actually pitching like that or are you wary that the guy the past two years is the new Archer and while still valuable, is not going to be worth the insane price tag that Tampa is likely going to put on him? That's the thing...we're not paying the price for an ace. Santana and Burnes doesn't get you an ace. We're paying for that high quality cheap starter with swing and miss stuff. Also, you have to equate for changing leagues. Going from the AL to the NL isn't anything to write off. He won't be pitching against the AL East offenses anymore.

I mean, Archer has posted a 13.0 fWAR over the last 3 seasons, which would put him at #8 in baseball over that span, and hes making, on average, less than $9 Million per season through the next 4 years of his contract. Saying you wouldn't trade Corbin Burnes or Brandon Woodruff for that type of production is just lunacy.

If Archer keeps serving up homers as he has the last two years, 57 combined, he is being overrated as an ace. The strikeout numbers are nice, but back to back 4 ERA seasons isn't top of the rotation production. Gutting our farm system to get Zach Davies like results would suck. Maybe Archer can get over his gohper ball issues and get back to the low 3 ERA pitcher he once was, but maybe he won't. 1) Quit using ERA to judge pitching. 2) 39 of the 57 were solo shots so they were minimized in impact. You can interpret HR rate however you want but there are a variety of factors that lead to it. 3) Both Darvish and Arrieta posted similar HR/9 rates as Archer. It's the nature of the beast with modern MLB hitting approaches. You're going to give up long balls. It's how you minimize the rest of the game that matters. 4) Archer was better than both Darvish and Arrieta this last season.

Here's the thing, all Burnes has done is perform to an "Ace" level. Hendriks for the Cubs was never supposed to be a #3 much less Cy Young a cpl years back. Guys with Ace ceilings are pitching in a bullpen for Arizona who never produced to where Burnes is. The thought process of the Pitching coach improving Archer yet, it would seem that doesnt include an ability to improve Burnes from being just a #3? Or how about Woodruff rising to a #3? (if not better stats imo) Im amazed honestly that Archer is 29. What is Arrieta? 30? The decline happened and will continue with him. Archer whos declined in impactful stats, now enters the age Arrieta's decline began. My complaint with Archer now adds age. This isnt a Yelich addition in the begginging of prime age who's ceiling is yet to be determined. But 29yr old Archer who typically would have reached his ceiling and crested that at this stage...which maybe thats why a few concerning impactful stats are declining. Burnes was an advanced college pitcher. He should produce the way he has against lesser competition. Still doesn't change what his MLB ceiling is.

In a way, I agree. You don't offer a blank check for him but you don't let Corbin Burnes hold you back from acquiring him either.

Prospect hugging...brewerfan members are experts at it. Crazy how some see the value of having good, young players making next to nothing for multiple years. Crazy how some value true MLB production for next to nothing. For what he produces, Archer makes peanuts.

...and some of "y'all" are massively overrating Archer. Not a chance. 4 years, $33.7 Million for a bonafide workhorse and all its going to cost is a surplus OF who can't field and a MOR prospect with fliers? Yeah, we can play the what if game all day but the one thing you can't deny is Archer is always on the mound.

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

Braun certainly had a HoF peak but the longevity threshold is not something he'll hit. He's sitting around 40 fWAR right now and, IIRC, the HoF threshold is somewhere closer to 60 fWAR.

I like Burnes as much as the next guy but he's not an ace. His safe bet is a #3 starter who eats innings with the potential to, perhaps, someday be a #2 starter. Yeah, he's likely a safe prospect but he's still that...a prospect. Plus, I don't think you guys really have to worry about losing him due to HH19 saying that once the Rays added Burnes to the conversation, DS backed off. Here's the question...would you rather the package be Santana, Burnes and A ball fliers or Santana, Ortiz, and top 30 depth (think guys like Ponce, Erceg, Pennington, Peralta, etc)? Because, if you remove Burnes, you're stuck giving up more on the back end of the trade. I think I'd rather have more chances at hitting on depth than I would worrying about losing one guy. Especially considering Burnes' ceiling isn't a TOR type ceiling.

Well said. I'm more than okay giving up the prospects for Archer. You're not going to find that level of production for what he's getting paid. It's more than worth it as a small market chasing big dreams.

I wouldn't touch that contract even if they attached Pavin Smith and Jon Duplantier.

Yep. You would think by now that Stearns would get the benefit of the doubt but I guess there will always be "those fans." I mean, how many deals has Stearns really "lost?" You can say Khris Davis but we traded him for low level guys who are still developing so we truly don't know that deal yet. Maldy? All of his trades below... ~traded Francisco Rodriguez for Manny Pina & Javier Betancourt ~traded Cy Sneed for Jonathan Villar ~traded Luis Sardinas for Ramon Flores ~traded Adam Lind for Carlos Herrera, Daniel Missaki & Freddy Peralta ~traded Jason Rogers for Trey Supak and Keon Broxton ~traded Trevor Seidenberger for Rymer Liriano ~traded Jean Segura & Tyler Wagner for Chase Anderson, Aaron Hill, Isan Diaz & Cash ~traded Khris Davis for Bubba Derby and Jacob Nottingham ~traded Aaron Hill for Wendell Rijo and Aaron Wilkerson ~traded Jonathan Lucroy & Jeremy Jeffress for Lewis Brinson, Luis Ortiz & Ryan Cordell ~traded Will Smith for Phil Bickford & Andrew Susac ~traded Tyler Thornburg for Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Josh Pennington & Yeison Coca ~traded Drew Gagnon & Martin Maldonado for Jett Bandy ~traded Damien Magnifico for Oliver Drake (basically) ~traded Garrett Cooper for Tyler Webb ~traded Ryan Cordell for Anthony Swarzak ~traded Tayler Scott for Jeremy Jeffress ~traded Eric Hanhold for Neil Walker ~traded Lewis Brinson, Monte Harrison, Isan Diaz & Jordan Yamamoto for Christian Yelich That's one hell of a track record for people to actually doubt him lol

Braun, full no trade clause. Cain, full no trade clause at least for this year and even without one, it's not like we were going to sign him just to trade him in June. Yelich, see Cain. So unless they're actually serious about moving Braun to 1st full time, in which case Thames and/or Aguilar is on the chopping block, where is Santana going to play. And yeah, they can move them around but they're not going to be considered full time players, so how happy are they going to be with that? Sorry if I don't see rainbows and sunshine all the time but getting value for Santana got quite a bit harder than it was 24 hours ago and when reports came out earlier in the offseason about the market for Santana being cool to begin with, I'm not exactly optimistic that we're going to get good value for him. Yeah, people said the same thing about Yelich due to him "wanting out" of Miami. In baseball, you pay for cost controlled players, period. Will we get a haul? No. We never were going to. He's a bad fielding OF more suited for DH. Are we going to get fair value? Absolutely. Why? David Stearns is our GM. He's not going to trade him for less than fair value. That much is certain.

Eh, as Brad Ford pointed out, I just think it's positioning by the Brewers' brass to keep Santana's value up. It's always about leverage and value with these guys IMO. Hard to keep leverage up when nobody believes it. Wouldn't be buying it for a second if I was another team. We'll get value for Domingo.

Eh, as Brad Ford pointed out, I just think it's positioning by the Brewers' brass to keep Santana's value up. It's always about leverage and value with these guys IMO.

Because starting pitching is more valuable? We've got back of the bullpen options. Hader and Knebel are going to be lights out. We need better starting pitching so we don't have to overuse the back of the bullpen like we did last year.

Yep. We got 3 fWAR out of the duo last year. Likely won't happen again but I can easily see it being in the 1.5-2 fWAR range again this year (basically taking away Thames' hot start worth of fWAR). Do we get to take away an equally long not-so-hot period too then? You can't cherry pick. I wasn't cherry picking. I was playing it safe. I'm in support of the platoon. Getting 3 fWAR out of a roughly $5 Million investment in 2017 is nothing to sneeze at. Even if they don't do that again, they are a fairly safe bet for the range I pointed out. Nothing negative intended in the post lol.

Yep. We got 3 fWAR out of the duo last year. Likely won't happen again but I can easily see it being in the 1.5-2 fWAR range again this year (basically taking away Thames' hot start worth of fWAR).

I mean, I can see the appeal in Kipnis. If he rebounds, he's worth far more than what he's paid. He made a lot more soft contact last year which lead to a much lower BABIP and line drive rate and, as a result, his production tailed off.

That's ludicrous. Both are multiple WAR players under long term team control. Clevinger isn't pulling Santana and Burnes or Knebel. Not a chance.