Lathund

Yelich would get 10/5 rights (i.e a full on trade clause) early on during the extension years anyway. So a no-trade clause would essentially affect only the first 3½ years of the deal, the years where the Brewers would most want him here anyway. Which is not to say it has no impact; maybe the situation changes fast and the Brewers would be looking to trade him early, who knows. But trading the last few years of the contract wouldn't have happened without Yelich's approval, with or without a NTC. When both player and team are eager for an extension, as it seems was the case here, things may be different. But normally things like opt-outs, NTC and such are things that affect the $ amount too. So an opt-out is generally a bad thing for the team, but having that opt-out or NTC could also mean lowering the AAV of the deal and be attractive to some teams. Which to me is incredibly short-sighted, but it's not like I know the first thing about running a team.

Position player starting, avoid opening day starter curse entirely.

So from piecing together the various Twitter posts, it would appear that the next two guaranteed years (14m+15m) are the same, with 7 years added on beyond that (Age 30-age 36 seasons), and the total value of those 9 years is ~$215m. So you could view it as either 7 years $186m ($26.6m AAV) or 6 years ~$171m ($28.5m). Or look at it from from where we are now, which is 9 years ~$215m or $24m AAV. Either way, I'm happy with it. My heart is 100% onboard. My brain is mostly onboard, but the small reservations I have are nowhere near enough to make me anything other than very happy by hearing this news.

You'd think that Rengifo doesn't make a ton of sense, but obviously the Dodgers disagree. They were, after all, about to send Stripling and Pederson to the Angels in exchange for, among others, Rengifo. So trading Stripling for an infielder is clearly something they're fine with.

Burnes looking really sharp. It's just ST of course, but retiring Muncy, Bellinger, Pollock (And then Smith, Lux and Beaty) in order is still encouraging.

So in an ideal world, this is what I'd like to do with a lineup: #1: Top 3 hitter on the team, with high OBP #2: Best hitter on the team, well rounded, with OBP and power. #3: 4th best hitter on the team. Not a low-OBP guy #4: Top 3 hitter on the team. Power focus. #5: 5th best hitter. Power Focus #6-9: 6th to 9th best hitters (Batting the pitcher 8th can be a good idea depending on the rest of the team, especially top of the order. But we'll leave that for now; benefits are very marginal even in the right situation). With the caveat that #6 sees the bases loaded *a lot* more often than any other position. Soo... Braun? It's hard to properly translate that for the Brewers. Having 2018 Cain makes it easier, since then he'd fit the leadoff perfectly. Could make arguments for Hiura as a #2, #3 or #4 hitter. Smoak in 2017-2018 form could also concievably fit the profile for any spot 1-5. If Braun can stave of father time another year, he also fits in multiple places. Narvaez walks and hits for power too, so works in several spots. But that's really a good problem to have tbh. The more even and rounded your lineup is, the less batting order matters.

I'm for having Yelich at the 3 spot, ideally with two runners on base. So, I'd go Sogard, Cain, Yelich against lefties, maybe go Holt, Cain, Yelich against righties. It drove me crazy to see Thames batting leadoff or second so often - wasted a lot of power. If you want to maximize opportunities with runners on, 4th (Highest average # of runners on per page) and 5th (Most opportunities with multiple runners on) are where you put Yelich. Which is not a good idea, because you waste his on-base ability for the hitters who end up in front of him and he loses 35-50 PAs compared to 2nd. Part of why that is, is because when batting 3rd there is only one possible configuration (For the 1st inning ofc) that gets you 2 runners on, and of course no way to get 3. For the 5th spot to have 2 runners on, you "only" need a 500 OBP (And avoiding double plays.. and HRs I suppose) in front of him which happens relatively often. The 3rd spot has the disadvantage of seeing 2 outs with nobody on more often than any other spot in the order, which negates a lot of the extra RBI oportunities he gets from moving from 2nd to 3rd. Anyway, my take is still the same as it was earlier in the thread; Batting order matters very little beyond the basics of hitting your best hitters early and your worst late. But small benefit or not, every type of simulation I've seen (Whether using actual batters, clones, hypothetical batters, stereotypical batting position batters etc) says the same thing; Your best hitter, especially if it's someone with both power and OBP, should bat 2nd. If your best hitter has the profile of a Mike Moustakas or Javy Baez (i.e power but low OBP) maybe you should bat him 4th. And if your team is stacked with great hitters 1-5, consider having your best hitter lead off. But the quality of team part is relevant for other situations too. Let's look at batting your best hitter (We'll call him Christian Yelich) 3rd; who do you put in front of him? If it's your 2nd and 3rd best (or 2nd and 4th etc) hitters then it's no big deal; Yelich 2nd would still be better, but the difference is miniscule. You put your best hitters 1-3 (or 1-4 really) and you'll see good results, no matter the order. You could make the case for one inferior hitter but with high OBP early on. But it gets really iffy with two. Sogard, Cain and Holt (And Urias, among the more hopeful) are the guys I've seen mentioned in a 1-2 of that ilk (Also frequently Hiura, but that I have less issues with). Now a lot can happen, Sogard can have another 115 wRC+ type of year and others can underperform making him a top 3-4 hitter. Same with Cain. But it's very likely that we'd have the 6th-7th hitter in the lineup batting 2nd. Now consider the effect of that. IIRC each spot lower in the order loses ~.11 PA/G. Over 162 games that's ~18 PAs. Moving from 7th to 2nd will see 90 extra PAs; 6th to 2nd ~72 extra. This is in addition to the fact that 4 of your 5 best hitters (Assuming the last one is leading off) would each lose ~18 PAs each. 72 more PAs to a worse hitter, and 72 fewer to your best ones. Because the leadoff spot isn't just about on base ability. Overall offensive contribution matters. Hitting for power and hitting HRs matters even with the bases empty. And much of the non-analytical theorizing about batting orders is based only on that 1st inning, beyond that point batters could come up in any situation. Cleanup hitter can lead off, leadoff hitter can face the bases loaded. Getting too cute with attempts to set up situationally favorable matchups can go too far. There is a lot of value in simply getting your best hitters to the plate as often as possible.

While the Brewers probably had interest in Severino as part of a deal, I don't think he's someone the Yankees would have included. Not so much because he's too valuable or untouchable, more that he's the wrong kind of valuable for them to trade. Trading him for Hader would just open up a big hole on their roster.

When you make an argument you call it evidence or FACTS. When others make an argument you call it excuses. Looking at things beyond raw ERA, and taking the size of the sample into account, is not excuses, it's necessary. K/BB keeps getting brought up because it's both one of the most predictive stats we have, and it's one that stabilizes much earlier than most others. ERA is the very opposite of that, because of things like defense, sequencing and BABIP. So when I'm comparing his 81 IP SP sample with a 46 IP RP sample I look at the stats that we know from research are the most reliable in such small samples. When that just gets dismissed as "making excuses", "yadda yadda" and just overall a very negative and dismissive tone, I don't really see much of a point in continuing this, at the risk of both getting nowhere, and the risk that I start adapting the same tone. We'll just have to see what the future holds. As for clancy, bringing him up isn't the argument you think it is. Firstly where he brings up K/BB (Or more specifically BB > K) is usually for hitters, where the statement "nice stat, doesn't project much" is actually somewhat applicable. It tells us the player has plate discipline, but that's only a part of what makes a hitter; for pitchers it's much more meaningful. But no, Clancy's issue isn't the reliance on K/BB on either side of the ball, among the surface level stats readily available for the minors it's a good start. The issue is looking at results without context (sound familiar?) and factoring in external factors / wishful thinking into it. Cam Roegner became our #1 prospect on the strength of a 2.16 ERA (With a 5.9 K/9) that he put up against opposition 2 years younger than him on average; an advanced 4-year College pitcher with some batted ball luck. Good ERA (irrespective of age or level or peripherals) by a late-round pick (Or otherwise compelling story or unconventional profile) = Clancy guy. So his issue in this case is more that he *doesn't* trust K/BB fully, in addition to a lack of context. Whereas those of us looking at K/BB for Adrian Houser look at the fact that he's doing that against MLB hitters, and that he's equally good at it starting and relieving.

When you make an argument you call it evidence or FACTS. When others make an argument you call it excuses. Looking at things beyond raw ERA, and taking the size of the sample into account, is not excuses, it's necessary. K/BB keeps getting brought up because it's both one of the most predictive stats we have, and it's one that stabilizes much earlier than most others. ERA is the very opposite of that, because of things like defense, sequencing and BABIP. So when I'm comparing his 81 IP SP sample with a 46 IP RP sample I look at the stats that we know from research are the most reliable in such small samples. When that just gets dismissed as "making excuses", "yadda yadda" and just overall a very negative and dismissive tone, I don't really see much of a point in continuing this, at the risk of both getting nowhere, and the risk that I start adapting the same tone. We'll just have to see what the future holds. As for clancy, bringing him up isn't the argument you think it is. Firstly where he brings up K/BB (Or more specifically BB > K) is usually for hitters, where the statement "nice stat, doesn't project much" is actually somewhat applicable. It tells us the player has plate discipline, but that's only a part of what makes a hitter; for pitchers it's much more meaningful. But no, Clancy's issue isn't the reliance on K/BB on either side of the ball, among the surface level stats readily available for the minors it's a good start. The issue is looking at results without context (sound familiar?) and factoring in external factors / wishful thinking into it. Cam Roegner became our #1 prospect on the strength of a 2.16 ERA (With a 5.9 K/9) that he put up against opposition 2 years younger than him on average; an advanced 4-year College pitcher with some batted ball luck. Good ERA (irrespective of age or level or peripherals) by a late-round pick (Or otherwise compelling story or unconventional profile) = Clancy guy. So his issue in this case is more that he *doesn't* trust K/BB fully, in addition to a lack of context. Whereas those of us looking at K/BB for Adrian Houser look at the fact that he's doing that against MLB hitters, and that he's equally good at it starting and relieving.

I look at reality. There's a big picture over time showing up from him in A+ to MLB and none of it points to starter. His pitch mix being a good FB 67% and 3 mediocre offerings doesn't point to starter. It's like smoke is billowing out of the guy and your response is, that doesn't have any meaning. I don't have PROOF, but I got a ton of evidence that you don't have. I look at reality. I don't ignore anything. It's a piece of the puzzle and its all weighted accordingly. There's nothing that says he's a starter in the MLB at this point other than MKE forcing him into the rotation when they had no other option. Let me tell you, its incredibly annoying to sit on a mountain of evidence and see someone spit on it, because "they're saying there's a chance." Sit on small odds. Chase the river. Be my guest. He throws two drastically different fastballs (In terms of launch angle, exit velocity, whiff %, location), saying "a good FB 67%" doesn't really convey the picture. So I disagree with the premise, but even then I would say that if you throw "a" pitch 67% of the time that's not just good, but elite (Fangraphs pitch value has it as the 10th best fastball among pitchers with 100+ IP), the rest can be mediocre and you can still have starter stuff. Your "mountain of evidence" includes looking at ERA from Colorado Springs, IP/start in the 2017 Arizona Fall League (Which, in addition to the short starts in general in the AFL pointed out above, was also 16 months after having Tommy John Surgery), using 46 PAs to categorically state he's much worse 3rd time through the order (And with how the Brewers use starters, the fact that he's equally good 2nd time through as 1st should be an argument for, not against, starting). You also point out August 2019 as an example of why he's not a starter, a month where he averaged 5 2/3 IP/start with a 2.54 ERA. Now clearly I know you actually meant September/October, but if you're cherry picking months then I'll take that same liberty. But let's look at September, where batters hit .220/.283/.352 against him. Something that wasn't BABIP-driven (.305), and where he put up the best SO/W ratio of any month. I'll take a .634 OPS against, with an 11.1 K/9 and 2.60 BB/9 any day from my starters. That it, in those 24 innings, happened to result in a (still better than league average) ERA of 4.44 shouldn't be the takeaway. Raw ERA with no regard for context or sample size isn't a good way to evaluate pitchers.

I look at reality. There's a big picture over time showing up from him in A+ to MLB and none of it points to starter. His pitch mix being a good FB 67% and 3 mediocre offerings doesn't point to starter. It's like smoke is billowing out of the guy and your response is, that doesn't have any meaning. I don't have PROOF, but I got a ton of evidence that you don't have. I look at reality. I don't ignore anything. It's a piece of the puzzle and its all weighted accordingly. There's nothing that says he's a starter in the MLB at this point other than MKE forcing him into the rotation when they had no other option. Let me tell you, its incredibly annoying to sit on a mountain of evidence and see someone spit on it, because "they're saying there's a chance." Sit on small odds. Chase the river. Be my guest. He throws two drastically different fastballs (In terms of launch angle, exit velocity, whiff %, location), saying "a good FB 67%" doesn't really convey the picture. So I disagree with the premise, but even then I would say that if you throw "a" pitch 67% of the time that's not just good, but elite (Fangraphs pitch value has it as the 10th best fastball among pitchers with 100+ IP), the rest can be mediocre and you can still have starter stuff. Your "mountain of evidence" includes looking at ERA from Colorado Springs, IP/start in the 2017 Arizona Fall League (Which, in addition to the short starts in general in the AFL pointed out above, was also 16 months after having Tommy John Surgery), using 46 PAs to categorically state he's much worse 3rd time through the order (And with how the Brewers use starters, the fact that he's equally good 2nd time through as 1st should be an argument for, not against, starting). You also point out August 2019 as an example of why he's not a starter, a month where he averaged 5 2/3 IP/start with a 2.54 ERA. Now clearly I know you actually meant September/October, but if you're cherry picking months then I'll take that same liberty. But let's look at September, where batters hit .220/.283/.352 against him. Something that wasn't BABIP-driven (.305), and where he put up the best SO/W ratio of any month. I'll take a .634 OPS against, with an 11.1 K/9 and 2.60 BB/9 any day from my starters. That it, in those 24 innings, happened to result in a (still better than league average) ERA of 4.44 shouldn't be the takeaway. Raw ERA with no regard for context or sample size isn't a good way to evaluate pitchers.

The Athletic had a piece on some of the new Brewers; Lauer, Smoak and Phelps; https://theathletic.com/1613139/2020/02/17/can-some-of-the-brewers-new-acquisitions-bounce-back-and-be-productive/ It talks a bit about how Smoak in 2019 compared to 2018 walked more, struck out less, had a higher exit velocity and hard hit % and still had significantly worse results, and aboutn Phelps and recovery and adjustment after Tommy John Surgery etc. But thought I'd quote some of the stuff about Lauer and his changeup: So perhaps we'll see a different pitch arsenal from him going forward.

Can read Red Sox fans reactions here: They really, really liked the guy. Some of them even seem sadder by him leaving than Mookie...

Indeed. When dealing with small sample sizes, it's better to put ones trust in the stats that need the smallest samples to be reliable. Treating the 100 point difference in BABIP, or a 10% difference in HR/FB%, as meaningful in these tiny SP/RP splits doesn't make for a particularly solid analysis. Maybe we should also only ever use him at home, since his ERA was a full run better there in 2019 than on the road? No, to me everything suggests that Houser should be given opportunities to start until he proves that he can (or can't). The same small-sample splits were being used last year by posters on here as conclusive evidence that Woodruff wasn't a starter. Which is not to say Houser will do as well as Woodruff necessarily, just that nothing in the tiny sample sizes suggests he can't be a starter. Just like they didn't for Woodruff.

Brock Holt \o/ I like that Red Sox fans seem almost universally devastated by not re-signing him, it's a goood sign. This move also further speaks to the concept of trying to avoid the black holes in the lineup. Individually you could point to flaws in almost every infield option the Brewers have, but between Urias, Sogard, Arcia, Gyorko, Holt, Morrison, Healy, Smoak, Braun, Rodriguez, Mathias it's almost certain that they'll man 1B, 3B and SS (I trust in Hiura) competently. Even if it'll take some juggling.

They do. Woodruff and Houser both throw both a lot of 4-seamers and 2-seamers. While there are probably multiple reasons that Woodruff had his breakout, him adding that elite 2-seamer and throwing it 23% of the time probably helped. Houser had perhaps the best sinker in the game, and perhaps should've seen even better results from it. A sinker was one of the pitches they tried with Burnes, but it was abandoned very early on it seems. So they're no strangers to using it. And I think they're smart enough to know when they should and shouldn't encourage it. For example it makes sense that someone like Woodruff who is a low spin rate pitcher focuses less on high 4-seamers, and swap some of them for sinkers. Using the high heat less as a pure swing-and-miss pitch, and more change eye level and keep the batter very uncomfortable and defensive.

Yeah there was a lot of that, both with regards to issues with grip, and with it breaking differently. I don't know whether it applied more to hard slider, or affected those throwing slurves or more cutter-like sliders ("slutter" sounds wrong, however descriptive it may be...), but however prevalent it was it wasn't universal, some sliders were as good as ever. I haven't heard anything about whether the ball will be different again, I don't believe MLB have said anything about it. Whatever issues Burnes had, the slider wasn't one of them. So in his case, it might make sense to double down on it. Will just be interesting to see what pitch(es) will be used to work off it, mostly how to handle lefties. One way to illustrate the differences between facing lefties in righties is this; vs RHB Burnes had a 51 K to 3 BB (Probably fueled by that 58% swing-and-miss rate on that slider). Against LHB it was 19 K to 17 BB. Whatever the approach ends up being, I think Burnes is just too good of a pitcher to not bounce back and have at least a solid year. I even expect him to be among our best pitchers in 2020.

No, but we also realise the two are not the same. He wasn't very good before going to Korea the first time, and not very good *in* Korea that time. His second stint in Korea he changed his repertoire, and the results changed with it; More Ks, fewer BB, fewer hits allowed, fewer HRs. The KBO is worse than MLB, but he didn't go from a AAAA player to the best pitcher in KBO only by virtue of facing easier opposition. He got better, a lot better. Exactly what kind of MLB pitcher that translates to is hard to say, but I don't think it requires drinking any kool-aid to believe he can be a good pitcher for us this year. That doesn't mean being the kind of 6.5 IP/start sub-3 ERA pitcher he was in Korea the last two years, but I think there's a very good chance he's at least going to be the kind of pitcher Anderson and Davies have been over the last few years, probably a safe bet that he'll throw more innings too. And for a lot less money. The kind of season Woodruff had might be hard to match, but I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that Burnes will have a good season. He's just too good not to. He wasn't good last year, mainly throwing too many meatball fastballs, and not finding success with the curve. But that slider was still a fantastic weapon. While Burnes has a fantastic ability at missing bats with all of his pitches, that slider stands out. Hitters swung and missed on that slider 58% of the time he threw it; now I don't know of a way to directly compare, but looking around at players with good sliders it was by far the highest I could find. Scherzer at 50% was the second highest I found, followed by Will Smith, Castillo and Hader all around 46-47%. Guys like deGrom, Cole, Kershaw, Verlander all cluster between 35-40%. While the above is one pitch, and is just a part of what makes a pitcher, missing bats is still a hugely important part. Burnes is one of the best in the game at it. His issue has been that when he doesn't miss bats, the ball gets hit hard. Part of that is location and sequencing, that can improve. But it was also a chunk of bad luck in addition to that; he got hit hard, but also got unlucky with the result of those hard hit balls. So while it may look strange to say that a 9 ERA pitcher is only some small tweaks away from being a league average (or better) pitcher I still believe that to be the case. And that even the way he did pitch in 2019 was like a 5 ERA type of pitcher. I've been saying the same thing since even early last seaon, and while the turnaround is taking longer than I expected (which I think could well be in part psychological after the way he was shelled early on) I expect to see good results sooner rather than later.

It's almost impossible to predict the division for me tbh. I expect a bloodbath with 4 teams between like 88 and 82 wins. They could be in any order and it wouldn't be at all surprising. Brewers 86 Cubs 86 Reds 84 Cardinals 82 Pirates 68

They nailed it last year, but if I remember correctly ZIPs and Steamer were substantially off. As was PECOTA in 2018. Important to remember that these are PROJECTIONS RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS, and not PREDICTIONS. Fixed Honestly I don't know what's so hilarious about there being what looks like a 1/1000 (or 0.1%) chance of them winning 90 games. If the Pirates have a lot of guys play to their 90th percentile projections, unexpected contributions from NRIs and prospects, the rest of the division has players underperform, the Pirates get lucky with sequencing etc. then yeah they could get that kind of record. It's so extremely unlikely, hence the 1/1000 likelyhood. But it's not impossible. Most people just struggle with probabilistic reasoning, hence a lot of the misunderstandings about projections. Projections are also far from random number generators. They will always struggle to accurately project team records, because even if they are completely spot on about every players level of performance (And individual performance is what they do; team performance is essentially just adding them up), team projections could still be way off due to injuries, playing time, trades (Trades alone are a big reason why the best teams always win more than projected and the worst teams win fewer games. That's in addition to the inherent conservatism) and sequencing.

Yeah I'd look more at the aspects that don't factor in playing time, which for PECOTA would be DRC+ (hitting) and DRA (pitching). So while PECOTA team projections aren't out yet, the spreadsheet with individual projections is. Quite interesting to see that it projects Luis Urias as having the 3rd most WARP among the Brewers position players, with above-average offense. And that it's not a big Hiura believer; which is also pointed out in one of their articles about surprisingly highly or lowly projected players. In Hiuras case it's a combination of on the one hand the sophomore slump effect that projection systems will have by nature and which I would imagine is stronger for someone like Hiura with a grand total of only ~1200 professiona PAs to project from. And on the other hand the very high whiff rate (and thus K rate)and shifting profile; basically it doesn't believe that he can maintain both the power and the contact. On the pitching side what stands out is that PECOTA really likes Woodruff. Like a lot. Projects him as the 18th most valuable pitcher. Hader, Peralta, Lauer and Burnes make up the rest of the top 5 in WARP. Suter, Claudio, Black, Rasmussen are all relievers who grade out as well above average on their pitching metric DRA-. That Hader ranks highest there with a 59 DRA- is probably not a surprise. Or that Woodruff is second of the players on the team with 83. But more surprising perhaps that Jay Jackson (Since projections, like ZiPS does too for example, includes players who were there at the end of the season) would have been 2nd with 79 DRA-. And yet more surprising would be the third lowest DRA- on the team; I don't think he'd be one of the first 10 guesses for anyone; J.P Feyereisen. Also interesting is how the projections differ on Josh Lindblom; ZiPS and Steamer has him around a league-average starter with a solid ~2 WAR. PECOTA has him at almost exactly replacement level. Anyway, hard to get an overview from the spreadsheets really, so looking forward to Monday. But from a glance I would think that while ZiPS and Steamer projected the Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers and Reds all within a few wins of eachother, PECOTA look to be lower on the Brewers.

It has a lot of incentives in it. Which doesn't change the fact that it's very team friendly, but not quite to the extreme degree as the initial $3m AAV would suggest. With 32 starts and 200+ IP, incentives max out at an extra $10m annually. Between 25 and 30 starts and 160 IP is $5.5m. I also would have thought they could do better at a first glance. But I also haven't looked at Graterol or the Twins in any real detail.

For the Red Sox I like the move if the motivation behind it was right. If it was because (1) they were certain that Mookie was intent on testing free agency and weren't going to sign an extension no matter what (Or wasn't going to unless it dwarfed Trout's), (2) they did not believe their team could be competitive in 2020 and (3) making this move wouldn't hurt their chances of signing him in FA too much, then the deal made sense for them. They get a good young outfielder for 5 years, and a very intriguing pitching prospect, albeit seemingly a high variance one. And, assuming the reports of Dodgers taking on ~half Price's salary are accurate, save $43m allowing them to reset the luxury tax penalties. But if these things aren't true, and it was entirely driven by a desire to get under the luxury tax treshold, then it's a terrible look for them. Especially if this means they've cost themselves the chance of signing him in FA; I don't believe they have, he'll go to the highest bidder. But it's not impossible. The first two tiers of the luxury tax are entirely financial, and even when maxing out those penalties the revenue of teams like the Dodgers, Cubs, Yankees and Red Sox still means they're probably more profitable than the Pirates are with their rebuilding non-existent payroll. It's still good and smart for teams like that to reset the penalties in years where it makes sense. But you get to that point by having a year where much of your squad are home-grown pre-arb (or early arb) players enabling you to still spend a lot of money to be highly competitive while still staying under the tax for that year. Like the Dodgers right now for instance. You do it by not paying mediocre players big money, not by letting Mookie Betts go for financial reasons. From the Dodgers point of view, it's a good deal. It's not great from a value standpoint, but it makes them a much better team here and now, and that's what matters for them right now. They've very smartly built themselves a perennial contender, with I don't know how many consecutive division titles, back to back WS appearances etc. And they have a great prospect pipeline still. So even going for it with a negative value trade on paper doesn't really matter; it doesn't set them back notably for the future, and it makes them better now. Maeda is a solid pitcher on a very team friendly deal. Price's contract is terrible, but he is still the better pitcher of the two. Heck, if he can stay healthy $15m AAV isn't bad at all. Pederson is also a good player, but he's not Mookie. Team control is the same for both.

That would be a surprise since Erceg hasn't hit since rookie ball, has he? Grisham was in that same boat. Good first year, then scuffled... until he broke out. Grisham in his worst year was still an above-average hitter (105 wRC+); he "didn't hit" in the context of a 1st round pick where more was expected, but he still hit. While offering value on defense and on the basepaths, as well as being young for his level every step of the way. Erceg's wRC+ has been steadily dropping, with a 69 (not nice) in 2019 and 94 in 2018. He's been a worse hitter than Grisham overall, which is troublesome when you're both older as well as playing a premium offense position. .218/.305/.398 is a bad line for a 3B; it's even worse when it comes in one of the most hitter-friendly environments ever. Which is not to say he can't find his way; you can look at someone like Mike Moustakas early MLB years for a similar kind of low BA/low OBP/low K%/low BB% profile that improved to see that it's certainly possible. I just don't think it's accurate to say that he and Grisham have had similar minor league careers. Or that he looks like someone likely to make an impact in 2020. which would make him a surprise contributor if it happens.