Lathund

This is pretty much what I came in here to say. In addition to that, I think the 2020 team (And I don't think they're done, even if I don't expect any huge moves) is good enough to challenge for the division. They could also not, if the wrong players are hurt etc. I just think that they've done a good job of replacing the loss of Moose and Grandal (Though Grandals combination of offense and defense will be missed no matter what), and I like the additions to the rotation. I'd just like to see some more pitching added. I'm a big Houser fan, I believe Lindblom will do well. I've also maintained that Burnes is much, much better than the results he produced last year, as is Peralta. I'm optimistic about the pitching; I would just like there to be more of a contingency plan in place, or at least one more pitcher ahead of them on the depth charge to start the year.

I'd be interested in what a deal for Archer could look like. It'd essentially be a $9.25m commitment ($9m in 2020, $250k buyout of a $11m salary in 2021), and with not much money on the books for 2020 it's very doable. Archers value is probably at an all time low, and the Pirates are clearly sellers. Take on the entire salary, and the prospect return will be minimal. Now the big question is of course how good he'll be. I didn't watch enough of him to have any inkling about why his numbers with the Pirates are the way they are, if he can rebound from it or if it's the start (or continuation really) of decay. If the evaluators in the Brewers FO think there's some upside, then a sensible deal could be made. I'd rather see the payroll budget spent elsewhere, but at this point I'm not sure where that would be.

"#Reds officially announce singing of OF Nicholas Castellanos to a 4-year, $64-million deal with a player option for a fifth & opt-outs after 2020 & 2021. Castellanos will make $16 MM in 2020, 2022 & 2023, $14 MM in 2021. $20 MM option in 2024 with $2 MM buyout" So that's two opt outs and a player option. From a team point of view it's quite a risky structure. If he really is the player he was with the Cubs (I would prefer to look at more than just 2 months) then he's just going to opt out. Reds still get a comp pick, so in that scenario it's a 1/16m deal + comp pick which is pretty good. But that's really the best case scenario here. The opt-outs limit the upside on the deal, he won't remain a Red if he's a good player. He'll still only be 32 for that potential 5th year, but a player option at the end of a contract isn't great for a team. Someone brought up that this was Stearns-like earlier (Albeit without the player option being known at the time), but I don't really see the resemblance; Brewers haven't really used much in the way of opt-outs or player options have they? With Moose and Grandal it was essentially a forgone conclusion that they'd be declined, and just a way to defer some money. But I suppose including all of that is what made the signing possible, and surely brought the AAV down some. Castellanos gets a good amount of guaranteed money, with the potential to earn more if his breakout is real. Reds get him for an amount that's alright for the ~2.5 WAR player he has been these past four years. I also expect the Reds to go back to mediocrity or worse very soon; the way they've acquired this roster (Along with the moves they made last year) makes for a very short "window" unless something unexpected happens. Overall the Reds have improved from last year, for sure. But they were far behind to begin with, I don't really see them as favorites. I think a 4-way bloodbath is more likely, with the teams all clustered around 85 wins. Could be in any order. Could well be decided by who stays healthiest.

It's an interesting profile. 96th percentile in exit velocity allowed (As in among the lowest), 98th percentile for hard hit %. But 1st percentile for K%, 8th percentile for spin rate. Brewers seem to be voerrepresented among the low EV pitchers. Maybe just a coincidence, but looking over the lowest EVs against over the last several years you find more Brewers than you'd expect. Jeffress and Suter show up near the top repeatedly. Albers and Claudio are good at it as well, and you find guys like Soria and Black were top 10 at least one year. Again it might not be the specific thing they are looking at, but when you have a value-focused FO it very well might be. Find players who are undervalued because of their skillset (Or rather what their skillset lacks; the high spin rate 4-seamers up in the zone that generate whiffs), but who are really good at what they do. As a sidenote it's quite interesting to see what happens when you combine the ability to limit contact with high velocity; you get the profile of a Brandon Woodruff or Adrian Houser who both limit hard contact while also striking batters out at a good clip. And that Woodruff unlocked a lot of his success when he started throwing the 2-seamer (and gained velo), when that's something that the game generally has moved away from. But it's also about maximizing what you've got; if your spin rate is poor, don't rely so much on the high 4-seamers and instead throw where the low spin rate is actually a benefit. The back-and-forth battle between pitchers and hitters, the trends in their approach etc. is fascinating. I hope to see more of the judicious zigging when other zag from the Brewers; follow the data where it takes you and by all means jump aboard the strikeout bandwagon, but also look to find the players who don't fit the mould but are good anyway, and try to figure out what it is that makes their stuff work. I believe we'll see more of this, with a lot of pitchers with deception and wonky mechanics that the Brewers have targeted. Anyway, that went off topic; went down a rabbit hole on baseballsavant as I looked up Morin's batted ball profile. Again I wouldn't necessarily put too much weight on a minor league signing or assuming he'll have any impact, but I do think it's part of a wider trend. Looking forward to seeing if that's accurat.e

The second best pitcher whose name can be spelled with those exact letters.

In April and even May of 2019 people were making the same arguments for how Brandon Woodruff was clearly a reliever, based on his splits up to that point. Maybe Houser is better suited as a reliever, maybe he isn't, but 80 IP as a starter and 40 as a reliever isn't enough to say really. He struggled in those first few starts when he was moved between the rotation and pen and even AAA, but was fine when moved to the rotation full time, even if the starts were kept short. Looking at the splits you can see that as a starter he has a much better K/BB ratio, but also a 70 point higher BABIP. I think it's safe to say he's better than a 4.57 ERA as a starter going forward, and worse than a 1.47 ERA in the 'pen; samples are just too small to take ERA as gospel. With a 5 pitch repertoire, he should be given the chance to see if he can stick as a starter. Or at the very least the Brewers 5-inning starter type.

The splits of 2017 for the Astros were crazy. I live in Houston. They were a far better road team than a home team, where they were "cheating". For what it's worth. Thee article linked below discusses the contents of the MLB report, including this regarding the cameras: "The first revelation from MLB’s investigation is that the Astros were employing the live feed from the regular center field camera installed in every ballpark, rather than a custom-installed camera built into Minute Maid for the purposes of signal theft. The source of the camera is important because it means the Astros had the same video feed available on the road as they did at home; their sign-stealing was portable. (The only other element they needed was a way to signal the hitter at the plate, and according to MLB, they tried everything from whistling to yelling to the infamous trash can abuse. They could have employed another method for away games to be a little more discreet.) The portability of the Astros’ scheme helps to shed some light on something I noticed in an article in November: several indicators of their plate discipline performance improved at the same time for both their home and road games, to historic and unprecedented degrees. MLB’s investigation makes no explicit mention of whether the Astros stole signs on the road, but the lack of any need to be at their home ballpark at least opens up that possibility." https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/56411/astros-sign-stealing-hinch-luhnow/ But I guess your singling out of Mike Fiers makes more sense now that you seemingly don't even seem to believe they're cheating, judging by the quotation marks. I can't quite fathom the reaction that after a big cheating scandal breaks, people are more upset about the person who revealed it than about the cheating. Of course Fiers could have spoken out about it sooner, but to be more upset at him than the people who *didn't speak out at all* is absurd.

I think JD will age pretty well (The statcast data really likes him, with career highs in exit velocity, barrels, hard hit % in 2019), but that's a lot of money to give to someone who will turn 35 during the first of those 4 guaranteed years. I think this is a deal that will end up being pretty decent value for the Twins in a vacuum, but also too big of a deal (As in % of what their likely payroll will be) to make sense for a team like the Twins (or Brewers for that matter). He needs to be even better than he has any realistic chance of being to truly be worth spending almost 20% of your payroll on. I, perhaps surprisingly, still like this better than most of the big FA contracts signed so far this winter, even if on an irrational basis.

I think the reactions come from Moose's high HR totals and some memorable clutch hits making people think Moose is a much better than he really is. He isn't a great hitter. He's an above-average hitter who gets his value from being said above-average hitter while playing an average to above average 3B (And at least a passable 2B). Which also describes Gyorko. But yeah it does seem insane that 100 poor plate appearances, likely injury-related, will make this kind of a difference.

I think the reactions come from Moose's high HR totals and some memorable clutch hits making people think Moose is a much better than he really is. He isn't a great hitter. He's an above-average hitter who gets his value from being said above-average hitter while playing an average to above average 3B (And at least a passable 2B). Which also describes Gyorko. But yeah it does seem insane that 100 poor plate appearances, likely injury-related, will make this kind of a difference.

The problem with this logic is you get to take last years disappointments/underperformances and then compare that to all the 2020 players like we won't have guys be big disappointments. Reality is we will have big disappointments in 2020 once again. Hopefully not to that extent, but there will be. Using that kind of logic always paints the future a lot more pretty than it is. I do think they trimmed off some worthless ABs and will have more average ABs...does that outweigh the above average ABs they are losing? Unknown. Some of them will be disappointments, some players will also perform better than expected. But it also goes both ways; Grandal, Thames and Moose could have terrible 2020s too. Whether you look at just 2019, 3-year averages or projections, I still have a hard time seeing this team not be better than 2019. I don't believe this team will lose any above-average ABs at all, and will in fact gain a lot of them. Offense doesn't worry me at all. But defense is worse, and I still like to see pitching adressed.

2016-2018 Gyorko is basically Mike Moustakas of recent years; 110-ish wRC+, average to above averge defense at 3B. For their careers they're the same hitters (99 wRC+ vs 100). So the only concern is a poor 100 PA sample which is largely BABIP-driven. 100 PA is about a month worth of PAs, nowhere near enough to write someone off completely. Yet losing Moose and replacing him with Gyorko (For probably a lot less than 4/$64m) is apparently the end of the world. I also don't understand the idea proposed earlier in the thread by some that we're somehow much worse offensively than 2019. How? Grandal, Moose and Thames aren't the only players who are off the roster. The 2019 versions of Shaw, Aguilar, Saladino, Perez and Spangenberg won't get any PAs at all. Orlando Arcia and Ben Gamel look to play a lot less than they did. Those guys put up wRC+ of 87, 82, 62, 61, 60, 47 and 7. They were worth -1 fWAR combined (The 0.9 fWAR from Ben Gamel being the only positive; and that was thanks to defense and baserunning). Grandal, Thames, Moustakas were 121, 116 and 113 wRC+. It's not even out of the question that their direct replacements can match that (Narvaez has 122 and 119 wRC+ last two years, Sogard had 115 wRC+ in 2019, and Gyrko averaged 112 from 2016 to 2018, Garcia 112 wRC+, Smoak averaged ~115 wRC+ last three years). It's also possible that they won't of course, Sogard had a bad 2018, Gyrko a bad 2019, but I think that overall the offense was better than last year even before Gyorko signed. Then there's a full season of Hiura to add to that. There will be much, much fewer plate appearances taken by bad hitters, and then impact on the top/middle of the lineup is seriously overstated. This team is a better offensive team than in 2019, and to me it's not even close.

If you're going to be making a stats-only evaluation of prospects, it has to take into account things like age and experience (As proxies for physical development and room for growth) and quality of opposition. Ignoring both that aspect as well as scouting is what gets you Cam Roegner as the #1 overall prospect in ths system ahead of Keston Hiura. Or Tristen Lutz at #38. It wouldn't really bother me if it was at least consistently about the stats, but it isn't that either. Everyone is free to rank prospects in whatever manner they want to, it's just useful to know which rankings are more of a wishlist than an attempt at an objective (as objective as an individual can get) ranking.

Hill is out until midseason, which explains the low treshold and thr quiet market for him. A healthy Hill gets more money than this.

I disagree. Year to year variation is completely normal in baseball. When they make balls they make more than a full seasons worth at a time and I don't think they change every other year like this, even if they did you wouldn't see smooth transitions because they don't start new seasons with new runs of balls, they finish the previous seasons balls. I see no reason to believe anything has changed since the new run of balls started late in 2015. Everything else just looks like normal variations and changes in pitch mixes and hitting styles. The 2017 and 2019 HR rates were very close to each other, there is almost no way that 2018 was using different balls. That is just normal year to year variance that you have seen over the entire history of baseball. I would argue that the 1% drop in HR/FB rate in from 2017 to 2018, when pull % and hard hit % went up and more and more teams were actively trying to hit more HRs at the expense of contact (The same trend which has been going on for a long time) is a rather strong argument that the ball was different. 1% is a lot, and other data would suggest that if anything it should have gone up. But there's not really the need to speculate based on numbers, because we know that the ball *is* different. It shouldn't be, but it is. The 2019 ball is smoother, rounder and has lower seams than the 2018 ball. The ball being "bouncier" also explains a part of (But not all of) the increased average exit velocity. Even MLB admits that the ball is different, with the lower seams having a big impact on drag. So there's the article analysing individual baseballs above. But then you have, for instance, Rob Arthur who looked at drag and could see a difference already very early in the season. Can't find the chart now, but drag remained lower throughout the season. (Until it spiked heavily in the playoffs, which is another interesting subject). The ball has changed since 2015. I haven't suggested the changes are intentional, or planned from year to year, but clearly there is a lot of variance. Is it a case of a slight change in all balls (Due to, for example, different materials being used) with there still being the batch-to-batch and ball-to-ball variation you'd expect, but where there is a general trend in all balls that they fly further? Or is it a case of some individual batches of baseballs in 2019 (And I'd argue 2017, but the articles I've linked don't specifically look at it so I've focused on the 2018-2019 difference) being massively different, which skews the overall numbers? Again, I don't know. But it's clear that regardless of what batters or pitchers are doing differently, drag is lower. Meaning that balls hit with the same exit velocity (And balls account for part of EV changes too) and launch angle under the same conditions fly further in 2019 than they did in 2018. That's separate from the fact that players hit it harder and hit more fly balls to take advantage of the lower drag. Some other articles on the topic; https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/55869/moonshot-mlb-admits-lower-seam-height-caused-the-home-run-surge/ https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/52655/moonshot-the-rocket-ball-is-powering-most-of-the-2019-home-run-spike/ https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/52840/moonshot-the-ball-might-have-caused-increased-exit-velocity-too/ (I don't know if the Athletic and Baseball Prospectus articles are unlocked for non-subscribers, I really hope they are because it's interesting reading)

Well it has an impact, that the pitches lost less velocity from release point to the plate than in the past is how it could be shown pretty conclusively just a week into the season that drag was lower. But we're talking miniscule differences here, only accounting for a fraction of the upticks in fastball velocity. And then only if velocity is measured as the pitch reaches the plate; if it's measured close to the mound, it won't have any impact at all.

DRS is a "raw number." It is not a stat that compares a player to the average at his position. There are components within DRS, such as plus/minus, that compares ranges between players. But at it's "core," DRS is a raw number that provides a calculation for how many run a player prevents defensively (or contributes to the opposition if in the negative), just like wRC is a number that provides a calculation for how many runs a player contributes offensively. The number that shows up when you look at DRS on BBref or Fangraphs that you used (Such as the -5, -2 and -1 for Seager) is compared to the average. wRC is the total number of runs that all at the plate contribution adds up to. Again, wRAA is the comparable number to DRS as it compares wRC to the average wRC, though I don't believe that average is position specific. If DRS simply added up runs saved overall, then the numbers would be much, much higher than the usual single-digit or low double digits that DRS usually ends up with. But it would make very little sense for a stat to do that, as that's essentially comparing a players defense to how many runs would score if there was noone at all manning that position. From : https://library.fangraphs.com/defense/drs/

Ball has changed multiple times. It has overall been flying further since 2015, but within that time 2017 and 2019 saw an even livelier ball. 2019 was indeed partially about players taking more advantage of the juiced ball and the changes in approach, which made the increase in HRs bigger than it would've been if the same ball had been used 10 years ago. But the ball still had much lower drag than in 2018. There's both the analysis of individual baseballs (Lower seams, smoother leather etc) and the pitch tracking data.

You can't compare the two stats like that. wRC is a raw stat, basically adding up all singles, doubles, walks etc. and using the linear weights derive how many runs that production will on average creates. DRS, UZR and FRAA are all stats that compare a player to the average at his position. If you want to compare runs saved/created straight up, what you should look at is wRAA, or weighted runs above average. That method also has flaws, but it's at least for the most part comparing apples to other apples.

Lutz has been 2.5 years young for his level each of the last two years & still managed a 110 wRC+ in A ball & a 120 wRC+ in A+. If you are just focusing on batting average without league context, OBP & SLG included you might be undervaluing Lutz. He usually posts avg/obp only, ignoring power entirely. I suppose obp was excluded this time since Lutz reaches base at an above-average rate. Lutz has been promoted a full level each season (Played both rookie ball levels in his rookie season before that), and likely will be again, and has been an above-average hitter at both, and is only 21. Probably ends up in RF, but he's a very toolsy guy who has so far been able to play CF, and is doing fine. It's correct that he doesn't get Dunn, but he's a good prospect and that BA-only analysis is very misleading.

That bat with Braun's 3B defense makes him a below replacement level player. Even if Sogard reverts to the pre-2018 Sogard, he'd still be a better option as a full time 3B than Braun. They should, and I believe will, find a full-time 3B to add to the roster. But even if they don't, Braun is not seeing time at 3B. Nor should he. I know you enjoy being contrarian, but this one really has no merit. He was the worst 3B *ever*, back when he was a 23 year old on PEDs who was regularly playing 3B. Now he'll be a 36 year old with nagging injuries and (probably) not on PEDs, who also hasn't played an inning at 3B in 13 years. I can't even imagine how bad it'll be now.

Trades like the ones for Archer and Goldschmidt could be the model. Both were for players who weren't quite prospects, but also weren't established yet. Young players who had lost prospect status (Well not all of them). Those were deals that made the Rays and Dback not only better in the long term, but even in the short term. That's one way to go. But if we're talking prospects, there can be multiple trades. Brewers acquire prospects for Hader, and Brewers send prospects in another trade. You try to get prospects you like a lot, and trade prospects you believe less in. You trade a LHRP, and acquire whatever it is you're looking for. There are few teams who both need an elite reliever and are willing to trade MLB ready talent, but finding two separate partners could be easier. A shrewd operator like Stearns could make the team better through combining moves like that, even if it's obviously not as easy as it sounds. Andujar and Frazier are the names thrown in on every trade discussion with the Yankees, regardless of the player, in the last year. I wouldn't read much into it.

I think there needs to be some perspective on the defense issues with Andujar. It is indeed a real concern, especially seeing as how the rest of the Brewers infield isn't exactly elite defensively, and it takes some value off Andujar. But it's also still not a reason to dismiss it entirely. Wins come from batting, fielding, baserunning, starting pitching and relievers. It doesn't really matter how it's divided, all that matters is that the amount of runs scored/prevented from each adds up to the number needed. Despite his historically Ryan Braun-level bad defense, Andujar was still 2.2 rWAR / 2.8 fWAR / 2 WARP player in his rookie season on the basis of his 130 wRC+. As a comparison, Moose posted a 113 wRC+ this year and was worth between 2.8 and 3.2 WAR. Which both illustrates how much good defense matters, but also how it's only one part. rWAR (Which uses DRS) is the most negative about his defense, taking away 2.5 WAR based on defense alone. And he still comes out as a league-average starter. One with 4 years of team control remaining. I'm sure that if Andujar was included in a deal, Stearns would account for the defense and injury and would value him accordingly, and there would be other valuable players in there. Which is not to say that Andujar is my ideal centerpiece in a trade, just that you can have him as part of it and come out fine, it's not like he has no value. One small thing that shouldn't be overlooked in a trade either is the impact of the Super 2 status. $5-6m for a reliever like Hader isn't a lot of money this year, but it also means that the 4 years remaining will be significantly more expensive than expected. And especially for a reliever, it changes his value a lot. But it changes it less for a team like the Yankees than it does for the Brewers, which can impact a trade. Because it doesn't all happen in a vacuum. Even the impact in 2020 is that a return for Hader that includes only pre-arb players and prospects means $4-5m more to spend on the roster this year. Which isn't part of the deal itself, but can be spent to improve the team. I would also expect any return to be something that both has present and future value. Jason Rogers, Jean Segura, Tyler Thornburg; all trades that featured both prospects and major leaguers of the buy-low variety. Expect this team to try to operate a lot more like the As and Rays have done recently than to go for pronounced boom-bust cycles. Moves like this, or the Chris Archer trade, would traditionally be seen as "selling" or "rebuilding" moves, but the Rays got better both long- and short term, and saved money in the process. I expect the goal will be the same. Which brings me to the value of an elite reliever. It isn't what many people think it is. Chapman was an aberration, nothing in the 3½ years since has indicated that teams value relievers like that. People will argue that WAR underrates relievers, but without really presenting much concrete evidence. fWAR values high-leverage performance more than low-leverage already, and even with that in mind Hader is still "only" a 2.5 fWAR type of player. Since the word WAR creates an allergic reaction in some, let's look at it just in terms of runs. Hader has a career 2.42 ERA. If his innings get replaced by a 3.42 ERA pitcher, what impact would that have? Assuming Hader pitched 80 innings, it would result in giving up ~9 more runs across a whole season. Since it would generally be high leverage innings, you could argue that it's worth a bit more than that, but even an unrealistically optimistic view of a relievers value would at most double it. Or another way to look at it, changing Hader for that pitcher would result in an increased team ERA of 0.06. The simple fact that a reliever will only impact ~5% of a teams defensive innings, and thus 2.5% of the overall innings played, is what keeps them from having the same value as a position player or elite starter. Just look at what teams are paying the best relievers in the game compared to the best starters and hitters and it'll tell you something about how they're valued. A relievers value also depends more on how good the rest of the team is than other positions do. If you already have a good team that gets a lot of late leads, an elite closer is worth more than if the team doesn't get that many leads to begin with. The extreme version is illustrated in the Chapman trade; if you already have the other tools for playoff success, an elite closer is worth more. But if you're not that elite team, then simply looking at the runs scored and runs given up overall, and trying to improve them the most, regardless of where it comes from, is probably a better bet for you. There's also the intangible factors; Hader is a phenom. It's fun to watch him strike out batter after batter. Depending on your affiliation, you look forward to or dread his appearance. That's all worth something. But not as much as people probably think. And at least to me, it doesn't override the impact that a trade would have on the win-loss column (Or the runs scored-allowed one). Because that's what it comes down to. At least to the teams involved in a trade. Teams might not use the publicly available versions of WAR. But they use something coneptually similar, something that (Based on how teams act) values an elite reliever less than an elite starter or position player. And less than what a lot of fans do here. Teams don't trade 5 years of Gleyber Torres for 4 years of Josh Hader. They probably don't trade 5 years of Jeff McNeil for Hader either (Although if one team was to do it it would be the lolMets). To some that means that we don't trade Hader at all. But that only really works under the assumption that he is in fact worth Gleyber Torres, that other teams are wrong on the way they value these players, that they do what they do because they're lowballing. And that there is some kind of prestige in trades, that there has to be a high-profile return. I don't believe in that. I just want whatever gives the most wins. Both now, but also in the future. And that requires less than most people think. A league average SP or position player, another reliever/platoon player/ type of player (Assuming 4+ years of control), and whatever the $4-5m you save from the trade will get you on the market already means you've come out ahead in the short term. Which isn't to say I'd take a deal that offered only that, because as I alluded to the value of a reliever is fluid and depends on the team. It's what he might be worth in a vacuum, but he's worth more than that to certain teams and we should use that. And the intangibles, like excitement, marketability, ticket/merch sales, prestige and all that do exist; he's worth more than even an entirely correct estimation of his run prevention. But again; not that much more. But enough to both get back his short-term value and future value in terms of prospects. Just don't expect a deal to feature both current star players and top prospects. It's kind of either or. TL;DR: Relievers aren't as valuable as you think. Hader is still worth more than the raw numbers indicate, but still not as much as you think, based on what teams pay relievers or trade for them. Get used to the idea that even if it's a return that will see the Brewers win more games in 2020 than with Hader, it will feel underwhelming to many. Especially if the Yankees end up with him; Cashman is no dummy.

It'll be very interesting to see how Shaw does going forward. I'm someone who's inclined to trust the larger sample when a player struggles like this, and believe he will bounce back. But it's also very far from a sure thing. Sometimes when a player slumps like this it's simply about batted ball luck (BABIP). Even in a sample of a couple of hundred PAs it can have a huge impacts; line drives getting caught, hitting HR balls to the wrong places of the park and with the wrong weather etc etc. And while there was some of that for Travis, it wasn't the main problem. Exit velocity, hard hit rate, barrel % were the same as in the past, but had a much higher launch angle (Which includes popups). No, just went and almost doubled his K% from last year. And that wasn't a lack of plate discipline, but a lack of making contact. He swung at pitches inside and outside the zone at about the same rate as in the past. He just made a lot less contact, from 87% to 77% contact rate. 13% swinging strike rate compared to 8 and 9% in his last two seasons. And from watching him, it looked like his struggles were mostly about missing on fastballs. And it's the missing on fastballs part that I worry about. If he was struggling in almost any other way, I'd have brought him back still. So unless it was about carrying some injury, it's somethihng that, to me anyway, signals a more permanent decline than most other ways to struggle. I do still think he'll rebound and be at least a decent player again. I like the Bluejays, and they're in the AL so I hope he has a lot of success. All the best to Travis and his family.

Lamb has been terrible the last two years. It's one year control for each of Ray and Lamb for $15m (based on the MLBTR arbitration estimates) total, vs 5 years of Houser who's making $600k in 2020. Robbie Ray might not even be any better than Houser in 2020. And that's not taking into account the remaining four years. On top of that we'd be selling low on a prospect. This would be a truly awful and short-sighted trade for the Brewer, they are thes ones who would turn this down, not the Dbacks. You then go on to say it's not even feasible that Houser could be better than Ray. Houser has a 3.60 ERA / 3.90 FIP for his career. Ray is at 4.11 / 3.97. And that's with an almost 3 mph drop in FB velocity for Ray since 2016. They're even trending in different directions.