Lathund

1. Keston Hiura 2. Corbin Burnes 3. Tristen Lutz 4. Luis Ortiz 5. Trent Grisham 6. Brandon Woodruff 7. Mauricio Dubon 8. Freddy Peralta 9. Lucas Erceg 10. Brett Phillips 11. Corey Ray 12. Taylor Williams 13. Adrian Houser 14. Jacob Nottingham 15. Mario Feliciano 16. Marcos Diplan 17. KJ Harrison 18. Kodi Medeiros 19. Jean Carmona 20. Caden Lemons 21. Gabriel Garcia 22. Tyler Webb 23. Phil Bickford 24. Cooper Hummell 25. Nathan Kirby 26. Nate Orf 27. Kyle Wren 28. Payton Henry 29. Antonio Pinero 30. Carlos Herrera This is really, really hard. There are a ton of prospects in the 20-35 range who could go in any order really. And so much depends on how you rate floor vs ceiling, proximity to majors, age etc. I really don't know where to put Orf and Wren for instance, who are close to the majors but seem unlikely to ever be more than backups. Likewise the recently injured pitchers like T. Williams, Houser, Kirby, Bickford, Pennington; big range of potential outcomes. Could be some of the best players in the system, or far far from it. Which is why I suppose the crowdsource method works; people will prioritize differently and the aggregate will be fairly accurate.

No it wasn't. The pitch counts during most spring training games aren't reliable. I watched the game and he was at something like 55. Which is still fine, but not quite 25.

To take the payroll to $125-130m? With significant arbitration raises (Shaw, Nelson, Davies, Knebel, Santana) as well as some upcoming salary increases like Yelich. $125m is probably doable in and of itself, but leaves the Brewers walking a rightrope, with no flexibility whatosever, and likely being forced to non-tender/trade players they'd really like to keep. If Cobb can be had for Lynn-like AAV, something like $12m-15m then that's probably doable assuming Attanasio is willing to go to $120m+, but I'm honestly still not sure Stearns would go for that.

Yeah that's what worries me. If it was a matter of plate discipline I would be more confident in the strikeout rate dropping, but not when it's a ton of swing and miss inside the strike zone. In 2017 Broxton made contact on 67.3% of his swings on pitches inside the zone. That's the lowest % in the majors among players with 250 PAs. 2nd is Joey Gallo, 71.6%. Only 36 out of 300+ players were even below 80%. (FWIW Villar, Aguilar and Santana were 16th, 22nd and 30th). On the other side of the scale we have Eric Sogard with the 2nd highest at 95.3%, .2% behind Ben Revere. Now of course this is just one stat among many; a selective slap singles hitter like Sogard will obviously be top of this stat, and yet be a worse hitter than many people at the bottom of the list. It's just pointing out one reason why he might not improve on the K%. It's also one part of why I don't think Santana is someone who is going to improve a lot; I believe he's already the player he'll be, and if there was a chance to "sell high" he should've been the one traded. Seemingly though, there isn't that chance.

I don't think Drake will clear waivers, some rebuilding team will take a chance on him. He gets a lot of Ks, but suffered from a .349 BABIP last year. He had the 4th best xFIP on the team behind Knebel, Swarzak and Nelson. Or in other words, you could likely expect better results from his stuff going forward. This is when including all the ABs against right-handers. Deploy him mostly as a LOOGY and he's a lot better than most people here give him credit for. Now, with Logan, Hader and potentially Suter in the bullpen, is there a reason to carry a LOOGY? And while he's better than most on here seem to think, is he good enough? Those are certainly questions to ask yourself. I think that if the Brewers thought there was a decent chance he'd clear waivers, they would have done so. Maybe he starts in the majors on a short leash, with some of the guys with options in AAA. More likely I think he'll be part of the last cut, in the hope people don't have room on the 25-man. Or a trade will get worked out.

Even if he were to homer every at bat this spring I don't see how he would make the team. He'd be the 5th OF and rarely play. It all depends on the other moves. If Santana and Aguilar are gone, then Phillips makes perfect sense as a part-time RF and the 4th OF. The OF market doesn't look very hot though, so Santana might be here for a while yet.

From Jeff Sullivan's latest FG chat. Take it for what it's worth, but it goes with what I've been thinking for a while, that there isn't a plan to strengthen the rotation at any cost, but only if the right opportunity is there. And that they are reasonably happy with what they have.

I think that for the Brewers, even a cheap deal could be a stumbling block, depending on the pitching moves (And of course on how high Attanasio is willing to let the payroll go) If there is intent to add another pitcher then there's really not a ton of room. Even a best case scenario for a FA pitcher (Cobb/Lynn/Arrieta) would surely have to be a AAV of like $12m, and likely higher. That brings the payroll to ~105m. Then add a few million on top of that for Walker. Now that is not in and of itself all that much, but the next couple of offseasons will see some significant arbitration increases; Knebel, Davies, Santana, Shaw, Nelson and others. Anderson and Yelich will see their salary rise as well. Now if some of the top prospects develop like we hope, there could be some trades with ready-made internal replacements in place to make it manageable. But keeping some flexibility, and not being forced to make moves purely for payroll reasons, could be a good idea. If Villar/Sogard aren't great in ST, and we don't sign an expensive pitcher, there's a chance of Walker signing. I don't think we'll see that happen though. Villar has upside both on offense and defense (He has the range and the arm. Just needs to cut out the mental mistakes; easier said than done though), Sogard/Perez have the defensive part down at least, and so does Dubon. Orf is an option too, if unlikely. Hiura should be knocking on the door some time in 2019 as well I would think. It's absolutely an area that could use improving, but I think you have to pick your spots when the money is limited. There are current internal options on the 25-man roster, MLB-ready prospects in AAA, and the teams top prospect down the line. There are other areas where spending money makes more sense, even if spending it would be a small improvement on 2018.

They predict future ERA better than past ERA does, which is sort of their point. They cut out a lot of the noise; i.e fielding, sequencing etc. that affects ERA. That's especially useful for relievers with their tiny sample sizes where ERA, unless it's over several seasons, is pointless for predicting anything. I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks type of contact (or framing, or quality of hitters faced, or pitch type, or infield defense, or park factors, or weather, or previous workload, # of pitches thrown or a whole bunch of other stuff) doesn't matter, but it's also a matter of turning that data into statistics. Baseball Prospectus attempts to do that with DRA, which tries to factor in seemingly everything, but FIP is the opposite end of that approach; finding something very simple and very tangible that still does the job. If what you're looking for is one number and one number alone to simply tell you, in all casess, with a good degree of certainty whether a pitcher is good or not and also whether he'll continue being good, then of course you're not going to find FIP or xFIP very useful. A pitcher who puts up a low ERA while issuing few walks and getting a lot of Ks is more likely to repeat that than a pitcher who put up that same ERA with a high BB% and a low K%. Or in other words; walks are bad. Allowing baserunners to advance or score is bad. Other things are bad too, but those things are part of it, and are easily available from the box score and requires no subjective classification or analysis (such as classifying exactly the cutoff between "hard" and "medium" contact, or deciding on how to treat exit velocity at certain launch angles etc). FIP is a very useful statistic with predictive value, but it's just one of several things to take into account, and you need to look at the whole picture. However, saying "FIP is pointless" is saying that looking at strikeouts, walks and HRs are pointless when evaluating a pitcher. Which is just wrong.

Nottingham will be a big mover on that list considering how low he is. He showed some real positive signs in 2017 already, and with even average batted-ball luck his numbers will improve. He was an above-average hitter in AA, as a catcher who's still young for the level, and improved on the defensive side as well. People look too much at the low BA, most everything else was fine.

Burnes not making the roster (which I'm very certain he won't) isn't just about service time manipulation, whether that be a "7th year" or Super 2. It's also about roster flexibility. Burnes doesn't take up a 40-man slot, he can be stashed in AAA and be ready to be called up whenever needed without any issues whatsoever. Some of the players he'd get that spot over don't have any options remaining. And while some might still stick around, others would be claimed on waivers or refuse the assignment if they got DFAd or demoted to make room for Burnes. So while you can call up Burnes to replace a guy who's not playing well, or gets injures, you might not be able to do the reverse if Burnes isn't ready for the majors.

Jeff Sullivan in his Frangraphs chat today had this to say about an Archer trade question: "Jeff Sullivan: They’re not trading Archer" Which is what the team is saying as well. Which may or may not be true, but I don't see see what the Rays are doing as tanking or rebuilding. It may be one of those situations as well, like I expected with Yelich tbh, where with 4 years of cheap control he's almost *too* valuable, and noone will pay what he's worth as it's just too much. But a trade may happen at a later date; an easier decision to make when TB have seen more of Faria, Honeywell and the other talented young arms they have and know how good they'll be. TB are doing what teams like they and Oakland do, retooling, churning the roster, cutting costs etc. So there is a good chance their selling is done; and even if it's a rebuild, they don't have a pressing need to sell now. Might well get better offers at the deadline.

Playing mainly against righties, and the extra rest that per default brings with it, will see him have a good season. Not April 2017-good, but I think his overall numbers will be relatively similar. If he plays almost exclusively against RHP, they'll be better.

There are many different ways to solve the "OF logjam", and it can be solved with Braun, Santana, Yelich and Cain still at the club, but for this entire offseason, the best way to do it for me has always involved trading Santana. I'm not a believer in Santana, I don't think he will ever get much better than this. And even if he does, he probably got a bit "lucky" this year; i.e the exact same batted ball profile going forward should result in worse production. Things like the 8th highest HR/FB rate ever are part of that. So he could improve and still stay the same. So selling at this point IMO is the way to go. Now of course, that has been hurt by the fact that the market seems to take the same view I do and don't really believe in Santana. But even a league-average starter at OF/DH controlled for 4 years carries value, especially in the AL. So there is definitely some kind of deal to be made. It just might not be a direct trade for what we want, but perhaps two separate trades; Santana for prospects and prospects for pitching. Or salary dump pitcher + prospects. Or something else. I'm probably also influenced by the fact that I'm in the camp of only looking to sign one more starter, and not being too interested in paying the asking price for Archer (I believe he'll be really good for us, but I prefer the FA route tbh). So the way I look to finish the offseason is by signing Alex Cobb, trading Santana (If a good starter can be had for just Santana, or Santana + minor pieces then sure, but I don't see it. Otherwise, for 2B/C or prospects), and depending on how good Braun looks at 1B and how much playing time he'll get there trade either Aguilar or Broxton. Though I suppose if we're going with 13 pitchers, both Aguilar and Broxton might need to be traded.

Exactly why I wish it was explained more. Who are all the other outliers on that graph and what is the theory that the information means anything? It's not really the outliers that are interesting, it's the fact that there's a pretty strong correlation between hitting a lot of balls to CF and a high BABIP. A career low BABIP for Clark in 2017 despite hitting more balls to CF than anyone would suggest that even if he changes nothing, and maintains the same batted-ball profile, his offensive stats should improve. Obviously it's not the only factor; other things changed as well, such as an increased fly ball rate which tends to lower BABIP too. In this specific context it's also perhaps illustrating part of why KATOH likes Clark, despite the less than (at a first glance) impressive stat line.

I'm reasonably happy to, at this point, acquire just one more starter. My ideal scenario would be to acquire someone for Santana alone, or Santana + minor pieces, but that depends on who is out there. If it's a starter we like, then go for it. If the right deal is not out there, I'd still trade Santana but instead for 2B or prospects. And in that case, I'm leaning more and more towards Cobb. Provided the demands are even halfway resonable. But really, I'm fine with any set of moves that sees us retain Woodruff, Burnes and Ortiz (Unless the return for one or more of them is truly spectacular). I simply don't believe in the idea of letting MLB-ready (Woodruff) or near MLB-ready (Ortiz, Burnes) top rated pitching prospects go. Developing homegrown rotation pieces, even if they "only" end up as #4-5 types is hugely valuable and further allows you to spend on the TOR if need be. These homegrown options are cheap for several years, and will have the flexibility of remaining option years which is something that's often overlooked. So add one more arm, to go with Anderson, Davies, Chacin and Woodruff in the rotation. Suter/Gallardo/Wilkerson/Guerra hold the line until Burnes/Nelson are ready. Houser and Williams are dark horses as well, though perhaps more likely to end up in the 'pen. If that arm is Cobb, I'm alright with that as long as it's not Darvish-level AAV.

I don't see the bullpen as a huge need, at least not one we should prioritize while we still have bigger needs. Nor one where we should be giving up players in positions of need to strengthen. The Brewers farm system might not have any future Kershaws or Scherzers (Though you never know, which is the difficulty with pitching prospects), but there are a lot of guys with #3-#4-#5 profiles. Some of them should make it as starters of varying quality, but if nothing else there are a lot of potentially good relievers there, there's a real pipeline of pitching depth coming through. Knebel and Hader is a great two-headed monster. Have 1-2 good veterans in there along with the #6 starter/swingman. But then make room for the prospects.

The worry with Arrieta is that the stats are all trending in the wrong direction, along with the velocity. IP: 229 -> 197 -> 168 ERA: 1.77 -> 3.10 -> 3.53 FIP: 2.35 -> 3.52 -> 4.16 WHIP: 0.87 -> 1.08 -> 1.22 The good years were also reliant on a very low BABIP (0.240ish), and how sustainable is that really? Now of course it could be that 2017 is the outlier, but handing out $100m in the hope that things aren't going to continue to regress is scary with a budget like ours. Also the fact that the Cubs seemingly weren't interested in retaining Arrieta is a huge red flag as well. EDIT: Also noticed the wild pitches; never had more than 8 in a season before, and then a league-leading 16 and 14 in the last two. Not sure it really means anything, but found it rather curious.

Per an earlier post referencing Rosenthal, the incentives are likely to be unreached. They require him to win multiple Cy Youngs to reach the $150M. It will be a lot closer to $126M than $150M, if he doesn't opt out before then. I saw that, hence making the post as all the discussion I've seen treats this as $126m only. But all Rosenthal said was says it's unlikely to reach $150m. Which could mean that with no Cy Youngs it's anything from $126m to like $145m. But it's not going to be $126m with $4m per potential Cy Young award. We'll see when the actual numbers come out, but I can't see the Cy Young awards being the majority of the incentives, or even close to it.

I would imagine the deal will end up a lot closer to $150m than $126m even with no Cy Youngs; it's likely based on innings pitched, so a reasonably healthy Darvish will collect most of that money. Obviously speculation on my part, but I don't see why he'd sign that type of deal if the incentives were unlikely to be reached. So perhaps look at it more like 6/$135m at the very least. As for my initial reaction to this: As much as I like Darvish, this is more than I'd be comfortable with, unless Attanasio would be willing to increase the payroll past $130m. But my opinion on this hinges on what we do instead. Darvish was the only FA pitcher I felt like offering this kind of deal too, as he's the only one of the big FA pitchers I could see living up to that kind of deal. Arrieta, Lynn and Cobb are all good pitchers, but shouldn't be paid that kind of money. For Tyler Chatwood type money (3/$39m) I'd be fine with them, but it's gonna be a lot more than that. I mean I'm fairly confident Stearns doesn't do hasty reactive moves regardless so I'm not too worried, but overpaying on one of those three or paying the asking price for Archer would be a big mistake. Cubs clearly went all on on the next 2-3 years, and no moves we make at this point can make us the 2018 favourites for the NLC. So let's make the moves to improve the rotation that gets us the Wild Card, and also sets us up well for 2019 onwards, when the Cubs will be weaker.

I don't think the moves made so far say anything about giving up on Ray. In 2016 you might have said 2018 was the ETA, but even if you believe in Corey Ray and think he's going to be a good MLB player it's pretty obvious at this point that the ETA isn't 2018. Nor do most prospects, even very good ones, arrive in the majors like Judge or Bellinger did; it often takes some time to adjust. So if you want to win in 2018 and 2019, you get the established players who you know (Well, as certain as you can be) will contribute in those years. If anything, the outfield being settled for a few years now gives Ray a chance to develop in peace, no need to rush things. He may bounce back, or he may not, either way the future of the franchise doesn't hinge on it. FWIW I think we'll see a much better 2018 from Corey Ray. Enough to put him back to the pre-draft view of him and regain top prospect status? I doubt that, but speed on the bases being at least an average defender in CF means that being even an average hitter could make him a valuable player. Giving up on him at this point would be a very poor decision; he likely doesn't have much trade value at this point, so why not see how things develop? Won't impact any kind of roster crunch for a couple of seasons yet.

I really think we don't know enough to be claiming things like that as a certainty. Maybe our offer isn't the best out there. Maybe it is, but Darvish feels he can do better. Maybe it indeed is the case that we'll need to offer more than the Cubs (As they offer a better chance of a WS in the very near future as things stand), but that all depends on how much more. I don't see any reason to pull the offer before pitchers report to camp, and not even straight away then. It depends on the backup plan; if option #2 looks likely to be available throughout camp, why not be in it to the end? If the Brewers really like the next guy too, then yeah do move on. It seems like a game of chicken to a certain extent, because as soon as the suitors drop off, there's a chance that the price drops along with the demand for his services. So staying in the race could yield big benefits, or it could leave you the odd man out in a game of musical chairs.

Yet another top 100, this time the Fangraphs KATOH top 100 There's a description in the link, but essentially it's a data-only ranking. Based on offensive and defensive metrics and age, it projects WAR for the first 6 major league seasons and ranks players accordingly. So keep that in mind when looking at the list, and consider the type of player it would overrate, and the type it would underrate. Once all the FG prospect lists are done, there will also be a KATOH+ version, which incorporates FV grades too. From a Brewer standpoint: 9: Trent Grisham (11: Lewis Brinson) 77: Corbin Burnes 83: Brandon Woodruff 95: Freddy Peralta 100: Mauricio Dubon

Yelich has put up consistent numbers for 5 years now, Santana for 2. Yelich has a 121 wRC+ to Santanas 116 wRC+ for their careers; even looking only at 2016 and 2017 Yelich has been better. They walk at a similar rate, but Yelich strikes out 10% less. Yelich is the better base stealer. Yelich is an average defender in CF and a good one in LF. Santana is a poor corner OF. Yelich is also controllable for 5 years compared to Santanas 4. Taken together, Yelich is the significantly more valuable player, it's not even close. Which isn't to say Santana has little value, it's simply that Yelich is one of the most valuable players to be traded in recent years. One can argue that Santana has untapped offensive potential, but he's also only 6 months younger than Yelich.

From the Frangraphs top 100 chat, at least Kiley would rate the Brewers 2017 draft (At least the top of it) highly: Kiley McDaniel re: 2017 re-draft 1. McKay 2. Hiura 3. Wright 4. Gore 5. Lewis 6. Greene 7. Adell 8. Lutz 9. Pearson 8. Lutz 9. Pearson