Lathund

Realistically, the Brewers are, at best, a couple of years away from any serious WS challenge. Prospects need to graduate and adjust to the majors, need some luck with injuries, and some shrewd signings and trades etc. To me, the time to make an Arrieta-style signing is when everything else is in place. I don't see the point of paying $25m a year for 2018 and 2019 when we likely won't be contending for the WS anyway, and then be stuck paying $25m a year for his (likely) declining last two (or three) years, when that money could've come in handy in paying for one of the best pitchers available after the 2019 season. There are some who cite that we have the payroll flexibility to cope with this; and well that's right, in a sense. But it also means that once the signing is done, that flexibility will be gone for a large chunk of the time when it'll be most needed. He could be a good signing, but age and the fact that the last two years has seen a serious decline in most metrics is a real worry. 4.2 FIP, and trending upwards, does not inspire confidence.

Walker also brings something the current Brewers don't have a lot of and that is relatively limited Ks. The everyday lineup currently looked like this in 2017: 1. Villar: 132 Ks in 403 ABs (33%) 2. Thames: 169/463 (37%) 3. Braun: 76/380 (20%) 4. Shaw: 138/538 (25%) 5. Santana: 178/525 (34%) 6. Broxton: 175/414 (42%) 7. Pina: 79/330 (24%) 8. Arcia: 100/506 (19%) Walker in his career has 754/3860 or 20% or 77/385 (20%) in 2017. Less Ks is necessary to get into this lineup to help prevent the streakiness. Walker-type hitters will help alleviate some of this. Doesn't change the overall point you're making, but FWIW K% is K/PA, not K/AB. For someone like Arcia your numbers aren't very far off (19% vs 18%), but for Eric Thames, who walks a lot, it's way off; 37% vs 30%.

Webb has very good numbers in AAA as well as two option years remaining, there are a lot of players who should be moved off the 40-man before he is. He's someone who would 100% be claimed on waivers, as a team need not have a 25-man spot for him, only an opening on the 40-man roster. Bandy, having no options, is by far the most likely catcher to be traded or DFAd. Wang and Drake should be among the prime candidates on the pitching side. Jungmann and Lopez shouldn't feel too safe either.

There's a lot I could say about imposing religious views on others, or the whole "moral" aspect of it, but this isn't really the place for it so I'll just leave it. It seems to be a done deal anyway, and I'm glad it's happening.

Shifting gears.... This is technically a Brewers related topic now, right? It's a promotion/theme night for cryin out loud. Shouldn't you be calling out the Brewers instead? If we fans ought to confine politics and "religion" into one forum thread on one little website because of misguided/unneeded conflict or because these issues are considered non-baseball topics, why give the Brewers a free pass to do the same in public to the masses? Otherwise, break out the pro-life night, the pro-Trump night, and traditional marriage night at Miller Park. Then the hypocrisy will really begin. Pro-Trump (or anti-Trump) and pro-life (or pro-choice) nights would very much be political, nor is anyone clamouring for either one, so I don't quite see their relevance. Pride night isn't even specifically about marriage, but sure I'll go with it; There is a difference between the two. Noone is trying to deny anyone the right to a "traditional marriage"; it's still there. One is inclusionary, one is exlcusionary. I don't see Trekkies up in arms about Star Wars night, nor any real grumbling about any of the other more or less silly promo nights. Yet spending 1/81 home games trying to include a group that's historically marginalized in society in general and in (team) sports in particular gets people complaining about it.

Brinson should stay top 20. Harrison, Burnes and Hiura should be in the 40-70 range I should think. I don't think prospect evaluators are particularly concerned with the relative down years Ortiz and Diaz had in 2017, they should still be around the bottom, or just outside. Phillips and Woodruff are techically still eligible; Woodruff is a possibility, but I doubt Phillips will be on there. I don't think Peralta, Lutz or Erceg will make it, but could be in there by the end of the season perhaps if they do well and as prospects graduate.

That's a massive package to give up for a guy putting up just above league-average numbers at premium offensive positions without solid defense to go with it. And they're positions where we already have above-average production; in the case of Shaw even better than that. So it's an advanced top 100 pitching prospect, an extreme high-ceiling top 100 (or top 50 perhaps. We'll see when rankings come out) outfielder, a 1st round pick with very good minor league numbers who despite a down year is still only 22, and a 1B/3B prospect who's hit and miss (literally) but still has potential. And all that for a player who'd add some flexibility (Taking Aguilars roster spot) but not add anything else?

I'd say that from what we've seen from the Stearns regime so far, Brinson is the one player they're least interested in trading. A .107 BABIP and a hamstring strain has made him expendable and someone to "sell high" on in some peoples eyes, but I think the front office take a different view. Rightly so in my opinion. To me everything suggests that it's Santana and Broxton the team are looking to move. I don't think that Cain being a CF says anything about Brinson, if anything I'd think DS would be delighted to have 3 CF types (Brinson. Phillips, Cain) alongside Braun.

Arcia might turn into a good leadoff hitter at some point, but I've never understood the clamour during the season and offseason from some to have him leadoff. .324 OBP and 14(/21) SB doesn't exactly scream ideal leadoff hitter to me. Nor does the 89 OPS+. The leadoff hitter gets the most plate appearances, something like 120+ more than the #8 hitter over the course of the season. It should be one of your best hitters leading off. If not that, then OBP should be the priority above all else; it's the only time during a game where you know for sure the batting order in an innning, and know for sure who's leading off. Make the most of that by having him get on base. Anyway, I agree that Villar/Sogard will get the first crack at it. 2016 Villar and 2017 Sogard are both good leadoff options, but the other iterations of them aren't so let's see which one we get.

I've seen it reported that they're not keen on any FA who would cost them a draft pick, which Cain would.

Still a very good player. If both Santana and Broxton are moved, hopefully for either MLB-ready or high minors pitching, then Cain would make sense, depending on the deal of course. With the Brewers shopping both Santana and Broxton this might very well be the plan, essentially adding the wages of Cain in exchange for pitching arriving through trades. That of course assumes that the remaining players step up to replace Santanas offensive production, or that the Brewers believe that 2017 was peak Santana.

I believe we should stay away from Cobb. And Archer. And Arrieta. And Darvish. And any other available "TOR" starter. I just don't think those deals are worth it. In free agency it's about the money and the years; you go into such a deal essentially knowing that the latter part of the deal will be underwater, and just praying that it's not by too much. Trading for a starter will mean giving up one or more of the advanced pitching prospects, which just creates a hole down the line and removes a usually underrated strength; pitching depth. To me, a TOR starter is not something you acquire, it's something you develop. Either through your own farm system, or through acquiring advanced prospects or through acquring a #3-#4 with upside and getting lucky. Either way, you don't pay for the finished product as it's just too expensive in relation to what you're actually getting. I'd rather sign the Chacins of this world and use the $10m or so saved to strengthen elsewhere, can even get creative and turn it into acquiring pitching prospects indirectly. With this strategy there's obviously the risk of ending up without that TOR pitcher (Which tbf is a risk even when directly signing or trading for one too), but while you obviously want one, you don't strictly needone. Fill a rotation with 5 #3s and you'll get far. And secondly, if you're not stuck with any albatrosses you can always go out and add that TOR arm once you're truly a contender. Now I'm obviously not opposed to signing or acquiring a TOR arm at the right price, I just don't see them ever being available like that. So I'd rather try to find the next Chase Anderson or Zach Davies trade instead, improving the rotation from the bottom up while seeing what Burnes or Ortiz or Peralta can do. If it turns out none of them are the (or an) answer, then we might want to splash big. It also hinges on the position players, plenty of unproven guys who can either be stars (Or useful starters) or regress. That also decides when money should be spent on pitching.

I'm not so sure it's only going to continue (EDIT: The constantly skyrocketing closer trades/salaries that is, I agree that the trend of starters covering fewer innings will continue). At some point the diminishing returns will mean other areas of the bullpen give you bigger upgrades with each $ spent (Although of course if you already have 7 above average relievers and a great team overall, then a Wade Davis will make sense at higher prices as well. But there aren't many of those teams around at any one point) Are we at that point yet? I don't know, but at some point we will be. If anything, I think the multi-inning relievers will see increased importance and more money allocated. And not just the Andrew Miller "fireman" types or the multi-inning saves, but in general valuing the added flexibility that gives you in using your setup guys and closer when you need them the most.

It's $17m for, at best, ~70 innings. I do think he's a very good pitcher, but at that price I'm glad he's not a Brewer.

Hosmers career OPS is below what Aguilar and Thames combined for last season; it's close (111 for Hosmer vs 109 for Thames) to what Thames has for his career, including the less than great years in Toronto and Seattle. He does give you better defense and perhaps frees up a roster spot, but for $120m I'd want a much bigger upgrade than that. He's looking for a lot more than that $120m as well btw; remains to be seen what he'll actually sign for. The Thames/Aguilar platoon at first is fine. 1B needs to get better for a WS run, but it's not the most immediate area of need. See what Gatewood and Erceg (With Shaw at first in that case), and for that matter Aguilar, turn out like; if none of them look like the answer in a couple of years, then make a big splash there. But after the bigger areas of need have been adressed. Hosmer is a good player and would make us better, but at the price quoted he's really not a FA I'd be looking to sign.

I don't see Webb as one of the prime candidates to get DFAd. Good minor league numbers as a lefty, and I believe he has two options remaining. That last part being the key; which is also why I believe Andrew Susac will stay on the roster while Jett Bandy probably will not. Although that decision might very well be made in spring training after evaluating them.

Another point regarding the road splits, he also did spend several years pitching at Coors, and posted a 3.78 ERA, good for a 120 ERA+. 111 ERA+ for his career. ERA and ERA+ obviouly aren't a great indicator for future success, but it surprised me how solid his numbers have actually been. Repeat them for 180 innings and he'll have improved our rotation tremendously. As a thought experiment, imagine the 2017 season with even a slightly below league average starter (And Chacin will likely be better than that, as he has been in the past) in place of the starts made by Peralta, Milone, Espino and Johnny Wholestaff. And the knock-on effect that would've had on the bullpen. So then it's all about the money. Ignoring his 11-inning 2009 rookie season, he has averaged a little over 2 WAR/season, even when including 3 seasons where he pitched 70 innings or less. Now obviously there's no guarantee he'll simply repeat that straight up, but if he did that'd be worth roughly $16m AAV. Now that'll have to come down due to risk and age and all that of course so that kind of deal would, in reality, be quite bad. It was more to stress the point that the skillset he has shown in the past, as late as 2017, is worth quite a bit if you think it can be repeated.

More activity would've been fun, but I'm not losing my patience. It seems to me that DS is all about value, and won't pay more than what he thinks any player is worth. It means missing out on some targets, some of which would have turned out to be worth the money, and some who won't. But overall I think it's a good approach to take for a small-market team. But it's also a very long-term approach that'll only see incremental gains. I like it though; leave the risky free agent signings and blockbuster trades to when you have a genuinely competitive roster that just needs strengthening in a couple of positions. In the mean time acquire major league depth with upside (Like a Chase Anderson) and restock the minor league system. Always be on the lookout for undervalued talent.

There's a good argument in favour of rebuilding, but I think they're reluctant to lose Bumgarner and Posey; and who knows if they'll still be productive players when the Giants are next competitive. There's also an argument to be made that the Giants aren't as bad as their win total in 2017. Pretty much everyone underperformed, and regression to the mean alone should see some improvement. Add to that Longoria and any kind of outfield improvements, and they're gonna be quite a lot better in 2018. But, even with that, they should look at the rest of the division... they're not going to compete with the Dodgers. There'll be fierce competition for the wild cards. So they'll improve, but to what end?

Was the fastball uptick legit or did it come from the change in how it's measured (I know that was a big talking point a while ago, but I don't know if I ever read how much it added on average). The Milone deal makes some sense, given the need for big league arms, but I do worry a bit about 40-man space if they get a couple of more signings. I'd rather hang onto someone like Baker, who feels like a Rule 5 type without the Rule 5 restrictions, and give him a year to show that he should be in the 2019 plans before the Rule 5 crunch comes next year. This is a fair question imo about the fastball uptick being legit or not. Anyone smarter than me know? I recall seeing something about how part way into the season, the different way to measure started getting factored into the numbers shown. I don't know if this year's data was adjusted down or the past adjusted up, but something was done to make the numbers comparative.

With several players already off the books, the Marlins aren't desperate to trade Yelich. I'm sure he's available, but it won't be cheap at all. With 4 years remaining, he's going to have a high trade value for a long time yet, and they'll have no problem waiting beyond this offseason for the right trade. Very few even remotely contending teams won't be interested in a player like Yelich.

If you consider that 1 WAR on the market costs about $8-9m, even 3/30 wouldn't necessarily be a bad move. In his 8 full seasons he as averaged ~2.5 WAR. To pay for a 3/30 contract, he essentially only needs to produce 4 WAR over three years, or 1.3 WAR/season. Or even just two 2 WAR seasons. Injuries can derail this of course, but if he stays reasonably healthy he should live up to that deal fairly easily. Now, I don't necessarily think that's a great idea, as I don't think the extra millions we pay will be worth it over Villar/Sogard/Perez/Dubon/Hiura (Or whoever else will get time at 2B over the next few years) and I'd rather see that money spent elsewhere. The deal itself is solid, it just might not suit the Brewers right now.

This past season his K/9 and BB/9 were as good as they'd ever been. FIP and xFIP (Who are both better predictors of future ERA than past ERA is) right around 3.4. A career high BABIP helps explain things. Even with that, his slightly better than league average ERA (4.07) becomes more valuable when it's over 200+ innings. I'm not convinvced he's worth the (likely) high asking price, at the point this team is at right now, and he's not a "true ace" type of pitcher; but he's nonetheless very good.

I think that Dubon's main problem is that he doesn't (yet) seem to have the bat to play 2B, and we already have Arcia at SS. So I think his likely future with the Brewers is as the utility man, taking the roster spot of a Perez or Sogard (or Villar). It'll be interesting to see how he develops, if he lives up to the more optimistic projections there could be some interesting decisions to be made at SS. But that's just speculation. I don't think he's getting traded, I get the feeling the organization likes him. Initially perhaps as a utility man, but one that potentially could be a useful starter at SS or 2B.

I think we absolutely have to give Hader an opportunity as a starter. We already know he can transition to to the pen midseason and do well, so that's the fallback plan. It doesn't work quite so well the other way around. As a starter he'd be getting twice as many innings in a season, if he can be anywhere near as good in those as he was as a reliever then that's where he should be. But as the club is alluding to; it's a matter of what other moves are made in the offseason as well, where the need is the greatest. Hader is also the type of pitcher you could do some more unconventional stuff with, like having one spot in the rotation be a piggyback with a RHP. It's also worth exploring, as I'm sure teams are doing, the relationship between the fatigue/injury risk of a starter (High pitch count with a long break inbetween) and relievers (Low pitch count sometimes multiple days in a row), and trying to see if the optimal point is somewhere inbetween. Pitching 3 innings every 3 days, accruing ~160 innings; Does that put more strain on the arm/shoulder than 180 innings as a more traditional starter? 3 innings every 4 days? Could you run a 6-man rotation with Hader scheduled to pitch 2-3 innings after the #2 and #5 guys, or some variation on that theme? The problem with that kind of thing of course is that games can be very different. The starter might be having a great day and be on a really low pitch count late in the game so Hader doesn't get in the game. Or it may be a blowout. Or some severe platoon splits you want to exploit. So how consistently can you stick to such a schedule and have an even workload? And how much do you value micro-managing each individual game over optimizing workload and maximizing innings? I mean in the playoffs the balance is definitely 100% in favour of the first option, but should it always be so in the regular season? It's at least worth questioning the conventional wisdom; it might very well stand up to that questioning and prove to be the optimal way, but you need to ask the question to make sure. I think the usage of both long relievers in general, and the "fireman" usage of Miller/Hader and others is an area where there's still a lot to be gained. And finding ways to get more innings out of your top relievers, making the most out of converted starters who don't have the stuff or stamina to go 6+ innings, but can regularly go 3-4, and just generally trying to get your best pitchers as many innings as possible in a way that doesn't increase injury risk. tl;dr: Give him every chance to start. If not, be creative in giving him more innings than a typical reliever.