Lathund

That won't even come close to landing a young ace with years of control remaining. Consider the kind of team that would trade away such a player, and it'd be a team not expecting to compete at all for the duration of the remaining team control. So most likely a team just entering a rebuild. What would they want with Thames, Vogt or Hughes? Santana/Broxton would have some value, but it's not really the trade a rebuilding team would make.

I know nothing of the specifics of this case, but often after a cardiac event the issue is that certain organs, primarily the brain, have been deprived of oxygen for an extended amount of time. Sometimes that results in a coma. Sometimes a coma is induced to give the body a chance to heal. Either way, at that point it's mainly about waiting and hoping. The level of health care doesn't make much of a difference at that point. It wouldn't surprise me if that's where we're at. If he was going home because he was doing well, I'm sure the statement would've mentioned it.

You make it seem so easy. You just have to acquire a whole bunch of talented minor leaguers and then that will always automatically turn into a successful winning franchise. The problem is that's what we did in the late 2000s. We had two possible future Hall of Famers in the middle of our lineup plus three or four very good secondary pieces for a number of years. What did we win? One wild card birth and one division title three years later. And why did we even win that? Becuase we traded minor leaguers for big name talent. Without CC we don't make the playoffs in 08. Without Greinke and maybe even Marcum we don't make the playoffs in 11. I understand your love for prospects and I agree that a franchise like Milwaukee has to build from within. But there is absolutely a place for big name talent. Prospects fail like.....all the time. We cannot solely rely on our prospects and expect to win year in and year out. Gray was there for the having and we balked. It's understandable but now because of a series of unfortunate events not only are we unlikely to make the playoffs this season but we have a big hole to fill in our 2018 rotation. I was moreso referring to casual fans and not BF posters, to be clear. And it absolutely isn't easy, but this franchise currently has more and better assets than the 2008 team did. Sure we don't have any superstar young position players like a braun or fielder, but we are in so much better shape on the pitching side that it more than makes up for it. And we have young talent all the way down our system. The Gray type moves are for those that subscribe to the window theory. I would much rather try to build like the cardinals model than try a window theory like Melvin in the late 2000's and Theo does consistently. The Cardinals are competitive every year, and have gotten hot at the right time to win it all more than once. I can't remember them ever shelling out a ton of big time prospects at the deadline either. They primarily build from within and trust their guys. Over the last couple years they've moved away from that a bit to be honest(Peralta, Fowler, Holliday signings), but their model is what I'm hoping Stearns can achieve. Agree 100% about not committing to the rebuild-win now cycle, but looking to do more what the Cardinals are doing. That's not to say there isn't still room for a Gray or Quintana type move. But now was not the time for it. If I was a Cubs fan I would've been happy with the Quintana deal, despite the cost. He's under control (Through team options) through 2020, and that's when their position player core start becoming free agents and/or are in their last, expensive, years of arbitration. It'll get harder every year for the Cubs to find and afford the pitching to complement their offense, so it's worth a lot of prospects to fill one of those spots with a young(ish) and cheap starter for basically their entire likely competitive window. Eloy Jimenez would be making his debut towards the very end of that window, so what are they really losing out on? So it makes perfect sense for the 2017 Cubs. But would it have for the 2014 Cubs if they had had an unexpectedly good first half of the season? Should they trade their top position player prospect at the time for a TOR starter? I mean that's essentially where we are in our rebuild compared to the Cubs (Although it's hard to compare, since theirs, like the Astros, was full tank mode and ours wasn't). I know it's stating the obvious to some extent, but when trading 3-4 prospects for a Sonny Gray or Jose Quintana what you're doing is gaining 2½-3½ years of guaranteed (Not that anything is ever guaranteed, but you know what I mean) production and giving up 18-24 years of potential production. And obviously, the buyer is going to pay a premium because 1 "certain" WAR right now in the position you choose is clearly worth more than 1 potential WAR down the line from one of those 3-4 prospects. Even if both sides evaluate the players correctly, and make a fair deal, the prospects involved will (On average) produce a lot more than the player going the other way. For that to be worth it there needs to be a tangible benefit to getting that production now and not later. And to me, that wasn't the case right now. Next year at this time, that might be different. Nothing is ever guaranteed with prospects. Many of them won't make it. There's even a chance that none of them will. I'm simply more willing to roll that dice because finding that Sonny Gray from your own system is just so incredibly much more valuable than acquiring him. You get 6 years instead of 2½. You give up nothing (Or far less anyway) to acquire him. You can even, down the line, trade him for that same package you would have given up for him. A club with our budget won't get close to a World Series without developing a core of our own. I'm not saying that trading for Gray or Quintana would deplete our system or ruin our chances going forward or anything. But every short-term trade we make weakens us in the long run. And every short term move increases the need for further short term moves down the line. Those short-term moves are still necessary at times, but need to come at the right time, when the short-term benefit is big and the long-term consequences aren't severe. Anyway, back to the original point: I hope that this rebuild is indeed the start of a Cardinals-style strategy, and not a rebuild/contending cycle. Some cyclicality will always be there; even when building from within you'll have years with more talent and more luck than other years, of course. So it's not all black and white, or two completely separate things. I just want value to pay a bigger role than need in evaluating moves. I hope this didn't get too long or rambling!

My view is to not deviate from the long-term player development plan already in place, so my 2018 roster would look mainly to evaluate what's already in the system. Not commit to long-term big contracts when we don't know where they'll be needed etc. Some areas of interest: - Villar: Can he get back to anywhere near 2016 form? If the Brewers believe the answer is yes, then make him your starter. If not, trade him. Sadly he probably has close to 0 trade value right now, so I lean towards sticking with him. But with a relatively short leash. If you move on, is it in favour of a veteran (Resigning Walker, trading for Kinsler, or some other move) or trying out Orf/Dubon or other internal option? - Hader, Suter: Bullpen or starters? If starters, is there a need to piggyback them or make other arrangements? Will having two starters who might not go deep into games have too big an impact on the bullpen? - Rotation: Top of the rotation is going to be light without Jimmy. Make the corresponding big move there now, or wait and see how the current options (In majors and minors) pan out, and if/when/how Jimmy comes back? I'm in the latter camp, but with signing some rotation depth. But it all depends on the market; if a #2 starter can be had at good value, go for it. But don't force it. - Outfield: Honestly not much of an issue right now IMO. Broxton (I think, since he wasn't down for more than 20 days), Brinson and Phillips will still have options so don't really need to get rid of anyone. I'd explore the market mainly for Broxton though, as his bat doesn't play in the corner spots and Brinson/Phillips are there to play CF. But if the demand for Santana is high I'm open for that as well. - 1B: Stick with the current platoon for 2018/19 until (Or if...) Gatewood/Erceg (Erceg to play 3B, which would allow Shaw to play 1B) arrive? Do we want to carry two 1B only players? What options are even out there for a reasonable cost and reasonable contract length? Explore playing Braun there, at least part time? - Utility spot(s): Perez? Sogard? Dubon? Orf? I really like Sogard's approach, something very different to most of our lineup. And I like his defense. But does he offer enough? Hernán has great versatility which is valuable, especially if we run with a short bench again. I don't want him as the primary backup anywhere (Other than maybe SS/2B) though; and with a 4-man bench he would need to be. Another thing to factor in are remaining minor league options. - Bullpen: For the most part fine tbh. Resign Swarzak or look for another good Setup/Closer type of reliever. Upgrade the spots Drake and Torres occupied; especially important if Hader goes to the rotation. Other than that mainly rely on the returning players. So, keeping in mind all of the above, and going with a 5-man bench and 7-man bullpen. SP: Davies, Anderson, Woodruff. 2 from new signing/Hader/Suter. (Guerra to start in AAA as depth) RP: Suter/Hader, Hughes, Barnes, Jeffress, new signing/internal option, Swarzak/new signing, Knebel. C: Piña, new signing (Or Vogt if we can't find an upgrade) 1B: Thames/Aguilar platoon 2B: Villar 3B: Shaw SS: Arcia LF: Braun CF: Phillips/Brinson platoon. Also regular playing time at RF/LF due to rest days, injuries, defensive substitutions etc. RF: Santana Util: Perez, one of Sogard/Orf/Dubon If 4-man bench and 8-man pen then only Perez as infield backup, and add a LH specialist to the pen.

Davies Anderson Woodruff Suter ??? To me that seems like a given to start the year, until (Or if...) Jimmy is back. Remains to be seen whether Suters' 3rd time through the rotation stats are significant or not. The sample is small enough for it to potentially just be noise. Or it could be real but a case of lacking experience and could be fixed. Or it's real, and we'd need to do sort of a soft piggyback strategy on his starts. Either way, he should be on the opening day roster. At the very least as a 6th starter/swingman. Obviously it's the 5th spot that needs to be filled. There's always external options. But the idea of a huge multi-year deal to a FA doesn't appeal to me unless it's truly an ace, and even then I'm weary of allocating that much salary space to a volatile position. Trading for a pitcher still under team control, i.e the Sonny Grays of this world, is a bit more appealing, in that it'll be ~3 years of affordable salary. And a small chance of extending that. But even so, it's a seller's market. Even with the volatility that prospects bring, you're giving up 18-24 years worth of potential production for 3 years. That makes sense in certain situations (i.e for the Cubs the Quintana deal made perfect sense) but it doesn't for us right now IMO. We need to get a better idea of what we actually have among our prospects. Once we have a better idea of that, that's the time to make the big moves to improve the areas most in need of improvement. So that leaves the more low-key deals. Short-term free agent deals to veterans is one way, hope for a bounceback season. Sometimes you get lucky, and if you don't then at least it won't impact the club long term or block a prospect. With the salary room we have, taking on salary (Even a lot of it) for a year or two is another way to acquire players without giving up top prospects. That can be either acquiring the pitchers salary, or by taking on another players contract as part of trading for a pitcher. But all that being said, I myself would prefer to mainly evauluate our internal options. Perhaps with the addition of a cheap veteran signing for depth/insurance. And use ST to determine who is most suited. Guerra has looked sharp in recent relief appearances, seeing as how he's both cheap and not likely to return much in a trade, why give up on him quite yet? Hader remains to be seen what his role will be. Can start him in the rotation and evaluate; if it doesn't work we already know he can transition to the pen well. Wilkerson looked shaky, but it's just been one start. Burnes and Ortiz might be too soon straight from the start of the season, but who knows? Derby? (Freddy) Peralta? Or perhaps the veteran insurance we sign turns out to be the best option to start the season. As we find out more about what we have, and as we know more about who is likely to reach the majors as starters over the next few years, it's also a time to think about our current starters. I'd personally be looking to try to extend Davies if at all possible. He'll be a free agent at 28. If we can sign something like Quintana and Sale did I'd be delighted. Those early extensions (Eaton too for that matter) has helped the White Sox rebuild tremendously. The Indians are also benefitting from early extensions. Also decide on Anderson and Nelson, is either one someone to try to retain? If so, act early through either an extension or a trade.

This series has been crazy. From a neutral POV it has to have been one of the best, if not the best, of the season. For the non-neutrals it's a heart attack waiting to happen. Phillips and Guerra, among others, looked really good.

The problem with Brinson and Phillips is they are both in the mold of feast or famine, high K rate. Getting real real sick of it. Brinson has ~20% strikeout rate over the last two years in the minors. While it's at close to 30% in the majors so far, that's in 55 rather sporadic PAs, so at this point I'd rely more on the minors numbers. After maybe 200 PAs or so in the majors I'll start to lean more on those numbers. I'll grant you Phillips though. Again caution with the MLB numbers so far, due to the tiny sample size, but his numbers in the minors would suggest, in terms of BB% and K%, something in the mould of Santana. Strikes out a fair bit, but shows patience at the plate and will draw walks. Even if he find a lot of success I'd imagine the K% will remain above average.

That was a really tough loss to take, but I gotta say that was one hell of a game. If I was a neutral I would have enjoyed it a lot! Zach Davies really impressed me (again); he got through 7 innings, with a pitch count in shape to likely go the full 9 if we hadn't needed offense. Cubs made a lot of contact, sure, but a lot of it weak. But that seemed to me a consequence of Zach knowing what he needed to do; With a depleted bullpen and in the first game of a tough 4-game series it was more important than ever to go deep into the game. So less nibbling, more strikes, consciously attempting to keep the pitch count low. You run the risk of giving up hits that way, but it's a necessary risk. Now obviously I don't know if this was actually what he was going for, but it seemed that way to me. The more I see him pitch, the more I start to think he's going to have a very long career (Unless injuries derail that), as he can flat out pitch. While the stuff isn't overwhelming, the overall command, poise and overall skillset (Including fielding and at the plate) makes him valuable. Likely never going to be a big star, more like a candidate for "Best player to never make an All-Star game" lists, but that's still very good.

No shortage of TOOTBLANs with the Pirates and Cardinals in the division.

I don't care much for labels like "special", but I'm also not particularly worried about Braun. Or I should say, if he stays reasonably healthy I'm not concerned with his production. He has a down year, but as you point out the BABIP is down (Which aligns with the eye test as well FWIW). And he's still hitting the ball hard; 16th best average exit velocity in the majors. BB% and K% are in line with, even slightly better than, his career averages. He's still a good hitter and I believe results going forward will show that; I'll bet his 2018 numbers will be better than 2017 (As measured by wRC+, wOBA, OPS+ or other slash line composite stat). The cold streaks he's had don't bother me. In a sport where even a good player will "fail" at the plate around 2/3 of the time, there will naturally be cold streaks even during normal circumstances; i.e player playing to his "true ability" while fit, batting against league average pitchers. Add basic psychological factors, minor injuries, facing stretches of great pitching etc. and I wouldn't put much emphasis on streaks, in either direction. They have little to no predictive value.

I'm not opposed to trading Anderson either if the right opportunity presents itself. 2017 Anderson could be the real deal, or he could not. The 3.70 FIP and 4.60 xFIP (With the 8.2% FB/HR rate as pointed out by the previous poster) and .263 BABIP would suggest that his ERA going forward will be higher than it currently is, if he keeps pitching the same way. For comparison, Jimmy Nelson with his .340 BABIP and 3.15 xFIP would likely have a lower ERA going foward. So perhaps there's a time to sell high indeed. Anderson will be 32 when he becomes a free agent, and might not be a candidate for extending. Even more, Jimmy Nelson becomes a FA at the same time, and Davies the year after. And this will all be in the middle of our competitive window. Replacing his spot in the rotation with someone under contract longer could be a good idea. All that being said, it's not something I feel all that strongly about. I like Chase, and I'd be happy to see him stick around for a few more years. Especially if we can't get the deal we want for him. If the return reflects that of a #4/#5 (Which is what I think he is long term) then we might as well keep him. If someone is willing to pay the going rate for a #2/#3, that'd be a different story.

Writeup on Frangraps about Zach Davies today: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/zach-davies-major-league-outlier/

Santana was in the original lineup, scratched with trapezius tightness. New lineup: 2B Sogard (L) LF Thames (L) 1B Walker (S) 3B Shaw (L) RF Perez ® C Piña ® CF Phillips (L) SS Arcia ® P Anderson ®

Yeah, that's the part I'm curious about, it's just postponing it. And in doing so taking the chance on Anderson on short rest, albeit after a relatively low pitch count his last time out. We are off after this series, so Anderson can make his next start on normal rest. But the next time the #5 spot comes up after that will be during the Cubs series. Is it going to be Davies/Anderson on short rest again? Seems like the worst time to insert a new starter otherwise.

Let's bring in Piña for Vogt, and put Phillips in RF with Perez in left. Maybe Sogard in at 2nd? Don't gift them anything on defense.

He's an ace closer who can play CF and SS as well, so why couldn't he also raise his BA by .210?!? Numbers, decimal points... does it matter exactly where one puts them as long as they're in there, somewhere?

No power and doesn't walk and he's 23, which isn't particularly young. He's Perez without the power. He's going to need to hit .300 to post a passable OBP. Power is something that can come later on. Not saying it's guaranteed to do so, but it certainly can and does for some. Perez, since you brought him up, has a .34 higher SLG in the majors compared to the minors, despite a .21 lower BA. So he was Hernan Perez without the power too as a minor leaguer. And FWIW, minor league totals: Perez: .264/.305/.359 Dubon: .297/.349/.402 This isn't me suggesting he's going to be a great 2B, in fact I'd say he profiles better at SS where we don't have a vacancy at the moment. But I also think it's far too early to dismiss him. I'd go with Villar as the starting 2B next year, with a relatively short leash. But I'd be hoping to see Dubon up at some point as the 2B/SS backup, as well as looking into his ability to cover 3B/CF as well if needed, even if not as the primary backup. He has done so briefly in the past, not sure with what proficiency though.

I can only presume that Counsell, unlike myself, still thinks we have a chance to come back and win the game. Even with that in mind, I don't think Hader would be in there without an off day tomorrow.

Trying to find some positives from this recent skid, Jeffress has looked better and better with pretty much each outing.

What I'd probably do is trade Thames if there's a decent offer to be had; I'm fine with that being lower-minors lottery tickets. Use Aguilar as the primary 1B; he's shown enough in limited playing time to warrant being given a chance IMO. If anything I think playing (mostly) every day would see his numbers improve. I'd look at replacing him on the roster ideally not with a pure 1B, but with someone with more flexibility. One way to get a platoon option is to sign a player who can play 3rd, so that Shaw can play 1B when a lefty is needed. Extending Neil Walker could be an option. That being said, I don't consider it the most urgent spot to upgrade. If there isn't any interest in Thames, or any appealing replacements out there, then sticking with Thames/Aguilar platoon for 2018 is fine by me. See how Gatewood and Erceg come along, and make a decision when we know more about what we have in terms of 1B/3B coming through. As for FAs there's not really much out there beyond Hosmer and Duda. No idea what they'd cost, but I wouldn't mind having some more plate dicipline in the lineup in Hosmer. 16% K, 8% BB for his career. Again, very much demands on what kind of contract, and what length of contract, he'd demand. I suspect it'd be more than we'd like to pay, but at least worth exploring.

I'm not really one to care too much about batting orders beyond the fairly basic stuff, but having the player with the worst OBP in the lineup leading off just makes zero sense to me.

Yeah Hummel is my guy as well. Switch-hitting catcher with good plate discipline (Almost 1:1 BB/K). The little I've heard and seen about his defense seems favourable, but if anyone has more on that front I'd be happy to hear it. We're not exactly blessed with great catching in the system, so Hummel should have a decent chance at rising through the system. 370PAs is still a small sample size though; his increased offensive production might not be a permanent thing. Will be interesting to follow!

I think that having a reputation as a pitch framer could indeed hurt him. But on the framing skill diminishing: There was an analysis somewhere of his pitch framing, and basically he used to set up lower. As he gradually set up higher and higher, the rate at which he was getting low strike calls got lower. So as one ages, and wear and tear takes it's toll on the knees and other parts, perhaps that physical decline does affect framing too. While I don't know the exact workings of the framing metrics, I do believe they in some way are scaled to the average. i.e if the other catchers improve in framing and Lucroy remains the same, his framing numbers would go down. His fall is too great for that to be the whole factor, but it could very well play in. Probably a little bit of A, a little bit of B and a little bit of C.

Part of what makes it painful, at least for me, is how slow both Garza and Barnes work with runners on base. So it takes forever and ever just to see a walk issued. I'd rather get the misery over with quickly.

Brewers 1B are 15th in in the majors in fWAR, and 10th in wRC+ according to FanGraphs. It does appear to just be adding Aguilar and Thames together, so some will be them as DH/PH, or Thames in the outfield.