OnTheBlack

Arcia was never elite. His dropoff in 2019 isnt even in the quoted numbers. ' I never used the word elite in my post. He used to play defense at an above-average level that offset a lot of his offensive limitations. This year, that has decreased dramatically. You seem to think that's the sign of a long-term issue, but I question whether a 24 year old is experiencing permanent physical declines. He's hit better this year, and if his defense does rebound, he'd be above replacement level if he can sustain his 2019 offensive production going forward. I didn't miss the point, I just don't think it was a particularly valid one. As your point was that Yuni was terrible for his career, had a good playoff run which was magnified because it was in the playoffs, people overlooked a bad career? Not buying it. Everyone here knew Yuni was bad. My issue with said point is that Arcia is 5 years younger than Yuni was, and didn't have nearly the crappy career Yuni had had at that point. Arcia has already had a better season in 2017 than Yuni ever had, which is why people still think that there's room to grow for a 24 year old. You seem to think that he's reached his ceiling. As others have pointed out, we gave up too early on Segura because we weren't patient enough, and it is POSSIBLE that they're heading toward the same situation here. I'd also be curious how Segura "always" had a higher upside than Arcia. Arcia was ranked among the top 10 by nearly every scouting service, 6th by MLBpipline. Segura was roughly a top 50 prospect. Arcia is playing in his age 24 season. Segura's age 24 season he hit .246/.289/.326. Not seeing the argument how it'd take "a miracle" for Arcia to develop, but those guys were expected to.

I'll just borrow a post in response: Arcia was never elite. His dropoff in 2019 isnt even in the quoted numbers. Different aspects of defense deteriorate at different levels. If you look at range for Escobar, he clearly has an age related decrease in his ability to get to balls that are in the "Remote" category. Personally, my lateral athleticism gave way a long time before my forward/back athleticism decreased. Since you missed the point about Yuni, let me try to restate the conclusion first. Funny how the timing of a hot streak can negate a career of crapitude for some. To the point of Yuni having a hot streak, his career was crapitude. To the point Arcia had his hot streak his career is crapitude (worst hitter in baseball during his time in MLB - a not insignificant window; defense that is much more average for a SS than elite = overall crap). Sure, a miracle could occur and he finally gets it, like 0.1% of hitters who were crap their entire careers (MiLB and MLB) all of a sudden become good. At that point the analogy fails, because the "hot streak" was the prelude to a "break out", not just a hot streak in the middle of pretty horrible performance. Is that "reason to think"? no that's a possible outcome, not a probable outcome. As you bolded my statement "How is Arcia like either of those two?", I'll just point out one of the key words: "is". Now "is" is a present tense. You may have learned about this in school. Present tense is the present. Now. Currently. Past tense is previous time, before current (i.e. before present). There's also future tense, which represents future time/events. These will occur later or after the present tense. "Hypthetically" applies to a possible outcome in the future or to an alternate event then what happened in the past or present. Sure, Arcia could by a rare probability become a decent hitter in the future for another team and the Brewers weren't the beneficiaries of that improvement and then Arcia would be like Escobar and Segura. Possible? yes. Probable? no. Which brings me to the difference between 2 very similar sounding, but distinct words: Probable and Possible. These words refer to future events. Possible means it "can be done" without any degree of conversion from a possibility to a reality. Therefore, possible is a boolean or a true/false where something "can be done" or "can't be done". Something is either possible or not possible. Probable is related to a word called probability or likelihood. Probability or likelihood can be expressed as an infinite range of values between 0 and 1, with 0 being absolute not going to happen and 1 being absolute certainty to happen. In practice, 0 and 1 are not events that happen when looking at probability or likelihood. The word "probable" is related to "probability" and is defined as "likely to be the case or to happen." The problem with "likely to be the case or to happen" is that it is subjective. If an event has a likelihood of 0.500000001 then that means there is likelihood that the event will not occur of 0.499999999. Many would not define that as "Probable". In fact, some argue that for something to be "probable" it has to be significantly more likely than a flip of a coin (0.5 probability). To me, I feel comfortable saying that it is possible that Arcia could become an average or above hitter, but it is not probable. Are you being serious or are you just the type of clown who likes to walk around with an air of superiority talking to people in the usual pedagogical tone only those who just love hearing themselves talk like to speak with? This is something people who generally feel insecure with their particular level of education tend to do in an attempt to make people think they're smarter than they are. And my god...I am impressed with your ability to explain present tense and past tense. But wait...you topped it with your ability to differentiate between probable and possible. The question, how is Arcia like either of those two. I really wouldn't think I'd need to hold your hand and walk you through how he's similar to Alcides Escobar if you're looking for players who LITERALLY share similar traits with him, I assumed we were talking about the situation he was in vs where the two other players we traded away. But forgive me, I really didn't think you were asking such a stupid question. My fault for giving you too much credit. Which brings me to a question. Is it possible you'll be able to discuss baseball without the obnoxious tone? Sure. It is probable? Given you still have a quote someone made over a year ago so you can...I don't know, presumably boast about how you were right? I'd say there's a small chance. Arcia Age 22- .277/.324/.407 .731 OPS 1.3 Dwar, Age 23-.236/.268/.307 .576 OPS .9 DWar First 3 full years-.260/.302/.367 .668 OPS 2.6 Dwar in 431 games, but a year younger. Alcides Escobar Age 23(First full year)-.235 /.288/.324 .614 OPS Traded Age 24-.254/.290/.343 .633 OPS 1.9 Dwar First 3 full years-.262/.304/.355 .659 OPS 4 Dwar in 599 games. LIKE Arcia, his Dwar fell his 3 year as well to .6 Yeah, not alike at all. Both players weren't up and down, both players didn't see a drop in their 3rd year in their defensive value, Batting Average and OBP within 2 points, Arcia with a ~30 point edge in OPS. Oh, but then you went through a rather exhaustive effort to try and teach me what present and past tense means. So how is Arcia like Escobar? Well here ya go buddy. Arcia-2019 .230/.298/.373 .671 OPS and a .4 Dwar Escobar-2019 .231.279/.313 with a sub .600 OPS and a -.6 Dwar So I guess Arcia is considerably better. Both offensively and defensively. Now. Currently. In the PRESENT tense. Though I wouldn't have a clue why anyone would be asking how the 24 year old compares to the 31 year old Escobar. I didn't see how it was particularly relevant, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't asking a question that stupid. Though perhaps if I'd have read your absurd Yuni Betancourt comparison from one year when he was 29 or your assertion that it would be a "miracle," that he "gets it," I'd have had more context and appreciation for the level of intellect I was dealing with. That's odd. In the same post you said it would be a "miracle."

It happened when Arcia struggled again this year and the grass started looking greener on the other side. Arcia'll always rank above Jim Gantner for his 2018 post-season run, but Moustakas at short sounds much more appealing. Yeah, he'd be an extremely bat-first option there, but... if he hits like he did this year, is it worth dealing Arcia? Unbelievable. It's like there's a competition between Brewcrewin07 and you right now. How can we destroy the future of this team vs how bad of a defense can we conjure up.

How is Arcia like either of those two? Escobar's defense is elite compared to Arcia. Segura always had a higher ceiling than Arcia and a change of scenery for Jean was probably the best for him given the loss of his child, they aren't comparable at all. Sure, Arcia 'might' improve as a hitter. The risk that he does and you gave up on him too early isn't anything to lose sleep over, while a team that has a contention window needs to upgrade any and every position it can to maximize the return on that window. Most defenders of Arcia point to that hot streak during the very end of the season and playoffs. Sure Yuni Betancourt put together a very good playoffs in 2011. That's doesn't mean he wasn't an absolute horrible player. Funny how the timing of a hot streak can negate a career of crapitude for some... Because it'd mean we hypothetically gave up on him too early as well. Pretty straight forward.

Hardly anyone was skeptical of Hiura, and no one thinks those three are shoo-ins to be anything. That was pretty much what I was thinking. Who are all the people who are skeptical of Hiura? The ONLY questions I saw about him was if he would rake this year or if he would start raking next year. Pretty much everyone I saw thought he'd develop into a middle of the order bat at 2nd. I still like Brinson for the record. I said at the time of the trade and I still believe he's the type of guy who's going to take a long time to develop, similar to how it took Gomez a while to figure out MLB pitching. The issue is his confidence. And probably moving on to a team like the Orioles or another bad team that didn't trade away the guy who turned into Mike Trout for him. I'd imagine Marlins fans don't particularly like seeing Brinson's mug on the screen hitting .185 while Yelly wins an MVP and then gets better. Someone should ask all 5 of them what they think about Brinson.

I am assuming you also watch Better Call Saul? Another great show! I do. But after the season on Netflix. Again, just another show that's better when you can watch 2 or 3 at a time. Now Game of Thrones tonight was awesome. Arya is the scariest little chick I've ever seen on TV.

Yeah, I wouldn't describe the show as being real witty. The Simson's however have been around forever and have pretty much been the Nostradamus of our era! Trump as President and...lots of other things that I can't think of. But there are lists. Family guy is definitely stupid comedy and it was funny because it was not politically correct and went at big stars.

I dig AP Bio too, but I think it will always be a perpetual bubble show even if it survives this season. I loved the first episode last Thursday. Tonight’s episode was so-so. AP Bio brings me back to one of my all time favorite shows, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. I even liked the Mick. I haven't seen Mack in anything, but Charle, Dee and Dennis have basically moved on to different shows with the same characters and I've found them all hilarious...even though the last few years of the show really tapered off(a point I think the actors were actually making several times when one of them would ask, "haven't we done this before). But watching Glenn Howerton in AP Bio is awesome. As for It's always Sunny, I know Charlie Day said he plans on doing 15 seasons to break a record...but I haven't really paid attention. I kinda thought the series finale of season 12 was a good ending. Dennis trying to have one of those Sitcom ending moments and "the gang" badgering him....yelling at him, arguing until he just huffs and finally walks out.

We had a three strikes rule with regard to MASH. Strike 1 - Hunnicutt (Mike Farrell) instead of Trapper John (Wayne Rogers). Hunnicutt was just a lot more boring than Trapper. Strike 2 - Col. Potter (Harry Morgan) instead of Col. Blake (McLean Stevenson). Stevenson was a very funny comedian, and he played off the other actors really, really well. Morgan was fine as Potter, and sort of acted as a moral compass at times. But Stevenson contributed to the anarchy of the early shows. Strike 3 - Winchester (David Ogden Stiers) instead of Frank Burns (Larry Linville). Frank was just a brilliant character - it was hard to top that. Each of these three replacements were fine. The actors were good and so forth. But each made things a little more staid and a little more conventional. Also, when Wayne Rogers left, it made Alan Alda the sole star. And Alda definitely pushed the show into his own direction over time. In all of these cases, I think part of things simply reflected on the tone and writing of the show. As the show aged, the show lost its edge. There were often moments of brilliance, but they were fewer and further in between. How about the series finale? I'd never seen it as it was before my time by a little bit. So I only recently(a year or two) actually saw that scene when the guy is yelling at the women to shut the chicken, which...spoiler alert, is actually a baby and a result of Alan Alda's PTSD. Jesus...what a grisly way to end a historically great sitcom!

It's also like a lot of TV shows, exponentially better to binge watch than to watch an episode at a time. I remember trying to get into it when it was on AMC and I couldn't. Then it went to Netflix and got into it.

I hope you are right, I really do. But making that jump successfully is super rare. I think he has the talent to have a long, successful MLB career, but I'm tapping the brakes before I call him the next Brooks Robinson. It is certainly exciting to have a potentially elite bat in the system, though. You really don't need to condescend by saying I don't have a feel for prospects. The chances of him struggling in his first MLB action, whenever that occurs, are substantially higher than him coming up and immediately becoming the "3rd best bat on the team". I've NEVER seen anyone say he's the next Brooks Robinson. He's pretty much expected to be the antithesis of Brooks Robinson. If he ends up hitting like Brooks Robinson, I'll be disappointed. Of course if he ends up being the greatest defensive 3rd basemen of all time with a historically great throwing arm....that may off-set some of that disappointment. And is it really that much more likely that an advanced college bat and top 10 overall prospect who is coming off a dominant AFL struggles rather than succeeds at the big league level? [sarcasm]I really just want to see a simulated game with Jimmy Nelson throwing to Keson Hirura. That way I can write one guy off and get super excited about the other!![/sarcasm]

I think our window is the next 2-3 years. I also think it would be prudent for Hiura to play the full year at AAA, and aim for 2020 to start playing regularly at the MLB level. It's going to take him time to get his feet under him at the MLB level. Hence back portion of the window. If it happens sooner, great! Just trying to be realistic. Isn't it more prudent to promote him based on what he does rather than have a fixed time as to when you want to promote him? Edit-Obviously it's prudent to be strategic in when you promote a elite top 10 overall prospect like Hirura with regard to service time...but not just leaving him at AAA for a full year just because. Also, this should probably be in the "what's bugging you" forum, but who comes out and says "I'm not being realistic, but I think that." Everyone THINKS they're a realist. I realistically think he's an extremely advanced bat who's going to be ready this year and I also realistically think our window is more than the next 2 or 3 years. I don't see anything closing that window as of now. Hirura is a rare talent and a rare bat. How many elite young players do we need to see all across MLB before we dispense with this antiquated notion that we need to see guys spend a full year in AAA. If a 19 year old Juan Soto can post a .923 OPS for the Nats, not sure why Hirura can't be a productive player for the Brewers at some point this year and then at some point be that big bat in the lineup with Yelich.

I knew that....but seeing that in writing just blows my mind still. I really like Harrison, he COULD be a really good player, Diaz COULD end up being a .250/.340 power hitting 2nd basemen. Each could just as easily end up as backup's or not cracking any 25 man rosters for long in their career. And Yamamoto is at back end type guy at best. So while I do really think Brinson will end up being a good player, this has to be one of the best trades the Brewers have made...in years. The type of trade that gets proposed on here and most people shoot it down because young players like Yelich are sooo valuable. And he produces in such a quiet way almost. It just kinda seems odd. He's just out there every day, getting on base a couple times, takes great routes to the ball, so very few highlight types catches. Again, Cain and he are almost ideal top of the order type guys. Just gotta hope Aguilar keeps it up, Shaw does as well and Braun's luck evens out and our lineup could be dangerous.

I feel like both these should be in blue. Love Brinson, just a bad fit here because while I think he's gonna be a really good player, I think it'll take him near 1000 PA's to really become one. Yelich is just the ideal player for this club. Both him and Cain really. I don't really care about K's, but to have two guys atop the order you know are going to produce consistently and hit ~.300, can run and can play GG caliber Defense.....man was that worth 5/80 and giving up these 4. I think Hiura is a much more sure thing though. At least offensively. If they ultimately have to have the elbow fixed, fine, but I think he is going to be a .300/.375/.450 type guy who is good for ~20 HR's a year.