TJseven7

True but the path of scooter was very similar and he didn't show up until 27. Jed Lowrie looks very similar path wise as well. He's had 3 good seasons... 28 29 33. Drury hits more hr than those 2 but his path and milb stats prove nothing going forward. He's 900 ab in and so far he's a guy. I dont feel compelled to trade for a guy who's producing worse than 2 guys you dont feel belong on the roster and a guy we canned last year.

This offseasons kinda sucked. Winter hot stove was unproductive. Everythings dragged. At times it got interesting but its been too spread out. Make it interesting then move on. Its like a fantasy redraft with a 4 day clock.

To say the least. Fans will talk themselves into thinking we got an ace because Stearns gave him a big deal when the reality is he hasn't been good since 2014. No one would sign this guy to a big money long term deal unless you were super desperate. Yeah he missed nearly 2 years. He had 2 years where he was operating in the 2.8 3.0 range and since he's been back he's been much closer to the 3.7 range. Then he signed a 6 year 126 million dollar deal. Wonder if the cubs are super desperate. Because if you haven't noticed I'm talking about Darvish. Cobb was better era wise than Darvish. (2.7 2.8 to 2.8 3.0) Missed 2 years like Davrish and in his time since tj has put up an equal era to Darvish. (3.7) Darvish 186.2 ip 31 starts. Cobb 179.1 ip in 29 starts (turf toe and shut down 1 game early) in their first full year back. Yet cobb is 1 year younger and 3-6mil cheaper aav and probably looking 4 years vs 6. It's very hard for a small market team to compete in FA with the big markets. You dont get many chances to add starting top 2 impactful arm sub 100 million dollars. You have to buy decline years to get the good ones and screw the cap down the road. You take a shot on a Cobb with this type of upside because if you don't you have to eat decline years or trade your farm for one... even then Darvish flat said no to us. We were bid fodder. Tb is trying to rake us over for Archer. So desperate? I don't know about that. I think he's the under the radar buy low best gamble in the entire market. Thats not due to some we can't get Darvish small market sob song. That's, I've dug deep into numbers and this guy looks like the value add. Who only needs a deal to 33 not 36. Who doesn't cost over 20 aav. Split change or not. I hope hh is right... I'm prepared to eat crow if I'm wrong. Hope you are hungry!

He's really only had a couple good years. 28 29 33. Isn't good defensively anymore. Last year was incredible but its so much of a 1 off that I'd think it would be strange for 33 34 to be break out seasons. Basically history says dont trust him to be any better than what we have. Lowrie just had a villar 2016 year at 33 years old with a track record that says otherwise. At 6 mil we are most of the way there... just give me 2 war every damn year neil walker.

I get what Brew is saying. Perhaps Stearns has told Mark A. that Arrieta is a guy they want if they can fit it into their budget. Mark A. is the one writing the checks, so at the end of the day he has to be comfortable with the contract. So it could just be a matter of Mark A. and Boras exchanging figures. If Stearns has said he wants arrieta it also comes with a certain price tag involved and length. I dont see what mark and boras need to talk about. Mark trusts his gm and signs off on it within projected budget or mark doesn't. There's really no reason for the owner to speak to the agent. He won't know the cap plans of the gm the same way as the gm does. He doesn't know a players worth the same way a gm does. He has no part in deciding how its spent. Just what is spent over however long. If they aren't talking about golf or hobbies I have no idea what Mark us doing talking to him at all.

You want an owner deciding a players salary? Sounds like the type of thing that would make boras' career what its become.

Ok, Mark A shouldn't be talking to arrietas agent. He has a gm for that.

It wasn't working post TJ and he tried to tinker with it but couldn't get it right inseason. Instead of screwing his results he battled with sinkers and curves. He's going to get it back. With Johnson I'd nearly guarantee it. Is there any evidence he got it back at the end of the season? Just asking, because it seems that pitch makes a huge difference for him. None that I can find. There is a fangraphs article on it where he talks about trying a few things and not getting it quite right. It's obviously a risk. I feel better about that risk at the assumed price then arrieta getting his fb back long term at his price. If he had it, his era drops quite a bit. 2.8 to 3.1 last year and he's asking 100/5 and getting it. Trust him as a pitcher (fangraphs article aids that) trust johnson to find it. There's something to be said for a pitcher who goes from 4 pitches to his 3 worst pitches who has his era explode to a measley 3.66. I believe theres more to pitchimg than stuff and it's not hard to believe Cobb excels there.

Yeah... I would really scratch my head at that. He platoons with sogard at 2b well... platoons with shaw at 3b well. Emergency OF and actually solid at it. Aside from Ks he seems like our kind of scrub. I'd rather play him at 1b than keep aguilar as a 3rd 1b. It would actually sting me... and I've screamed "you aren't vlad, learn the strike zone!" at him.

I approve! That 75/4 price you put on cobb though... I'd even cringe a bit there. The last 2 lines. 5 man bench: send down broxton keep sogard perez vogt thames aguilar (redundant) is possible. 4 man bench 8 man pen... 95% chance of cutting aguilar seems pretty legit. If we get a ticket for aguilar I'd be very content. The idea of trading Villar sure is interesting. I thought he'd get another shot.

Seems more wilkerson but ok. Something is something.

If these guys are junk, I'm curious what your definition of even a decent player is. Maybe you'd consider Kershaw to be decent? Drury is a young, cost controlled 2b/3b that's put up a couple very solid years. Specifically note that he's young, and can still improve. Being young and cheap might help the yankees add elsewhere if they want, or maintain flexibility. Don't underestimate young/cheap with solid production. Banda was a top prospect that had a down year, he's still young and his stuff is still there. Souza I'm less sold on, but he's a cost controlled power bat and a better defender in RF than Santana. He also stole 16 bases last year, so he at the very least has some sneaky speed. I don't know anything about the lower tier prospects, but those 3 pieces all have significant value. Drury has put up 1.4 war in his 2 years. That's solid production? We cut a guy who was doing better at the same age because he didn't progress over the next 2 years. Perez has out produced him over the same span by 1.7 war. When you look at it and think a combo or sogard perez could outperform this guy... cheap doesn't do it for me. He's just stuff.

27-28 level bust out? 29-30 were bad 31 was actually his good year since his prime. He can easily go down from last years totals. He's 3 years removed from being impactful. He's had some broxton to him 2 of the last 3 years. I don't realky think that's a sales pitch.

I have noticed a section of our fanbase who is quite pessimistic on Anderson and Davies to an extent. It is kind of strange. Back to Santana I dont think there is anyway he gets dealt right now and I am actually pretty on board with that. If Braun can play first the corner OF and 1B spots have a ton of depth. Thames started 18 games in the OF last year and could provide depth there at 1B obviously. I like the guys who get looked at cross-eyed by pessimists. They get under valued and are added cheaper than they should be. Anderson Davies expected to regress at every turn, then don't and Chacins just a guy. The only downside is that their trade value isn't stupidly high like some flashier names who don't produce as well. With our broken pen, and the weak 4-5 spots in the rotation, these guys had a top 9 era league wide last year. Better than houston. I think the domingo low balling is much more genuine. Teams aren't valuing corner OFs. His defense is an actual issue. I wanted to keep him all along. I had a day or so where I kinda realized he wasn't going to fetch a ton and realized you'd get about the same war from phillips broxton platoon where I thought might as well trade him for 1 good prospect arm and a ticket. Like duplantier or gohara but after seeing the souza bag o balls trade I'd rather keep him and hope there's more power there. We've been really good at selling low on the Nelson Cruz, Davis types. Might as well keep one for once. His bat in the 5 hole covers for a lot of question marks at the 6-8 spots. Being in position to cover nearly every 1-5 ab with 6 guys in their best matchup to succeed (only missing some games of rest from shaw) could propel that offebse a long way.

Why do you think after 203 ip of 2.75 ball he's a 3.75? Somethimg changed for him in 2016. He had an offseason and a DL stint to lose that and he didn't. I think you are being quite pessimistic on him.

Depends... who is negotiating the deal? I don't want boras working over our owner.

I dont think he can lose his slider. If he does he's dead. It carries him as is, it'd be like chacin losing his. Disaster waits. I don't think they will though. My concern is GB...how? His gb % has been trending down. His hr and line drive % are rising. This has been happening the last 3 years when his sinking fb hasn't been used. If his gbs are heavily coming by way of his slider... uh oh. Think metrics folks. Lift angle exit velocity "juiced ball" aka sitting on FB going for power. If his ld hr is rising and his gb is falling because people are sitting on his non sinking fb then his velo is a detriment! Metric based plate approaches eat his fb alive and he's now what you see. Can the slider go to 60%? Will he switch to a downward plane fb to fight lift? I could see that making him great (era wise) again. As it seems he's running head strong into a metrics buzzsaw. Anyone else interpreting this similarly?

Minor correction: Hiura and his eventual .400 OBP is going to be batting leadoff from his rookie season Ok, fine by me... HI-ura... got it! (Soo bad with names)

The increased value placed on defense this offseason has been incredibly noticable. Except for Hosmer and Jd of course. Kinda praying for that NL DH thing to be next year because Santana's value would jump! I don't quite get why so many AL teams have bad DHs AND guys like JD get paid while Santanas value stays cold. In the AL I'd be looking at Santana thinking I can buy him as the whole player then bench his defense and come out pretty nice.

Well he's not going to be a 4.00 ERA pitcher going foreword, especially not moving to the NL. But even if he was, consider how much Archer is locked in for and then consider how much Lance Lynn is asking for in large part due to his durability. I don't know what these circular discussions add though. Archer is objectively a great pitcher, anyone who disagrees is basing it on something other than statistics, scouting reports, or any objective evidence. Im still waiting for someone to explain how the last two are an anomoly. Or how pitch values that echo chacin over the last two years Or results that put him close to Davies Can exist in someone quantified as great. Are davies and Chacin great? Would we give up burnes huira santana and peralta for 4 years of cheap Davies?

I wouldn't. Yelich is a really special bat that I think is going to improve greatly here. I think he makes a better impact over Archer on this team in the coming years. Pushing Braun and Thames to get better match-ups will also make a huge difference. I like this offense a lot if Santana stays and Braun can play at 1B. But yah, I think it would have gotten Archer. I think TB is asking more simply due to arms vs bats value. I don't think it would make us better. I don't believe in "luck" correcting. Yelich is a star as is. Archer at 4 era isn't. There are reasons that point to it not being luck. As the poster above says... this bad luck stuff doesn't compute with me. There are guys who out perform their fip and guys who don't. The fact that Archers high velocity FB heavy approach is getting tagged and led to a career high babip (exit velo?) seems like metrics evolution to me more than luck. He needs to fix his FB to be great again. Its not velocity but there's something that doesn't add up.

Thank you Cuban!!! Mke'd have portis over vaughn that I know. The buffalo bills... here's a fun one. Whaley wanted Dak... Rex demanded Ragland and owner broke the tie... trade up. Dak to dallas as the 4th buffalo had was traded... ragland gone in 1 year. 1 year later... whaley threw a fit screaming take mahomes or fire me. Had him top 5... I had mahomes 2 and at 1 I'd have been sweating. Coach owner traded down. Future only knows. Buffalo still has no qb and passes on a starter in the 4th and, in my opinion a future hof'er. Good work coach owner.

He does with Garrett. He didn't with Jimmy. I think they won more around then. ;-) But I agree, love how cuban he owns it. He sucks lol.

You know you can debate things without an opening line trying to discredit me personally or my intelligence. It won't have the same sting and you might just not win the debate but it is proper. I admitted jones and stienbrenner meddle. I also explained it was to their detriment. Cuban detriment. Buss rooney kraft simply disagree. Most if not all meddling is bad. It has negative impact. It didn't make them who they are today. This is true. Not only in sheer volume of failures caused by meddling by icons and nepotists alike but also in those who can claim any actual success in their meddling. In our modern era there are next to, if not exactly, zero. If your odds are 1 for every 10 or 20 or 100 its a bad idea. I do not know a number but its very very lopsided. Owners who meddle want to win, that's bad. No owner is as invested as it takes in their teams sport to be a deserving decision maker on personel. Budget, yes tell your gm. The job of a scout let alone GM is insanely intensive. Few coaches who are completely absorbed in their sport can be a good gm. Few players who played their whole life can be a good coach. Owners aren't close to that level of commitment and its not their fault. Its not their job. They have split focus. Why is wanting to win bad. Good Gms don't try to win. They build. Great gms aren't looking to get better they are looking to do what's right. Whats cost effective and proper value. Coaches and owners want better and fear worse. They dont grasp how worse can actually be better like a gm does. Boras talks to mark and the deals close but boras is pushing. Mark gets excited, thinks pr, thinks fans. Streans thinks too high. Mark gets invested and puts the slightest pressure on stearns... thats bad. 1 more year, 10 mil more. Thats the wrong value, that should be something that simply didn't come together. Worse is better long term. Owners want to win. Every single one who meddles thinks they are helping. They arent. Owners hire their ainge... he hires your stevens... you destroy. Owners hire your west cowher bb jimmy johnson pop... you wait, watch, they win.

The winners jones buss rooney kraft built were directly due to them hiring/trusting their stearns and either backing away... or in the case of jones... being silenced by a stronger voice. Stienbrenner just spent like a mad man. Kraft is not an icon for his personel anything. Nor rooney, nor jones who tried to get in the way. Nor buss or stienbrenner. They are icons for their huge personalities, spending lavish spending, for changing the leagues they ownee teams in and because they hired the right ceo for their teams. Mark A got his genius. Go do selig mlb stuff and brewer brand building.