coolhandluke121

Yeah, appreciation in the investment is really important to consider, and there are lots of other intangibles like tax deductions. I'm pretty sure baseball owners can still claim depreciation on players or something like that, and it's the only sport where that happens. He could spend more. I don't have any problem with anyone wanting them to. My problem is that you often don't get better by doing so, and on the contrary you actually get worse because you're usually signing older players who are already past their peak. And then at some point you can't spend anymore, and you've just created more problems than you've solved. Wanting to sign Darvish is a simple example. They could have done it instead of getting Chacin, and where would they be now? So although they can afford to spend more, there's just no reason to do when you can be just as successful (if not more so) when they don't.

His defense looks really good too. I was worried after the Boston series because it looked like he could barely change direction on those knees, but maybe he was just gassed from carrying such a heavy load without a capable backup during the regular season. In any case, he and Khris are similar in the sense that sometimes you get greedy and want them to be terrific all the time, but you can't forget that they're both plenty good despite their flaws.

It's the wrong question in my opinion. They're not being cheap at all. They're just prioritizing sustainability. You can't go out handing out Lowrie-type deals every time you have a need. You gotta wait for better opportunities. Who knows what other needs and opportunities will arise? You gotta preserve your flexibility. The Lowrie/Cobb/king's ransom for an all-star opportunities will pretty much always be there. The Brewers are much more discerning than most teams and that's why they're so successful (relative to their market and how recently they went through a rebuild). I don't see them signing anybody after Grandal, but that's because it's hard to get such good value, not because they're cheap. I'm very confident they'll add payroll if the right opportunity comes along. If there was another Aramis Ramirez situation, for example, I think Mark A would catch the first flight he can to sign the deal, no matter what he's doing at the time.

I don't agree about Brogdon. He benefits tremendously from the defensive attention that Giannis, Khris, Lopez, and Bledsoe get. How often do you see the other team's best defender on him? How often do you see them double-team him? He often gets all the way to the basket without a help defender showing. It reminds me of some of those crazy stats about Jabari's fg% playing with Giannis and/or Khris vs. playing without either of them (I think it was like 55% vs to 40% or something). I think there are quite a few guys out there who could get a lot of layups playing with these guys in this offense. Sterling Brown has shown a similar propensity to take it to the rim off the bounce against weaker defenders, for example. And he's quicker and more decisive about it, not to mention a much better defender. Brogdon is very efficient when shooting, but I also think that's a little misleading because his shortcomings aren't measured in missed shots but rather in stagnant possessions and all the direct and indirect consequences of that. He's an over-dribbler and he's got a little bit of a Snell thing going in terms on keeping his 3-point percentage elevated because he only takes the wide open ones, which are there because of the gravity of the superior offensive players on the team. Don't get me wrong; he's good, and there's not that much separating the best players on the team after Giannis. But he's not as good as Bledsoe or Khris; he's just more likable for a variety of reasons (consistency, poise, effort, grass-is-greener effects). I think the Bucks would struggle a lot more without Bledsoe or Khris (or even Lopez) than without Brogdon, and the advanced stats like RPM support that.

That's not entirely true. You often don't have to give up any prospects of consequence to trade for guys whose teams are just trying to unload their salary, and those guys are exactly the type of guys whom more impulsive teams foolishly signed while the Brewers held out for better opportunities. I don't care for any of the options out there except maybe Gonzalez, or Miley if he's cheap. Grandal was the prize for this team. Otherwise I'm waiting. Their window is not closing any time soon IMO.

Probably neither. Just pocket the money until an obvious upgrade like Cain/Grandal or a potential steal like Chacin comes along. If they do have any payroll flexibility, there's no rush to use it just because you can. You often don't actually get any better that way. They'll find a way to use it eventually.

Grandal could be that LHB PH when he doesn't start and could move over to 1B when he does to facilitate double-switches. He could theoretically eat into some of Thames's plate appearances, Aguilar has already eaten into many of them, and Gamel + Braun could take the rest. I agree that it won't and shouldn't happen, but that's where the debate is coming from. Personally I think if they are crunched for roster spots, they're just going to use a ton of shuttle service in the staff, so I see Thames still being an important bench bat.

Lot of pitching debates in the Grandal thread as an indirect result of the debate about whether they still have a roster spot for Thames after signing Grandal. Trying to move that here because it's such a compelling part of the Brewers' identity. I firmly believe the Brewers are going to continue to spit on tradition and even redouble their efforts to do so. For all the things they did a little different last year, I believe they would have liked to do so more. Why do I believe that? Because they said so: https://www.brewcrewball.com/2018/10/25/18020804/expect-the-milwaukee-brewers-to-continue-to-be-innovative-with-their-pitchers-in-2019 A lot of young guys with options got their feet wet in 2018 and will be ready for a much larger role in 2019. This will allow them to shuttle guys back and forth more effectively. This is especially true for long relievers, which would lead to pulling starters even earlier to leverage "times through the order" effects and get an extra plate appearance from a legit hitter in many more games. Pulling starters early enough could even allow them to have a 4-man "starting" staff, because guys can probably pitch on 4 days rest on a routine basis if they're throwing 50-60 pitches per start. They also moved away from guys who can't go a full inning or more. For example, last year they tried a bunch of different LOOGY's, but this year they just have Claudio and Hader. I think they would have liked to do that all along, but just had to wait for the right opportunity to get a guy like Claudio instead of Drake/Logan/Cedeno/Jennings. They also haven't moved any starters to make room for guys like Burnes, Peralta, or Woodruff in the rotation. I believe that's because they'd like to keep more "starters" in long relief. This could allow them to carry 11-12 pitchers for much of the year and maximize their PH opportunities. The number of pitching "options with options" is astounding. I don't doubt that this is by design. You can disagree, bet against it, whatever, but mock this suggestion at your own peril because the Brewers have a pretty strong track record of making the set-in-their-ways, you-can't-do-that crowd look foolish. I'm not saying I'd bet on all this to happen, but I think they're moving in that direction and we're going to see them try some of it. We've seen them have tremendous success with this long relief and bulllpen games and leverage outings the past two Septembers as well as in last year's playoffs, and they understand the value of an expanded roster. All that remains is to find a way to get some of the same benefits of an expanded roster before September, and they have the means to do that if they coordinate outings and call-ups carefully enough. They also have the positional versatility to make double-switches and the presence of a lot of PH options who don't have an everday role but who can hit well enough to deserve one. They're not gonna let them all rot on the bench. If you don't think they can handle the logistics of all this, just bet against them (as Brett Favre would say).

I hope the goal is to find something better and not to go into the season with 11 RHP's on the roster. I can understand why they'd want lots of relievers who can go multiple innings, and I can see the logic in saving a roster spot for guys with more upside, like Williams. But when all is said and done, if you look up and Hader is the only LHP in the pen, you're going to have a problem with match-ups. Even if every RHP reliever you keep is more valuable than Cedeno in a vacuum, that would constitute failing to see the forest for the trees. Another thing is that even though you don't get a lot of use out of LOOGY's, just the threat of having one is a factor opponents have to consider when making their lineups. Start the season with a pen of Knebel, JJ, Williams, Barnes, Woodruff, Guerra, and Hader and opponents will have too much freedom in where they put their LHB's in their lineup on those many nights when Hader is unavailable. I think that's 100 pct backwards. If you keep a soft tossing left handed specialist who can only go 1 hitter at a time in close situations and only gives you 30 innings a year over a hard throwing, far more talented right hander JUST because he's a left hander, that's failing to see the forest for the trees. You keep the more valuable players, the better players. Cedeno is just nothing special. He does his job and he gets out lefties and he's not the type of guy I'm against having, but not at the expense of Taylor Williams...or even Jacob Barnes. Just seeing this now, but Barnes and Williams are your examples of "FAR more talented right handers"? That doesn't help your case. I definitely prefer a Cedeno over guys like that. And sorry, but wanting to only have the more talented players regardless of role and match-ups is a textbook example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Really glad they got Claudio.

Exactly. Easy pass for me. That goes for most of the other aging 2B's that were available. I have a hunch we're going to be laughing about most of them the way we laughed about Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, and Lynn this past season. The fact that the Mets went for him just makes me more confident that it's a bad investment. (I realize it's a new gm, but it's a similar impatient win-now organizational philosophy IMO.)

Eh, that sounds a lot like the kind of thing people said about the way the Brewers used their staff this past season. I predicted a lot of those things last off season during the "should they sign a big name starter" arguments and was often dismissed, but I'm pretty sure they're not done making dramatic, evidence-based changes to the way the staff is used. There's a lot of moving parts when you do what I'm suggesting, but I think they're more than capable of handling it all. In fact, I think they actually enjoy the challenge. I think it will be very rare that they feel they need 13 pitchers this year. In any case, I certainly don't think this means it's a given that Thames is gone. Gamel has an option, doesn't he? I think he'll be up and down a lot.

Even more middle relievers than last year, and more guys with options. They rarely had 13, and generally carried 11 in the playoffs. Granted, that's less games per week, but there's also no option of using options in the playoffs. They have even come out and said they're going to keep blurring the lines between starters and relievers even more than before. Could easily see guys like Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta, Davies, and/or Guerra getting optioned a few times after a long outing, not to mention the obvious shuttle candidates like Williams and Houser. With so many options, you can effectively have an 18-man staff even if only 11-12 are on the 25 man roster at any given time.

That's what I thought last year, but I didn't foresee them using so much shuttle service. That's probably going to be the plan again, given how many guys with options they have on the 40 man. In fact, they'll probably have 11 pitchers more often than they have 13.

Pina probably wasn't going to play 120+ games anyway, so it's in no small way an upgrade over Kratz too. And you're grossly underestimating ballpark factors when you call him a slight offensive upgrade. Look a few pages back and check out Grandal's spray chart overlaid on Miller Park dimensions. That's like saying 2017 Thames would be a slight offensive upgrade over Pina if he were a catcher.

Not spending close to that one any of the 2B options except Gonzalez. Would have been fine at $5m but I get this Rickie Weeks circa 2015 vibe from him.

Nice! As usual, they wait for the right value move and pounce. You have to admire their patience. I'm gladly giving up the pick for a chance to make a contending team much better. That's what assets are for. Look for Grandal to absolutely mash in Miller Park and get a better contract next year because he won't have a QO hanging over his head. Works for everyone! This is the one expensive free agent I wanted. Last year, Cain was the one expensive free agent I wanted and Yelich was the big-name trade target I wanted. Absolutely thrilled and amazed that they continue to wait for great opportunities instead of blowing their assets impulsively. I don't expect any more splashy moves though. Cain/Yelich last year never meant they had to go all-in and sign Darvish or Arrieta to a bad contract, no matter how much some people insisted it did, and this move doesn't mean they have to go all-in and sign an aging 2B to a lucrative 3-year deal or trade assets for a declining "ace" like Bumgarner. It's okay to have a few mediocre players, and it's practically a must if you're a small market team. They're doing a great job maximizing their payroll flexibility, and they're going to continue doing so.

That's probably not a given. If he continues to slide, the QO might very well be his best option. I can't stand the guy, and he might not be much better than any of the homegrown guys I like anyway. I'd pass. I think they're just looking for bargains and aren't really interested in so-called premium starters unless they really are likely to be head-and-shoulders above the rest and represent a good value. They have to do due diligence, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're really as interested in big-name starters as some of the rumors suggest.

Regardless of how seriously determined and focused the aquatic mammals, I think the Brewers did well in this trade. Fish aren't mammals. Lagares is decent on defense. Good instincts and respectable athleticism. Mets should run a pseudo-platoon and split their innings fairly evenly.

Pfft, that's just because you've seen him play.

Just start a new hall of fame based more on analytics. It's freakin' hilarious how many people most fans have never heard of are in (umpires, union reps, Marge Schott's stupid dog probably), not to mention all the obvious issues that have already been mentioned here. Seriously, I have no intention of ever visiting the analytics hall of fame, but I might check out something that actually does a credible job of breaking down player value. It would be another nail in the coffin if a closer of all people is the first unanimous entry ever.

Well I guess that settles it.

My first thought was to worry about what would happen if Cain got hurt for an extended period next year, but then I realized they probably wouldn't sniff the playoffs if Cain got hurt anyway, even with Broxton, so I like it. The return is rock solid. Was wondering what they would do with Broxton and Santana. OF trade market is much better this year apparently. Glad they had the patience (as usual) to wait until the time was right. Also glad they're not attaching an asset or paying a bunch of salary just to dump Thames.

CORE-NAN SPEREZENBERG

I'd gladly take a chance on Dozier if the money is acceptable. Doubt he gets a big offer. Wouldn't bet on him being good next year, but it's not hard to be a better option than some of the other guys available. I could live with Spangenberg/Perez at 2B though. Spangenberg's career OPS+ isn't much worse than Moustakas's (94 to 98), and he's got a better OBP (.318 to .307).

I agree. I mean, what's the FG projection for manager/gm/analytics WAR? They're milking a lot of extra wins out of these guys. Not a lot of guys who contributed the last 2 years are coveted individual talents if you think about it, so I don't think FG's pessimism about the sum of individual talent on the team is actually that far off. It just misses the part of their value that goes with being able to fit into the larger strategy they're employing. That includes having options, being a good fit in a platoon, being able to handle long relief, and being a versatile defender. As for next year, I think it's a combination of uncertainty about the young pitchers and some possible regression from guys like Aguilar, Yelich, Chacin, Cain, and Jeffress. I personally think Burnes, Peralta, and Woodruff will help them have a pretty strong staff, but I seriously doubt they'll have the most all-stars in the NL once again next year. I'm kind of bracing myself for a temporary step backwards, but I support them wanting to keep Hiura and their young pitchers instead of trying to keep pace with some of the other moves teams are making for the short term.