coolhandluke121

I don't think the first game of the year is a good indication of what kind of pitching depth they'll need, but the quality depth of the pen is a factor. However, guys like Woodruff and Suter will probably have de facto innings limits and you don't get to play against teams like San Diego or in a park like PETCO every day. They play 29 games in 31 days after Sunday and it's going to be hard to keep that 13th hitter for much of the year. I just can't see Aguilar sticking around long. They will vacillate between 12 and 13 pitchers a lot, and that requires guys with options. Villar or Perez could go, too, but I don't expect it. Not with Choi having options. Don't forget Dubon, who I think would be adequate to replace Perez or Sogard without much drop-off. However, like Gomez and Segura before him, Perez still has more potential if he learns just a little more patience (big if, I know), and Sogard is basically Dubon with experience and coming off a career year.

I saw that. Even if you don't know anything about the team, isn't it kind of weird to have only about 10 wins between your best-case scenario and worst-case scenario? Beyond that, I like the team too and I think the pitching staff is underrated, but I certainly won't be shocked if they win less than 80 and I don't know why anyone would be. There's regression, injuries, youth, and just the general lack of a consistent track record of productivity for many of their key guys.

How many 2 out 2 strike hits did we get yesterday? Last season we couldn't do that to save our souls. That was definitely key. An even bigger takeaway for me is the depth in the pen. The Brewers were good in close games but bad in extra inning games last year. I don't think that was a fluke. Before Hader and Swarzak, they had very few reliable relievers and the pen went belly-up after the 9th or 10th. Drake, Barnes, and Torres, not necessarily in that order, were their 3rd, 4th, and 5th option in the pen, and the rest had no business sniffing an MLB roster. Now Drake and Barnes are the last 2 options. That's huge. Their #2 guy for much of the year was Hughes. He would be one of the worst pitchers in the pen this year.

Advanced stats like FIP have far more predictive power than a few bad games. Basing assessments of a player on just a few highly visible games is what some of the worst franchises in all of sports do. For example, do you know how many times the Bucks have overpaid some total scrub because he had a few good games against them, or because he had a few good games in the playoffs? How many teams have overpaid a backup qb after he has a few lucky huge games when a starter was hurt? It has almost no predictive power, whereas FIP has a lot. It's not even really the eye test. The eye test would be observing that even though he had some bad outings last year, Barnes has two really good pitches that should play extremely well out of the pen. The eye test would say that he is capable of being just as dominant as Knebel, Jeffress, and Axford with just a slight improvement in command, which is something that often gets better than age. What you're talking about is neither the eye test nor advanced stats, both of which have solid predictive power, but rather selective memory. Data sets as small as the handful of times Barnes was bad in crucial situations are practically irrelevant in comparison to advanced stats combined with more objective, disciplined scouting, but those bad games make a lasting impression because of the emotional reaction they elicit.

It is. Regression to the mean. I'm right with you there. Not really expecting Knebel to have a great year, but guys like Barnes often emerge and have a great year. It's the nature of the beast with relievers. I believe he's the next Turnbow/Axford/Jeffress/Knebel breakthough candidate. The Brewers bullpen was the story today, despite the blown save. Rock solid options all the way through. That's going to pay big dividends this year.

"OK" -Arcia Lol.

Knebel is always pitching with a runner on first it seems. I was all for keeping the extra PH's for just this series, but if you're not going to PH for Villar when you know you're going to put in a defensive sub for him anyway, what exactly was the point? You're not likely to get much use out of your bench just by PH'ing for your pitcher.

They can do a sign-and-trade with Jabari, or they can let him walk and spend about $8m per year on a mid-level exception player. Jabari has never really been a fit next to Giannis and Khris and is mediocre to awful at everything except scoring, which they don't really need. He's never really played winning basketball, going all the way back to Duke when Coach K had to bench him in the tournament. His advanced stats are terrible and no matter how impressive some of his scoring highlights are, the team just hasn't consistently played better when he's on court. He's always had a negative adjusted plus-minus, and the team has gotten a big boost both times he got hurt (first replacing him with Dudley, then with Khris coming back). Complementary glue guys like Brogdon and Brown are better fits with Giannis and Khris, and they can provide enough scoring. Even if Jabari had reached his potential, they would have been better off trading him for a really good center or pg, or at least a high draft pick so they could take their chances on getting one there. It's really too bad they waited this long to realize what should have been obvious, because they probably could have traded Jabari and some bad contracts for expiring contracts and a high lotto pick if they had the foresight to do so. The moral here is that even for efficient 20+ ppg scorers, there's an awful lot of basketball to be played between those buckets, just like there's an awful lot of baseball to be played in the intervales between the 40+ hr's a guy like Chris Carter is capable of hitting. Usually the best scorers are at least respectable in a lot of the other skills you need to win, but every once in a while you find a top-flight scorer who's just not a good basketball player at all, and that's Jabari.

In the long run, it's worse for them and therefore better for the Brewers. What's hard to understand about that? Is it hard to understand why it was good for the Pirates, Cubs, and Cardinals when the Brewers signed Garza and Suppan and kept a bunch of washed-up guys on 8-figure salaries so long that they ended up negative WAR players, instead of trading them when they had the chance? I don't just think about this year. That's the kind of thinking that puts you in the situation the Brewers have been in for most of Mark A's time with the team. If the Brewers' peak was this year, I'd be more concerned, but this just makes it that much more likely that the Brewers will be the dominant team in the Central in 3 years.

I probably give a slight edge to Jennings, but everyone has to remember that both of them are just stopgap lefty relievers until Boone is back and Suter hopefully moves to the pen to make room for Nelson and Burnes. Kudos to Stearns for doing as well as can be reasonably expected under the circumstances. For a team that was supposed to be rebuilding for a few more years, having guys like Drake and Jennings as your 6th/7th reliever due to injuries is actually pretty solid.

Good lineup against an LHP. Glad to see they based their 2B decision on Villar's career splits, rather than last year's fluke splits. Was hoping to see him in the 9 hole but maybe they believe in him to be a quality 6/7 guy again.

Yeah, giving up the draft pick is head-scratcher. But in a way, I'm glad so many rival teams made moves that they could regret. Still think the Brewers' best window is a few years away, and wild card contention this year and last was just a bonus. The division favorites are really strong right now and I think teams like Philly, Colorado, NYM, SF, and St. Louis made a lot of sacrifices for a pretty questionable chance to close the gap significantly. I guess SF has no farm anyway so I can't blame them, but I wouldn't like this if I was a Cardinals fan. Anything that puts the Brewers in a better position to be one of the dominant teams in a couple years is fine by me.

Not bad for the Cards I guess. They needed him. Just not a fan of paying such a premium for a "closer" because talented relievers are coming out of nowhere to fill that role all the time. I still think the Cards were a fluke last year, but obviously this isn't great for the Brewers because the bullpen was arguably the Cardinals' biggest weakness.

Yes, it really is as simple as that. Same thing with Hoover; he can be stashed in AAA until he's needed. They'll likely be #1 and #2 when Choi is optioned and Aguilar traded/DFAd. Yet the decision to consider things like 40-man roster spots and maintaing depth when deciding on the 7th/8th bullpen slots has people puking over the decision. Quite amusing really. As for the whole 14 position player thing: Again, why not? If you don't have to DFA Aguilar right now, don't do it. If there's a bigger chance of working out some kind of trade, or bigger chance of him clearing waivers, a week from now then that's what you do. It also means that the pinch hitting options for the first series at least will be Santana/Thames, Aguilar and Choi. That's pretty damn good. It's just the opening day roster. It's symbolic, and will change. A lot. 50 players used last year. Then consider that evenly distributed, there were ~22 replacement level (or above) players per team in the MLB last year. Of course you try to keep as many of those guys as you can. It's incredibly short-sighted to just look at the opening day roster. Williams will see plenty of time in the majors this year. So will Hardy. Probably Choi too. Besides all that, Drake somehow became the scapegoat for pretty much everything last year. He's better than the general consensus of him is on here. But this isn't really the place for that debate, and I doubt I can chage anyone's mind on that. Good post. I wanted more youth on the 25, but I can't complain about stashing them for depth. That's a pretty important variable to consider, and I'm sure they young guys will get plenty of chances. I don't care about the symbolic importance of the opening day roster any more than you do. This is no different than optioning a pitcher or two to AAA for a 3-game series between two off days in an AL park in the middle of June; it's probably just the anticipation of opening day that causes people to make a bigger deal out of it than it is. It makes perfect sense to keep as many dangerous PH's as possible for the San Diego series. Aguilar and Choi won't last long at all. They don't have frequent off days after the next series gets underway. Drake would have been fine as a LOOGY. I like how his K rate projects to a lower e.r.a. Jennings is fine too and deserves the roster spot because he can face RHB's a little more, but I would not have had any problem keeping Drake at least until Boone returns. ETA: Hardy??

I haven't looked at all the data, but I feel like Jennings has had the benefit of playing in slightly more pitcher-friendly ballparks overall. More importantly, I think he's been in some easier divisions. Drake has been in the AL East and NL Central, which is pretty brutal. A good ground-ball pitcher should play better in Miller Park, but I don't think Jennings is some kind of slam dunk. Strikeout rate is usually a pretty big deal. Drake has less than a 100 innings, and his ability to miss bats is a pretty strong indication that his e.r.a. over the course of his career will improve due to regression to the mean. He's just not nearly as bad as people have made him out to be, and there was never any reason to DFA him until they got an upgrade. The angst here was completely out of proportion to his ability, and they absolutely did the right thing by keeping him as long as they did.

That's fair. This is definitely related to the outfield log-jam though, and started with a conversation about wanting to give Phillips more of a chance. Signing Cain after they acquired Yelich was a pretty big surprise and many here still question it. It's fair to be for or against the signing and for or against trading him if they stumble, but acting like trading him is some kind of taboo under the circumstances is zealously conservative.

I agree completely that this is a bigger issue. I have to see anyone even attempt to give a baseball reason why you shouldn't change course on a "win-now" move once it becomes evident you can't "win now". It's just "you can't do that to free agents" and "nobody ever does that". But Cain would have to agree to it anyway, so it's no skin off his back, and the fact that it rarely happens is just evidence that teams are too stubborn to admit mistakes and too slow to adapt to changing circumstances. As for your question, one obvious answer would be a team that was unexpectedly good and decided to be buyers at the deadline, even though they weren't buying in the offseason. This year's version of the 2017 Brewers, if you want to think of it that way. Then there's the matter of injuries and changing needs and stuff like that. Another thing you have to realize is that luxury tax teams would have given up a comp round A pick for signing him, so just because they didn't sign him doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to give up something more comparable to the value of a 3rd-round pick to get him. The Brewers could also pay part of his salary. I like the guy and it's probably the only big free agent signing in the last 30 years I've liked, but a big part of that is because they have a chance to win close to 90 games this year. If that proves to be unattainable, they would be fools to not be open-minded about trading him if he wants to go to a contender.

How can you question the contract and simultaneously say there's no way he could possibly be traded? That's a contradiction. If it was not in the team's best interest to sign him, then it is in their best interest to trade him. The signing was a borderline good move to begin with, and if the Brewers falter this year, signing Cain starts to look like a mistake. There's just no need to be stubborn about it. Fixing a mistake is a good thing. Refusing to admit one is not.

You wanna take a guess why nobody ever hired any analytics people to make baseball decisions, and instead gave all those jobs to former players and career "baseball people"? How did that work out? There was once a time in baseball when you basically had only one or two pitchers who threw every day, and you never went to the pen. Not every tradition is correct. Sometimes it's just inertia. As for Cain's feelings, he would have to waive his no-trade clause and would be going to a contender, so you could argue it looks good for free agents. It's nothing like the Marlins, who tore apart a defending world champion before the season even started. LOL at that comparison. Cain was signed with the intention of being an 85+ win team again this year. If that proves to be an unattainable goal, that dramatically changes the circumstances under which he was signed. It was already a signing that was questionable to a lot of informed observers for a variety of reasons, and not being a contender this year makes all the difference in determining whether that was a good signing or not.

That's not evidence. No dogma in the world would ever be challenged under this logic. That would be an awful world to live in. I'm sure there are literally hundreds of examples just in my lifetime of where a player should have been traded in the season after they signed a big free agent contract, but wasn't because teams were either too stubborn to admit or a mistake or too slow to recognize changing circumstances. OMG does this season need to start. You keep on keeping on, though. If you want to keep replying, why not address my point? There are tons of examples of teams making big mistakes by keeping expensive free agent acquisitions even when their intention to contend was proven futile. Just from our own recent history, you have Ramirez, Lohse, and Garza all having good years on a mediocre team in their first year as a Brewer, but instead of trading them when it was clear that the team wasn't good, they foolishly held on to them until they were negative WAR players on 8-figure salaries. Here on this board alone there are tons of people, including you on many occasions, wondering if signing Cain was the right move considering how the rest of the offseason played out. It seems half this board sees it in either black or white ("either go all-in or save for the future"), and trading Cain if the Brewers stumble would just be a matter of adjusting to your new situation, which is that you aren't the contender you thought you were and need to change your strategy.

That's not evidence. No dogma in the world would ever be challenged under this logic. That would be an awful world to live in. I'm sure there are literally hundreds of examples just in my lifetime of where a player should have been traded in the season after they signed a big free agent contract, but wasn't because teams were either too stubborn to admit or a mistake or too slow to recognize changing circumstances. Now that is data you can actually use to guide you.

It's not at all silly. They signed him because they had a really good year and it was a good gamble in hopes of breaking through this year. If last year proves to be a fluke - and you'd have to be really stubborn to not even acknowledge the possibility - that dramatically changes the circumstances under which they signed him. The greatest value of that deal is getting him now when you look like you're on the cusp of contention, but if this year proves they weren't really as close as they thought, then the only thing that would be silly would be refusing to admit it's not working and stubbornly staying the course. They are not a slave to something they did 6 months ago. They can change their mind. They don't owe you any explanation if it's what's best for the team under new circumstances. If you bought his jersey, that's your problem. Lorenzo is on a 5 year, $80m deal that spans his age 32 through age 36 seasons. If the Brewers aren't competitive this year, it basically becomes a 4 year, $66m deal that spans his age 33 through age 36 seasons. That's a very different value because his salary is increasing even as his productivity will likely be decreasing. It would be tunnel vision to refuse to consider a trade that would probably recoup the value of the draft pick you forfeited and maybe even then some. I like the guy and I want the Brewers to be successful this year, but a free agent contract is not a marriage. What I really don't get is this idea that you can't do it because you recently signed him though. You don't even want to consider how the circumstances might change over the course of the season. It's just "no, we just signed him, we can't trade him" without even considering any valid reasons you may or may not want to trade him (having acquired him recently not being a valid reason and not having anything to do with asset management or what's actually happening on the field). I mean, if you choose a path in the woods that looks good and 15 minutes later you see a tree blocking the path, and you have a chance to merge with the path you were on before with no time lost, would you insist on staying on the blocked path just because it's the one you chose 15 minutes ago and you feel wedded to that choice? Lastly, I would add that I had this exact same debate many times over Kyle Lohse. People said "he's doing great for the Brewers and all we'd get is prospects roughly worth the draft pick we gave up to get him, so we can't trade him." I said "they're not looking like contenders now or next year and he's approaching 35, so they need to trade him for value while they have the chance". And it's not even about who was right or wrong, so much as whether some people were even willing to consider the asset management as a factor in the decision making process.

He would have to approve. He has no-trade protection that diminishes throughout the contract. I don't think that would be a huge problem, and it's not like a team in this market should regularly be building through free agency anyway.

No it's not. It would just show that things change and they're willing and able to adapt instead of being stubborn.

Like the previous poster says, I don't think it would make too much of a difference. It's also only part of the reason why batting the pitcher 8th is a net positive. If your #9 hitter gets on base more, that impacts your #1-#2-#3 hitters in that they get more opportunities to drive runners in, like a second leadoff man. That even creates an effect where the worse the pitcher is at hitting, the more you benefit from batting him 8th, whereas you might be better off batting a pitcher who can hit really well 9th instead of 8th. Basically the bigger the difference between the #8 and #9 hitter, the more you benefit from batting the better one 9th. As counter-intuitive as it may seem. (I suspect there's a point where if the pitcher is truly truly awful at the plate, he might be better of 9th. But your average pitcher is better of 8th). Yeah, as long as you're not giving pitchers extra ab's (the main issue with moving any inferior hitter up in the lineup), then it's fine. They PH for them anyway, and it would be a pretty rare instance where batting the pitcher 8th instead of 9th means you give him an extra ab. If you'd be ready to PH for him 9th, you're usually going to be willing to do it 8th as well. So the number of ab's is the same, and since your best PH is far better than your 9th hitter anyway, in a way it's actually more ab's for your better hitters, which is the really the most important lineup consideration that all others follow from. I wouldn't say it benefits every lineup to have that extra lead-off guy in the 9th hole though. That's true in many cases, but then you have to consider whether you're failing to get a good batter to the plate when you have your 6 or 7 hitter on base. That's not a good trade-off for all teams, but it is when the strength of your lineup is especially skewed toward the top of the order. The Brewers should have a beastly 1-5, but could have a dramatic drop-off in OBP 6-9 (significantly more dramatic than the average team), so they would be a lineup that has higher potential benefits and fewer drawbacks to batting Sogard or Villar 9th.