coolhandluke121

Couldn't disagree more. There's no guarantee that this roster won't regress significantly. If last year was a total fluke, which it may very well have been, then it will be a few years before the next wave of talent is ready to contribute. Remember, most of the guys that helped them win 86 games last year were considered stopgaps until the superior young talent arrived. Yelich fits either way, but Cain's value is obviously likely to be in the first few years of the deal. It would be a crying shame if they made the same mistake they made with Aramis Ramirez, keeping him until they had to pay part of his salary to get rid of him when they could have traded him for a huge haul early in his deal. It should have been obvious that he would be well past his prime before they were able to be truly competitive again, but they stubbornly refused to admit it and kept him until he had negative value, like they did with so many other veterans in the Melvin era. I absolutely love Cain as a player and I think he will be good for a few year, but let's face it; the value of that acquisition to the Brewers goes way down if they aren't in playoff contention this year. Since he would still have value to other teams, the principle of asset management dictates that you strongly consider trading him in that event. It's probably a moot point, since I don't think last year was a total fluke. Also, the non-elite teams in the NL are so mediocre that it's hard to picture the Brewers not being in the wild card race most of the year. But you don't have to be a slave to moves you made even a week ago, let alone 6 months ago, and if changing course makes sense for the team, it's foolish not to do it. You don't owe it to anyone to stick with a plan that no longer makes as much sense. If they don't like you changing course, that's their problem. Plans should be flexible because situations are constantly changing, and it's often just laziness and inertia, not to mention a refusal to acknowledge mistakes, that causes teams to rarely make moves like trading Cain.

I see comments like this all the time. Is his range that bad in RF or is it just because of his arm? If his range is the same and it's just because of his arm, then it's a totally overblown deficiency. I see he hasn't played an inning of RF in the majors and I would assume that is 100% because of a man named Giancarlo Stanton and has nothing to do with Yelich's lack of defensive ability in RF. It's not just arm strength. Reads are different and experience matters. Ballparks aren't symmetric and if you've spent your whole career in the NL in LF, then you know a lot about where the wall is, where the warning track is, how to avoid glare from the sun, etc. Moving to RF takes that advantage away. Plus all the stuff you've learned about how hitters tend to slice and hook makes a difference too. And arm strength is a pretty big deal IMO. I am generally more than willing and eager to challenge established dogma, but I think a good arm in RF is very important for run prevention.

So are you saying unequivocally that you think Cain will be worth what he is being paid five years from now? I have no idea where you're getting that. It's not appropriate to suggest people said things they didn't say in order to diminish their argument. It's also silly to put it in those terms; clearly, the question is whether he's worth the contract they gave him over 5 years, not whether he's worth the last year of his deal. I believe there's better than a 60% chance he will be; I put the odds on Arrieta, Cobb, and Darvish all quite a bit lower than that. No, I'm glad because they are trying to win without making the type of impulsive decisions that impatient casual fans like Mark Attanasio would make. It's easy to set up for the future when you tank, and it's easy to win more than 85 games if you build a great future and then mortgage it every chance you get. On the other hand, it's very hard to be as good as they are and still be set up remarkably well for the short and long-term future, especially when you're a small market team, but they're walking that line beautifully.

Adam Lind signed a minor league deal and Morrison got a 1-year deal for about what Thames makes. Mark Reynolds still doesn't have a deal and I'm not even sure Chris Carter will get a minor league deal. Nobody is giving up anything for Aguilar or Thames, and they'd be lucky just to be able to get out of most of Thames's salary. Aguilar will be dfa'ed in his prime for the 2nd year in a row because he's a fringe MLB player at best. I would support keeping Choi instead of Thames if it meant they'd spend the money elsewhere eventually, but I am not getting my hopes up.

I don't remember them saying it saved the team money, at least not in any significant way. It might have complex escrow and tax implications, but I always thought it was understood that it's the quintessential example of kicking the can down the road. It's basically just "we can't spend that much this year, but we want to pay this guy, so let's defer it". I think the best part of the article was when Stearns said everything has a cost, and whatever you pay now is something you can't pay later. I think they did the right thing by saving so much for later. Change happens fast, and they'll soon be glad they did.

Agree with everything except wondering why they weren't more aggressive in search of a starter. I'm glad the plan is to develop young pitching. That's what a small market team should do. Just because they signed Cain doesn't mean they have to be all-in this year. I share your desire to see Phillips get an opportunity and do well, but I acknowledge that I am biased in favor of his defense. My heart wants him to be good, but brain keeps telling me he's just a slightly better Kirk. If they stumble out of the gate and Cain waives his no-trade clause, I wouldn't mind dealing him this summer and letting Phillips/Broxton platoon in center. Aguilar and Choi were acquired on the waiver wire and any team that wants them knows they'll be available again soon. I doubt they can even get a prospect comparable to Wilkerson for either one of them. It would be great to have them in AAA, as I see Braun and Thames both potentially needing some time off this year, but that's not really fair to them. It's a good rule, and the Brewers have benefited from it many times, so we can't complain when they lose talent the same way.

You said I was biased and I clearly just hate the guy. Are you sure you're not the biased one? You want to waste a roster spot on a strictly platoon RHB 1B when you're already going to have trouble finding ab's for the former MVP you already have in that role. That's an awful lot of consideration to give a career minor leaguer whose track record is worse than Matt Clark or Jason Rogers. There's no comparison between him and Drake in terms of fit on this roster right now. Ideally you don't want to even be having this conversation because you don't need either of them, but with Boone out, Drake is a no-brainer. It doesn't mean I like the guy at all, but there are few players less impressive than Aguilar fighting for roster spots in all of MLB.

They need a serviceable reliever, especially one who can get LHB's out. They don't need a fat RHB 1B who can't do anything at replacement level except maybe slugging. I doubt anybody does. If Braun wasn't playing 1B and they had more relievers, I'd be keeping Aguilar and cutting Drake. But the real point is that there's no dilemma when it comes to moving on from either one of them once you have a legit long-term MLB player in that role.

His 311 plate appearances last year were respectable, but aren't nearly enough evidence to conclude that he has fixed what made him waiver wire fodder after being a nothing prospect in the minors for nearly 10 years. His 83 plate appearances as a PH are but farts in the wind. Needing statistical significance and large data sets is not exactly controversial in baseball at this point. It would be criminal to base a roster decision on his success as a PH last year.

I'm gonna go with 83 wins. They're talented, but I expect regression and growing pains. I anticipate them giving lots of young guys a chance, with mixed results. The offense will be good, bullpen solid, and rotation a little below average. I think they had pretty good injury luck last year, and you can't count on that to happen again. All in all, they have a better roster than last year, but they won't have the same good fortune. I wouldn't mind if they sell high on a couple guys and play a lot of young guys in the 2nd half, in which case their win total could be in the 70's. However, I think there's a shortage of qualified wild card contenders after Arizona, so average NL teams will be unlikely to sell at the deadline.

But the main reason they can't go to 110 is because of previous bad financial decisions. They're still paying guys like Garza, whom they never should have signed in the first place, and Ramirez, whom they had no business keeping after 2012 under the circumstances (they clearly needed to rebuild, he was aging, and his salary was going way up every year). All they're saying is that they're going to stop making bad decisions like that. It won't pay off for years, but it will eventually. I don't know about you, but I still plan to be a Brewer fan 5 years from now (even though they didn't sign the great Alex Cobb) and I'm glad they're thinking that far ahead, even as they try to compete this year.

Yep. First impressions die harder than they should in the face of more comprehensive data, and some of those May/June implosions were brutal. Nobody is denying that, but all average relievers have lots of brutal outings and it's part of the volatility of the role. There's no need to tar and feather him. He's going to play a role and help the team IMO. And Aguilar is the converse. He's just not good at all, but some of those big pinch-hits were unforgettable, and his series in Colorado, against their primary rival for the 2nd wild card, was monumental. I get it; I wanted to buy an Aguilar jersey too after that series. But that was not really a good indication of his chances of success moving forward, and they need a 13th pitcher much more than they need him. I'd be fine with giving a guy like Chris Carter a minor league deal in case Braun gets hurt, and I'd rather keep Choi than Aguilar by a mile. By the way, Aguilar's OPS last year not counting his 6 pa's at Coors? A measly .797, under somewhat favorable platoon splits no less.

If you come right out and say that his 4,000+ career MiLB plate appearances are "useless" for evaluative purposes and all that matters is his ~300 plate appearances last year, then you're proving my point about the irrational affinity people have for him. And it's not like he was even that good last year. An .837 OPS for a 1B who does nothing at replacement level except *maybe* slugging and who plays on the dime-a-dozen side of the platoon isn't worth jack squat.

He might even be more likely to have a successful year if he's used correctly. I don't understand why people are ready to riot over a guy with a 3.60 career FIP. Actually, I think I do understand. It's because he had a few very memorable implosions at a bad time. An early-season game against SD comes to mind, for example. He's like the antithesis of Aguilar, who is beloved by some because of a few memorable home runs in key situations, in spite of his otherwise pathetic credentials. Drake is hated because of a few unforgettable mistakes in key situations, in spite of his otherwise respectable credentials. With Boone hurt and Hader/Suter being more long relief guys than lefty specialists, they definitely have a spot for Drake. I'm confident that the front office is taking an objective approach to Drake's status, and I think there's a decent chance he makes the team, at least for a while.

They cannot block young players? Why sign Cain when you have a young Phillips to play center? Why was Miley even considered for a starting spot with a young Suter and a young Woodruff ready for those spots? Is Braun, as many here are suggesting, going to play a bunch of RF and block a young Santana? They may have a plan but what was stated above isn't it and it certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I'm not a big fan of accepting things just because "that's the way it is". Fans vote with dollars and if they stop spending those dollars on the Brewers because of a dumb plan, it will matter plenty. Well, for one thing, he specifically mentioned young pitchers. And Phillips is not really an intriguing prospect anyway. Secondly, I very much doubt Braun will be blocking Santana and they tried to trade Santana anyway. Lastly, Miley and Gallardo were "considered" for starting spots because it's competition, a common sense good practice for any team. It's silly to suggest that either one of them would be "blocking" the young guys unless the young guys clearly weren't ready or the Brewers want to preserve their service time. Pretty much everything they did is consistent with the plan, which is not some reductionist nonsense about going all-in now or saving it all for later. It's about getting good values, avoiding bad ones, and preserving maximum flexibility while exploring all every possible avenue to improving the team. The fans will be out in full force when they win, and the impatient ones will ultimately be glad they weren't the ones making decisions.

The free agents haven't really been terrible either. Just kind of meh. You expect 1-2 good years and a decline. The return seems about fair. Also, the trades haven't exactly been great either when you consider what they gave up. A lot of people see the Greinke and Sabathia trades as necessary to make the playoffs, but with the talent pool they built up before Mark A bought the team, they should have been in contention of the playoffs on a yearly basis. They basically only had 2 good years under Mark A. That's abysmal considering how much talent he inherited, and part of it can be attributed to giving up astounding surplus value (Brantley, Cain, Escobar, Odorizzi) for guys like Sabathia and Greinke. How many mediocre seasons did they have that would have been very different with guys like that? Use a sustainable model of team-building please! But the real story was their inability to develop homegrown pitching, which is a million times better strategy (no hyperbole, seriously) than playing free agency or trades if you're a small market team. They appear to be committed to that, and the early returns are promising. I honestly see this team as a turn-of-the-century A's level front office, head and shoulders above nearly everyone else in discipline and sense of value. I could have lived with Cobb, but I'm glad they stuck to their guns and appear poised to give Woodruff and Suter, among others, every opportunity in the world to earn their keep.

Great post. I think it's narrow-minded to say they have to make questionable "win now" moves just because they acquired Yelich and Cain. Team-building is an ongoing process. Needs change constantly. Injuries happen. Guys emerge while others decline. Just keep getting good players on good values and let it work itself out. Most importantly, develop your own young pitching, because acquiring it in free agency is desperation. It really doesn't even work for the richest teams, but for a team like the Brewers, it's a slow death. The only thing I disagree with is not yet being one or two pieces away from the playoffs. I think the NL is absurdly mediocre after Washington, Chicago, and LAD. I think they have a great chance at a wild card without any more upgrades. So they preserved basically all their future assets except a 3rd-round pick (I consider Yelich a great future piece as well as a win-now piece), stayed fiscally responsible, and still are a solid wild card contender. I think that's a slam dunk off season.

Obviously he didn't want to be a Brewer.

There are lots of scenarios in both directions that probably sort of cancel out. You've given some good examples of scenarios where it would be a shame to have a pitcher hit 8th, but there are also lots of scenarios where it would be better. How many innings are killed because the pitcher leads off before the top of the order, for example? I see a lot of that stuff cancelling out. To me it comes down to occasionally pulling a starter a little earlier (which I think the Brewers should do anyway given the make-up of their staff) to get more at-bats with men on base for the top of the order. As long as you have the long relievers to manage that, you're actually getting fewer at-bats from your pitcher by moving them up in the order. The fact that you're always going to have a PH capable of a .900 OPS just makes it slam dunk. I would add that last year Counsell let the starter hit only to pull him in the next inning nearly twice as much as any other manager I've ever seen. It got to the point where I expected it nearly every game. I wonder if he learned anything from that. He surely knows the stats about a starter supposedly "cruising" but then falling apart early in the 3rd time through the order. Will have a PH like Braun, Thames, or Santana, combined with having 8 relievers, be enough to encourage him to deviate from the dogma? I sure hope so. Even a good sac bunt from a pitcher is still an out, and does the opposing team a huge favor compared to bring up a legit masher.

The 8 spot comes up more often with two out and none on more than any other spot in the order, except third. It's worth about ten runs a year to swap them, but that assumes the team uses an optimal lineup otherwise. Yep. Not totally gonna dismiss the concerns, but I think the benefits far outweigh the costs. First off, you should be able to get an extra inning out of your bullpen. Secondly, this allows you to get your best PH to the plate in more high leverage at-bats. Thirdly, a lot of teams should be considering pulling starters a little earlier anyway because the third time through the order is much worse than the first two. Fourthly (is that a word?), this team has the versatility to do the kind of double switches that make going to your bench 1 or 2 innings earlier possible. Lastly, and most importantly, you will often have more guys on base (and in scoring position with a base-stealer like Villar) when the top of the order hits. That is a huge benefit. A team like the Brewers, with short starters, surplus long relievers, and a versatile bench, should definitely do this. I'm not sure there's been a more perfect team for it in my lifetime. And when your top PH is usually going to be Braun, Thames, or Santana? OMG it's a no-brainer. Can you imagine how many pitcher pa's you could reduce over the course of the season if you carry more long relievers and pull the pitcher before his 2nd or 3rd pa more often? And how many times you would be able to bring Braun or Thames in to PH with at least one man on? Not to mention moving the pitcher's spot in the lineup to whatever makes it less likely to come up for a couple more innings... I really hope this happens.

I like Villar/Sogard 9th. More chances to have guys on base for the top-heavy lineup later in the game. Gets your best PH to the plate earlier too. Pina is a quintessential #7 IMO. Occasional sac fly or double with the middle of the order on base, but probably not a great OBP and not likely to advance when the pitcher hits anyway. The 7 hole is kind of the poor man's version of a clean-up man. Arcia could be huge. It seems he has a little Segura/Gomez in him at the plate. Those guys looked terrible early in their careers and grounded out all the time too, but they had some hit tools. Top 5 are beastly. I don't see the Cardinals ahead of them. Not quite buying the career years from some of their guys last year.

Yep. Much-needed reminder that Arnold was pretty high up in the Rays' organization before joining the Brewers, just in case anyone thinks they're better at projecting Cobb's future than the front office is.

If the Brewers can't legitimately contend this year because they don't have the pitching, I wouldn't waste probably the most productive year of Cain's deal. If they have to restart the rebuild, a 34 year old center fielder is unlikely to be the cornerstone of that effort, especially at the price. Though I assume you were being sarcastic. Just my opinion. No sarcasm needed. You are advocating trading off a guy they just signed to a 5-year, $80 million deal in the first part of his first season if things don't go well. Not only is that impossible due to his no-trade protection, it would be very short-sighted. Could he be on the block a few years down the road? Maybe, but that likely wouldn't be until 2020, and a lot of bad things would need to happen to make that a possibility. Things change fast and you have to be flexible. There's no need to pigeon-hole yourself into certain timelines. At this time last year, they were supposed to be tanking. Now they're "going for it", but there's no need to be set in their ways there either. You don't have to keep Cain because you just signed him. You don't have to be a slave to past moves that were made under different conditions. If they have a lot of regression and bomb this year, but Cain is doing well and is willing to accept a trade to a contender, there's nothing wrong with getting that draft pick back and maybe a little something more for your trouble. ETA: That's the same logic that made them keep Aramis Ramirez until he was worthless. They were going nowhere and could have gotten a haul for him after the 2012 season.

How many of those guys had Tommy John surgery? How many draft picks did they give up? What was the quality of the in-house options then, compared to now? How many young pitching prospects did they block?

Cobb is 30 and has had TJ surgery. That is not someone you ever bet on to return to his prime form. It would be in roughly the same class as the Randy Wolf signing, except a little younger with a slightly more concerning injury history. If the Brewers had been trying to win last year, people would have been absolutely furious that they were planning to start Nelson and Anderson. Just think that through and I think you'll see what I'm getting at. They did the right thing and will continue to do the right thing, and it will work out eventually because it's the right strategy. Giving Cobb that contract would have been impulsive and short-sighted. That said, I wouldn't have rioted because I would trust their judgment. But that's exactly what I'm saying; they've earned the benefit of the doubt. We have incredible talent running this team.