coolhandluke121

Yep. There's just so much history of free agent pitchers being bad values. Can't gloss over that.

With all due respect, that is garbage. It's not "garbage" dude. You know what's garbage? Over-paying and wasting draft picks on injured/aging guys in notable decline in free agency, especially when you're a small market. Why are the Brewers in this position in the first place? Everyone thought they were supposed to tank, but last season was a testament to how buy-low guys and under-the-radar steals are not only better values than retreads, injury risks, and guys on the decline, they're often better, period. And people want to turn right around after all the success they had last year and waste money and draft picks on 30-something free agent pitchers with all kinds of red flags, going back to the logic that basically squandered one of the best minor league systems this century in Mark A's first 10 years. It blows my mind. At least Garza and Suppan and Wolf and Lohse were totally healthy.

First off, as others have said, this does NOT necessarily mean they cost themselves 1 year. There's a ton of uncertainty around guys on severe declines like Arrieta and guys coming off TJ surgery like Lynn and Cobb. There's no comparison between those guys and the guys the Brewers acquired. As for Cain, he had possibly his best season and is still one of the elite athletes in baseball. I agree about age in general, but everything should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. CF's of his caliber are extremely rare and great to have. He just had his best OBP, played 15 more games than he's ever played before, had a 26:2 SB:CS ratio, and displayed sprint speed in the top 5% of all MLB outfielders. If he took one of those facebook quizzes on "true age", he'd probably churn out a 28. To me it's just a bunch of people saying "I've heard of Cobb, Lynn, and Arrieta, but I've never really heard of Suter and Woodruff, so the Brewers better sign someone". That's more of an "on paper" move though. Those guys probably aren't worth the effort of getting upset about, at least not at the price they got. Other options will come along if the Brewers are still in it in July, and if they're not, then Cobb, Lynn, or Arrieta wouldn't have helped much anyway and would have been a waste of a pick.

Great post. It's not the automatic upgrade that people are making it out to be, and they weren't closing the gap on the Dodgers, Cubs, or Nationals anyway.

I specifically said with regard to the rotation. Yes but my original post was in response to someone who basically said "why trade for Yelich and sign Cain if you weren't going to sign one of the top starters?" I believe Yelich and Cain are smart risks and the starters are not, and that's why they did it. These guys are really disciplined and intelligent. Everything is a gamble and it might not all work out, but I believe they are placing the right bets and that pays off in the long run. They didn't see fit to sign any of these guys, and they get the benefit of the doubt easily. With the work they've done in such a short amount of time, it's going to take a long time before I start to doubt them.

Cain and Yelich were smart risks. The pitchers were not. So they got Cain and Yelich and I'm sure it will work itself out eventually. I remember when all those relievers were signing for $5m+ per season in November and December and some people here were impatient and angry that the Brewers weren't signing any of them. It's just instant gratification. Patience and discipline are crucial to a small market team's success and they showed it in spades this offseason.

Lots of teams have question marks in the rotation. It could go either way. The real risk is spending too much and/or forfeiting draft picks for guys who could easily be worse than Suter and Woodruff due to injury and/or age. Hard to bounce back from that kind of mistake if you're a small market. Cain and Yelich were quite possibly the two best values among high-profile acquisitions in all of baseball this offseason IMO. And it sounds like diminishing the value of saving money and assets for future moves, but that's not a thing you want to underestimate as a small market team.

Guerra has an option. I also think he might have done a little damage to his arm in 2016. There are people who know a lot more about pitching than me who said he had increased his velocity at the expense of sustainability, possibly because he knew it was his last chance. I think I'd go with Gallardo, just to save Woodruff's innings for later in the season. ETA: Yeah, just save Woodruff's service time and make sure you are actually a respectable team before you over-commit. See if Gallardo can hold the fort for a few months. Then move Suter to the pen for Woodruff if he does well in AAA, and move Gallardo to long relief gradually as Nelson works his way back.

I'm not so sure. I think they took smart risks. I also like the fact that they put Braun under pressure to play 1B, which was in their best interests. Aguilar does not have nearly the track record to suggest he's in Braun's class as a hitter, even if Braun continues to have injuries and show signs of decline. And I wouldn't be surprised if Braun is a better fielder than Aguilar and Thames as well. I like the moves. Get the best risk:reward ratios and go from there. Needs change and so do trade opportunities. They're a very smart front office. I'm glad they passed on all these starters at the prices they got.

His 3.65 e.r.a. here last year went with a 1.6 WHIP and terrible peripherals. Also, using the 10 innings he pitched here in 2010 as more evidence of him being better in Milwaukee kind of proves my point about spurious reasoning and drawing conclusions from trivial blips in the data. He was in his prime in his main stint with Milwaukee and that's by far the simplest and most likely explanation. I hope he's good, but I think he's just another retread like Gallardo and Guerra to me and I would rather give that opportunity to Williams or Houser.

I hate watching the guy but you have to give credit where credit is due. He is definitely a positive value base-runner despite all the miscues. It's frustrating to waste outs so stupidly, but as long as the team doesn't let it affect their performance, an out is an out, whether it's because a player makes dumb mistakes or just because he's too slow. The same goes for his defense to some extent. The stumble-bumble stuff looks bad and makes a strong negative impression on Brewers, but range is very important. The eye test is very misleading when it comes to defensive value for that reason. Some of the most sure-handed middle infielders (Yuni, Jeter, Rollins) are some of the worst defenders because of range, whereas quicker guys like Villar and prime Weeks aren't nearly as bad as the eye test and fielding percentage would lead you to believe.

That's too nebulous. The simplest explanation is usually the best. He was in Milwaukee for his age 26-28 seasons. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence from 1000's of players over many decades that shows those are usually the best years for players, and that's going to be especially true of players like Jeffress with bad health habits. There's not much reason to think it has anything to do with being in Milwaukee, given the circumstances. That's probably a combination of wishful thinking, nostalgia, and spurious reasoning. And it's not like he was good with Milwaukee last year. A 1.6 WHIP is abysmal. He got very lucky to not give up many runs, but his periphals were significantly worse than Barnes's and even Drake's - and not just in his small sample of games with Milwaukee, but for the whole season.

He already did. How many cliffs does he get? I don't think there's a lot of merit to the idea that being in Milwaukee again will help him. He was good in Milwaukee because he was in his physical prime, and he's not anymore.

That's what I'm thinking too. The lack of draft pick compensation might make up for missing him for a few months. Teams are valuing draft picks very highly right now, as they should. And many teams will want to see how the first few months go before they over-commit. Don't get me wrong; I think he should have taken the best deal weeks ago. There's a reason you almost never see this. Was Kendrys Morales the only one? But waiting is a gamble that could pay off.

Don't get me wrong because I'm okay with the rotation too, but I don't think it works this way. Quantity over quality doesn't mean anything with starters. You can only choose one of them for each spot in the rotation, and by the time you realize you chose the wrong one, you would have cost yourself several crucial games. Out of Guerra, Miley, Gallardo, Woodruff, Suter, Burnes, and Wilkerson, there's probably an 80% chance one of them would have a great season this year if given the opportunity. The problem is that you can't give all of them that opportunity. Not even close. My reasons for not wanting to add a starter are more about finances, draft picks, and the maximizing the best window of contention, which is not this year. The Nats will fade soon and the Cubs will be deep in the luxury tax with a weak farm system. See what you have in Suter, Woodruff, and Burnes; they're just as likely as Guerra or Gallardo to have a good season anyway.

You are using his statistics as a starter. There’s a decent chance he’s a serviceable reliever that can give you a couple innings at a time. He may not make it on our team but that’s what the Brewers are looking at him for. Except nothing about what Gallardo throws makes me think he'll play up in relief. 91-92 at best with an above average curve. Would you rather have that guy or the one throwing 96-99 with an above average-plus slider and serviceable change? Best case scenario for Gallardo is he throws high fastballs and keeps guys guessing on whether it's a high fastball or a curve breaking below the zone. Let him do that for a rebuilding club, I'll take the 96-99 guy that's only 27 and hasn't thrown 1700 pro innings already. I agree. Is there really a history of washed-up starters moving to the pen and being successful? Gallardo didn't pitch nearly enough relief innings to draw any conclusions last year. The failed starters who turn into really good relievers are usually guys who don't enough different pitches to keep people guessing 2+ times through the order, and they're often very hard throwers who keep hitters off balance when they replace a starter who doesn't throw as hard. Barnes should be an easy choice. The same team that brought us Axford, Turnbow, Jeffress, Thornburg, and Knebel under similar circumstances and with very low expectations should see to that.

Nelson always had that potential. He just had to mature and learn to stay ahead in the count and pitch with more strategy. Davies is probably still going to be good because of location and mixing speeds. Anderson was the big fluke last year. I recently read that he had one of the luckiest flyball/hr ratios in all of baseball last year. Many more of those will leave the park this year, as they always did in the past for him. Woodruff has a little more talent than Anderson ever did, but he's young. Suter is very intelligent and understands tempo. I think he will continue to be a little better than a reductionist look at his pitches would leave you to believe. I didn't really see Chacin has last year, but he has to be better than a lot of the guys who pitched last year if he's healthy. Didn't he have some kind of minor nagging injury that he's finally over, like Sogard with his knee? I think the staff will be about average, and I think that's all they need to stay in the top third of the NL. I'm just not at all impressed with any of the other wild card contenders besides Arizona. I don't see any reason to over-pay and give up another draft pick if you're already a strong favorite to claim a wild card and don't really have a realistic chance to hang with any of the division favorites/legit WS contenders. The NL has 3 elite teams, but after that I think it's the Brewers, Diamondbacks, and a whole bunch of mediocre teams that will be hoping to get lucky.

Thames played more than twice as much. Lind also played nearly half his innings as an outfielder. I guarantee Eric's WAR would have been a lot lower and Lind's higher if they switched places. Lind is also much more proven. It was Eric's first decent year. And Lind isn't even that much older. Nobody is giving up anything for Thames in an off-season in which Lind signs a minor league deal, Morrison gets a 1-year deal for about what Thames makes, Duda gets a 1-year deal for about half that, and Mark Reynolds can't even get a deal. Thames probably has negative trade value at this point. I'm not real attached to Thames or anything. I'd be fine with dumping him for a complete nobody if they find an upgrade or want to give Choi a chance. I doubt that happens, but I'd trust them if that's what they decide. Keeping Aguilar instead of him would make no sense though.

Guerra's surprise 4th option certainly gives Gallardo a better chance. I have some concerns about how many retreads this team might end up having though. If you go down the roster battles one-by-one, you could make a case for guys like Gallardo, Miley, Jeffress, Guerra, and Drake, but you run the risk of failing to see the forest for the trees. They have a lot of young arms who have a good chance to be part of the team for a long time, including when they likely peak in 2-3 years. I would prefer they just throw more guys like Williams, Houser, Suter, and Woodruff into the fire so they go through some of those growing pains now. It's not like the retreads aren't almost just as likely to struggle anyway. I think they're still a very strong wild card contender either way, and they're way behind the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals, so why not err on the side of building for the future?

No more options. This website is great for that sort of thing. It even has Guerra up to date with the "redshirt" option that was granted this year: https://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-milwaukee-brewers

Adam Lind just signed a minor league deal. Nobody is trading for Thames right now, and the Brewers need an LHB 1B/PH even if Braun does play ~120 games at 1B. Thames has also been a significantly better player than Aguilar for their entire careers, including even last year when Aguilar over-achieved dramatically. Keeping Aguilar instead of Thames does not add up. If they don't want Thames, they'll keep Choi instead.

For all the talk about Braun and Santana, Thames could be the odd man out. It's not like he's guaranteed to be better against RHB's than Braun again this year. Braun's career splits aren't all that dramatic. But that would depend on Braun making a very successful transition to 1B and staying healthy. I could actually see Braun being a better fielder than Thames or Aguilar, due to his agility, reach, and not having to throw much. One thing is for sure as far as I'm concerned, and that's Cain and Yelich being better than any of those 3. I could not justify sitting either of them when they don't need to.

The problem with this is you can't actually divvy up the plate appearances on the field like you can on paper. The timing of when guys get hurt or need rest doesn't care about your best-laid plans. Neither do platoon needs or pitching match-ups. The way many people are divvying up at-bats and rationalizing the log-jam is too dependent on everything going your way. For example, saying Braun usually misses 30 games and Cain misses 20... but what if some of those games are at the same time? What if it's a day game and Braun needs rest for his back, but they're facing an LHP? All the plate appearances won't just neatly sort themselves into the little boxes many people are putting them in. Cain and Yelich are the best players on the team and should play whenever they can. Braun, Santana, and Thames are all candidates to regress and/or get hurt, which would take care of the log-jam. Braun can hit RHB's well enough to play a lot of 1B if Thames bombs. That might be the most likely way it works itself out. A Santana trade is also possible. And don't discount the importance of PH'ing and double switches, which I think we'll see a lot of given their rotation make-up. But this is still far from optimal and I will be doing cartwheels if they swing a good Santana or Braun trade before opening day.

Nice argument there. And you want to move Santana to AAA to keep Aguilar. The point is not that you want to play Perez at 1B. The point is that you can't waste a roster spot on another 1B when you already have both sides of the 1B platoon covered.

Interesting point about Matt Arnold working for the Rays recently and having some insight into Cobb's value. I trust this front office implicitly if they don't believe he and the other SP's on the market were worth the price. It's not that people are wrong about probably needing more pitching. Davies is not likely to be that good again. Wasn't it 5 or 6 road starts in a row with 5+ ip's and no er's last year, joining Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens as the only pitchers to EVER have a streak like that? Anderson is likely to regress, what with his super lucky flyball/hr ratio last year and the fact that much of his increased velocity was just a matter of how they measured it. Nelson's spot could be a huge void, Chacin is probably just serviceable at best, and everyone else could struggle due to not enough experience or being in severe decline. What you may be wrong about if you're still clamoring for a guy like Cobb, or you're mad that they didn't get Arrieta or even Darvish, is whether the upgrade is worth the price. Just don't get mad at Stearns if the rotation struggles this year until you've fully considered what kind of value Philly and Chicago got for their money. Stearns was right to want meaningful upgrades at a reasonable price. There is a fairly good chance that Cobb, Arrieta, or Darvish would have made them quite a bit better this year, but they'd still be far behind the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals, and there's a good chance within 2 years they'd regret signing a guy like that. It happens all the time. And there's a non-negligible chance some of those guys aren't even that much better than Suter or Woodruff, used properly.