coolhandluke121

1. Walker is past his prime. Let's not have another Weeks, Hart, Ramirez, Marcum, Wolf, Lohse, or Garza decline candidate. They had unexpected success last year precisely because they stopped making personnel decisions like that (pretty ironic that "giving up" can actually make you win more because of the benefits of youth). 2. Villar is not yet in his prime and has the equivalent of only 3 full seasons. 3. Villar's first full season was better than any of Walker's 8. He doesn't have to repeat that to be the right choice. 4. Range matters; I bet you can make roughly twice as many errors and still be more valuable on defense than a slower guy. 5. Base-running mistakes are irritating, but it's similar to range on defense; you can make up for it and then some with speed. 6. Villar could be a valuable trade asset with a bounce-back year. 7. Sogard is a better defender and a legit backup SS. 8. The money could be utilized better in other ways, either on a starter now or at the trade deadline. 9. If Villar fails, guys like Perez and maybe Dubon probably deserve a shot. Bottom line, Villar doesn't have to be 2016 Villar to be a better option than Walker. Asset management is what got you here, so just keep going with that.

I despise Villar. I was over on realGM last offseason and constantly argued that they should trade him for whatever they could get. People said they'd never get an offer worthy of the season he had just had because it was just one year. I was like, DUH, of course everyone knows it was kind of a fluke and they won't get a good offer for him; even so, they're still better off trading him now for half of what he was worth in 2016 because guys as dense as him always figure out a way to squander their talent. I also love Walker. He's a model of consistent performance who was not yet washed up by any means, despite what skeptics thought when they traded for him. His injuries were clearly not long-term issues and he had always produced when healthy, including the weeks leading up to the trade when he was finally recovered from the hamstring issue. That's the type of guy you need up and down the lineup if you want to contend - or be successful in any industry, for that matter. And even I would prefer to give Villar another chance. We won't see another 2016 (his BABIP was absurd that year and guys usually start losing speed at 25 or so), but he will be better than last year. Walker is also one year older, and probabilistically should be on the brink of a decline. Most importantly, I think the Brewers should continue to be in asset management mode. That's what got them here. Not only is better for the future, it actually often helps you "win now" better than (ostensibly) win-now moves.

If it comes down to it way later in the offseason, maybe he takes this deal...but there are enough people bidding that Arrieta will wait as long as possible for a longer deal that maybe has its own opt-out. Just seems way to optimistic to think that he'd cave to a Brewers offer like this. I think at the very least he can get a 5 year deal that has lower dollar amounts in the final 3 years that he can opt out of after 1 or 2 years. This wouldn't preserve the pick unless they wait until after the draft anyway. The $50m threshold determines what kind of compensation the team that offered the QO gets, but they don't get that pick from the team that signs him. They automatically get it at the end of a round, so it's a sandwich pick. The Cubs would get a pick at the end of round 2 if Arrieta signs with anyone else for any amount. They don't get a pick at the end of round 1 because they aren't a revenue-sharing recipient. But they aren't a luxury tax team either, so they don't get bumped down to round 3 or 4 (I forget which one it is). Regardless, the Brewers would still forfeit a pick (I'm pretty sure it would be their 4th-rounder because they forfeited their 3rd-rounder for Cain) for signing a guy who rejected a QO unless they wait until after the draft. And that pick does not go to the Cubs - it's just forfeited. You could make a case for waiting. Make sure Jimmy's going to return by the ASB and you're still in it at that point before making the commitment. Suter and Woodruff will probably have innings limits, so after the draft will be a good time to look at moving Suter to long relief and Woodruff to AAA.

They like having the primo utility player, which I would consider Perez a top 10 utility player that can play any position in all of the MLB. Every team should like that. It makes roster construction so much easier. I hated it when they lost Hairston after the 2011 season. Couldn't believe how many guys were making $8-10m or more and they couldn't scrounge together enough cash for him. He can even pitch for god's sake.

Yep. Aguilar would be the worst use of a roster spot ever. Some people like him because he hit a few clutch homers last year, but I'm not buying it. There's no reason to believe he's good. How does a guy his age, who does nothing at a replacement level except slugging, have an. 800 OPS in over 4000 minor league pa's and still deserve a roster spot on a team with playoff aspirations? It would be like giving a spot to Matt Clark. Perez as an emergency RHB 1b is a better option due to his ability to play other positions, but I think they could easily sign a slugger to replace Aguilar on a minor league deal. I vote for Chris Carter if he's not mad about the way things ended. There must be other guys like him, too.

Strongly agree with almost all of this. There's little doubt that Aguilar will be gone one way or another though. Even if Santana is traded, Braun is the RHB 1b. Counsell has already said so. He also said Braun will only play LF when he's in the outfield. Last year showed that he won't hesitate to play Perez in the outfield against LHP's, which is the right decision because his versatility allows you to plug multiple holes with one roster spot. So it's not like Aguilar will even get to play 1B against LHP's with Braun moving to LF, as Braun will always be at 1b against LHP's if he's healthy. Broxton is in AAA to start the year because he has an option. I'm not sure they'll get anything for him in a trade, and I like him for depth this year. Another minor need is an RHB 1B who still has an option, or a guy like Chris Carter on a minor league deal, in case Braun gets hurt. And a serviceable catcher in case Vogt bombs would be nice.

That's exactly the type of thinking that prevents you from ever innovating and coming up with a strategy that could give you an advantage, at least until other teams realize it works and adopt the same strategy. As for this year, I don't think getting Cain and Yelich in any way prevents them from making moves like this. I think they're just being opportunistic and pouncing on good value deals whenever they can find them. I like this team a lot and I hope they make the wild card, but I still think they're a clear notch below the d-backs and a couple notches below each division favorite, so I'm more concerned with what will pay off the most 2-3 years from now. The Giants, Rockies, Cardinals, and Mets are all pretty close to the Brewers in talent. And as much as I like this team, I don't think Shaw, Santana, and least of all Knebel are going to be ~4 WAR guys very often. You could make a strong case for selling high on them. I remember the exact same arguments about Villar last year. It's recency bias to base your evaluation of a player so much on what he did in just the previous year. Besides, you could probably sign Moustakas at 3b if you really want to. And I don't even believe in closers, but wouldn't Hader be about as obvious as it gets? Boone is good against lefties. Suter will be back in the pen when Nelson returns. Drake is good against lefties (yes, I'm keeping him for sure - all the hate is mostly narrative based on a few bad outings in high leverage situations but he's an effective reliever). I like this team a lot either way, but I'd take that gamble on Mejia and McKenzie for sure.

I mean, you're right about him not being that true superstar type, and you don't give up 3 guys in their prime who had 3-4 WAR last year for a guy like him. But you're kind of missing the whole point, which is that McKenzie probably is that kind of prospect. You don't even mention him, which makes me wonder if you realize the original suggestion was McKenzie + Mejia for Santana, Shaw, and Knebel - an outside the box suggestion I made precisely because I agree that Mejia alone is not enough for 2 of those guys, let alone 3 of them. I see Mejia as a little more valuable than 1 of those guys and McKenzie about as valuable as 2 of them and I'd pull the trigger if it were up to me, but it's a win-win either way because of the great work Stearns has done.

It's a moot point because it won't happen and I'm fine with it, but McKenzie + Mejia would be absolutely unbelievable value for Knebel, Santana, and Shaw. Cleveland probably hangs up the phone if you ask for just one of them with those 3 players at this time last year. There's nothing wrong with keeping this team together right now, but it's silly to suggest I'm over-valuing prospects. If those 3 do it again this year, then they'll be a lot closer to having the trade value you're suggesting.

I think anyone who is a Top 100 prospect should be expected to eventually reach the majors. There are not many superstars on that list, though. How about a list of guys who had a really good year in their first full season but weren't top prospects like Mejia and McKenzie? How many of those would jump out at you as proven above average major league regulars?

But you could make a strong case that teams are finally realizing that it's a mistake to overvalue current big leaguers compared to top prospects, and the first teams to act on this realization will have an advantage similar to what the A's had when they were the first team to value OBP so highly. Look at so many of the best teams right now. They got where they are by waiting for their prospects to pan out, instead of yielding to the temptation to trade them for immediate returns. And so many of the mediocre teams have terrible farm systems and bloated payrolls because they were too impatient. Are you familiar with the concept of expected value? The value of each outcome has to be weighed against the likelihood of that outcome occurring. The expected value of betting $1 (with 5:1 odds) on rolling a 1 on a number cube is $1. The expected value of betting $1 on flipping a coin with 1:1 odds and getting heads is also $1. There's more variability for the number cube, since you could win $5 on a roll, but in the end, thanks to the law of large numbers, both games are basically neutral if you play enough. It's the same with prospects vs. big leaguers. Prospects might have more variability and different odds, but they often have higher potential payouts. And the best prospects have high enough upside and low enough odds of busting that they definitely have higher expected value than guys like Knebel, Shaw, and Santana - who themselves, by the way, still have non-negligible odds of busting, despite your eagerness to anoint them as proven good big leaguers on the basis of one year of success for each of them. McKenzie and Mejia could bust, but they definitely have more expected value than those 3. You could certainly lose a trade like this, but if you consistently are giving prospects their proper value instead of being biased in favor of what helps you most now, you will have consistent success in the long run.

More or less that is accountable because hitters' avg exit velocity were near 90mph when ML avg just over 87 last year. HRs line drives. Not ground balls. He's a two pitch pitcher and players lock and load on his FB. He's never going to beat his FiP when allows such hard contact. I don't want to spend the hours of time to list top pitchers and exit velocity but the Brewers didn't have one last year(of current SPs) above the League avg 87+. Woodruff was in the mid 83 range. That's soft contact/ground ball tendency vs Fly ball/HR tendency. =BABIP lower vs higher. Exactly. The most successful front offices, relative to payroll resources, will be the best at projecting future performance based on the most subtle indicators. Of course if Archer's performance were down across the board, everyone would realize it's age-related decline. In order to be successful, a small market like the Brewers has to anticipate that kind of thing before the obvious signs show themselves. The odds of Archer staying near his peak are not very good, whether you consider historical trends or his own recent indicators. There will always be plenty of teams who impulsively buy high on players like Archer, and all you have to do to be better than half the front offices in baseball is just kick back and watch your rivals shoot themselves in the foot. Then you often have to wait for the right window of opportunity when you have a good, sustainable core of young talent. Even the big market teams have to build the right way and be patient now that they can't just buy the best players in their late 20's or beyond and expect them to stay effective for more than a few years (because of better PED enforcement). Of course a big market team can do more to supplement their homegrown talent and can spend less time rebuilding, but it's still part of the game for everyone and it's way too early in the Brewers' rebuilding cycle to give up a lot for guys like Archer.

No, you need to re-evaluate your methods of player evaluation. Am I doing it right? Archer's future doesn't look bright. He's showing lots of signs of age-related regression. Trading multiple good prospects for him would be a terrible idea. It's probably the worst option available.

That's rather unreasonable. Every big league regular was once just a prospect. There are much better ways to evaluate talent than just looking at what a guy did in his first full season. Unless >>>>>> means more experienced, it's a silly thing to pass off as fact. Sticking to your guns with Villar doesn't help your case. And it doesn't come down to "falling off a cliff", despite your insistence on polarizing the issues involved. It comes down to the probability that Mejia and McKenzie will out-produce Knebel, Santana, and Shaw for significantly less money during a period when the Brewers are more likely to be in contention. It's a continuum of possibilities, not a matter of black and white as you present it. Santana has plenty of issues that should remind anyone with a sense of caution and tempered enthusiasm of Villar. High BABIP, terrible defense, lots of strikeouts, and mental lapses. Knebel's walk rate is way too high for an elite closer and he played with fire all year. I like Shaw, but he was never anything but an ordinary prospect compared to Mejia and McKenzie and he had one really good year in his prime (as so many average regulars do), just one year after being demoted on a team that desperately needed a 3b.

+1 I don't get valuing other team's prospects more than our high-end big leaguers. I mean, I get that some players do regress, but you'd think by reading some posts around here that every player on the Brewers' team is bound to be horrible! High-end big leaguers? Was that Villar and Guerra last year too? I'm not over-valuing top prospects; you're undervaluing them. And over-valuing 3 guys over 25 with a combined career WAR of about 10. That is NOT high-end, proven major league talent, and there was nothing about their past as prospects that suggests they're in the same league as guys like Mejia and McKenzie.

Blue font?

When did Santana, Shaw, and Knebel become whatever it is you're saying they are??

How is trading our third baseman and closer for two prospects considered "not even that big of setback for your hopes this year"? I'm all for sending Santana out for prospects but I'm giving up two more crucial pieces. The Brewers are not that far from being able to contend. All a team needs to do is get into the postseason. Do that and anything can happen in October. That was in reference to the last paragraph only. Trading Braun or Santana for prospects isn't a big setback because they have a ridiculous logjam at OF/1B anyway. Obviously Shaw and Knebel would be a big setback this year. However, while I'm hoping for a wild card, I still think they're a notch below Arizona, let alone the division favorites, so my priority is for them to be as good as possible a couple years from now. Shaw, Knebel, and Santana are far from proven MLB players at this point. The idea that you should be able to get more than 2 top-10 prospects for them is home team bias. It makes me wonder what the conversations about trading Guerra and Villar were like here last season, though I think I can imagine how that went. Compare it for example to a guy like Lucroy, who was almost traded for Mejia after having been basically a 4 WAR player 4 out of 5 years in a row and a top-5 MVP candidate one of those years. That's the type of player you can trade for a Mejia+ package.

I know this is a Brewers board and most of us like our own players, but I'd consider throwing in another win-now piece for Cleveland to get Mejia. You'll never get him with just Santana, but I'm definitely not hanging up the phone if they ask for more. You gotta assume the Indians are in total mortgage-the-future mode for a chance at a title. I almost wonder if Santana, Shaw, and Knebel could fetch Mejia and McKenzie. I don't see the Brewers catching the division favorites or even Arizona this year, but holy cow that would set themselves up to be really good in a few years. Still kind of hoping Braun to LAD happens so we don't have to worry about whether he can play 1b. Basically I'm leaning strongly towards something involving Braun (but he'll only go to LAD) or Santana for prospects, because I don't think the right trade for a pitcher exists. Opening it up to accepting prospects gives you all sorts of opportunities to find a fair deal, and it's not even that big of a setback for your hopes this year.

Yes, it mattered so much when Corey Knebel took the role last year. It's 3 outs in a baseball game and a very overused cliche. The pressure or fact that guys face the best pinch hitters does mean something at times, but not nearly that much. And I can list a whole mess of setup men who couldn't handle it. It matters. And yes, as I said, I think Edwards will take that role and is very good. That doesn't mean there's a huge difference between setting up and closing. It means reliever performance is volatile from year-to-year. We don't make a big deal of it when a good starter has 6 bad weeks (or a bad starter has 6 good weeks) to start the season because we know it's normal fluctuation. But a reliever might only pitch that many innings in an entire year, so we draw conclusions from his performance when we shouldn't. Most effective relievers can handle closing just fine. The "clutch" is more about narrative than performance. Some players do tighten up and choke a little, but it's usually just an overused cliche.

Braun will get a lot of starts from Thames if he can handle 1b. Thames is a bit of a regression candidate, and I wouldn't be surprised if Braun is the better fielder. Agility and especially reach make a difference at 1b. Phillips gets the shaft because Braun will also get some starts in the corners when Santana or Yelich sits. He'll also start in left when Cain sits, with Yelich playing center on those days. Perez has a roster spot because of his versatility, so he'll be the emergency oufielder. So yeah, I guess Phillips is in AAA. I don't see a spot for Aguilar no matter what. I think Broxton spends most of the year in AAA if they don't get anything worthwhile in a trade. I think 2b is Villar's to lose, but Sogard will get plenty of starts against RHP's. Villar is still better from the right side for his career, despite last year's deviation from that. Perez will spell a number of guys against LHP's. Sometimes Shaw or Yelich, but also Villar if he doesn't bounce back at all. Sogard is the backup SS for now, but Perez can do it too. I love the versatility on the roster but it will be a bit of a disappointment if they don't find a taker for Santana.

I don't like Archer under any realistic circumstances. Whenever I've seen him pitch, it's always felt like it's a matter of time before the offense starts smashing him. I guess advanced stats bear that out, though admittedly I'm not on fangraphs 2 hours a day or whatever. It's tough to give the D-Backs exactly what they need because they're the favorite for the first wild-card already, but I could be tempted by the Corbin + Pavin deal that's been rumored. The only reason is that I think the Brewers are couple years away from passing any of the top 4 teams in the NL anyway, so anything that positions them better for that window is pretty appealing. Competing for the wild card now still wouldn't be out of the question at all, as I think they'd still be better than the Cards, Mets, Rockies, or Giants. As long as they'd still have a chance to steal a wild card game, probably from Arizona, why not clean up the roster and get a perfect fit for your future 1b, an asset the organization lacks at the moment?

Better hope Pina is a true late bloomer, which would be pretty rare. I think he's probably a little closer to his post-ASB numbers this year. I don't support a lot of win-now moves, but Vogt/Bandy doesn't exactly make you less nervous about regression from Pina. I wonder what the Marlins are asking for Realmuto?

Yeah, I tried to mention that earlier. Just the fact the Lucroy has had really bad years alternating with good ones before. You could arguably put 2011/2012 (.703/.881) in there too, although he was 25 and only in his 2nd year in 2011. But maybe he's just a rhythm/confidence hitter, like Weeks and Hart, and has another good year left. Unlike Weeks and Hart, he hasn't have any injuries that would suggest a long-term inability to produce. I wouldn't doubt that his defense being down will continue though.

Agreed. I understand there will probably be some regression averaged across the roster, but it's kind of disrespectful to the humble, hard-working, slipped-through-the-cracks guys who just won you 86 games to go offer 8-figure salaries to people who might only be marginal upgrades at best. It's like if you were regularly dating selfish, unreliable people who didn't have your best interests at heart and saw you as someone who would just give and give, and then you start dating good people who maybe aren't quite as flashy and everything starts going your way again, and what do you do the moment you get back on your feet? Go right back to the losers with a little better looks and/or status who will never do you as much good.