coolhandluke121

Exactly. Darvish and Quintana in the NL is a huge upgrade. Montgomery goes from being their 3rd-best starter to their long reliever. It's easy to upgrade a bullpen, and I think they did enough there. I will concede that depth and injuries could derail them, but they're absolutely loaded. The Brewers were living on borrowed time when they were in first place in the central most of the year, and the Cubs made mincemeat of that race when they got Quintana and woke up from their doldrums. Maybe it was post-title complacency, but whatever it was, it was a total fluke.

Or Burnes. Or Ortiz. Exactly. I would hate to go on a fool's errand trying to keep up with the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals, only to have that philosophy be the reason they can't break though in a few years against whoever is on top at that point. Cain is enough risk for me. (I do like him a lot, despite all my better judgment to the contrary on free agent value at his age.) FWIW, I bet Stearns is with me on this and that's why nothing has happened. Cobb is trying to postpone the inevitable, but Stearns knows he holds the cards. I'm hoping and kind of expecting a 3-year deal in the mid 40's, which would be fine by me.

It isn't about Woodruff, I'm pretty sure at this point it's guaranteed he's going to have a starting spot. You need another starter, unless you're going to roll with Suter, which would be pretty ugly. He had a good half season last year, but no teams had seen him very much up to that point. They have a scouting report on him now, and he's gonna get hit..... hard. Anderson Davies Chacin Woodruff I like Davies, but I don't think he would be a #2 on almost any other team in baseball right now, that's pretty ugly. You need another #2/1 starter, otherwise this season is just going to be a wash, unless Jimmy comes back early and is as good as he was last season. Every other team chasing the wild card has plenty of their own problems, except possibly Arizona if Greinke ages well and they get a RF - neither of which is a given. I'm not comparing the Brewers to the Dodgers, Nationals, or Cubs, because there is no comparison. The Brewers had a TON more warts going into 2017 than they do now, and still won 86. That's a testament to the fact that you don't need to hand-out multi-year, 8-figure salaries to compete for wild cards. Upgrades through free agency are very often marginal and disappointing. I'm not feeling any pressure to make win-now moves if I'm not really enamored of the players involved, and in the case of Cobb and Arrieta I'm not. It's not the same as punting on this season. It's just recognizing that having more payroll flexibility to make a move like this in a couple years will probably have a better pay-off.

Darvish could be a pretty big upgrade on Arrieta, who had a bad year by his standards, and you understate how bad Lackey was IMO. Look at some of the guys who started multiple games for them. The rotation is much better. I think I explained why I think the lineup will be better. Look how many of them were 27 or under most of last year. Many of their regulars were 25 or under. There's a very good chance hardly any of them have had their best year yet. Even Rizzo and Heyward could still have some of their best years ahead of them. That's backed up by tons of data about when the average player peaks. They have to stay healthy, I'll give you that. The depth is bad. I think they will get a lot of innings out of their starters, and it's not hard to find bullpen depth at the trade deadline. I'm not deviating from the long-term vision at all just to respond to the Cubs, or the other elite teams in the NL for that matter. That's all I'm saying. Cain and Yelich were fine because they constitute good value IMO. Yelich was probably great value, actually. Cobb would have to get a Chatwood type deal for me to get excited about it. I'd rather just see what Woodruff has and wait for Jimmy.

I wouldn't take the over until it goes down to 87.5 or so. I think they got pretty lucky last year, but I think Cain and Yelich make up for regression and I think they will continue to have some surprise contributors. They seem to have a knack for that. Good scouting or whatever. I could certainly see 90+ with Cobb. The rest of the central is not good IMO, and I think the Cardinals were every bit as lucky as the Brewers last year and made fewer upgrades this offseason. The important thing is that there are few teams that look any better than them besides the big 3 and possibly Arizona if they find a slugging RF, which shouldn't be hard to do. But the West is going to be really tough with the Giants likely to bounce back a little, so I can easily see records skewing down in the West and the Brewers getting the first wild card without even needing Cobb or Arrieta. And that leaves the Brewers in a great position to be good now while being positioned to make a huge leap in a couple years. I'd like them to save maximum payroll flexibility for the future unless it's a deal you can't pass up.

Yes. They're one of about 10 teams this century that I would say "could" have won 110 games. It's like making a list of guys who "could" win a triple crown; unlikely to happen, but not outside the realm of possibility. And then, one of those hitters - a guy who clearly had that type of talent, even though it was very unlikely - did it. The Phillies in Halladay's prime. A few of those PED-enhanced Yankee and Red Sox squads in the 2000's. The Dodgers last year. Some of the best Pujols-led Cardinal teams. The A's in 2001/2002, just because they were so ahead of the game in analytics. This year's Astros and Cubs. Obviously everything would have to go right and they'd have to be injury-free, but those teams were loaded enough to do it. Ironically I wouldn't have said the 2001 Mariners could do it, but they did. They had an incredibly unlikely combination of guys all having career years at the same time to get there. Cobb doesn't even begin to put the Brewers in the Cubs', Dodgers', or Nationals' stratosphere. Unless it's a bargain, and I mean a bargain relative to the current market, I would sit this one out. Be the next team that bided their time and built a young nucleus to rival what those teams have now. I wouldn't hate it if they signed him though.

.500 is a completely arbitrary cut-off and overall record is not relevant when comparing leagues anyway because most games are intraleague games. Having several mediocre teams like the Cardinals, Brewers, and Rockies over .500 just shows their schedules were kind of easy were precisely because they play in the NL. We see it in the NBA east all the time, where some team that's usually .500 has everything go right and wins 50 games one year because it's not hard to be better than mediocre. The only way to compare the AL vs. NL is in head-to-head competition, and the AL almost always has a 20-30 game advantage. So back to Cobb, if anyone is impatient and wants him or Arrieta on a big contract yesterday because they think the Brewers will keep pace with Dodgers, Cubs, or Nationals, they would be extremely unwise. The objective is stay in the wild card hunt, understanding that upsets can happen in the playoffs even against a clearly superior opponent, while not compromising in any way their ability to be a top 2-3 team in the league in a few years. Cobb or Arrieta could easily be burdens by then on the contracts people are suggesting, and I'm guessing the Brewers know that and are holding their ground and that's why nothing has happened. As it stands, I personally think the Brewers and Diamondbacks are the wild card favorites as is. I think the Rockies were a total fluke and the Cardinals were pretty lucky as well. The Giants are the main other contender for .500+ in the NL, but they're so old. Maybe the Mets just because of that NL East schedule. More importantly, the Brewers are positioned much better than any of those teams to climb into the upper echelon in a few years, and I hope they stay that way.

The NL routinely has a 20-30 game disadvantage in interleague play. It's mostly due to average market size. If you don't realize the NL is kind of mediocre, it's probably because they play each other so often and somebody has to win. If you look at most NL teams' improvements this year, they merely came at the expense of other NL teams. Santana and Cain did switch to the NL, but then you have Stanton going to the Yankees and Cole to the Astros. I think the talent gap increased a little. I also think the Brewers, Cardinals, and Rockies were pretty lucky to do what they did last year, and weren't really that good. The NL is top-heavy, sure, but that's precisely what I'm saying. The teams at the top have a chance to have skewed win totals because of the mediocrity in the rest of the league.

They have ridiculous talent in their primes or just hitting their primes. Anytime you talk about that kind of win total, obviously it's an extreme long-shot. I'm not sure if people aren't reading the post or if they just love being dramatic, but "could" only means it isn't outside the realm of possibility. There are probably about 10-12 squads this century who were outside threats to win that many games, and they're one of them - especially since the NL is mediocre as heck this year.

They wouldn't keep Vogt instead of Thames unless Thames has trade value, which I doubt he does considering guys like Lind, Morrison, and Duda are probably available for less than Thames makes right now. It's all gonna be a moot point when they make a sneak attack trade for Realmuto though.

Again, I just said if Pina had an option, I'd love to sign Lucroy. It was a hypothetical. Nobody is suggesting they should cut Pina in favor of Vogt. There's a decent chance Pina would be the backup by the end of May, but Vogt flashed some bat in his two months with the Brewers and there's no harm in having a terrific 3rd catcher on the 40 in case either Lucroy or Vogt flounders. But again, it's a hypothetical. Can't stress that enough.

Of course. It was a hypothetical "if Pina had an option", but he doesn't. I do think it would be debatable if he did though. Vogt has been a good hitter before and was effective for the Brewers last year. Being a strict platoon bat should help, as he hasn't always had that benefit in his career. ETA: Disagree adamantly about Bandy being able to fill in at an adequate level for short stints, and there's a decent chance they'll need a good deal more than a few short stints from their 3rd catcher.

Because Lucroy and Vogt are both former 2-time all-stars who cover both sides of the plate and have a much longer track record of success than Pina, who's not even that much younger than them anyway. They also both hit very well for their respective teams when traded to a contender last season, so they might still have a pretty good year or two left. And because Bandy is the 3rd catcher, which doesn't bode well for a team pursuing the playoffs with a 33 and (very soon-to-be) 31 year old catcher. I'm not that attached to it either way, but if Lucroy turns out to be a bargain and Pina had an option, I would love for them to be opportunistic and grab him. That would be incredible good fortune IMO if it were possible. It's a moot point because Pina doesn't have an option, but HH did say they're looking for a serviceable catcher so I think they're worried about the same thing I am, and rightfully so. ETA: Vogt actually doesn't have that much mileage, either. Less than 600 pro games at catcher. Pina has well over 1000. That matters a lot for anticipating age-related decline because of the demands of the position.

There aren't enough roster spots for Broxton and he has an option. He's way down the list. Aguilar is at least debatable because he doesn't have an option, and Phillips because he's a better player and better fit. The pitchers are nearly impossible to predict because there are so many questionable options for the last few spots. I agree about Santana regressing, though probably not much. The skills are real, but there are some holes in his swing and some alarming defensive issues that make you wonder if he's got a mild case of Villar-brain.

Here's the thing, majority opinions are dangerous because they tend to silence dissent and belittle minority opinions in very subtle ways that kill dialogue, sometimes without even knowing it. Calling "I wish Pina had an option" an insulting idea is probably in that category. It's likely to be a majority opinion here because we are all Brewer fans and in any sport, there's a strong tendency to overrate your own team's players a little. Similar stuff happened with Aguilar debates. There were many minimally-veiled jabs at the suggestion that Aguilar is just a AAAA guy, even though there's an abundance of evidence to back it up. Things like "how anybody could suggest Aguilar could be waived after the year he had is beyond comprehension" and stuff like that. And when someone holding the minority opinion jabs back, they're held to a different standard because the majority gets to define the terms of the debate. They can just ignore it (or not even realize it) when they do it themselves while calling others out for similar stuff. This is not just sports, but life. It happens all the time.

Suggesting that I predicted 110 wins for the Cubs is getting obnoxious. I said they "could", as in it's obviously at the high end of what they might be capable of.

You can't imagine him not regressing? Okay. A lot of people here seem to think whatever a player did last year is more important than what they did in about a decade in the minor leagues, and if that's your premise, nobody's ever going to convince you otherwise. Dude, you really are not coming off well at times around here. I think it's fair to take exception to the statement that my idea is insulting. Pina is not at all a safe bet to be a good player next year and is probably the quintessential back-up catcher in the long run. He's also almost as old as Lucroy and has a good deal of mileage. If you're going to compete, you absolutely need 3 reliable catchers on the 40 if one of them is Vogt and the other one is already over 30. Pina was effective last year but they paid his salary and that's all they owe him for what he did last year. Their job is to field the best possible team this year and going into the year with Pina/Vogt is a threat to be this year's unexpected (but arguably should have been expected) black hole, like 2b was last year.

I can't imagine not even having Pina on the 25 after a very nice rookie season anyway. That seems downright insulting. You can't imagine him not regressing? Okay. A lot of people here seem to think whatever a player did last year is more important than what they did in about a decade in the minor leagues, and if that's your premise, nobody's ever going to convince you otherwise.

The only thing that's hogwash is suggesting that a lineup with that many players 26 or under has somehow plateau'ed. It's ridiculous. Way to ignore Heyward, too. And the growing pains for Schwarber are a pretty big deal considering he's got Prince Fielder like hitting pedigree.

No way Santana is on the bench. Rumor has it Stearns already said Braun is penciled in as the RHB 1b at this point. If he wants extra starts, he'll have to earn most of them at the expense of Thames, unless Santana is traded. I think you're going with name recognition in some of the staff decisions. Stearns has proven beyond a doubt that he doesn't care about names. He's a true talent miner who has no problem giving a spot to a no-name if he thinks he'll perform better. Guys like Guerra, Jeffress, and Gallardo will be given a chance, but they've looked absolutely awful for a full year now and are in the midst of a pretty dramatic physical decline. You have to realize that velocity went way up for most pitchers this year because of how they measured it differently, so a guy who lost a couple MPH really lost more like 4 or 5 relative to other pitchers. Drake was better than Jeffress last year and I think he will make the roster, unless they sign a starter and move Suter to the pen. That would give them 3 guys to face LHB's, which is Drake's specialty because of his sinker. But even if they sign Cobb, Woodruff could be optioned with Suter still starting. Guys like Houser and Williams have a pretty good chance to look better than Gallardo and Guerra in spring training and win those spots. They are at their physical peaks and experience can only take you so far when you're washed-up. Gallardo, Jeffress, and Guerra will have to look significantly better than they did last year to have a chance at a roster spot. That's what it comes down to.

Nice post. I said they "could". At least have the courtesy to read the post if you're going to call someone crazy. They have an elite roster and you're being extremely complacent if you think the growing pains so many of their talented young players had last year are going to continue. Nobody would EVER predict a team to win 110, but it's within reach for a group with that much talent.

It's probably worth a shot at this point. Don't see a better way to spend that money and his contract won't be long enough to compromise any future options. However, Vogt is a little better against RHP's for his career (a .752 mostly in Oakland is much better than a .764 mostly in Milwaukee with a few months in Colorado), and the difference on defense is apparently not even that significant anymore. It's probably not a needle-mover. I could see Lucroy getting a 1-year make-good deal and bouncing back. Wish Pina had an option.

7 of their 11 top position players were 25 or under (or turned 25) last year, including 5 starters. Rizzo and Heyward were 27 for most of the season. That doesn't include Happ. Zobrist's age is irrelevant because it won't be hard to get more production from his replacements as he transitions to a lesser role. They're almost all theoretically still before their peaks or right there. I noticed the young guys who had a good year was just "a career year" to you, but the young guys who had a bad year are just doing what you think they're supposed to. Can't have it both ways. It's not relevant to cite career numbers or career years with players that young. They have a scary amount of talent and their best is yet to come. Chatwood, Darvish, and a full year of Quintana is absolutely a massive upgrade over Arrieta, Lackey, and Anderson/Butler, who had a combined FIP of nearly 5. Quintana and Chatwood are right in their primes. Montgomery is there for injury replacements or if Chatwood disappoints. Think about it like this: he was their 3rd-best pitcher (2nd-best before the Quintana trade) last year and they are projected to have him in long relief now. I think it's gonna be a bloodbath in the Central. Happy to chase that wild card though, because inferior teams can steal a playoff series in baseball.

80 games at 1b for Braun probably means at least 40 of those against RHB's, which means at least that many starts for Phillips. Include some days off for Yelich and Cain and some injuries to Braun, and there's plenty of starts for Phillips. That's before you even get started on all the pinch-hitting and defensive switches they'll be able to employ with this versatile roster. 80 is pretty high for a cut-off number there. I'd put it at maybe 60. But I think he will get over 80 anyway. I can't really see him being a disaster at 1b, and it's not like Thames or Aguilar is good there. I firmly believe that Thames is just not a 120+ games guy, and Braun will get starts at 1b against RHP's as well. Thames labored after long stretches of playing almost every day last year, asked for mental days off in June, and falls back into his old bad habits when he doesn't have enough days off. And he's probably due for a little regression on his 2017 numbers anyway. I'm pretty sure they're hoping to trade Santana and give Braun a good 80 starts at 1b, with Phillips starting at least that many games in the OF.

You'd have someone like Broxton getting a decent amount of ABs vs. the LHP or some cheap FA or Perez. Depending on Phillips' defense or ability to hit against LHP, maybe he'll eventually see a lot of LHP, but for now, they'll have someone to take some LHP ABs away from him. We can only have so many guys on the roster, so I think it will be Perez and not Broxton getting those AB against LH pitching in this scenario. Exactly. I can't see any way Phillips is the platoon RF against LHP's. That doesn't make sense. There's no guarantee he hits better than Perez anyway, let alone on the wrong side of a platoon. Perez is just a guy but the most efficient use of a roster spot, after considering trade assets (assuming they find a fair trade for Santana), team needs, and expected pa's, is to pencil him in against LHP's in RF. He's adequate for that and already has a roster spot anyway because of his versatility. Broxton has an option and he's a perfect fit for starting in AAA and coming up in case an outfielder (like Cain, obviously) gets hurt, assuming they don't find a worthwhile trade for him, which I doubt they will.