coolhandluke121

I started a new thread because this isn't about any one free agent and it seems we're having the same debate in multiple threads. Feel free to delete this thread if it's redundant but I don't feel it belongs in any thread about a specific pitcher, or in the "choose a free agent" thread. Please refrain from making it about any particular free agents because it's all about debating the in-house options. Consider the following facts about the Brewers' staff last year: - Peralta, 57 ip's with an e.r.a. of almost 8 - Guerra, 70 ip's with an e.r.a. over 5 - Feliz, Blazek, Marinez, Espino, Milone, Scahill, Webb, Wang, Jungman - 117.1 ip's (13+ games!), combined e.r.a. over 6 - Torres, Hughes, Barnes, and Drake were the #2-5 guys in the pen before Hader and Swarzak - Woodruff provided multiple quality starts in the thick of a playoff race against many good offenses in mostly hitters' parks - Suter was basically good all year - Both players performed well enough in the minors to suggest that they continue to be solid pitchers - Either Suter or Garza was the #4 starter all year, and Garza was even the #3 for an extended stretch (he was okay though) So basically you have a staff that was built for tanking, and the Brewers still won 86. I know there will be plenty of regression, but even with Nelson hurt they should still be vastly improved by virtue of the fact that they won't be relying on literally almost a dozen cut-worthy pitchers from day 1 until more than halfway through the season. Just a guy like Chacin alone makes a huge difference considering who they were using. I know they will still have some injuries and have to rely on some junk pitchers like Wilkerson, Guerra, Gallardo, and Lopez, but it will be a small fraction of what we suffered through last year.

So? If he doesn't feel like the offer is high enough he isn't going to take it. You don't think our offer has been matched or close to it by a glamour city? Except the fact he hasn't signed with a glamour city either. They're not mutually exclusive. It seems very likely that he's waiting for better offers from everyone, and that whatever the Brewers offer has to be more than several other teams because he doesn't really want to be there. It's common sense. Once players have earned as much as he has, it's very common for them to accept less money to go somewhere they want to be. That's not even remotely controversial. They don't even need any more reasons to not want to sign this type of contract though, even if they only had to outbid everyone else by a few million.

Plenty of free agents would want to play in Milwaukee. It's a great place in summer and they're a respected organization. They have no issues like the Bucks. Aramis Ramirez was one of the best free agents available when they signed him and he took a discount because he wanted to be in Milwaukee. And as long as they keep going after the guys who are being under-valued by the market, which is what they should do, they will be able to entice plenty of free agents by making the best offer, even if those guys did have a slight (but not Yu-sized) preference for a different market.

This idea is so overblown, it's starting not to be funny anymore. These guys are professional athletes. Millionaires. They follow the money. This isn't the 1970s where teams sent malcontents to the Packers as punishment. Darvish hasn't signed because he hasn't received an offer he feels is sufficient enough yet. That's the long and short of it. And Heyman's report, if you read it, is COMPLETE speculation. It's not overblown, it's just straight-up common sense. There have been other reports that Yu strongly prefers to stay on the west coast, like so many Asians before him. They're much close to home there and they have much more developed Asian population centers. Paying a premium for an aging starting pitcher is bad to begin with. Paying an extra premium because the guy doesn't want to be here would be mind-numbingly foolish. And all signs indicate that they would have to pay a lot more than teams like the Dodgers or Rangers, which is common sense since where you live and work is pretty damn important when you have such a strong preference.

Or you can just be smarter than other teams and scout more effectively and carefully, regularly acquiring guys who the market undervalues and trusting the process to pay off in the long run even if you don't hit on everyone. Which is exactly what the Brewers did to get here in the first place, and exactly what they should (and will) continue to do, as long as Mark A doesn't steer them the way of the impatient casual fan again. No way on Darvish. NO WAY. Can't believe anyone would want him now that Heyman confirmed he doesn't want to be in Milwaukee unless they pay a premium (which was pretty obvious anyway if you read between the lines, but now with confirmation it should be a 100% deal-breaker). I would rather give that spot to a younger, less entitled, cheaper player with something to prove who deserves an opportunity.

If he's a clear upgrade with little injury history to speak of, a consistent record of production (I believe a lot of guys have a few good Villar-type years by accident and aren't really much better than 100's of other similar guys in recent memory), no signs of decline, and a reasonable expectation of remaining productive for most of the contract, then I'm fine with signing a guy as long as he's a decent value (and not "decent" relative to the old, inflated standards, but relative to this bear market). Otherwise I'm just giving our guys a chance. I'm pretty bullish on guys like Villar, Sogard, Woodruff, Suter, Barnes, Chacin, Houser, Williams, and Drake combining for a good deal more WAR than most people are probably expecting, even if I can't say which ones of them will be good and which ones won't.

Without question you take Suter and Woodruff over Lynn and Cobb factoring in money and picks. Why? Because Lynn and Cobb aren't TOR types and that's what we need. Absolutely not on Brent Suter, I could see the argument on Woodruff. Cobb and Lynn are proven MLB starters, the latter of which is a bulldog. Brent Suter throws freaking 43 mph. Don't know why youd compare them to a TOR type either because Suter or Woodruff are #5's and that wast the question. Not saying I want them unless its cheap, and loss of a draft pick is a factor for sure. But Suter absolutely doesn't belong in a regular full time starters role in MLB. IMO Suter is perfect for the situation. Nelson could be back in June or July. Suter is a stopgap and they can occasionally carry 13 pitchers until Nelson is back. Guerra and Gallardo can have a crack at it if Suter doesn't cut it. They went through worse in the starting rotation in 2017 and still nearly made the playoffs with a mediocre offense and bullpen. Anderson, Davies, Woodruff, and Chacin all deserve the first crack at the other 4 spots. Unless they find good value like Chacin, they shouldn't be impatient.

Aren't you fun. The part about giving opportunities to guys within the organization (and reclamation projects) is key. That's how they got here in the first place. It would be incredibly foolish to sign a bad-value contract just because you think you "need" that guy, and you may still have the same need shortly after you sign him anyway. In fact, there's usually a pretty good chance of that with free agency. That's the type of mess they just got themselves out of, and there's no reason to abandon the principles that got you out of the mess so surprisingly fast in the first place. It's amazing to me that anyone would turn impatient right away. It's like having a bad hangover and vomiting all the time and drinking to the point where it's downright dangerous to your health, swearing it off - and then getting drunk again as soon as you feel a little better. Stick with what got you here. Stearns is a an astute dude and I'm sure they will do just that unless a really good opportunity presents itself. Suter, Woodruff, Barnes, Houser, Guerra, Villar, Sogard, Broxton (1 option left) and even Drake all have shown enough glimpses to earn that opportunity. Aguilar has too, but unfortunately he doesn't have options and there's no room for him on the roster even if they trade Santana. If Lucroy is a bargain, he might be the one name who flies under the radar and is worth it, but I admit I'm being a little sentimental (and not exactly bullish on Pina/Vogt).

Chris Carter on a minor-league deal. That way they won't sign any terrible contracts or waste draft picks and will give opportunities to guys within the organization who deserve it. Also, he can be called up as the emergency platoon option if/when Braun is hurt so they don't have to waste a roster spot on Aguilar.

But would you take Suter and Woodruff over Lynn and Cobb? That's probably the more appropriate question. I know I would. They got in this position in the first place by finding good values and giving guys who deserve it a chance to prove themselves. They should just keep doing that. Woodruff and Suter deserve that chance. The bigger names are obviously likely to be a little better, but that's far from a given and at free agency price tags it's not worth it. Also, by the time someone is a bigger name, there's a pretty good chance he's already on the decline and more susceptible to injury. There's also the question of opportunities. You can always doubt guys who haven't gotten much of an opportunity yet, but a lot of guys who earn a reputation were once just guys like Woodruff (and Suter to a lesser extent, although I recognize he was never much of a prospect) before they got their opportunity.

Great post. The pitching staff should be much better even with Nelson hurt. I believe they got good value in Chacin as well. They were basically tanking last year so they had all kinds of trash in their rotation and especially their pen, and they still won 86. I do believe some of their best players are due for regression, but upgrading from terrible to just mediocre is going to be a significant boost, and the staff could easily be better than mediocre.

I like the part about getting Cain and Yelich because of the value involved. That's what they should always be doing, and it also means they won't make some impulsive bad-value trade just to "win now". Thank god. Just keep seeking good value and the wins will come.

It should go without saying that any time someone here takes a stance, they know there's a lot of uncertainty involved. I don't think we have to start every single prediction with a disclaimer that "I don't know this for sure but I would be willing to be on this outcome" because it's implied. I definitely think the Brewers lost the Greinke trade. He wasn't even that good as a Brewer and they would have made the playoffs anyway. He had an e.r.a. over 6 in both playoff series, and Estrada was nearly as effective as his substitute in the regular season when he missed 6 weeks with a rib injury. His best pitching was in 2012 when the Brewers were out of it by the deadline anyway. The Brewers should have been a borderline contender every year for almost a decade considering what an awesome farm system they built up, but they needlessly closed their window for guys like Greinke and Sabathia. I don't think they're after Archer that hotly. I can see why Houston would have been last year, but I think that's a mistake on their part too. There's no need for them to close their window. Present needs are usually just future needs that you failed to plan for years ago, and there's no reason to continually increase your future needs for present gratification. It's the same as borrowing money at an exorbitantly high interest rate. Don't kick the can down the road all the time. So why do good teams make irresponsible trades for guys like Archer? Because the temptation is incredibly strong no matter how good you are at team-building. Because having access to the best scouting and aging and injury risk data in the world doesn't mean you're going to be incredibly disciplined, even though you should be. And I'm praying that Stearns will be, because I plan to be a Brewers fan for the rest of my life and they have to be incredibly disciplined if they plan to be a relevant team as often as possible.

I guess I'm still hoping everyone will come around as to why trading a prospect haul for him is such a bad idea. I understand the temptation but it would be an awful trade, like being on the wrong side of the Gomez deal. Maybe it's less likely to happen if the most hardcore fans don't like the idea? I don't know. You're right; as I said, the fact that I think pitchers decline even faster than hitters is tangential at best, but a lot of people seem to think Archer won't decline enough to make you regret giving up a king's ransom for him. I think that's generous at best.

'16 and '11 had 0 similar top 10 pitchers, '15 and '10 had 1, '14 and '09 had 2. '16 and '11 had 1 similar top 10 hitter, '15 and '10 had 2, '14 and '09 had 0. Now using 4 years and still don't see a trend to support that the top pitchers break down faster than hitters at least in recent history. That's still not even close to statistical significance. The same cohort of 29-year-old hitters that biased the 2012 group is in most of those other groups. Again, it only takes a few exceptions to the trend to completely mask it for a few years. An excellent hitter at 27 is more likely to still be an excellent hitter at 32 than a pitcher is. Neither is particularly likely though because the average decline from 27 to 32 is drastic for all roles, which is exactly why you need so many side-by-side comparisons of this type before you can even begin to think about making any inferences. For example, if the average hitters' list has 2.5 repeats and the average pitchers' list has 1.5 repeats across 30 years of data, then you'd have a noteworthy difference. Personally, I'm not really attached to any of this data either way because I don't need evidence that pitchers break down faster to know that trading this package for Archer is a terrible idea. I don't see why the Brewers don't have more leverage, because the Rays are the ones who have to make sure they don't pull a Pittsburgh and keep him until an obvious start to his inevitable decline.

That seems backwards because there are many more good pitchers available in free agency. If it's as fair as the Yelich trade, the Brewers should absolutely jump at the chance. The starting pitchers available in trade aren't nearly as appealing as Realmuto as core pieces for the window the Brewers are building. Also, this isn't like basketball where having more good scorers can lead to diminishing returns. You can basically add just as many expected wins by adding .5 runs per game as you can by giving up .5 runs fewer. (There are some nuances like the variance in runs being higher with better offense and pitching, but it's still an adequate rule of thumb.) You could argue that you need pitching for the playoffs, but that's been a bit of a myth. You just need to outscore the other team, just like in the regular season.

We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true. 2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS) 1. Posey • SFG 171 2. Trout • LAA 168 3. Cabrera • DET 164 4. McCutchen • PIT 162 5. Braun • MIL 158 6. Encarnacion • TOR 153 7. Fielder • DET 151 8. Cano • NYY 148 9. Headley • SDP 145 10. Wright • NYM 144 2017: 1. Trout • LAA 187 2. Judge • NYY 171 3. Votto • CIN 168 4. Stanton • MIA 165 5. Altuve • HOU 164 6. Freeman • ATL 157 7. Gonzalez • HOU 149 8. Turner • LAD 149 9. Cruz • SEA 146 10. Ozuna • MIA 145 For pitchers I used adjusted ERA. 2012: 1. Verlander • DET 161 2. Price • TBR 150 3. Kershaw • LAD 150 4. Cueto • CIN 148 5. Sale • CHW 140 6. Dickey • NYM 139 7. Gonzalez • WSN 138 8. Zimmermann • WSN 136 9. Weaver • LAA 135 10. Harrison • TEX 133 2017: 1. Kluber • CLE 202 2. Kershaw • LAD 180 3. Scherzer • WSN 177 4. Strasburg • WSN 176 5. Ray • ARI 166 6. Sale • BOS 157 7. Severino • NYY 152 8. Gonzalez • WSN 150 9. Greinke • ARI 149 10. Stroman • TOR That's not what I said. Of course you can find one season where the turnover on the list of pitchers was about the same as the list of position players. You have to do this for dozens of pairs in order to approach statistical significance (2011:2016, 2010:2015, etc). This is not nearly rigorous enough to test the theory because just a few exceptional players could completely conceal the larger trend and then some, as could a weird anomaly like having literally every single top position player except Trout be about 29 as they were in 2012 (and thus likely to fall off the list 5 years later).

That's certainly true, and Cameron was in that category as well. I wasn't just talking about being able to play cf at 35 though, because I think Cain will be able to do that. I was talking about whether he will be as valuable as Cameron or Edmonds at the same age, which I highly doubt. Those guys were good for 20+ homers per season, and Edmonds occasionally hit 40. Power hitters often hold value at the plate a little longer. I love the signing and the player, but I don't think he's going to be very good at 35, and that's fine.

Pina was a 30-year-old rookie last year and had a .715 OPS in 12 minor league seasons, many of them in the hitter-friendly Pacific Coast League and almost always as a prospect who was roughly the average age for players at the same level. There's a decent chance he's worth less than 1 WAR this year. Also, for all the debates about age-related decline going on in the Archer and Yu threads, catcher is the most blatant example of a position where you absolutely can't trust a guy after 30. Pina will turn 31 early this season and Vogt is already 33. If you assume Pina's going to duplicate last year's success, can't you assume Suter will too? Suter was more effective in the minors and is in his physical prime. By that logic, you could say they need a catcher more than they need a starter. They also don't have any projected future starting catchers in the entire organization at that position, or even a sure-fire future MLB backup. There's a very good chance they will need a catcher. Unlike Archer, Realmuto is an example of a guy who's probably worthy of a premium prospect package because he plays a position that's harder to fill by other means and is younger (still pre-arbitration in fact).

Didn't someone recently confirm that the Brewers have the top offer? If he can't accept it at this point, STAY AWAY. It is extremely dangerous to acquire a player who doesn't want to be there but only went because it's the top offer, and a starting pitcher that age at that price is already dangerous enough. I'm not worried about them making an incredibly short-sighted trade for Archer, because Stearns knows better than to end up on the wrong side of a Gomez/Lucroy type of trade. But this is the first time he's had a blank check in free agency and I don't know how he's going to approach it because there's little short-term downside in lost prospects/picks. The problem is that it could very well be a bad contract much sooner than most people assume.

How is Archer likely to have his performance improve? Read the link I posted above. The average pitcher starts declining at 27, and it is pretty dramatic at 30. Archer turns 30 before the season is over. He's also already trending down noticeably since his best season at - you guessed it - age 27. He had the 3rd-highest rate of hard contact against him in baseball last year, but I don't think FIP takes that into account, so it fails to acknowledge that his BABIP should continue to be unusually high. And he throws a ton of sliders, which give many pitchers premature arm problems. I agree with you on the Yelich trade, and the best players they gave up were outfielders anyway so it's fine. This is not at all like the Yelich trade. Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close.

I would much rather start Suter than most of the options we seem to be hearing about. Santana for Salazar + a lotto ticket might be the exception. I'd gamble on his health for a few years, I would be clearing out a logjam, and I don't think I'd regret trading Santana a whole lot. People have to remember why we ended up in this "win-now, surprise contender" situation in the first place. It's because we bailed on 30-something's and gave a bunch of younger guys second chances to prove themselves. The only guys left from the Melvin era of keeping guys past their prime, as their salary peaked while their trade value kept going down, were Garza and Braun last year. Those guys weren't even better than the guys they called up from the minors in the middle of the season, in part to replace them (Phillips and Woodruff). Why abandon the principles that turned them around so fast in the first place? Why mortgage so much for the immediate gratification of buying high when there's such a good chance you'll have buyer's remorse not one year later? Guys like Suter and Woodruff could very well be out-performing Yu and Archer in 2 years time. Re: Suter, I would add that his bat and glove play very nicely as a starter and he brings other solid intangibles as well, plus they have the opportunity to carry 13 pitchers for extended stretches which would allow them to regularly pull him after 5 ip's or less. With all their versatile position players, especially if Braun moves to 1b, and all their former starters turn long relievers (Gallardo and Guerra, for example, but also Hader and maybe even Lopez at some point) this team is perfectly built for piggy-backing and should use it to their full advantage.

Its really hard to see from that data. If you look at the Ave fWar/pitcher for various ages (estimates from graph) you get: All Pitchers 26 = 1600/1080 = 1.48 All pitchers 30 = 900/700 = 1.29 All pitchers 35 = 380/300 = 1.26 20+G Pitchers 26 = 790/305 = 2.59 20+G Pitchers 30 = 500/205 = 2.44 20+G Pitchers 35 = 200/75 = 2.67 So there's clearly an age related decline overall, but it looks like there's still good value in a 30 YO who can start 20+G compared to a 26YO who can start 20+ games. The uptick at 35YO starting 20+ games is likely a bias of the "elite" starters at the end of their career. While this isn't really an applicable analysis it does indicate that the dropoff is very pitcher specific (2.67 fWar exceeds the value Lynn or Cobb bring to the table). This is exactly the survivorship bias I'm talking about. You recognize it with the 35-year-old's starting 20+ games, but for some reason you fail to acknowledge that it's present in the 30-year-old's too. This is a self-fulfilling method of analysis because you eliminate all the guys who rarely start 20+ games after 30, usually due to arm deterioration. You also include a lot of objectively bad pitchers if you include all the 26-year-old's who never get another chance to start 20+ games because they're not good. This needs to be about how much the average pitcher will decline from age 27 to age 30 and beyond - not how the averge 30 year old compares to the average 26 year old, but how he compares to his 26 year old self. By any account, it's a pretty steep decline on average, and the only debate is just how steep. If you think Archer will buck that trend, you will need a very convincing argument - especially since he already appears to be getting worse and throws a lot of sliders, which arguably are bad for your arm (hard to parse the data on that though).

That would incredible for the Brewers and decent for the Marlins but I can't see Cleveland doing it. I think Milwaukee would have to add 2 prospects to the deal - one for Cleveland and one for Miami, to replace the one you have them getting from Cleveland. Mejia has tremendous value in this trade, and Realmuto has even more. Both teams need enough nickels and dimes to get their quarter back, so to speak.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/25/5437902/pitching-aging-curves ETA: Probably really hard to tease out the survivorship bias in that data, but it's still pretty damning for a guy like Archer. I thought a lot of sliders was supposed to be bad for your arm, too, but I don't remember where I read that.