coolhandluke121

Credible people confirmed that the Brewers weren't just taking calls on him, but were actively trying to trade him. It stands to reason that they didn't get the offers that the Santana fanboys here take for granted they should get for him. As for Santana being a good young player under team control and Stearns being loathe to trade players like that, I'd wager that Stearns doesn't actually think Santana is really that good. He seems to be the anti-Melvin in terms of valuing defense, which is a good thing, and there's a pretty decent chance Santana ends up being a fairly inconsistent and frustrating player who never lives up to the promise, a la Corey Hart.

Now that's what I call perspective. Looking forward to the Brewers laughing at these other teams real soon, if not this year.

Let them do their thing. Personally I think there's a good chance that some trio of Williams, Houser, Barnes, Baker, and/or Drake average more WAR than most of these relievers getting $5m+ per year. I don't know which of those 3 are going to be good, but if the Brewers figure it out within a couple months of opening day, they'll be glad they sat this out.

The Cardinals have the best PED program in baseball so I'm sure he'll continue to hit like last year, if not better. I'm not really surprised that the market for outfielders is a bear. It's really hard to set yourself apart from the pack as a really good outfielder these days. There's a ton of guys that are pretty good if you look at their production compared to other positions, but then you look at all the other options and wonder why you'd give up much for them. Look at the Brewers with guys like Phillips and Brinson good candidates to be better than a guy like Braun in a couple years, if not this year already. I'm glad they tried to trade Santana but can see why they didn't get much. There's just a bit of a glut, and anybody looking is going to expect a bargain. Kind of wish they had traded Brinson for Gray at this point and would love Yelich. He's one of those guys who truly sets himself apart from the pack in the outfield because of his consistency and all-around play.

Good call. He's so disciplined. Just wait out the markets and don't blow your wad too soon. I bet his pull-out game is strong.

For the Brewers the 150 starter innings of a 3.00-3.25 ERA guy is worth more as Starters in general get paid more and over a longer period of time than relievers do. A 3.00-3.25 ERA guy in free agency is going to cost you about $10-15m a year. I would rather get two relievers on the free agent market for the price of one starter and at a shorter contract length. Hader can go more than 80 innings if they use him in piggyback situations and give him more innings in less outings.

I wasn't suggesting that teams don't stack righties. Of course they do. I was saying that if Hader was truly a 4-inning starter, CHL has a point that he's maybe best used against a lefty part of a lineup in close games. I also was noting that teams can push his pitch count/hit him harder than the "he generally went 6 in the minors" thing. Yep. Clearly he would still pitch against lots of rhb's, especially since teams would use ph's against him. But you would be making it harder for teams to game-plan by not having his outings be so regular and predictable. You could also use him judiciously against teams with lots of rhb's and then get longer outings out of him against teams with good lhb's, an advantage that's much harder to get when you are basically stuck pitching a guy just because it's his turn in the rotation regardless of whether he's a good match-up against that team.

In no way whatsoever does my comment say or imply that. Is Andrew Miller a situational lefty?

Oh, my. What? That's some solid analysis right there. You'd be doing teams a favor by starting Hader. His stuff wouldn't be so lethal the 2nd or 3rd time you saw him in a game. He'd also face tons of rhb's. Very few teams lack for rhb's and it's the easier side of a platoon to fill. They'd be lining up their rhb's for Hader's starts. It would be a waste of what makes him great.

Sometimes I ask, would the other team be glad we're doing this? I think teams would love it if the Brewers started Hader and didn't have him available for match-ups and multiple outings each week, just like Ohio State loved it when UW kept trying to establish the running game even though that played right into OSU's strengths.

I don't really like Archer. Not gonna pretend I've seen a lot of him, but it just never seems like a hitter should be scared to face him or anything. I always got that feeling that the offense would break through eventually against him. It's not like, say, Jimmy Nelson, who just needed better command and strategy but had the stuff to flat-out shut teams down. Obviously they should look to trade their glut of young outfielders for starting pitcher, but don't force it if it's not available. I would put Archer in the "force" category. It would remind me of Herb Kohl saying "get me the best 20 ppg scorer who's available right now for the assets we have to offer", which I suspect is the kind of thing he pushed for. I'd be fine with trading Brinson or Santana but get the best value regardless of position. The team could use upgrade in other areas as well.

This just isn't tenable in today's game. First off you are making it so that in probably half the games the starter can only get a loss or ND, even if they are pitching well. Second this limits roster flexibility. 4 starters, 5 long relievers, 1 closer and 3 others, assuming a 13 man staff. Third this ignores the dynamics of the game, particularly in the NL. What do you do in the 6th or 7th inning when the pitchers spot comes up? If you pinch hit, you now basically are reverting back to 1-2 inning relief pitchers, 1. Who cares how they feel about it? Once it catches on, everyone will realize you get paid for how much you can pitch and how well. You're seriously over-estimating what wins mean these day. Lots of pitchers will actually get much better opportunities if teams stop going with the sheep and give their relievers more of the innings. Starters will get paid based on whether they can adjust to pitching every 3 or 4 days depending on how many pitches they threw last start. 2. There's no reason you'd need more pitchers for this. You just need to worry about a) innings, and b) outings. They make it work with 12 pitchers now and it's not adding any extra work, period. I would absolutely argue that they're wasting a lot of possible innings from relievers right now by giving them so many outings. Cut their outings and increase their innings per outing. Relievers should be able pitch more innings. I'm sure it's all a complicated non-linear relationship between usage and injuries, but there's no reason to just assume that the current m.o. is somehow the correct one. It could just be a huge case of groupthink. We've seen that PLENTY of times before in baseball. 3. There's no "closers" anymore. You can pitch 2 innings without the pitcher's spot coming up again. Whoever has the matchups or is rested gets the call. The bottom line is that the obsession with saves and late inning micro-managing has gone way too far. They're wasting a lot of possible innings from some of their best arms. Someone is going to realize that and change it, and if they have the talent, they're going to be successful. Runs count the same no matter what inning they're scored. The idea of always saving your leverage for the end of games has always been kind of stupid. They're wasting good arms that should easily be able to go one time through the order. Take 4 relievers over the course of 4 games. It would be much better to have them each pitch 3 innings once (12 combined ip's) than regularly have them pitch 1 inning on 3 out of those 4 days (still 12 total). Sure, you might have one of them bomb and have to use someone else. Then you'd be in trouble. But you're in trouble when someone bombs anyway. And honestly, after 3 innings, that reliever could still pitch 3 days later. I am almost certain someone is going to try more of this soon and I look forward to it. They're seeing how it works in the playoffs and in September and realizing what getting more out of your pen can do for your team.

Why is everyone acting like this is official?

Okay David Stearns, thanks for clearing that all up.

I'm okay with this because I don't like Trout being stuck on a bad team. It's better than him going to an already very strong team or god forbid the Cubs. I'm guessing it was partly about teams letting him hit and making it absolutely clear that they would cater to him in that way. It obviously wasn't about money, market size, or best chance at a title.

Villar is a little better against lhp's for his career, even with what happened last year. Let's face it, if they're playing him at all, they're hoping last year was a fluke, which means his 2017 splits don't trump his career splits and he's a typical switch-hitter who's a little better from the right side. I'm going with the hard platoon for the most part, with Villar getting some extra starts so Sogard can play a little ss against rhp's a few times a month. Broxton might not even be on the roster. You'll notice I had 13 guys there, but I generally prefer 13 pitchers if you have the versatility to make it work. With Yelich able to play cf and Braun/Perez both able to play the corners, they wouldn't need Broxton and yes, Phillips could play against lhp's too. I definitely wouldn't play Thames against all rhp's. He and Braun both need lots of days off. Thames for mental reasons, Braun for physical ones. And each would get a lot of ph pa's, obviously. I think that would be a dream scenario but it would be dependent on Sogard/Villar being decent.

I thought he'd get at least that much to be honest. This is bad news IMO. I don't think he's as good as his road numbers or as bad as his home numbers, but I do think he's going to have some pretty good years in his prime and he has plenty of talent. I wish the Brewers had beaten this offer. I prefer relievers on 1 to 2 year deals, but Chatwood is one of the few guys I would make exceptions for.

Maybe last year, but signing a guy like this for 2018 would not be a smart move. And which stretch are we talking about? His 2014 that was only above average and looks so good because of a few good months? He's progressively put up worse numbers as his career went on. We could sign Garza to a cheap one year contract too, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Eh, he was really good when he came back up at the end of 2016 too. 61.2 IP's, just over 6 per start, 20 earned runs, WHIP of 1.15, all against a really tough schedule (2 vs CHC, 1 @ Coors, 1 @ Cincy, games at Miller against really good offenses like Pitt and STL, game at Seattle). I think he's a headcase, which is just as bad as not having talent, but he definitely does have talent.

Hey i just got Villar or sogard at 1 and I want them replaced by an upgrade so... Thames santana shaw braun... braun santana shaw aguilar are my splits. I didn't fail you too badly. :-) I'd also kill for yelch and would bat him 1. It's not you, it's the whole thread. Villar, Sogard, Arcia, Brinson, and Phillips are all over the top of the order in this thread. That may be long-term ideal scenarios but the thread title says 2018 and I don't think it's realistic. Sogard/Villar in a lead-off platoon would be ideal if they can OBP .370 again, but I seriously doubt they can. I'd trade Brinson for Yelich in a heartbeat. Yelich Braun/Thames (1b soft platoon) Shaw Santana Phillips/Broxton (hard platoon) Sogard/Villar (soft platoon) Pina/Vogt pitcher Arcia/Sogard Perez gets some starts at 3b and lf against lhp's and hits 7th with everyone else moving up. Drool emoji.

It all comes down to what you think of a player. I thought there were some issues with Wily from the get-go, even when he was pitching well. Body language was terrible, no resilience or ability to handle adversity. Suter strikes me as the opposite, a guy with less talent who will adjust really well to expectations and a demanding professional life. I wouldn't advocate for him just based on his numbers last year. It's more than that. Yeah, there's a chance some guys bomb and they end up using Wilkerson, Jungmann, and Guerra. I can live with that. The odds of winning 86 again aren't great anyway. I'm okay with upgrades too, but there are certain regression candidates I'd like to give a chance next season even if it's against conventional wisdom or fangraph projections. Sogard, Villar, Broxton, and Suter are examples of guys who could be good next year, and I'd like to give them a chance because you've then got the upside of paying so little for a 2-3 WAR player, not to mention possibly developing a trade asset.

Eh, I just can't wrap my head around why we would want Suter to pan out to be a mid 4's ERA guy with a 1.5 WHIP, walking over 4 batters. There were a couple outlier seasons in there for Davis but he really wasn't good. We might as well resign Wily Peralta if that were the case. But at what age did Davis have those outlier years, and how old is Suter now? It's no fluke. Age 27 and 28 are overwhelmingly the most likely ages to have your career peak. I'm not suggesting a 5-year extension but considering what he did last year, I think it would be incredibly foolish to not give him a chance to be that kind of pitcher for another year or two. I stand by what I said because I think there's a great chance he has a Doug Davis prime while they wait for Burnes and Nelson.

Is that a good thing? Don't get me wrong. I'm pulling for a guy like Suter because he's just a fireball of energy and spirit but Doug Davis was just a meh pitcher. He had a nice long career but looking through his numbers it's a shock he lasted so long. Must be that left-handed thing again. It would be a great thing. Considering how little they have invested in him, that would be a huge win. Doug Davis is a terrific #5 starter for a team that lost an ace to injury and has to be careful about free agency. Another small but noteworthy factor is Suter's glove and bat. That adds up over the course of a season, and the Brewers should be able to have enough long relievers to limit Suter to ~5 IP per start.

I have been clamoring for this forever. This is an innovation that is long overdue. The evidence about starters going 3 times through the order is overwhelming, and has been as long as analytics have been a thing. Furthermore, relievers are under-utilized. The balance between starter IP's and reliever IP's is extreme. You couldn't get as many games of out relievers if you used them in long relief, but you could get more innings out of them. You'd just have to plan more carefully. Current orthopraxy is too obsessed with using relievers to micromanage matchups, which doesn't outweigh the importance of avoiding that last time through the order, not to mention having one less pa from your starting pitcher. The downside would be having to rest relievers more days, but it solves more problems than it creates. Heck, you might even be able to use just 4 starters regularly if you have enough relievers with options, mind your off-days, and use long relievers more. Another issue is that if your first long reliever bombs, you're in some trouble, but you're in trouble when a starter bombs anyway. We've seen this work in the playoffs so I don't understand why nobody has had the guts to try it. I know you don't get as many rest days in the regular season, but you can also cycle through more relievers during the regular season, whereas you're trying to stick with your 4-5 best relievers in the playoffs. Ironically, it would also allow you to micromanage matchups a little more in some cases. For example, if you have lhp long relievers and a team started all their lhb's against your rhp, you can pull your starter before his second pa and all of a sudden you've created a big matchup headache for the other manager. You can even plan to have your long relievers rested according to the rhb vs. lhb splits of the lineups you'll be facing in a given series, macro-managing those matchups instead of micro-managing them. I always thought it was incredibly weird to have lhp starters and then be stuck starting them against a dominant rhb lineup just because it was their turn in the rotation. Just get more innings out of relievers and stop putting starters through the order 3 times so often. The stats are pretty convincing. This notion that a starter is "rolling" so you can't pull him is stupid. Chances are pretty good that he'll stop "rolling" when he gets to the top of the order for the 3rd time - not to mention the fact that you probably wasted another pa to keep him in the game that long.

Yep. Giving unproductive hitters the most at-bats is dumb. That goes both for trying to have speed and contact at the top of the lineup and for moving your best hitters to 5 or 6 because they're "run-producers". Look through this thread and you see Arcia, Sogard, Villar, Brinson, and Phillips all over the top of the order. Thames, Santana, Shaw, and Braun need the most ab's, period. Despite the optimism some people have for the other guys, even if they live up to the upper end of their projected numbers, they probably aren't much above .800 OPS guys next year. Those other 4 could easily rock .900 or better though.

Villar had a .369 OBP two years ago and Sogard was at .393 last year. Villar has a little more power but I'd still hit him first because he can steal bases. Sogard is left-handed so he can hit grounders to 2b and advance Villar to 3b. Arcia was our #1 prospect so I'd hit him #3 since he's obviously going to be a star. You need that speed to be on base for the cleanup hitter. Phillips obviously deserves a chance to hit at the top of the order too, so he's 4th. He had a .363 OBP in his career in the minors. Then you can go with the MVP Braun, Shaw, Pina, and Thames in that order. Who's Domingo?