coolhandluke121

I agree with pretty much everything Lathund and hAll Star said. Best hitters 1-4, OBP most important, #3 might be a little overrated, more ab's for your best hitters trumps profiling certain spots in the lineup, speed on the bases is little more than a tiebreaker for higher spots. Don't get cute and give inferior hitters lots of ab's. The notion that power is wasted in the #1 or #2 spot is a bad reason to move superior hitters down in the order. Alternating L-R's is nice. One weird situation for the Brewers is Thames. Normally I would dismiss his hitting with RISP as a statistical aberration, but I think he gets a little nervous in those situations. I think he's a bit of a self-doubter who presses. Therefore the conventional wisdom about moving a good power hitter down to #5 is even more wrong in his case. It's better to get a hr with nobody on than k with 2 men on. His OBP is good. He will get pitches to hit in the lead-off spot. I'd probably go with Santana 2nd, Shaw 3rd, and Braun 4th, just to alternate LR's and have the best hitters in the top 4. I don't know what happens after that, but Phillips-Arcia-Pina/Vogt-pitcher-Villar/Sogard could set the table for the power-heavy top of the lineup. Hitting the pitcher 8th is a good move when your lineup is so top-heavy.

It's not really about Hughes, although I definitely preferred him. It's about Jeffress being a spectacular flame-out risk, which the evidence suggests has already begun. Last year this would have been fine, like we all thought about taking a flyer on Feliz. But look what that cost them in a year in which they missed the playoffs by one damn game. I don't want that again. If you want to take a risk on a guy, at least make it a young guy like Houser or Williams. I could live with one of them bombing because they're pre-prime guys, but if JJ has a Feliz-like April and May, it's going to be such a waste. It's not the money, it's the fact that they should give someone else the opportunity. It's the IP's and the roster spot. Just the sheer amount of effort they put into writing those options makes me think they're going to give him a pretty long leash, and I think it could easily cost them a playoff berth yet again. I expect nothing from him. Hughes seems at least a bit more reliable, but he's probably just having his Carlos Torres years so I don't really care that they ditched him either. That's not the issue. This is all about the likelihood of seeing JJ bomb spectacularly in key situations over a few months before they give up on him, and all when they could easily afford to sign guys like Neshek, Reed, and Swarzak without compromising their flexibility at all.

that is literally what is happening. I think it's implied that people know they could just cut Jeffress anyway. It's the fact that he's likely to be on the team instead of Hughes that we don't like, and rightfully so. It's not the actual money. We know it's not our money. We just want them to improve the bullpen and we think Jeffress is going to continue to be a liability.

I see a lot of people talking about how Jeffress has been good when he's with the Brewers. With all due respect, I think that's completely missing the point. Prince Fielder was really good as a Brewer too; should we be bringing him back? Obviously I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the underlying point is legitimate; Jeffress has lost velocity and is past the age where a player can take his body for granted. He seems to have some really bad offseason training and health habits and that means a continued decline is likely for a guy who relies so much on velocity. Prime age is 27 or 28 and he's already 30. He has a long history of severe control issues and has basically been a replacement level player for all but his prime years. There is nothing special about being with Milwaukee; it's just that he was in his prime. Milwaukee is not a pitcher-friendly place. Only elite velocity allowed him to cover up his deficiencies, and he lacks that now. I don't think anybody is complaining about the deal or incentives. At least that's not the issue for me. I just don't even see the point of keeping a roster spot for him, and it concerns me that they might be planning to do so instead of seeking clear upgrades, which they can easily afford. He could prove me wrong but I don't think keeping him would be a good gamble and if they strike out in free agency, I would much rather they give Houser, Baker, and/or Williams a chance to have a couple really good years in their prime like Jeffress, Thornburg, Axford, and Turnbow did. That seems more likely than J.J. bouncing back, as he's no more talented a pitcher than any of those 7 guys.

Huh. They don't have $3m for the guy with a 2.85 career e.r.a. but they can pay Jeffress, a guy who's lost the velocity he relies on so heavily and has behavioral issues to go with nearly a 1.5 career WHIP? I get the Jeffress theoretically has a little better "stuff", but this surprises and disappoints me (though I admit it's probably not of much consequence).

I don't really expect much from him and I think he's going to be a guy who declines kind of young. Was hoping they'd go a different route and spend most of their free agent money on great relievers because you can usually get them on such short deals.

The latter part is what I thought he was implying. As long as everyone else is using their starters 7+ innings, you can't be blamed for not realizing more creative use of your pen gives you a competitive advantage. But once someone else starts doing it and being successful, you have to do it too. There's no reason to assume that the way they used pitchers 30 years ago was the right way. At minimum, bullpen use has evolved, but saying it's evolved is kind of conservative because it evades the question of whether it has merely changed or whether it has actually improved (I think it has dramatically). And the point about having to improve to keep up with changes that favor offenses is crucial as well. It's not that there are fewer great pitchers; it's just that you have to work harder at using them judiciously to maximize their effectiveness.

If it addressed that necessity, then it's a superior strategy. There's no reason to believe starters are regularly going to go 7 innings because people have figured out that the more complicated strategy of selective bullpen use and specialists has worked better. Those that understand it will implement it and be successful. Those that are stuck in their ways who can't understand or accept that the standards have changed will survive only as long as their bosses don't understand the changes either (see: Baker, Dusty).

Why? If people devised a superior strategy that made this a thing of the past, what can you do?

Personally I think long relief is an under-utilized option, and the Brewers have enough versatility to carry 8 relievers. More pitching changes can also allow you to have less pa's for your starters. I don't know how often a reliever can pitch 2-3 innings and you would need a lot of injury data before even considering something like that, but I would rather plan around a starter like Suter with 8 relievers and some shuttle service AAAA guys than go down the beaten path and overpay starters in free agency. ETA: Most starters have much worse stats 3rd time through the order too, so changing the starter/reliever paradigm could be an innovation that takes the league by storm if anyone ever tries it and has some success with it.

Nice article, I didn't realize he graded out so favorably framing pitches. Very interesting bit. I've been to the Shuckers stadium, the field is mostly facing the ocean. The game I went to, many guys hit the ball hard but there were few hits in the game. Seemed like everything in the air hung up forever for the outfielders to catch. At home he had a 758 OPS and on the road he had a 638 OPS. He did great against young pitchers with a 955 ops but when he faced more seasoned pitchers he was 659. His LR splits are very dramatic. Vs R 581 VS L 947 At best he might be a platoon guy vs Leftys at this point if he were to ever make it to the majors. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. All these facts could just as easily be interpreted to suggest he's much better than his numbers. Are you dismissing the difficulty of his home park because he hit better at home than he did on the road? Because the fact is he would have even better home numbers if he wasn't hitting in such a difficult park, and that would boost his overall numbers. It's like if a Rockies pitcher has a 3.5 e.r.a. at Coors and a 4.5 e.r.a. on the road, with a 4 e.r.a overall. That's outstanding for a guy who pitches half his games at Coors, period. And that's regardless of splits because achieving that e.r.a. at Coors is evidence of a pretty talented player. Same goes for L/R splits. They're extreme but that's not unusual in a relatively short minor league season and the fact is he will still be allowed to hit against lhp's in the majors and boost his OPS if that really is indicative of how dramatic his splits will be (which it's probably not). I noticed you didn't even address his ridiculous .255 babip. I don't know the home/road or L/R splits on that, but it's his babip for the whole season and is clearly a very strong indication that he was much better than his numbers, regardless of which splits would be boosted the most - not that the splits are that statistically significant in the first place, but I digress. I'm sure every young player has much worse splits against seasoned pitchers. Look at how older non-prospect guys like Jungmann and Wilkerson can dominate the minors precisely because they have so much experience due to not being good enough to get to the majors. That's almost a non-stat to me. I think it would be ridiculous to take a chance at Nottingham being selected in the rule 5 draft. He would be one of the first guys picked, and he plays a position of great organizational need and is the right age for when they will need a catching prospect on the big club. Bandy and Susac are both easily the guys to drop from the 40 before him.

Corey Hart was more "toolsy" than Brinson in the minors. He had excellent speed and was a more prolific and efficient base-stealer, for example. It's an ominous comparison because of their similar builds and nagging injuries at a young age. You're remembering 2010+ Hart, after some knee problems robbed him of his speed. Hardy was an elite defensive ss so he was probably pretty close as a prospect as well. Brinson is not on par with guys like Braun, Fielder, Weeks, or Gallardo as a prospect. He's pretty ordinary as far as a team's #1 prospect goes, and he's an rhb outfielder which is the least needed role in the entire organization by far. I like building from within but there's a limit to how many of these guys can ever be long-time Brewers and I'm hoping the most favorable trade possible to reduce the logjam. That might not involve Brinson, but chances are it will. Of course it depends on the trade. I didn't want Gray, for example, so obviously I'm not just out here yelling "trade Brinson now!" But I think there will be some trade options out there that are well worth it, and I hope the Brewers are able to make a massive upgrade somewhere by trading a few prospects without losing any prospects at positions (or in age cohorts) of organizational need.

This is exactly how I feel... I'd rather get a great piece and take the risk that he becomes a super star for someone else, than risk keeping him so he can never reach his potential due to injuries... Do you guys have similar concerns for Harrison, Ortiz, Grisham(Clark), Ray, etc? Do you want to trade all of those guys because they got hurt once or twice? It's not like Brinson blew out a knee or hurt a wrist like Weeks to the point that he'll never be the same. He's played roughly 100 game each of the last 3 seasons. The injuries he's had have been simple muscle strains, these types of things happen to plenty of good players. If that's your only reasoning, it's absolutely terrible reasoning to trade away a top prospect. He injures his hamstrings over and over again, and that's not a good sign at his age. It could be a sign of a biomechanics issue or something like that. You're dismissing it too easily. Furthermore, just because he's by far the best prospect the Brewers have had in years doesn't mean he's actually a really good one; it just means their minor league system sucked for a long time. He's no better than Hardy or Hart as a prospect IMO, and frankly his k% in the minors is a bit of a concern too. I don't always subscribe to the idea of keeping all your prospects and always building from within. It just depends on the players and the circumstances. One mantra I do subscribe to is selling high as much as possible, and the only thing that consistently trumps that is realistic chances at a world series berth. I do think trading Brinson would be selling high while simultaneously increasing their chances at a ws, and there is an organizational depth/needs argument for trading him as well. I wouldn't have supported Brinson for Sonny Gray, but Yelich is a much better value than Gray, all things considered.

Would like this outcome even if there's some moves here I could do without (mainly Darvish). The problem is I don't think it's realistic. C.C. is going to get more than that, both in salary and years. 2/$40m wouldn't shock me. Ray probably doesn't get you Hernandez, let alone Abreu, and you're overrating Thames on the trade market if you think he makes up the difference. Villar is not getting you anything of consequence until he has a good year again. Even Brinson straight-up for Yelich is a stretch. I'm not opposed to the idea of making the kind of dramatic improvements you suggest, but I think there are better ways to do it.

It's a good sign that they continue to leave no stone unturned. There is no risk to this. It just shows tenacity to find reclamation projects everywhere. Maybe it will be a waste of time, but it's not our time they're wasting (unless you spend too much time arguing about it I guess). My favorite part of this is that it could be a preliminary indication that they're mostly going to stick to the team-building strategies that got them 86 wins in the first place, as opposed to bailing on what got them here and going the lazy "established free agent" route. As for this Baker guy, I won't feign any knowledge of him that any other schmuck can't find on all the normal websites, but he sounds like a Houser/Williams type and I'm glad to use a roster spot on him. They can free up roster spots in other ways. Of course I'll cut him if they sign multiple relievers, but for now, this is cool.

I think taking Chen lowers the trade cost of Yelich much more than any of those other options, and he also happens to be a guy who could fill a need area. I'd rather just give Villar, Sogard, Perez, and Dubon lots of chances at 2b than give up more prospects for Gordon, and the other guys on that list either aren't good options for obvious reasons or aren't guys that will give Miami enough incentive to unload Yelich (or both). That's a move that has upside and the risks are of the variety that the Brewers can afford to take. Also, Chen's 2021 option is pretty unlikely to vest, and if it does, then he might be worth close to $16m anyway. That said, I'd give up a lot for Yelich, Ziegler, and Tazawa, but make no mistake - I would have to. Yelich has a lot of trade value, while Ziegler and Tazawa are probably only borderline negative assets even at a combined $16m.

I guess with the lack of great prospects in the last 10 years a lot of Brewer fans have forgotten what they look like. Brinson is pretty ordinary as far as a franchise's #1 prospect goes. I'll be pretty happy if he's as good as Corey Hart or Geoff Jenkins, and Yelich is probably about his ceiling if he can ever stay healthy. Trading him and bit pieces for Yelich would be an easy choice. Could the Brewers incentivize the Marlins by taking Chen off their hands or is that just an NBA thing? Maybe they could send some lesser prospects by taking Chen. His 2021 option won't vest, and he would be a very expensive lhp reliever to replace Suter in the pen. The Brewers do have the payroll flexibility to do something like that. It would make me want to puke seeing his salary on the payroll for 3 years, but if it allowed them to keep most of their top prospects it would be worth it.

Your analysis is completely off base. Your point about the acquiring talent makes no sense at all but thanks for putting in the old school baseball logic of if a GM really believes in the team non sense. This statement is just completely off base as you are ignoring the weighting of future production versus present. The value the Brewers would have given up was just not something Stearns was willing to pay. Stearns was trying to improve the team but not so it would be detrimental to the teams future. This has nothing to do with how Stearns sees the team today but more along the lines of how he sees the team in 3-5 years from now. If a player comes by and they help or improve the team now and 3-5 years from now I don't see Stearns passing that trade up or signing a player. I guess it depends on what you think of Stearns. I agree that this would normally be giving a gm a little too much credit, but I think he's earned it. It would be a sign of low confidence in the team's ability to duplicate their success if he doesn't trade any contracts or spend $30-40m in free agency. I don't think that's even controversial. That doesn't mean he has high confidence if they do make win-now moves (the converse of a true statement need not be true), but it's at least consistent with that interpretation. Meddling from Mark A is always a potential explanatory variable as well, but I think Mark A honestly knows Stearns is much better than him and will give him the last word. Of course it's fine to disagree with Boomer's analysis, but you have to admit that the part about "everyone wanting to be known as an analytics guy until they have to take off the rose-colored glasses" was spot on.

They surely won't all be worse, but I think it's fair to project most of them to be. Saying Shaw is a regression candidate is roughly like saying there's better than, say, a 55% chance that he worse than last year. It's not saying he's not a good player who can't duplicate last year's success or even improve on it. I know you understand that, but I'm wondering how many people really do. When it all averages out, the best estimate of regression to the mean for each player on the roster probably adds up to 10-12 fewer wins. That's a perfectly reasonable assessment and there's obviously a huge margin of error, but it would be irrational to say this team's baseline is 86 wins. These guys have to prove it over more than just one season in order to deserve that kind of consideration. And they need some help via free agency and trades if they want to duplicate their success, let alone improve on it. I'm really surprised I ended up on this side of the argument. I actually thought I was especially bullish on the Brewers compared to most people. I definitely expected them to be respectable, and I think they have some pretty solid players. There's very few players I would want them to trade. I am predicting slightly worse years for lots of players, but I'm not suggesting that they're total flukes. But I won't be at all shocked if several guys have terrible years next year. Probably not quite as bad as Guerra and Villar this year, but still plenty of struggles reminiscent of the ones most of these players have had at various stages throughout their professional careers.

Is there a thread where we can find what people said about Villar and Guerra at the end of last season? I'm sure there were plenty of people saying 2016 was the "real" Villar or the "real" Guerra, despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm curious to see if it's the same people. We had some arguments about it on realgm too. How anybody could basically say that Knebel, Shaw, Anderson, Santana are all truly ~top-10% players at their positions is beyond me, but that's what you're implying if you say they're not due for regression. It's like people were basically saying Villar was roughly a top-5 SS last year. I'll be happy if we just don't have several more players go completely down the sh*tter like he did.

Then why did they win 86 games? You're not making any sense.

It's not just about age. Most of them had much better years than what you would realistically expect based on their prior history. A player's 5-year track record trumps his previous season when making projections. That should be painfully obvious. Maybe Santana isn't a regression candidate but a large chunk of the team is. You're being a homer if you argue otherwise.

I didn't realize Trent Clark changed his last name to Grisham. Also, they have two #3 prospects for BP and no #1, which must be a type-o. I'm sure Brinson is their #1.

Wow, didn't realize so many must-protect guys were becoming eligible next year. That changes a lot. I previously advocated 1-year deals a lot but was starting to come around on some 2-year deals and stuff like that. Not anymore. Stick to the plan. Sogard and Villar are right for the situation; Walker is not. Swarzak and Neshek could probably be had for 1-year deals, but I'd stay away from more established guys like Reed just because of the roster crunch. Save those roster spots; the team is not talented enough to justify going all-in and deviating from the opportunistic, bargain strategy that got them here in the first place. Alex Avila is another great 1-year option. I would back up the truck for C.C. on a 1-year deal but he wants to stay in NY. Still, if NYY offers him 2/$35m and the Brewers offer 1/$25m, maybe he'd consider it. And what else are they going to do with that $25m? Because of the impending roster crunch, I'm not spending it on relievers and old guys unless it's one year deals. If they stay competitive next year, then they can talk about trading some of their prospects for pitching, but they shouldn't jump the gun yet. This free agent class isn't worth it. You'd hate to sign multiple 2-year deals only to be forced to trade prospects in unfavorable deals because of your roster crunch. Standing pat keeps your options open to explore trades without having pressure to settle for whatever is available.

You can't just limit it to "big breakouts", but even there you forgot Thames and Nelson who were either replacement level or not even in the majors just the year before - and in their physical primes no less. Nearly everyone on the team exceeded expectations. But I gotta bow out at this point. Anybody who says Shaw, Knebel, and Sogard are likely to remain flat isn't ready to be objective about their favorite team, and that's fine. That's what fans are for. I don't even fully disagree with you as I think expectations were a little too low. I was expecting some guys to have career years. But it's ridiculous to suggest they're not due for some significant regression after the year they just had. They have a lot of work to do if they want to win 86 again.