coolhandluke121

You didn't explain it, you just tried to convince me. Those are two completely different things. Nearly every guy on the team far exceeded any projections you might have had based on their previous work. That's why the Brewers won about 15 more games than expected, which is a huge swing. We're talking a lot of career years, and not just barely there career years, but by a wide margin career years. You might be right about Santana, but nearly everyone else on that list is a clear regression candidate. There's a reason they were all cast-offs. They could continue to excel, but it would be unexpected. I'm not sure you even know what regression means. It doesn't mean they can't/won't improve or they're bad players. It does mean what they did last year was above and beyond what their careers suggest they will do next year. And signing some great relievers and a starter doesn't change the fact that much of the current roster is likely to regress. It could counterbalance it and I support trying to compete next year, but I'm not betting on guys duplicating their success. Literally almost 75% of the roster had career years. That's a lot. This reminds me of the Fear-The-Deer Bucks. It was a good year, but it wasn't built around great young prospects and it's not really a sign of many good years to come. They'll need to get lucky again to duplicate this. It reminds me of arguing why I thought Braun, Villar, and Guerra were major regression candidates last year. A lot of people didn't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Exactly. Swarzak and Walker could be gone and the others are fringe roster guys. And yet those players alone were the difference between 86 wins and <80. They were that good, despite only being with the team for a few months and/or being fringe roster guys. You can't count on that production again, ergo, regression - unless they walk, in which case there's absolutely no guarantee you can replace them, which is another type of regression. Hader was a high WAR reliever despite not playing the full season. He had a lot of great outings in absolutely pivotal situations. There's no guarantee they're even going to try starting him, but if they do, there's no guarantee he will replace last year's WAR. I would probably bet against. And I guess you don't define being injured as a type of regression, but you certainly can't expect Nelson to duplicate last year's performance or even come close to it. That's regression in my book. Based on long-term data about their performance and talent, the odds of them improving are probably very slim. The odds of them being a little worse than last year are pretty good. That's what being a regression candidate means. It could happen, but the evidence doesn't support it. Nobody said they don't have upside, and I've had this debate before where I argued against people projecting massive regression and suggesting they trade Shaw, Knebel, and Chase. I am optimistic about some other guys stepping up as well, but you shouldn't be betting on the team to duplicate this year's success. The smart money is definitely on some regression averaged out over the roster, with some individual exceptions.

While I do think that some people have overstated the amount of regression expected, it's silly to list just 3 guys. Chase and Suter are massive regression candidates, and Davies is probably a minor one. Nelson could be out for the season. If Suter ends up being a starter out of spring training, which I sort of expect, literally every single spot in the rotation could easily be ~1.5 WAR worse than last year except the 5th spot (Woodruff all year instead of Peralta/Guerra/Garza). Hader, Knebel, Swarzak, and Hughes were all quite a bit better than any reasonable person would have bet on them being. Ditto Thames and especially Aguilar. You can't cite Villar as a bounceback candidate without also acknowledge that Sogard is due for a lot of regression and Walker is probably gone. And Shaw improving on the season he just had? That's quite a stretch. Regression is far more likely. Braun is only likely to miss more and more games and his bat continues to get slower every year. You'd have to consider Santana an elite hit tool guy to think he's going to stay the same or even get better. I don't think he's that. I agree about Brinson and Phillips replacing Broxton and Kirk in the outfield. There will almost surely be lots of regression. There will also be some pleasant surprises and career years, and obviously a few of the guys I listed above won't regress - we just don't know which ones. They will sign some free agents to counterbalance the regression as well, but this is roughly a 75-80 win team as presently constituted and their offseason moves, along with those of their division rivals, will determine whether they exceed those expectations again.

Lol at using Brett's nickname. Also, Braun has 3 options? *reporter emoji*

I'm not really interested in Cobb, Straily, or Dee Gordon. I'd much rather give Villar and Suter another chance than give up prospects and payroll for guys who might not even be as good as them next year. I'm all over Brinson + others for Yelich though, and I'm kind of jealous of the person who thought of it.

Technically you don't have to write Brinson's name in ink just yet. You could make a case for giving Broxton a chance to improve his trade value first. I'm not exactly bullish on Brinson and wouldn't mind seeing him in an impact deal like Yelich, as someone proposed previously. If asset management is the issue, Aguilar should obviously be the odd man out. I'd hate for them to dump Perez or Keon to keep him. If Braun plays 1b, then Phillips, Keon, and Santana can be the outfield with Perez and Braun getting some reps there as well. Brinson can replace Keon when they find a favorable trade or if Keon doesn't bounce back at all. And if someone wants to give up great value for Brinson in a trade, by all means go for it. Phillips can be the cf with Hernan/Braun in lf. I agree about Reed. He and Avila would be ideal targets, along with some other relievers. I don't hate the idea of Arrieta but would much prefer great depth and balance with less risk.

I accidentally quoted myself instead of editing. How do you delete a post here?

I like Chatwood but he will get A LOT more than 2/$20m. He's one of the only starters I would really want but I don't think it's some kind of big secret that he's a decent pitcher and I think teams will pursue him. On the other hand, there are a lot of sexier starters out there for teams with money. I normally don't support the mid-level Garza/Lohse/Wolf/Suppan pitcher acquisitions, but Chatwood would be a chance to sign a guy like that before he hits his peak. The problem with those other guys is the Brewers were acquiring them after age 30 or so. I think you have 26 guys. I would definitely cut Jeffress because I think he's a total burnout who doesn't take care of his health. I would also like to cut Aguilar and play Braun at first, thus leaving room for Keon in the outfield. I don't expect them to find a good trade for him and would rather give him another year than cut him because I think he still has some potential. Alex Avila is one of my favorite free agent targets. I really hope they get him. And I agree completely with giving Villar another chance, with Sogard and eventually Dubon as the alternatives if it doesn't work out.

I wasn't suggesting that at all if this is in response to me. I think it probably would have been silly if he had won it too, because it would have been the same old "we didn't think they would be good but they were so the manager must have been great!" b.s. I think C.C. was solid but I don't think he was manager of the year. Roberts probably should have won it based on his use of platoons and the bullpen and the 40-man, but they were supposed to be good so nobody will give him credit. As an analogy, how many COTY's has Popovich won? 2? 3? That's a joke IMO considering some of the people who have won it, but it's just because people take him for granted. Voting for COTY or MOTY is no better than voting for the Cy Young used to be when it was all about wins; it's just that these awards are all based on "wins above predicted number" instead of raw wins, but it's just as dumb.

Manager/coach of the year awards are ridiculously biased IMO. They always favor the overachiever but there's no reason to assume it's the manager or coach that caused them to overachieve. God forbid they give the players more credit or admit their predictions were wrong. Also, a lot of times it's just a bunch of guys having a career year in their prime at the same time, and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the coach. I don't believe for a second that a lot of voters consider whether a coach/manager actually make really good decisions and impacted the record in a significant positive way. In the case of Arizona, they got all kinds of guys back from injury and they should be good. They're a very talented team. It's basically like rewarding a guy for managing a team that was so flukey bad last year. (Not saying I know whether he did a great job or not because I'm not an Arizona fan, but I am saying I'm certain he got the award because voters want to give him credit for turning a team around when any competent manager should have had a pretty good year with that kind of talent.)

I'd much rather have Addison Reed than Minor and they should have plenty of money to get it done. But yeah, either way works and I certainly won't be pissed if Hader is in the rotation. I'm sure they're waiting to see how free agency plays out first. I still hope plan A is Hader in the pen though. If it comes down to spending $30m on a starter vs. $30m in the pen, it better be the later. That should be patently obvious given the free agent class, the arbitration situation, and the team's trajectory. But they could probably afford to spend $25m on a starter and $15m in the pen, so there's no reason to have a false dilemma. Given the risks of starters and especially their salaries, you could also make a case for spending ~$40m on the pen if you can stick to 2-year deals. Davis, Reed, Swarzak, and Neshek on 2-year deals? Sure, why not!

I mostly just hope they spend a lot of their money on the bullpen. They used some really terrible relievers last year, so you can be pretty confident that Swarzak, Reed, and/or Neshek is a big upgrade. You can't have that same confidence in mediocre starters who command 8-figure salaries or aging position players. Guys like Burnes or Suter could be more effective than Cobb in 2 years, for example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Villar has significantly more WAR than Walker over the next 3 years, and I'm hardly a Villar fan. So why pay a free agent premium for guys who might not be better than the young guys and reclamation projects you've been building around? I also think the idea that they can throw longer deals at guys like Lynn or Walker is a bit of a myth because they could easily wish they had that money free in a couple years. Relievers don't get such long deals so it's perfect for them. If they want to spend anymore than that, I honestly think I'd rather combine it into one big splash like Arrieta, who is almost surely a huge upgrade for a few years. I don't think free agency in and of itself is bad, but signing guys like Wolf, Suppan, Garza, and Lohse is kind of half-assed and I don't support any more of that. Regarding Hader vs. Suter, I'm not gonna riot either way but I would like to mention a sort of quasi-mathematical idea I've been working on. I think a pitcher's innings should be multiplied by some sort of leverage factor to account for the importance of the situation. When we talk about "wasting" a great arm in the bullpen as opposed to using him as a starter, it would be nice to have something developed that accounts for the value of those innings - particularly when it comes to wanting a great lhp like Hader for super high leverage situations. When you combine that with the possibility that Hader isn't as effective as a starter, you might start to close the gap between the value of a starter and an elite reliever. I also don't always like starting most lhp's because most teams have plenty of rhb's anyway so you can't control the matchups as much. A guy like Suter is okay if you only run him through the lineup twice and carry 8 relievers, which the Brewers could still do.

Yelich would be sweet.

No, I'm saying that Thames isn't worthy of ~120 starts. I think he needs more than his fair share of mental rest days. But we do know Braun will need some days off and who knows if he'll even be healthy, so I'm not counting on him for much in the outfield, nor would I want to. Even the emergency of should be Perez and not Braun if at all possible. Rather have all that defense out there and continue to hope Broxton has one good year to improve his trade value. Beware the power of first impressions. If Bandy had had his one random good stretch in the middle of June, you probably wouldn't consider him much of a candidate. But primacy bias is very real and his good start can easily have a disproportionate influence on your opinion of him if you're not careful. It reminds me of Brandon Jennings for the Bucks; because of his hot start, it took years of total ineptitude for people to finally realize he sucked. With all the money they can spend, there's no excuse for not putting in a very serious bid for Avila. Vogt as a fall-back is still probably a lot better than Bandy or Susac.

I've seen several people pencil in Jeffress and not even suggest an alternative. May I ask why? I don't think he's earned that kind of consideration. I'm not super high on Hughes or Swarzak but I'd definitely take both of them over Jeffress. If Reed is your top free agent reliever, that leaves the flexibility to get the best value guy left on the market regardless of whether he's lhp or rhp. I like it. Swarzak or Neshek works for me. I agree about Barnes. Could easily see him being the next hard-throwing Axford, Jeffress, Turnbow, Knebel, or Thornburg type with a few surprising really good years in his physical prime. I prefer to switch Hader and Suter. Want that Andrew Miller type in the pen, and Suter earned a chance in the rotation for sure. Plus Brent's bat and glove are damn good for a pitcher. That's not a huge factor but it's a tiebreaker when there are good arguments on both sides.

Good thread, bad moves. Sorry, but in my opinion there's a hardly a move I like in the whole OP. Lucroy is cooked. Do you realize he graded out as a really bad pitch-framer this year? Given the normal aging curve of most catchers, there's no reason to invest nearly that much in him. Go after Avila, and just keep Vogt if that doesn't work. Both are much better options than Luc. Your nostalgia strikes twice. Jeffress is terrible now. Took his god-given talent for granted, smoked and drank too much, and can't do jack without his velocity now that he's past his physical prime. Not sure I'd use a roster spot on him for free. And counting on Guerra in the pen? Yikes. Stranger things have happened but I'm not buying it. Hughes should be a mortal lock to keep. He's been good and will cost peanuts. I'm not high on Swarzak but I don't think he'll cost as much as some people think. I want them to spend money on relievers and I don't mind if it's him. C.C. will get twice the annual salary you're suggesting. Walker will get 1.5 times your number. Walker made $17.2m this season after season-ending back surgery last year. No reason to think he's gonna get a pay cut after the relatively healthy, productive year he just had. It's not like he's an old man or anything. Not much reason to hand out a lot of extensions either. I like most of these guys and wouldn't mind if they lock them up, but it's really unnecessary considering how long most of them are still under team control. Unless you think the arbitration system is going to be revamped soon, you don't get much benefit from a lot of extensions. Knebel Hader Swarzak (or Neshek) Barnes Hughes Taylor Williams Addison Reed? (Wang or Webb backup plan) --- Anderson Davies Woodruff Suter ??? (I won't riot if the overpay Arrieta) Thames/Braun Sogard/Villar Arcia Shaw/Perez Pina/Avila (Vogt backup plan) Brinson Phillips/Keon Santana I'll be pissed if Braun refuses to move to 1b but they're stuck with him so I guess you trade Keon instead of Aguilar in that case.

Swarzak only if the price is reasonable. Usually relievers like him don't get much. People aren't gonna buy his career year. Knebel unless they get a really good offer, which I doubt. Teams are realizing you can't count on getting a good return on your investment when you pay them too much in salary or trade. You do need a good bullpen but the the teams spend the most or trade away the most prospects don't necessarily have one anyway so it's all about development. I want Hader in the pen like Andrew Miller. Barnes is a mortal lock, and should be. He has the stuff to be the next in a long line of hard-throwers who have a few really good years in their prime (Knebel, Turnbow, Axford, Jeffress). Williams should get a chance for the same reason. Hughes is an easy yes. That leaves one spot unless Swarzak walks. Do you go with a LOOGY or long reliever? You can move guys up and down a lot, too. I'd probably use 13 pitchers. Jungmann, Guerra, and Wilkerson are long relief candidates, and Wang or maybe Webb would be the other lefty. Suter is going to have to start, even if they sign a starter. I like him in long relief but then you have to sign two starters, which is weird if Nelson bounces back. And I sure don't want to start any of the other guys mentioned above. I guess some people want Hader starting but I love him in relief. I understand the thought that you have to give him a shot, but I have a hunch he ends up being more effective in the pen. Knebel Hader Swarzak Barnes Hughes Williams Wang Guerra --- Anderson Davies Woodruff Suter ???

Maybe Perez could be the 5th starter.

Just as a cautionary tale, guys like Gomez and Segura were similarly impatient and generally awful at the plate for years before making small but crucial improvements in that regard, and look where it got them. When you have the kind of talent that they had, and that Hernan and Arcia have, it might be wise to be just as patient with them as you hope they will eventually be at the plate. The gap power, bat speed, hand-eye coordination, speed, and defense are terrific for their positions. It's better than hoping for a career scrub who brings no other value, like Matt Clark or Jesus Aguilar, to be good, and much better than over-paying for someone who might be worse than those guys in a year or two anyway. ETA: Broxton might be in a similar category too, except it's not so much patience as it is holes in his swing. Can he fix those?

I think the bubble is going to burst on reliever salaries soon. It's not that bullpens aren't valuable overall; it's that each individual isn't necessarily worth that much given the risk of injury and the year-to-year fluctuations in reliever performance. We've already seen the bubble burst spectacularly in reliever trade value if you compare the 2016 trade deadline to 2017. Free agency is bound to follow suit.

Yep. Also, Shaw can move to 1b and be a borderline elite defender there if you need to make room for Erceg. I like the idea of extensions as long as the Brewers get a reasonable potential discount in exchange for the risk. I like this team a lot and hope they can stay together. I know that's a dangerous way to think about it and I hope the Brewers aren't thinking that way, but as a fan I freely admit that's a factor and it's yet another reason to want Shaw over Santana if they're both at fair market value.

I hope so. I think he could have a couple good years in his prime and I like his versatility. Aguilar is the guy I don't want, and Braun would be playing about 100 games at 1b if there was any justice in the world. That would allow you to have Perez, Thames/Braun, Vogt, and Sogard on the bench, with Keon in AAAA for OF depth depending on whether you have 12 pitchers or 13. I think that gives you slightly more overall talent if you count versatility as talent, which you should. More importantly, I think it's more likely that Broxton and Perez develop some trade value compared to Aguilar. I can't see him sustaining plus production for 1b.

I think he deserved it. He did a very good job for the talent he was given. You can't punish him for failing to hold a playoff spot that they had no business competing for in the first place, and you definitely can't blame him for a bunch of mediocre players not being able to play like all-stars all year. I like the way he uses platoons and the bullpen for the most part. He gives players like Broxton and Villar and Garza about the right amount of chances before replacing them. Fans call for their heads too soon and most managers stick with them too long, but CC walked that line nicely. It's not like they had tons of better options. You also can't discount the fact that guys love playing for him. His decisions did get a little worse later in the season, but he had set a high bar for himself already. It must have been really hard to know whom to trust. They only had a few reliable options. You can't blame him for leaving starters in too long considering how bad their bullpen was before Swarzak and Hader, and it's hard to blame him for using his best relievers too much later in the season. The Nelson and Anderson injuries were absolute killers. Putting guys like Perez and Villar in cf was a little weird, but Broxton was terrible most of the year. He should have played Brinson, Phillips, and Hader more, but rookies often struggle and the teams was in first place. Nearly every decision I didn't like was at least understandable, and there weren't that many of those anyway. There's managers like Yost and Roenicke all over baseball; glad we have a good one. That's not to excuse every mistake and I'm not as optimistic about him being a future great manager as I was early in the season, but he deserves this. Good for him, and good for the Brewers. Can't wait until next year.

With as bad as he was in previous years and theoretically being past his prime age already, I could see why he'd be anxious for financial security when he has the chance even if it means he might have left a lot on the table. Good call for him and the crew. He pretty much sustained his newfound velocity all season, didn't he? Even after coming back from the injury? Yeah, that bodes well for his performance the next 3 years. I think there's more than enough likelihood that this contract will be cheaper than his last 2 arbitration years would have been to make it worthwhile for the Brewers. The last year could be a savings of $10m or more. Very nice. The only downside is we ended up talking about the Nelson injury, which is the most depressing injury for any team I'm a fan of in a long time. (Rodgers isn't quite as bad because I think he will bounce back 100%, whereas there's a really good chance Jimmy will be a shell of himself.)

The Cubs are a lot like the Brewers in the Braun/Fielder era, except with more money. Bryant and Rizzo are better versions of Braun and Fielder, and they have other hitters who probably compare favorably to guys like Weeks, Hart, Hardy, etc but who probably won't be really good every year. Contreras could be their Lucroy. Heyward and Zobrist are like Mike Cameron and an aging Aramis Ramirez. But they hardly have any home-grown pitching talent, and they're going to keep piecing together rotations from aging free agents whose WAR in the 2nd half of their contracts all but cancels out what they gave in the first half. Quintana is their Gallardo, a guy who can probably count on to be a solid #2 for several seasons, but everything else is a huge gamble. They're going to have their share of Suppans (Lackey?), Lohses (Lester?), and Marcums (Hendricks?) before it's all said and done. They're probably going to overpay to trade for a pitcher at some point but it will only accelerate their decline in the long run, like the Brewers did with Greinke and Sabathia. Pitching is nearly half the game, and we all know how mediocre the Brewers were for most of Mark A's first decade despite having young cohort of hitters that may be rivaled only by the Cubs and Dodgers in this century.