coolhandluke121

I've used this name on RealGM for almost 10 years and I didn't realize there was already a CHL here, so maybe you had me confused with him. I've basically said I want to give Broxton and Villar another chance in almost every post about next year's roster since the day I joined bf.net, so I definitely am not a sell-low or give up young guys person. I did want to trade Villar last year because I thought it was sell-high chance, and I do hate his decision-making, but I'm generally all for riding out the bumps in a young guy's development. Ray does need to produce though. I think criticism is fair. Production is a better indicator of future success than tools or physical gifts.

Walker had season-ending back surgery last year and still got $17.2m for one year. This year he was relatively healthy, showed no ill effects from the back surgery, and had a typical Neil Walker season except for a brief slump working his way back from a hamstring injury, which is clearly fully healed with no lingering effects. Granted, it all depends on the market, but if anything his salary will go or he'll get a similar salary on a multiyear deal. The Mets might not be in the bidding this year, but they have a history of buying when they should consider rebuilding. The Angels would probably love to add him, and the Brewers will be interested and have a lot of money to spend. I don't see any way his contract is even close to the bargain you're suggesting.

We get it, you don't like Ray. That's not really the point of this thread at all, though. Move your hate along. I've never mentioned Corey Ray in a single thread before and it was satire about giving up on prospects too soon. I didn't intend it to serve as bait for people who look for any reason to be antagonistic, but apparently it served that purpose as well. It's fair to miss the satire but I think you should take your own advice about moving the hate along.

Corey Ray.

I agree. There's roughly a 50% chance you win the WC game, which means there's probably about a 40% chance you win the LDS since you will have used some of your best pitchers in the WC game, will probably be playing a superior team, and won't have home field. 40% of 50% is roughly a 20% chance of advancing to the LCS. An 80% chance of not advancing to the LCS, repeated 2 years in a row, is a 64% chance of not advancing either year. But the average division winner has slightly better than a 50% chance of advancing, since 2 of the 3 division winners will have home field and theoretically be a slightly better team, and 1 of those will get to play a weakened WC team. So, not digging any further, a mere 36% chance of advancing to the LCS at least once does seem worse than being a division winner. BUT some of the 36% includes the slim chance that you win the WC game both times (~25% chance) and win both first rounds (~16% chance), where 25% of 16% is about 4%. Alternatively, you can see 4% as 20% of 20%, which was the rough likelihood of winning the LDS as a WC. The other 32% of LCS-winning scenarios involves losing the WC game one year but winning the LDS the other year (20%) and winning the WC both years but winning the LDS once (12%). Winning the LDS as a WC one year but losing the other year is better* than winning the LDS as a division winner but not making the playoffs at all the other year. Winning the LDS both years is obviously better. Those combine for 16% of the possibilities. That 36% chance of making the LCS has to be weighted differently. Winning the LDS one year and losing the WC the other year is probably better as well, unless you don't value the entertainment of a WC chase and a single game very much. And that's what it comes down to - what's your attitude about being entertained vs. trying to have a perfect year? I wouldn't trade the year the Brewers just had for a slightly better team next year, as long they're still good next year. That's 2 years of riveting entertainment, and they didn't even make the WC. From that vantage point, it's easily better to make the WC twice. Your chances of making the LCS twice make it a legit debate even from a strict "best chance of a title" perspective, but the fun factor makes it a slam dunk in favor of the WC's for me.

I believe that's going to come back to haunt the Brewers many times in the coming years. I guess I've said my piece and don't want to beat a dead horse, but it's gonna be debated again many times before his deal is up. Really hope he plays 1b next year.

Baseball reference has him at 1.7 oWAR and -0.9 dWAR this year. Their WAR calculations are better because they confirm my pre-existing biases. Seriously though, he's been pretty bad on defense for a while. I don't know how you can measure lack of instincts, but I do know that he's mostly been able to make up for it with speed in the past and that's gonna change real fast and real soon. It has probably started already. If you calculate the split-seconds lost by bad initial reads, you'd probably find that only the very fastest outfielders in all of baseball can consistently make up for it and be respectable defenders. I know his salary isn't supposed to be so bad considering how few obligations they have, but it could be the difference between signing a great free agent vs. a good one. I know the thought is that Bryce Harper and Manny Machado will get way too much, but if you're getting so many other good players for so cheap, who cares? The Yankees and Red Sox don't have unlimited money. Without Braun, the Brewers might have had a rare opportunity to sign one of the best players in baseball in his prime. I know he hit okay this year, but with all the questions marks, it's not worth it. The only way he can really be a big help is to move to 1b. They might have been just as good with a Phillips/Perez platoon in left, if not better. And my guess is that every year, there will be a bunch of bargain guys who could have been had for next to nothing who will be just as good as Braun. At least at 1b, he's not blocking any other prospects and might not be a negative defender.

Really? Do you remember Puig in 2016? Yes, really. Just freeing up a roster spot and getting rid of Braun's salary would have been worth it. Puig was just a lottery ticket. You'd have to be in total denial about Braun's injury history and decline since 2012 to think he would be anything but a bad contract in the last few years of his deal. And who cares about 2016? The Brewers weren't playing for 2016, and there was probably an 80% chance Puig would be much better and Braun much worse after that season. I have to admit that those of us who wanted to trade Braun for Puig were wrong on on one count though. We figured Braun would be a wasted roster spot, a walking injury, and a drag on the payroll when the Brewers were ready to contend again in a couple years. Turns out even we were overly optimistic, because they contended this year and Braun failed to even reach 1.0 WAR. Everything that went well this year was because of getting away from the old way of doing things. Braun was the only guy they didn't have the sense to move on from, and that non-move was the only really bad decision they've made.

Braun is neither a solid outfielder nor a good offensive player at this point, and he's only going to get worse with age. He's had one year worthy of his salary in his last 5, he's already having noticeable trouble reaching outside pitches and fouling them off, he's going to have to start swinging faster and being even more impatient to compensate for his decreased bat speed, and he's always hurt. And again, all these things only get worse with age. Broxton, Perez, and Phillips are all likely to be more valuable outfielders next year if they get the same p.t. as Braun. The one way he can still help the team is by being a 1b so they don't have to waste a roster spot on a guy like Aguilar. Among the players who produced more WAR than him this year are career scrub Eric Sogard, non-top 100 rookie Brett Phillips in less than 100 pa's, and waiver pick-ups Jared Hughes and Jesus Aguilar. This season was terrific, but the two glaring black marks on the year are Nelson getting hurt and their failure to move Braun to LAD for whatever they could get when they had the chance. They were offered Puig, McCarthy, and 2 prospects; how anyone could fail to see at the time that even Puig by himself was a much better option than Braun with his age, salary, injury history, and past PED use boggles the mind, but I guess baseball has the same problem as the NBA in that fans love to see guys hit no matter how mediocre they are overall, just like NBA fans like to see guys score even if they otherwise suck.

Kind arguing about Aguilar in another thread but I think it belongs here because we're talking about Braun to 1b, where I think he would be a noticeably better defender than Aguilar or Thames. I doubt Aguilar ever has an .837 OPS again and I hope they move on. It's kind of a waste of a roster spot to be honest. Consider the case for keeping Broxton instead: A Broxton trade would be selling low, whereas Aguilar would be selling high. Broxton has a career OPS+ of 92 as a very good defensive cf, whereas Aguilar is at 99 as a below average 1b. Broxton has seen lhp's in 31% of his pa's, whereas Aguilar is just over 39%. Broxton has a MiLB OPS of just over .750 in 3650 pa's, whereas Aguilar is just over .800 in over 4000 pa's. Broxton brings tremendous value on the basepaths. Aguilar does too, but unfortunately it's all negative. Aguilar's ph ability is just a lazy narrative; he's at .789 OPS in his career as a sub, whereas Broxton is at .792. Can you say late inning defensive replacement? Considering they differ in age by less than two months and both played 9 years in the minors before playing their first full season at age 27, I see no reason Aguilar gets a spot over Broxton unless you get a much better trade offer for Keon and next to nothing for Aguilar.

Thanks. I'm optimistic he would be okay there too. Even if he boots a few extra grounders, he can maybe make up for it by having the range to stop grounders that would make it to rf against other 1b's and the agility to come off the bag fast to catch errant throws. Booting a grounder usually only costs you one base for each runner, but ground balls to rf routinely allow runners to go from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home (because runners on 2nd generally run on contact if it's hit to the right side) and I don't need to tell anyone how much harm comes from a 1b with zero ability to cover his infielder's butts when they make bad throws (cough cough Prince).

Speaking of me losing my memory, was Braun more a bad fielder or just a bad thrower at 3b? Or both? I seem to recall throwing was his bigger issue, which would be much less of a problem at 1b, but I can't find a breakdown anywhere. His agility would be a nice bonus there, even though it doesn't come into play that often for 1b's. I never really liked the argument that a fast guy at 1b is a waste of speed, because it still is an asset on the basepaths and because ground balls to rf are trouble with men on base. ETA: I moved to NYC 10 years ago and don't read the local papers anymore, so I missed those JS reports.

He got a lot of starts against lhp's and played in a lot of hitter's parks. Being 20th in the innings equivalent of half a season when so much is rigged in your favor means almost nothing when your track record is as bad as his. Guys like him are lucky to even be in the majors. Usually they're career minor-leaguers/Asia-leaguers like Matt Clark and Jason Rogers, both of whom were better players in the minors than Aguilar. Sure, he's in his prime, but that doesn't mean he can consistently hit better in the majors than he did as a full-time minor leaguer through his age 26 season (!!), with over 4000 pa's in the minors. He had some good ph homers in a small data set and it was fun, but there's no reason to think he'll be anything but a wasted roster spot next year. Sorry but I think he's terrible and I will be disappointed if they don't find a much better way to use that roster spot while still having depth at 1b next year.

Good to know, thanks. I don't know if I would say it was well documented though. Not everyone follows every experiment happening in other teams' MiLB systems. He didn't play a single inning at 1b in his entire MiLB career, so there's no reason a typical Brewer fan would know that Houston tried it.

Yeah, I hate Villar. HATE him. I wanted to trade him to the highest bidder no matter what, even if nobody offered a return close to "fair value" for the year he had in 2016. All that said, from an asset and payroll management standpoint, the prudent thing would be to give him a chance to get his OPS back in the .750-.800 range, even if his idiocy negates some of his production. Not looking forward to watching that b.s. again this year, but objectively he still has a fairly good chance to add a lot of runs to the team, even if he wastes chances to add more. Signing Walker would be going right back to the way they did things under Melvin. I like him a lot, but I don't want that $15m or so on the books when he's 34 or 35. Keeping Villar and Sogard (or bring up Dubon) is playing with house money.

1. They were rebuilding so they didn't care if they had a hole at 1b anyway. 2. They didn't have outfielders needing more p.t. until now. 3. Braun was fast enough to make up for his lack of instincts, but he's at the age where he arguably isn't, or soon won't be. 4. It was better for trade value if he is still playing lf/rf, but his full no-trade rights kicked in this year. 5. He had a really bad year injury-wise. Not the first time, but his past injuries weren't lower body ones that affect his running. 6. Roster spots are at a premium when you're trying to compete, and carrying a guy like Aguilar is kind of a waste. This offseason is very different from others in terms of whether it's a good time to move him to 1b.

Lumbering 1b's who hit .827 with the benefit of a lot of platoon starts are a dime-a-dozen. That's why they play sporadically in the first place. That roster spot could be used much more effectively by having Braun, Vogt, and maybe Santana able to play 1b. He played a grand total of 14 innings at 3b in the minors. Fielding grounders at 3b during warm-ups means nothing. Baseball reference has him as a -.7 dWAR for his career in about half a full-season's worth of total innings, so his sporadic pt is protecting him from being recognized for the bad defender he really is. I know dWAR stats will disagree but that sure jives with what I see in terms of range and agility. He has a decent glove and all, but so did Jeter and Rollins when they were the worst starting ss's in baseball. What about the fact that he had an .OPS of .800 in the minors? That's horrendous for a slugging prospect. You really think his .827 OPS (which isn't even good) in 311 pa's this year is somehow more indicative of his skill than his 4000+ MiLB pa's? You're relying too much on the narrative of the season. The sun shined on his butt a few times in crucial ph appearances. Don't let it go to your head. Jason Rogers him as soon as you get a chance.

I like him, but to scoff at calling him a bench bat is quite an overreaction to a fluke year. You also contradict yourself by saying you'd offer 2/$6m, as if a starting free agent 2b would ever have to settle for that. I agree that Walker gets way too much. Then again, I'm not sure how many teams would really need him at 2b. The Angels would be the obvious choice, and they desperately need help in the lineup while Trout is in his prime. The Mets are probably rebuilding, but you never know; they've been impatient in the past. And of course the Brewers. Swarzak only has one good year under his belt. I think teams have suffered a lot of market correction with regard to overpaying relievers in free agency and trades. It was all the rage with the success of KC a few years ago, but relievers continue to be too volatile from one year to the next to be worth big money. I think Swarzak gets something like 2/$10m with a 3rd-year option, and I would like to see the Brewers offer 1/$7.5m and see if he bites. I hope they stick to one-year deals at most. Stay the course. They had all this unexpected success by being conservative and giving guys opportunities and second chances, so why overpay in free agency and trade markets now? Stick to what got you here. That means giving Villar and Sogard another chance. It means Barnes and Williams could be just as good as all but the best free agent relievers, as they both have the kind of stuff that helped Turnbow, Axford, Jeffress, Thornburg, and Knebel have a few great season in their prime in recent memory. It means giving Guerra, Jungmann, Suter, and Wilkerson chances to handle that 5th spot. I doubt any of them succeed, but you're playing with house money.

Yep. He had a really good year and I don't see why people are just focusing on his 2nd-half stats. He was clearly working his way back from injury. Also, it seems obvious that the knee operation that caused him to miss all of 2016 made a difference. His year was a bit of a fluke, but he's at least earned the right to stay on the island for another year. He's a good fit as a versatile, patient lhb who can back up both middle infield spots. Aguilar is the fluke guy they should move on from. An .827 OPS as a bad 1b with the benefit of a lot of platoon starts is nothing. He has significant negative value on the basepaths and not even a prayer of playing any other position effectively, and his career MiLB OPS of .800 would be a bit suspect for a middle infielder, let alone a guy whose can barely even play 1b. He's basically a significantly less versatile Jason Rogers.

No, he was not VERY good this year. Feel free to pull out some accurate numbers to support that notion. He was carried by some ridiculous numbers when first brought up that are definitely not what he truly is. Look at those second half numbers. That is what he really is. He carried a prett high OBP compared to his AVG all year, but I'm not sure how true that is. Regardless this guy is definitely a below average hitter and possible straight terrible. He wasn't god awful terrible, but he really isn't something we should want...not great D and pretty good bet the offense is well below average. We should want better, that is not ridiculous. He ended the year with a .393 OBP and 1 full dWAR as a part-time player on a team that desperately needs a versatile lhb on the bench and more guys who get on base. Will he have a .393 OBP ever again? Of course not. But it's not unusual for guys who keep working hard and staying in shape to peak a little after 30. Peak age is 27 or 28, but experience keeps accumulating well past that age. Sogard had some kind of chronic injury problem (I forget what it was, maybe his knee) that was apparently resolved in the offseason and that may explain why it took so long for him to put it together. Every situation is different and you have to look at the whole context. If there really was a chronic injury holding him back (not to mention playing in Oakland Coliseum), his career numbers might not be much more accurate than this year's numbers in terms of what he's going to do next year. Most fans are probably too biased in favor of recent numbers, but they should probably be given some extra weight in this case. You can't just erase his first-half numbers. Regardless of how your production is distributed, it all counts. He was very good this year. Also, OPS undervalues OBP, so it's not a great stat to use for a guy like him.

I live in NYC and he's always been my favorite Mets pitcher. Something about his effortless delivery, his personality, and his all-around skills made me think he'd have a better career than Syndergaard or Harvey, both of whom were a little too aggressive and cocky in a way that probably contributed to their injuries. I'm not normally in favor of win-now trades, but I'd give up a lot for him.

That's a great summary of the Santana situation. Every situation is unique and you can't just have set rules like "keep everyone under 27" or "we need his patience in the lineup" or, on the flip slide, "trade everyone after they have their best year because they'll probably regress" or "he's not versatile enough". My general take on Santana is that he can do a little better than this, but his average season will be a little worse. His defense is deplorable. They should listen to offers, but only accept a really good one. I'd also ask him to try 1b in winter ball. His agent should persuade him to try it as well if he has his best interests in mind. It may very well not work out, but it's worth a shot. His big frame could play well there. Every extra inch of height adds close to 2 inches of reach. If it doesn't work out, just go with the flow and plan on keeping him until persuaded otherwise. If he isn't even willing to try it, I'd be more inclined to shop him actively.

I normally wouldn't support moves like this, but it all depends on the player. I like Chatwood and I think he has a chance to keep becoming a better pitcher for a few years. This could be like signing Lohse before he was good and having him for his whole prime, instead of still being stuck with him when he's washed up. That's all just a hunch though. You have to be very careful with moves like this. And I would only support it on a reasonable deal. I think there are several other pitchers in line to get paid before him and teams will save some of their free agent money for next year, so he could end up settling for a modest deal.

This makes sense on the surface, but I think it would constitute an overreaction to the season they just had. Look at the strategies that got them here in the first place. It's a testament to how under-the-radar guys in their prime are just as good as the questionable aging free agents they signed so often in the Melvin era, if not better. Why deviate from that now? For example, there's a legitimate chance that Villar's WAR exceeds Walker's over the next 3 years, at about 1/10th of the price. I'm by no means a Villar fan, but you should expect the real JV to be about halfway between this year and last year, and you should expect Walker to decline - perhaps precipitously - at his current age. He's already a negative defender. Besides, he only got 1/$17.2m after having season-ending back surgery last year; no way he ends up settling for the kind of contract you're suggesting here after the relatively healthy bounce-back year he had. Darvish should age well compared to other pitchers his age, which probably only means that his next deal will be awful as opposed to godawful. Hardly anyone ages well anymore in this post-steroid era.

Just noticed there's a Cool Hand Lucroy here. Oops. I'll have to be CHL121. I finally had to migrate over here when the game thread was dead during the Brewers' last loss, when they still had a chance to earn the WC.