McRibMcLove

Cobb wouldn't be replacing Woodruff in the rotation. He'd be replacing the 5-headed monster of Suter/Guerra/Wilkerson/Gallardo/Lopez I wouldn't include Suter in that "monster" definition, he outperformed Cobb last year (on a rate basis - half as many innings, 70% of the WAR). I don't understand ignoring the production we've gotten from our own guys and over-inflate what another teams pitcher has done. Suter is great as a spot starter and long-man. Yes, signing Cobb pushes the "monsters" to the bench (in the case of Gallardo, off the team) until Nelson returns then a decision will be made and I fully expect a push for a TOR to occur this year before the trade deadline. Come August I hope we have a very good rotation with an improved offense.

Cobb is going into his 2nd season post-Tommy John surgery, which is when you typically see an uptick in velocity and performance for pitchers. His numbers pre-surgery are near ace-level. His best year was age 27 when he put up a nWAR of 2.8 (not elite). Davies has done that the last 2 years. Cobb was 29 last year and everything in his performance curve matches age related decline. I don't see him having a huge year this year. He will benefit from the move to the NL and he may put up a 3 WAR, but there is nothing that clearly says he's due to a massive improvement as he ages. It would be great if we get that from him, but I wouldn't pay him based on a 3+ War in 2018.

Really, you're that sure about a 28-year old who has ~100 innings above AA? Should be Woodruff as I just copied from the previous post. Yes I do. Woodruff is 25. He has the stuff, he performed over that level last year if you scale his innings to ~160 even when he had a bad end of the year (likely tired due to his longest season). I am not against signing Cobb, I have advocated signing him in multiple posts as long as we don't overpay for the production he brings. I think he is excellent insurance against delayed Nelson recovery/performance and to keep us close going into the trade deadline where I hope we add that TOR starter through a trade. But at some point in the near future we will have younger alternatives that could out-produce him at a fraction of the cost.

Better than Davies, Chacin, Woodruff and Gallardo/Wilkerson/Suter/Guerra/Lopez? That's a big yes. Take Davies out and you have a yes. Davies has out-produced Cobb the last 2 years (compared to the last 2+ years of Cobb). Cobb would be the 4th best pitcher on the Brewers. He's older than our top 3 and likely not on any upward production curve. While he guarantees that only 1 of Woodruff/Gallardo/Wilkerson/Suter/Guerra/Lopez makes the starting 5 until Nelson returns, he is not elite enough to block a young guy such as Wilkerson or Burnes. He's a decent pitcher available on the open market for money only. I hope the Brewers spend enough to get him as long as he's under 4/60, but going higher really doesn't do that much to improve the Brewers (I have no doubt Wilkerson could put up 80% of the WAR Cobb does in a season and cost 5% of Cobb) and just spends money for the sake of spending money.

I'm under the impression that none of the remaining top SP's are going to take a contract less than 4/80. In that case, would you feel better about signing Arrietta at 4/100, or Cobb at 4/80? I think Arrietta is the safer bet at at $5 mil more a year No Way Cobb gets $20M per year.

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us. Thank god it's a caviar minimum wage... heaven forbid they have to raise families on the real minimum wage or the real average salary...

Was that HighHeat or Nostradamus?

I am assuming the Dodgers aren't taking on salary to swap Braun/Kemp and give us something in addition to it. So we are getting worse today (2018) and tomorrow (2019) for a $16M future benefit to payroll. I don't see the benefit at this time as we are well below the stated max payroll now and have flexibility to add additional assets, not clear them off the books. The only real assumption I am making about the payroll is that $110M is likely the break even point based on last years revenues. That means any payroll less than that generates profit for the owners. Any substantial revenue increase creates a higher break-even point and there is likely room for $10-$15M in increased revenue by increased attendance. I can't assume that they will deficit spend, for an extended period of time, on payroll, but based on their comments I would guess that on a short-term basis they may be willing to lose $10M-$20M for a season or few. I believe, based on Forbes numbers, and general revenue numbers that the brewers have probably lost a small amount of money 3 of the years that Attanasio has been owner. It is also clear that he has made a significant amount of money in many of the other years including a $50M windfall this year (MLB digital rights). Is any of that excess money (i.e. profit) going into a bank account? I don't think any of us can answer that question. I hope that they will use some prior profit to deficit spend when necessary. Hope, but I can't assume that since they are currently under budget that any savings (such as the $16M Braun/Kemp swap) is going to be value to the team - it could end up as owner's profit (no assumption, just a possibility).

What value? To pad the owners profits? I am not an Attanasio hater, but at some point the ownership has to spend some of the vast profit they have been raking in to add the necessary players to be championship competitive. The $16M savings means nothing to me when they are likely sitting on over $100M excess cash ($50M from MLB rights, $50M from profit last few years). The Seligs wasted money and didn't make great decisions, the Attanasio ownership makes mostly good decisions (jeff suppan waives hi) and doesn't waste money, but we've got 1 world series appearance under the Seligs and how many under Attanasio? Hmmm? I'm really perplexed by this.... You think that by making a move that frees up $16 million in 2020 means that Mark A. is going to pocket that money in two years? You don't see the value in having those funds available to make additional moves at that time? Say their payroll budget is $120 million- it's almost certainly better to have an additional $16 million + whatever else would be available to improve the team, right? You seem to be advocating for keeping a declining Braun based on your belief that Attanasio needs to "spend his profits." Perhaps, though, they're better off having that $16 million to spend on a player (or players) that may be quite bad by that point instead? By gaining $16M we lose at least 4 WAR in production. To replace that on the open market is going to be difficult. So slot in Phillips and hope he can match that (his defense may get us close). Does the $16M net us a TOR? nope. Does that get us partly to a TOR? sure, but I'm arguing that they already have money in the bank and $28-38M in already admitted budget flexibility to buy that TOR if they can/want. Does that get us Neil Walker for 2 year (sure, but we can buy Neil Walker now). There is no restriction right now that the $16M is needed or likely will be needed in the next three years, and if it does, then there were some bad decisions by Sterns in the interim... Keeping Braun and platooning him at 1B will likely make him and Thames more valuable. Braun backs up the OF until/if Santana is traded and can serve as DH when needed. I get that the Brewers may be able to use Braun's salary better in 2020, but he has value until then and there isn't a single move that can't be made now that is impacted by not having the $16M. Now if they sign Arrieta to a 5/100 contract and he bombs in the next 2 years then yes we may have a budget issue, but I don't see that happening (signing, not the bombing). Even then we are still $18-28M under, which is plenty of room to add another TOR candidate. Kemp is negative value at this point and should be waived even by the Dodgers. The only signal making this trade would be is that ownership is still nickeling and diming their fans. What I keep reading at brewerfan.net is that the Brewers can go up to $120-$130M in budget, but what I don't hear is that the owners are pocketing significant profits ever dollar they are under. At $92M they are making $30-$35m in profit (easily). What I want is them to start spending some of that profit to make the team competitive (and I don't mean 1 game of wild card). I want to see a world series in Milwaukee. The owners have made plenty of money during the rebuild and have a huge unrealized gain in franchise value. Time for them to stop gouging the loyal Brewers fans and breaking open the piggy bank. Trading Ryan Braun for Matt Kemp is only a bigger way for the owners to make profit and not to make the team better as they can make the team better without requiring that $16M.

What value? To pad the owners profits? I am not an Attanasio hater, but at some point the ownership has to spend some of the vast profit they have been raking in to add the necessary players to be championship competitive. The $16M savings means nothing to me when they are likely sitting on over $100M excess cash ($50M from MLB rights, $50M from profit last few years). The Seligs wasted money and didn't make great decisions, the Attanasio ownership makes mostly good decisions (jeff suppan waives hi) and doesn't waste money, but we've got 1 world series appearance under the Seligs and how many under Attanasio? Hmmm? That $16 million is a massive difference for a team like the Brewers. That difference is the ability to sign a high quality pitcher one year earlier. It gives the Brewers a chance to make a splash before 2020 instead of before 2021. That $16 million is what allows the Brewers to sign Cobb to a 4 year, $64 million contract NOW and still have an ADDITIONAL $16 million to bolster the rotation in 2021. Saving that money during the time where Arcia, Shaw, and Knebel will start getting expensive is huge as well since they will be going through their arby years. 1) Anybody paying 4/64 for Cobb is going to lose money on that deal. Cobb isnt that good. In fact it would be foolish to flush down 4 WAR for $16M (the likely "cost" of kemp for Braun), to give Cobb >$8M per WAR. 2) They have more than enough flexibility in the budget now. They reportedly offered 5/100 for Darvish. They have claimed to be able to go to $130-$140 (and likely still make money, so let's not pretend that he's busting the bank on that budget). Right now they are sitting at $92M adding cobb at say 12M would put them at $104 and $26-36M under their max budget (in todays dollars, 3 years from now max could be $150M). That leaves plenty of room to add pieces. Will they be able to outbid other teams in free agency next year or the year after is another question (I doubt it). Other than this year, I think the Brewers are at a disadvantage in Free Agency and will need to add TOR pitchers by taking on other teams contracts (when it's cost effective).

What value? To pad the owners profits? I am not an Attanasio hater, but at some point the ownership has to spend some of the vast profit they have been raking in to add the necessary players to be championship competitive. The $16M savings means nothing to me when they are likely sitting on over $100M excess cash ($50M from MLB rights, $50M from profit last few years). The Seligs wasted money and didn't make great decisions, the Attanasio ownership makes mostly good decisions (jeff suppan waives hi) and doesn't waste money, but we've got 1 world series appearance under the Seligs and how many under Attanasio? Hmmm?

I believe the $8M per WAR was for free agents, not for existing players. That was the price you paid to get a player without giving up anything but cash, not the price of constructing a roster from farm, waiver, trade, FA, etc. And I believe the Cubs just paid about $8M per WAR for Darvish. Edit: EyeBlack beat me to it.

Ryan Braun will put up a better WAR this year than Matt Kemp has over the last 5 years. To save $16M dollars? Let's just say the current price is $4M per WAR, I have no doubt Braun would be +4 in War over the next 3 years compared to Kemp. So if there's a swap of Kemp for Braun then I would expect something more to come from LA. If the Brewers are that desperate then there's a smell coming from the valley and it ain't yeast... How about Sterns spends the first dollar of the $50M from the MLB digital rights sale before worrying about any savings from moving Ryan Braun...

While I have been of the opinion the brewers need to get a #1/#2 this offseason, I am not entirely comfortable with Arrieta and think Lynn and Cobb are just nice #3/#4 types. I do think the Brewers need to add another SP to guard against regression from Anderson early in the year and underperformance from woodruff/suter at the back end of the rotation until Nelson returns and his performance can be estimated for the remainder of the year. Keep close with the current staff+1 going into July then see whose available at the trade deadline and make a move to add the #1/#2 piece for the final push to the playoffs. I would go after Cobb for 3/42 with a mutual vesting 4th year at $16M. He is a decent 3/4 moving forward and would likely be a #5 after (#1 trade, Nelson, Anderson, Davies) going forward. In a few years Nelson/Anderson will either need big contracts or Burnes, etc make the case that they can replace them. Gives protection also if Nelson doesn't regain his 1/2 performance while not costing a ton. I believe Cobb has more upside than Lynn at this point and would target him. That gives us a plan for competing this year, and puts the Brewers in excellent shape for 2019/2020 - addition of a top of the rotation starter during 2018, idea where Anderson/Nelson are headed and payroll to address SP again next offseason if necessary.

As SGM (Sofa GM) I'd offer one or both of these to Arrieta: 1) 2/$49.5M with $30M in year 1 and $19.5M in year 2 with a player opt out after year 1 2) 3/$75M with 30M/25M/20M per year and vesting options for year 4 ($24M) for cummulative fWAR >= 10 for years 1 to 3 and vesting option of year 5 ($24M) for fWar >= 3 in year 4. Offer 1 is basically a one year rental with downside protection for Arrieta that year 1 isn't as good as he expects and needs year 2 to regain market value. Offer 2 gives him an AAV better than Darvish, an achievable year 4 giving Arrieta more security and ultimately costs the brewers on average about $8M per fWAR. Total contract with vested options would be 5/123, if he hits the 13 war vesting numbers in years 1 to 4.

1) Not trading for Archer... 2) Yelich/Cain. I don't know think they go to 5 years on Cain until they know they have Yelich.

I am sure Boras will tell his players to hold, but what is the market for Arrieta? Brewers, Twins, and ? Arrieta has a better chance waiting for the first week or 2 of spring training and see if a big market team loses a pitcher to a significant injury then Boras can swoop in. I think chances of most, if not all, of Boras clients not going signed into spring training just went up. $100M contract on the table or holding out for better is a big risk to take for any player. The Dodgers could easily switch to Arrieta, since they were in on Darvish up until the last second he signed with the Cubs. If the Dodgers are in on Arrieta, doubtful we will get him either... Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports reports that the Dodgers were in the bidding on Yu Darvish right until he decided to sign with the Cubs. That could mean that the Dodgers will still be in the market for pitching help and will turn to one of the lesser names available on the free agent market. Source: Jon Heyman on TwitterFeb 10 - 3:10 PM Darvish was openly begging the Dodgers to enter the bidding as he wanted to land on the West coast. The fact he signed with the Cubs means the Dodgers just folded at the last call because they probably were not willing to budge from 5/$100M. I just don't see the Friedman run Dodgers being interested in Arrieta, but thats just my 2C.

I am sure Boras will tell his players to hold, but what is the market for Arrieta? Brewers, Twins, and ? Arrieta has a better chance waiting for the first week or 2 of spring training and see if a big market team loses a pitcher to a significant injury then Boras can swoop in. I think chances of most, if not all, of Boras clients not going signed into spring training just went up. $100M contract on the table or holding out for better is a big risk to take for any player. p.s. how do I get the username whom I am quoting added to the quote? Tx. Newby.

I think its having a pitcher who matches up well with any other #1 in the playoffs so one of the top 12 pitchers in all of baseball.

Hopefully this greases the wheels and deals start happening this week. Arrieta must realize 5/$90M is probably his best chance. No way he gets comparable years and AAV.

Can’t wait until the Fed puts an end to these scams...

Add me to the group that wants both leagues the same. Since the MLBPA would strike until the end of time if MLB tried to eliminate the DH I am fine (even though it is a bastardization of tradition) with the NL adopting it. Free the DH!

He could star in a spin-off of the walking dead... nothing can kill him and he has superhuman strengths... bartolo the undead....

Depending on what device you use there are VPN options which can be used to set your location. StrongVPN (IIRC) has a wireless router option where the router you buy from them logs into the VPN and any device that connects to the router will look like it is going through the VPN location. That allows you to use the MLB app on most devices and get around regional blackouts. If you use a computer only then just a regular VPN will work fine (they cost about $70 per year for the subscription). I've used a regular VPN when I lived in Chicago to get around the Cubs/WhiteSox blackouts (when I was looking for other games when the Brewers were off the air) and will try it again this year having moved back to MKE.

I can understand. Darvish is likely just using the Brewers to bring his price up for other teams and Arrieta is a Boras guy so they won't take market unless it's opening day and even then probably not. Tampa doesn't have to move Archer so his value is high and Cleveland probably doesn't think they need a RH OF since they walked away from the rest of their division last year. If Minnesota made some serious moves that might put pressure on CLE. I like a fallback of trading Broxton for Corbin if the DBacks would consider.