PDXBrewCrew

Ok, again, this is your opinion.. We get it. You don't like the guy. Unless there's something else you want to say besides the fact that you don't like him, maybe just stay away from the thread? Seems to be causing you lots of stress if he invokes that kind of response from you. Anyway, the whole point is team chemistry is AS important as talent. And it's something no algorithm can quantify. Would anyone have been happy if Gary Sheffield had come back to the Brewers at any point? And I still feel that last year's team won far more games than they should have due to the team chemistry. And a jerk like this can completely destroy that. I've seen it. I've experienced it.

I spent last night reading a bunch of articles on Bauer and watching interviews with him. If you can read between the lines, two things jump right out. 1) Buaer is an an incredibly arrogant jackass. 2) I don't think many of his teammates would be very upset if the Indians got rid of him.

Top ten might restrict the data. A player could appear in one year's top ten, improve that stat and not make the following season's top ten. A better methodology might be to use the top ten percent of pitcher and position players each season. Or use a stat that has a baseline for the average player and make the list all players whose performance exceeds a certain level above that baseline each season. This is your assignment for today. What else where you going to do? Watch the stinking Patriots win another Super Bowl?

Excuse me, where did you get the idea that Bauer was a close to being a non-tender candidate? He is currently waiting for his arbitration hearing and both submitted figures are significantly under the MLBTR projection of $7.7MM (Bauer's side = $6.25MM, Tribe at $5.3MM).. And next season, that figure will go up to $8M-$10M. With another middling season, that puts him square in the non-tender category. Maybe I shouldn't use fancy words like "precipice."

He's a mid-rotation starter on ANY team. And my only problem with him is that he refuses to let anyone help him get better, that he thinks he knows more than anyone else. Yes, he's talented. But his talent should be leading to far greater success. One of the main keys to the Brewer's success last season was the team chemistry. They guys looked they actually liked playing together and were having fun. And everything I have read, and continue to read about Bauer makes me think that he would be a major disruption to that. Regardless of how talented he is.

And MAYBE he would. We can do this all day long. All I'm saying is if he was having overwhelming success, then he knows what he's doing. If all he's doing is treading water, then MAYBE it might be beneficial to listen to other people. That he refuses to even entertain the idea of listening to anyone offering help just reinforces that we shouldn't have him anywhere near the team. "I know what I'm doing and what's best for me, even though it isn't working great."

If he was doing his own thing and was a Cy Young caliber pitcher, he's doing something right. But doing his own thing has led him from being the third pick in the draft to being a mid-rotation starter that's on the precipice of being a non-tender candidate. MAYBE he might be better if he listened to someone else.

Maybe someone should point out that he hasn't exactly done well training his own way and using his own coach. Maybe he should listen to other people and not be so positive that he has the right answers. Mod edit: Please leave political commentary out of the discussion

Boy, if FIP is the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, we might as well put Suter and his 3.75 FIP from last year in the rotation. Oh wait, for some reason everybody thinks he sucks.

But signing one of the FA pitchers to a deal like they're looking for makes me cringe. Anything over 4/$80M for Darvish makes me uncomfortable. Anything over 3/$60 for Arrieta makes me uncomfortable. Anything over 2/$25 for Lynn or Cobb makes me uncomfortable.

Collusion is the owners getting together and deciding as a whole to not offer certain free agents certain contracts. A market shift is when the individual owners decide for themselves not to offer certain free agents certain contracts.

The gamble is seeing whatever free agent we sign turning into another Garza. Or Looper. Or Lohse. Good for about 2 and half of the four years they sign for.

And if it does work out, the vast majority of the team is controlled for the next three to five years, which means lots of prospects aren't really needed. And that means three to five years of drafting prospects pretty much knowing when they will be needed to replace the players in the majors.

Yes the thought of him being a mid rotation starter(not what we are draining part of the farm for) and the fact if he is so bad we can decline an option makes me feel so much better. That is not where his value is. His value is getting paid mid rotation money while pitching like an ace. If he doesn’t do that you wasted prospects. But you have to include into the equation the alternative is signing one of the free agent starters and how much extra they would be getting compared to Archer if they fell to mid-rotation status (not like they aren't there already). Would those prospects be worth the $5M-$10M extra we'd be paying for a couple of years? So, worst case scenario is a $10M mid-rotation starter or a $20M mid-rotation starter and prospects. Again, comes down to the prospects and how good you think they'll be.

That's exactly why these players have no leg to stand on. There have been plenty of reports of the top free agents getting offers that are more than fair and the players are rejecting them or holding out for more money. These aren't low ball offers that are well below market value. Please ask the 10 or so RP's that signed already how free agency went for them. I suspect that most of these free agents are being offered fair per year dollar amounts, but what teams are mainly balking at is the number of years which the agents and players want. Boston likely offered JD Martinez big money per year, but only 4-5 years when he wants 6-7 years. Arrieta and Boras are likely asking for 5-6 years and teams aren't willing to offer more than four. Same for Lynn and Cobb, teams likely aren't willing to offer more than 3 or 4 years at most. Reports are it's the number of years as to why Hosmer isn't signed. Teams and GM's seem to have finally learned lessons from the past when it comes to free agency. More often than not, it isn't the yearly salaries paid to prominent free agents which causes teams problems so much as the 5th/6th/7th/8th or more years on long term mega contracts, leading to excessive dead money, especially for free agents over 30 years old. This is a trend i see continuing going forward for vets over 30. This is how I'm seeing it. We've basically reached a point where every team has had a number of "too long" contracts a number of times and just aren't going to offer those to older players any longer. Is it collusion if at some point there was a straw that broke the camels back for every team? Darvish or Arrieta could probably have their pick of teams to sign with at $25M a year if they took a three-year deal. But asking for around that for five or seven years? If Darvish is still throwing Cy Young caliber after the end of that, there will still likely be quite a number of teams willing to offer another two- or three-year deal for the same money. I do think it will cause big changes to the next CBA. I can see the players going hard for free agency after four years instead of the current six because of this.