CrewFanBrewMan69

Next years FA SP class is brutal, part of my reason for wanting to grab a guy this offseason on top of not having much competition to sign a guy and next year it looking like most of the big markets will be back spending.

Yeah in an ideal world this works out, which would be great and I’m pulling for it. But with the general nature of pitchers and younger pitchers in Woodruff/Burnes and Davies (relatively) it’s almost a guarantee at least one of those guys above isn’t a real option a year from now (or at least an option that doesn’t give us the best chance to win) due to injury, regression or projection/development not met.

Fangraphs has the rotation at #20 in the league right now on their depth charts page and that’s with 1.2 WAR out of Miley and 1.8 out of Jimmy, which both seem a bit generous. I don’t think any individual pitcher projects inside the top 60 by any of their projection systems either. https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=SP Anderson was 25th in MLB last season in FIP based WAR (3.3) & 16th in runs allowed based WAR (4.6) in only 141 innings. The projections don't know about his velocity increase & change in mound positioning so they have him barely scratching 2 WAR. If he can match or exceed last year's innings that should be an easy over. Yeah, by going off of last years pure rate stats and if they could factor in velocity increases (though I guess how could they factor it in if it’s sustainable or not since he’s already 30 and I’d imagine that’s rare for a SP? he has more innings logged at the lower velocity levels than the higher ones) he should probably be projected inside the top 40 or so at worst. But they look at more than last year and before then his rate stats were nothing special on top of never hitting more than 150 or so innings in a year (also think at least one of the systems uses historical references and history says his best years would be behind him most of the time or at the very least he’s not on the rise).

2 part answer for me. Simple one is don’t sign Cain and sign Darvish. Long answer..... don’t sign Cain, Vogt or Sogard and sign Avila, Walker and 1 of Dyson or Austin Jackson and trade Broxton+ a prospect for Corbin

I agree with this. If the team didn't want to get stuck in a long term deal at this time for one of those pitchers - so be it. There are consequences as the rotation is questionable, but that's how things go. I was wondering where to link this bleacher report article.. I think it would fit here... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2765696-mlb-position-power-rankings-2018-brs-top-30-starting-pitchers No Brewer - Nelson, Anderson, etc made the top 30 as an individual SP. I will be interesting to compare/ contrast the position rankings for SP once Fangraphs gets there. I'd like to think the Brewers have a top 15 starting staff. Not so sure at this point and without a top 10 rotation, I think serious playoff contention (even the Wild Card) is doubtful. A LOT of things broke the right way for the Brewers last season. Unlikely all that happens again.. Fangraphs has the rotation at #20 in the league right now on their depth charts page and that’s with 1.2 WAR out of Miley and 1.8 out of Jimmy, which both seem a bit generous. I don’t think any individual pitcher projects inside the top 60 by any of their projection systems either. https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=SP

1 billion percent this. I wish we could like posts

I get why you'd think that but also remember how Yu was reported after he went to the cubs. We didn't really have a lot of interest in Yu was the report... we made an offer to him hoping he'd come cheap. I believe word choice matters a lot when it comes from a seasoned reporters. Yu, not really interested, but arrieta made a try. Are you going to say they went hard after arrieta?... no because it points at the club as failing at their goal. Due to that... I'd bet part of the philly crazy offer was because they had to legitimately beat our offer. We seem to be incredibly years frugal so it wouldn't stun me if it was 75/3 because that's Arrietas pre opt in amount. But the 30-25 opt out seems very unlikely to come from mke. The front load 2 year opt out is the part that twists that deal into insanity. I don’t think Arrieta’s deal is all that crazy and would’ve been fine if we did something similar. Maybe don’t give him the opt out and make it a 3 year deal straight at $80-85 (pay him a little more to take away the upside an opt out gives him) with the 2 year team option on the backside and a $5-10 mil buyout. I would’ve preferred Cobb now knowing what he went for but would’ve been fine with Arrieta on a variation of his Philly deal

It could be named we heard. It was announced very shortly after the Cain/Yelich deals Salazar got hurt so maybe that fell though. JD Martinez lingered out there and the D’backs were in on him until the end so maybe that held up a deal for Corbin that Santana was involved in then Dyson came dirt cheap and Souza became available. The Rays are notorious for being incredibly difficult to deal with so after the Cain/Yelich deals maybe they upped their ask on Archer and/or decided to hold on to him when they lost 2 of their SP to injury for the year. There were Cotton rumblings too and then he got hurt and who knows how long the teams had an idea of that before the public did. Maybe we were even in on Cole but the Astros offer topped ours/Pirates put an in division premium on the ask.

If true, that seems insultingly low. I would’ve been fine going to $25 million or so for 1 year.

Welp, what a day by the pitchers

They better be ready to score 7 runs a game

Mike Montgomery is their 6th, he’d be a better option or at least on the same level as any or our options for the 4/5 spot we currently have to pick from. Then they have Eddie Butler (who was better than Miley last year), Tseng (was their minor league pitcher of the year a year ago I think), Alec Mills was pretty good in 2016 in AAA and looks like he had some injuries last year, they also have a few guys like Alzolay that’s close who’s a top 100 prospect and they also signed Drew Smyly this offseason who is coming back from TJ and could be back by middle-end of season. Sure if all those guys need to make 10+ starts that’s a problem. But they have enough depth. We basically have put ourselves in a spot where near everything has to blow up for them and near everything has to go right for us to stay close to them or pass them.

4/60 isn’t “a deal” but it seems perfectly fair and not all that risky for Cobb. I would’ve been fine with it.

Lots of teams have question marks in the rotation. It could go either way. The real risk is spending too much and/or forfeiting draft picks for guys who could easily be worse than Suter and Woodruff due to injury and/or age. Hard to bounce back from that kind of mistake if you're a small market. Cain and Yelich were quite possibly the two best values among high-profile acquisitions in all of baseball this offseason IMO. And it sounds like diminishing the value of saving money and assets for future moves, but that's not a thing you want to underestimate as a small market team. A team that’s trying to make the playoffs shouldn’t have the question marks we do in the rotation, especially with how the market fell. I think it’s a pretty big stretch to project Cobb/Lynn to be easily worse than Suter or Woodruff, let alone Arrieta/Darvish. And I don’t see much value in the Cain deal and any value seems to have been punted a by not adding a pitcher now since he’s going to have diminished value/return as that contract goes on.

I'm not so sure. I think they took smart risks. I also like the fact that they put Braun under pressure to play 1B, which was in their best interests. Aguilar does not have nearly the track record to suggest he's in Braun's class as a hitter, even if Braun continues to have injuries and show signs of decline. And I wouldn't be surprised if Braun is a better fielder than Aguilar and Thames as well. I like the moves. Get the best risk:reward ratios and go from there. Needs change and so do trade opportunities. They're a very smart front office. I'm glad they passed on all these starters at the prices they got. What risks did they take other than we have 3-4 bottom of the rotation starters at best in the rotation all year (because that’s the risk I see)? What rewards or upside did they gain from this other than saving money/trade assets for a future move?

Lynn and Cobb look to be some serious bargains. I’d love to know what happened inside our FO after the Cain Yelich deals. Going into a promising season with our OF/1B and that rotation seems to be a real disconnect. I agree. Could’ve seen it being Santana for Salazar then Salazar got hurt or maybe Broxton or Santana for Corbin (but JD Martinez hanging out there forever and Dyson/TB trade popped up and it got derailed) or maybe an Archer deal and Rays got cold feet/upped demands. Obviously other pieces in those trade mentioned above but rough framework. We can say what we want but on the surface, imo, we really screwed up the pitching moves (or lack of) this offseason. Hope I’m wrong.

Yeah, the rotation scares the hell out of me. None of the FA SP were perfect but felt like we needed one.

Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't seem like many, if any, want them to spend "just to spend." I think a good chunk of the board sees a need for starting pitching now and moving forward if we have any hopes to contend. Yes, we aren't David Sterns and no we aren't in the FO to know how the team values guys or exactly goes about their business and maybe they have a really clear picture forward internally that makes perfect sense from the pitching standpoint. But it's not wrong to question Sterns or the FO and just blindly trust them that every deal they do or don't do is the right move. It also shouldn't be wrong to question if he didn't price the market correctly, that's where some of the "I would have" talk comes from. His job is to see the "I would haves" and project how the market plays out. The spending only on "players they rate highly that falls in their value window" has been said a bunch around here this offseason or variations of it and it's certainly a fine way to go about things and in an ideal world it's the way you want to operate but the league doesn't operate in a 100% efficient way. The Cain signing is an example of this for me, I just fail to see the calculus on how him at 5/80 is an optimal deal when so many of these pitchers came in at lower projected prices that would be "value" and are a area of much bigger need for the team. At some point you're going to likely have to do a deal or three that takes you out of that zone. If it's not this offseason they feel like doing that, again that's fine, it's going to have to be one soon unless they think every single pitcher in the organization is hitting their 90-95% projection, which just isn't happening. It's just been such a weird offseason that it seems like there's definitely been some value deals either passed up by Sterns and the FO or at least miscalculated by doing deals early (Cain, Sogard, Vogt). I'm not trying to really even argue here, I'm just trying to talk things through to try and figure out their lines of thinking. It just seems so odd to me they sign a 32 year old CF for 5/80 and then stop and not add pitching when the pitching market is depressed and it's a need. Again maybe (likely) internally they just project so many greater things than the data we the public has to look at. I also don't think it's crazy to look at next years pitching and think if they weren't wanting to or able to go to certain points on pitching they will do the same thing next year to a market of overall much lesser pitchers who are going to have more teams willing to spend with equal, if not greater, red flags. If they wouldn't meet Darvish or Arrieta at their prices why would we expect them to get to Keuchel's price next year as an example? Or if they sat out or didn't meet Lynn's price why would they do a same deal for a lot of those guys above if the opportunity presents itself? Again, I know I'm new to the board and not trying to pick any fights or really even disagree with some of what you are saying. I just don't get how we can't question or try and expand the line of thinking from this year to next.

Corbin would be intriguing to me for a guy we'd likely be in play for. The Cubs have Smyly signed to a 2 year deal this offseason, or at least have an option on him for next year as he rehabs from TJS this year, fyi. Richards has always been a big favorite of mine but can't stay healthy. Keuchel seems like a ticking time bomb as well, last 2 years he's been 140-160 IP, wrong side of 30 as a FA, probably will want at least Arrieta money. Overall don't see a guy worth holding money back for this year to go after one of these guys next year.

Agreed. Seemed like a forced moved to bring him back so fast in the offseason to begin with. I know its hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking but Avila would've been such a better addition and didn't cost a ton more on aav.

I agree with all this and think all are smart and realistic except 2 and 5 I think are a little off. On 2 "Have" should be "Hope" and for 5 Broxton by himself isn't going to re-stock anything. I'd be pretty surprised if he'd bring back more than an A ball wildcard, some former decently ranked prospect who's fallen due to injury/performance or like a AAAA outcast or guy who doesn't have a great spot on a team like Aguilar.

He said “out of camp” which is technically true since the first time through the rotation they only need 4 guys with the off day. Guys would be able to stay on regular rest for their second start/time through the rotation and then that second time through a 5th starter would need to be added. They might not want to commit to a guy sooner than needed that way almost everyone is available in long relief for the first 3-4 games and could have that first 5th starter be whoever is rested/matches up best with who we play (I think it’s the 3rd series of the year against the Cubs series a 5th starter would be needed looking at the schedule). Skipping the 5th starter first time through gets Anderson starts in both the Cardinals and Cubs series too. It also might be getting too cute but they also could break camp with an extra RP (Williams?) because of this for the first 6-8 games and leave one of or both Guerra or Woodruff back in camp to stay stretched out and then bring them back up for that first start the 5th starter is needed. They would first need a 5th starter on April 6th, so maybe they can get by for a week with 4. What's the point? Maybe keep Broxton up for defense/base running for a week? Maybe a 9th bullpen arm for 3-4 innings? It all seems trivial. I think it makes more sense to let our guys get settled in a bit, and heck even give all our pitchers that extra day off early in the season versus sticking to the 5 day schedule. Either way, CC/Haudricourt make it sound like we'll roll with 4 starters for a much more significant amount of time than 1 week. Also, considering Miley/Suter probably have the inside track on starting gigs...neither player has options so they would both have to make the roster...thus 5 starters right away. I mostly agree with you. Was just trying to point out what was likely meant with what CC said. I get both sides, overall I’d lean to just starting the season with the 5-man rotation and taking advantage of that early rest for the SP than tying to find some minute way optimize roster construction that likely doesn’t move the needle in terms of winning games for a week stretch. The guys in the rotation who matter aren’t exactly durable, workhorses (Anderson, Davies, Chacin) or at least haven’t proven that yet and if we are doing anything this year those guys have to stay healthy. An extra days rest for them > whatever nominal value Broxton for defense/baserunning or having Gallardo make it in the pen for ~6 games.

With the minor league options between Suter, Guerra and Woodruff I’m starting to wonder if we are going to bend the rules/abuse those options like the Dodgers did last year with the 10-day DL to hide pitchers and have a revolving door at the 4/5 spots.

He said “out of camp” which is technically true since the first time through the rotation they only need 4 guys with the off day. Guys would be able to stay on regular rest for their second start/time through the rotation and then that second time through a 5th starter would need to be added. They might not want to commit to a guy sooner than needed that way almost everyone is available in long relief for the first 3-4 games and could have that first 5th starter be whoever is rested/matches up best with who we play (I think it’s the 3rd series of the year against the Cubs series a 5th starter would be needed looking at the schedule). Skipping the 5th starter first time through gets Anderson starts in both the Cardinals and Cubs series too. It also might be getting too cute but they also could break camp with an extra RP (Williams?) because of this for the first 6-8 games and leave one of or both Guerra or Woodruff back in camp to stay stretched out and then bring them back up for that first start the 5th starter is needed.

Were you not interested in winning at all this year if this is what you wanted to do? We’d have one of the worst rotations in MLB if we went this route most likely. Which I think it’s perfectly fine if you want to see what we exactly have in guys and that’s longer term thinking but any ideas of winning games would be out the window if we went this way.