monty57

I like Fangraphs' O-swing%/contact% and Z-swing%/contact% for plate discipline. For their careers: Arcia swings at 36.7% of pitches out of the strike zone, making contact 62.3% of the time. He swings at 70.3% of pitches in the zone, making contact 83.9% of the time. He swings at about half the pitches thrown. Joey Votto (known for his plate discipline) only swings at 21.5% of pitches out of the strike zone (68.6% contact), and 68.7% of pitches in the zone (85.5% contact). He swings at 42.1% of pitches thrown. Yelich is at 25.4%/60.4% and 64.9%/88.2%, swinging at 42.1% of pitches. It's obviously harder to hit pitches out of the zone, so if you don't swing at them, you give yourself a better chance to do something good, whether that's making solid contact or taking a walk. Also, if you're ahead in the count, you can let pitches on the black go by and wait for "your pitch." Harder to do that when you're behind in the count.

Well yeah, that's why Bumgarner got a five-year deal for $85M and we got Anderson for peanuts. I think that at this time next year we will have posters hoping we re-sign Anderson, and I think that at this time a few years from now Dbacks fans will wish they could find someone to take Bumgarner's contract off their hands. Five years is a long time to risk on a pitcher going through his 30's. I don't think Stearns is the type that looks at contracts as a "win" if the player is good for a few years and bad for the final years. As a Brewer GM, I don't think he can risk having around 15% of his team payroll spent on a player who might be washed up for a few years of a contract. $17,000,000 to the Brewers (assuming a $120,000,000 payroll) is equivalent to around $30,000,000 to a team that can maxing out payroll at the luxury tax level, and it would be a tough hurdle for the Brewers to overcome, especially when they don't have a strong farm to fill the roster with league-minimum guys. If you are going to spend 15% of your payroll on a player, you'd better be confident he's going to be a star for the length of the contract. Two, maybe three years on Bumgarner at this price would be something the Brewers could probably do. Five years probably scared them off.

I'm with you, I'm just saying, their rotation is probably not going to look great on paper, it just doesn't seem to be what they do. But I'm not gonna look at some back end depth signing and blast it, because that's all it's meant to be. I still think something is cooking, at least I desperately hope that's the case. There has to be at least one moderate fish they have their eye on. We still have money, so that could be the case, but I remember a couple of offseasons ago when everyone (myself included) was railing on Stearns for "doing nothing" and relying on washed-up Wade Miley. Many cheered when he got hurt in spring training, so that we wouldn't have to suffer through his starts. Turns out he had a new pitch in the arsenal (went from barely using the cutter to using it over 40%) and helped cement our rotation for a pretty good season. I don't know what Brett Anderson will do, but it's possible that Stearns views him as another Wade Miley signing. As I said in the last post, last season was the first year Anderson threw a cutter. Stearns must see something he likes.

Had a bit of a breakout season last year after he added a cutter, which he used 13.8% of the time. That looks to have graded out as a plus pitch along with his change-up, so maybe there's a reason for his 2019 numbers and they aren't just a fluke. Not a world-beater, but I'll take a 3.89 ERA, 87 ERA-, 2.0 WAR starter. Of course, that could have been a fluke, which is probably why Stearns only gave him a one-year deal.

The Brewers have payroll room this year, and Braun coming off the books after that. They probably went into the offseason thinking that they could add a really good player to a multi-year deal in the $20-25m range. Unfortunately, this is the season that salaries took off and went out of the Brewer comfort zone. Now the question is whether it makes sense to spend that money on a "second tier" guy like Bumgarner or Ryu, to split it between several cheaper options, or to "put it in the bank" to be used when it can bring more value (like taking on a contract in a mid-season trade). They could afford the AAV of one of the aforementioned pitchers, but Bumgarner is asking for five years and Ryu for four, so that might keep the Brewers away. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be anyone worth spending big on. If that's the case, I'd rather they not spend the money rather than overpaying for mediocrity.

I stopped worrying about this. People like baseball, so they spend their money on it. Therefore, players and owners make a lot of money. People like movies, so actors and production companies make a lot of money. People like iPhones, so Apple makes a lot of money. The list goes on and on. The money is being made by baseball, so I don't care that the players and owners make a lot. I just wish that every team had the same chance to sign big-named players, but as I said in my previous post, MLB has decided they want big markets to have an advantage, so it's not going to change.

I agree that equally sharing t.v. revenues would solve the problem. No need to make this political (socialism vs capitalism), as both agencies (NFL& MLB) operate under government-granted monopolies. A small group of owners in each agency (not a market) gets to decide the rules. T.V. money is really the deciding factor, and the NFL for whatever reason has decided to sign the deal as a league with each team getting an equal share, while MLB has decided to let each team negotiate their own t.v. deals, or even own their own network. I'm sure there is a historical reason for this, and it's not because the NFL is run by socialists while the MLB is run by capitalists. As a fan of a small-market team, I much prefer the league-wide t.v. deal, but I can't say baseball is wrong. If New York, Chicago, L.A., etc are on t.v. more people probably tune in than when a small market team is on. If the Brewers sign Cole, it makes some people are happy and thousands of jerseys are sold. If NY signs Cole, a lot more people are happy and hundreds of thousands of jerseys are sold. MLB has decided that is best for their league. Big market fans aren't upset that they have an unfair advantage. They don't really think about it, and if they do, they think they deserve it and say the small market fans are whiners. Really, that's probably true as a nation. Badger fans probably don't feel they have an unfair advantage when they take on a small, private school, and many probably feel they deserve the advantage. If the fans were to revolt and stop watching, things might change, but I doubt Yankee or Cub fans are ever going to stop watching their team because the Brewers and Blue Jays are at a financial disadvantage.

I think it was Rosenthal on MLB Network that was saying Didi would see the QO as a benefit, because a one-year deal plus the QO would probably pay him as much in two years as he's likely to get in a three-year deal right now.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/major-league-baseball-managers-dont-like-new-pitching-rule-for-2020.html Sounds like Brewerfan.net posters aren't the only ones who don't like the 3-batter rule. Several managers and the players' union are openly speaking out against it.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/report-yankees-actively-trying-to-trade-j-a-happ.html MLBTraderumors says the Brewers are "among the NL teams with some level of interest." He is owed $17M for this season, and the article notes that the Yankees would be "selling low" in an effort to shed salary as they try to land Cole. Might be a guy we could get for "nothing" simply by taking on some of his salary. Had a down year last year, but prior to that had four straight seasons with a mid-3's ERA and WAR around 3. What's everyone think?

MLBTraderumors is saying he's asking for nine figures over five years. Makes sense that he's going to try to get as much as possible, but I don't know that I want the Brewers giving him $20M+/year for five seasons.

Exactly. His estimated arbitration number was around $3.5M, so we would likely have had to pay around 40% above what he made on the market. As others have said, the arbitration process is broken. He helped the Brewers in his time with the team. I would have liked him back, but not if it meant greatly overpaying for him.

I'm surprised to see anyone saying that Jordan Lyles signing elsewhere is proof that we're not going after good starting pitching. Jordan Lyles has a history of not being a good starting pitcher. He happened to pitch well in a short stint with the Brewers, but any MLB player can be good for a short period. When Stearns spends money (he will), I'd like it to be on someone who is likely to sustain success, not someone who will generally be bad, but may have a stretch where he pitches well. I hope the best for Lyles, but he's a back-of-the-rotation arm who we shouldn't be spending $8M/year on.

Might just be that David Stearns likes players he can pick up at a value. I'm also worried about our defense, but when we needed a catcher and Seattle was putting a good catcher on the discount rack, it's probably good that Stearns picked him up. The money saved by getting Narvaez instead of signing a free agent should make it easier to afford the 1B, 3B and pitchers we still need. It is probably good that we have a 26th man this year. That might make it easier to sub in defensive players late in games.

I agree that Stearns normally goes for the young guy in trade, but he did sign Cain to a free agent deal. With the extra money the Brewers have (even if they cut payroll back from last year's levels) I think they'll sign at least one decent sized free agent deal. At 30, Bumgarner isn't really old for a free agent even if it does seem like he's been in the league forever.

If you're paying for expected production, I'd be all for it. If you're paying extra for his name and "former post-season monster" status, I'd pass. He could get a bigger contract than his production justifies, and I wouldn't want that. I am kind of surprised he's only 30. MLBTraderumors predicts he'll get 4/$72, and fangraphs predicts 2.1 WAR next year (he was 3.2 in 2018). His big injury was from riding a dirt bike and not from pitching, so there's reason to believe he could live up to that contract, but I sure wouldn't want to go any longer than that. Even four years is kinda scary.

Cronenworth, 25, hit .334/.429/.520 last season at Triple A. Was this guy playing on the moon? Those aren't the usual numbers for a "player to be named later." That sounds like someone who could play in the majors.

It’s been frequently said that catchers develop slower than others because they need to learn so much. He’s turned his defense into a plus, and still has tremendous BP power that hopefully will translate some day That's my thought/hope as well. IIRC, when he was acquired there was talk of moving him off catcher so his bat could move through the system quickly. He wanted to focus on catching, which could have a negative effect on the offensive side of his game. That might just be wishful thinking, but catchers often make it to the majors later than other positions, so I'm still hoping he can continue to improve and maybe be ready to step in as Pina's replacement in a year or so. This acquisition allows him to continue his development in San Antonio in more of a full time role instead of getting thrown to the wolves at the MLB level.

I agree with this. If we're basically saying that Grandal's defense is what pushes him to be a much better player, then either Narvaez is the worst defensive catcher ever, or defensive stats have some big imperfections, because Grandal isn't a good defensive catcher. I do worry about Narvaez's defense, but not to the point it's worth 4/$73 vs three non-guaranteed arby years. The money saved in moving from Grandal/Pina to Narvaez/Pina will allow us to improve elsewhere. We have theoretically improved Catcher and Shortstop without spending much money, so we still have our cash reserve to fill our remaining holes. Of course, Stearns could also pull another rabbit out of his hat and find more players in trades like the two he's made. I don't care if we don't spend any of the money if we field a good team.

Market value is simple. There are are sellers and buyers. Sellers put "asks" out, and buyers place "bids." The highest bid that matches up with an ask is the current market price. It changes regularly, and in a market of only 30 MLB teams, the value difference among the bids and asks could be immense. Therefore, if there are two similar players on the market, there may only be one team that is looking for that type of player who is willing to put a good bid out there, so the first team to make a trade gets a haul, while the second team is left with scraps. The market adjustment would be swift and severe in that case. The market price is simply what someone was willing to pay for a certain player at a certain time. Adjustments in market price have zero bearing on how a player will perform. When a player is traded or signs a free agent deal, he is the same player, regardless who he is traded for or how much he made in free agency. It's simply the price one team was willing to pay for that player at that time. The highest bid that meets the ask gets the player. Just a guess, but in the Urias deal I think the Padres were the "buyer" and made the bid. I think they really wanted Grisham so they placed a high bid to get him. That's just a guess and in the end it doesn't matter. His market value for that day to that team was the price that was paid. The value of each individual player is different to each team. They all have their methodology for how to value players, and they have strengths and weaknesses in their own franchise that dictates their individual needs. For instance, the Brewers may really like another catcher, but since they just traded for one, they won't be putting a bid out for another, and if they had any bids they're now off the table (potentially adjusting the market). Fan sites that try to give values are great for fans that want to have a greater understanding of things, but MLB teams are not going to go to those sites to figure out trades. They have their own valuations. Some will be better than others, so thankfully for the Brewers it looks like we have a management team that's pretty good at making these valuations.

I like the move, and that we didn't give up a lot. It will certainly help our offense. I do worry about his defense, as it sounds like we're going to see a lot of passed balls/wild pitches. Hiura is horrible with the glove, it sounds like Urias is probably going to be below average at SS (above average 2B, but won't be starting there), and Braun isn't a good defender. Throw in what sounds like one of the worst fielding catchers in the league, and our pitching staff is going to have it's hands full getting more than 27 outs every day. As to the cost, I want us to build the farm, but I'm less concerned when we get guys with multiple years of team control.

Yeah, I think he'll start for a non-contender, and I hope he does well. He's shown he has the talent, but after last year the Brewers weren't going to count on him as an everyday guy.

I think the odds that we will stand pat and not sign anyone other than the "Trumbos" and "Fraziers" of the world are about as likely as us signing both Cole and Strasburg. The reality will be somewhere in between. The market will play out. "Big name" contracts keep getting bigger, even though they don't often work out for the buyer. Meanwhile, there are always good players who slip through the cracks. Right now, the teams with extra money/"luxury tax room" are overpaying (vs what "experts" thought guys would get) to get the big name players. Everyone has a budget, so overpaying now might mean they won't be as hot after the guys we're looking at. We have multiple holes to fill, so contracts like Wheeler got aren't what we're probably looking for.

Even if a player is a little offended, it's the agent's job to remain level-headed and get the best deal for the player, even if that is with the team that just non-tendered him. I think that if it comes down to two similar deals, many players would stick with their previous team. They probably already have living arrangements there, their kids have friends, etc. It's tough to uproot your family. It's often necessary for players to do it, but if given two similar deals, I'd probably choose to stay where the family is comfortable.

There is no way that Hiura is splitting at bats. I agree that Hiura's offensive production means that he will be starting at 2B every day. However, Urias at SS / Hiura at 2B is below average defensively. Meanwhile, we've got good "up the middle" defense when Pina is catching, Arcia is at SS, Urias at 2B and Cain is at CF. I think that Arcia will brought in at SS late in games, with Urias moving to 2B, eliminating Hiura's substandard glove from the equation. Let Hiura's bat get us leads and let Arcia & Urias' gloves protect that lead.