wntrtxn21

Sure, but that's not the argument. People keep saying it's a "below average" offense. It's very clearly, objectively, an average offense. Could it be better? Yes. Would they be better positioned for post season success if the offense were better than average? Absolutely! But it's an average offense. It's not a below average offense, which is what a lot of people continue to try to insist. Average or below average. It's meaningless because it all depends on your definition of "average". Regardless, either average, below average, or somewhere in between, the offense isn't good enough to win it all.

Somewhat selective use of stats there, but anyways I doubt the Yankees would entertain this trade in the first place. In 1270 PA in his career Voit has a .368 wOBA and 133 wRC+, or roughly >3 fWAR per full season. That makes him arguably a top 10 firstbaseman if healthy and absent major regression. So far in his career he's hit roughly equivalent to Pete Alonso. Even just an average 1B is not so easy to find, as demonstrated by the Brewers over the last few seasons. If we have to field both a 1B and fulltime DH next season, I'd be willing to give up quite a bit to get that kind of offensive production. The equivalent on the free agent market, a guy like Anthony Rizzo, will cost us more $ than taking on Hicks's contract and without the added high-reward player of Hicks himself. The big question that goes unanswered: the Yankees don't have a 1B with Rizzo being a FA. There are rumors of them desperately seeking a 1B by trade. Yet they have said they are looking to deal Voit. Why are they trying so hard to jettison this equivalent of Alonso? If Voit is everything you think he is, why aren't the Yankees just inserting him at 1B? Regardless of which way he bats, if he is that good he should be their starting 1B.

I'm not that excited about Rizzo. Unless he can find some of the old pop, he isn't projected to be much better than Tellez (avg.-HRs-RBIs) and Tellez is so much cheaper. I agree about Moustakas. He just isn't worth anywhere near what his contract is.

The point is that Bradley doesn't have to be more than an average hitter to be a valuable player as measured by WAR. He can hit a pretty unremarkable .234/.318/.409/.727, nothing remarkable by MLB standards, and still be a 2.4 WAR player because of his plus-plus defense. His own numbers from 2017-2019 demonstrate that. There are some peripherals that suggest Bradley had incredibly bad luck in 2021. His soft%/medium%/hard% was 18.8/54.2/27.1 during his big year in 2020. Last year the numbers were 15.1/50.8/34.1, so his percentage of soft hit balls went down and hard hit balls went up. Despite that, he had a BABIP of .226, which is almost an unheard of number (generally Bradley's BABIP sits in the .290-.300 range). His home run/fly ball ratio was 7.6%, historically he's been about 15.0% which is right around the league average. The alarming numbers were that his walk rate went down and his strikeout rate went up. Normally his BB/K sits at about 0.35 and last year dropped to 0.21. Maybe that is a decline in ability, but it also could be due to the Brewers having him take different approaches with his hitting. Time will tell, but with a BABIP of .226 and a HR/FB of 7.6%, I chances are very good that in 2022 he'll be much, much closer to the .234/.318/.409/.727 he posted from 2017-2019 instead of the .163/.236/.261/.497 he posted in 2020. You're right about the most alarming numbers. 132 Ks (nearly 31%) compared to a paltry 28 BBs (6.5%). That's why I don't believe it was bad luck that JBJ was so horrible last year. He was whiffing on almost any pitch in any location. He had a hard time catching up to fastballs. Normally you see this as guys get older and have to guess on pitches because their bat has slowed down. He would hit it hard when he guessed right and whiff when he was wrong. However, JBJ should be in his prime at 31. I believe, being a veteran player, any different approach he took was all his doings. Sadly he got worse as the season progressed. In Sept/Oct he whiffed 19 times in 48 PAs compared to two walks. Hopfully Renfroe will bring a great deal more to the offense. It just can't be any worse.

Larger major-league rosters - 30-man until September (then it expands to 40), a five-man "taxi squad" (paid MLB minimum, must have at least three years MLB service time), and a 50-man roster overall. Teams can sign players from other teams' taxi squad to the 30-man roster for at least twice the MLB minimum. Go with a salary cap, but that alone won't help small-market teams keep players. In some ways, I think we need to make it reasonably feasable/possible for smaller market teams to get that "value" deal. Service time: Each team gets four years of player control (to discourage service time manipulation, a "full year" is considered if a player is called up three times prior to August 1), then for the next four years, a form of restricted free agency (to wit, they can match offers from other teams) that involves massive compensation in the form of draft picks and additional international bonus money ($1,000,000 per RFA signed away), after that, unrestricted free agency (but with "sandwich pick" compensation) and a smaller international bonus comp ($500,000). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think larger rosters give big spenders even more of an advantage. That keeps more players under their controll. Reducing service time makes it even worse for small market teams. Now they lose their top players even earlier further reducing the chances of being competitive. Draft choices in baseball are extremely poor substitution for losing top players, but it's the only way to somewhat compensate teams.

1) I agree on a salary floor as long as it's in the $80-85M range. There should also be a cap, but that will never happen. 2) As long as there is such a tremendous disparity in money there can never be a penalty for losing. In the NFL where money is more or less equal, yes. Not in MLB. Small market teams that can't just go out and buy players to fill holes are going to lose much more of the time. They have to rely on the draft far, far more than big money teams. The draft was originally set up to help small market teams be competitive for a few years. I believe it would be morally repugnant to reward teams that can simply outspend many others, with the top picks in the draft. 3) I agree losing draft picks for signing FAs is wrong. You're right on the money with the sandwich pick.

Renfroe is a weak side platoon bat that we had to trade two decent prospects for because Stearns made an atrocious signing the year before. Yay! IMO you couldn't be more wrong. Renfroe is a guy who will be their everyday RF and could hit 30+ bombs, drive in 90+ runs and have an OPS in the 800's. Plus the Brewers lose JBJ's contract and only two low /mid-level prospects. If Renfroe does that I think this trade could turn out to be one of Stearn's best.

I don't think Pham (.229/.340 15 HRs - 49 RBIs - 475 ABs) offers any more than Taylor (.247/.321 - 12 HRs- 43 RBIs - 243 ABs). Pham made somewhere near $9M last year and would be looking at about the same or more this year. IMO money better spent towards a real upgrade in RF.

Castellanos has borass as an agent. That alone usually precludes the Brewers from signing him.

I think moving Urias to a utility spot is a waste. Peterson and Brosseau are fine at utility positions. The big bat is needed in RF. Right now they have nobody there.

B.R. projections: Urias .247/.339/.411 Adames .257/.329/.451 Omar .254/.332/.400 Wong .265/.337/.416 Tellez .243/.310/.430 Cain .250/.318/.378 Yelich .261/.369/.467

Yep, would love this move! Would be our everyday RF, then 1B vs LHP. I'd rather see Stearns take the $7-8M he'd spend on Canha and put it towards a bigger bat OF. With a much, much cheaper Taylor as an equally good option in RF and Brosseau to play 1B against lefties, the money could be put to better use.

I think you're right about moving JBJ. The only chance the Brewers have of moving him is if he's included in a bigger deal or if they take on an equally bad contract. Either way I don't see having much interest in Buxton. He is a rental and based on his past history, he is going to miss a good deal of games. I certainly don't see trading anyone of value for him.

To me I'd rather see a big bat, controllable big league player for Woodruff than a couple of maybes who might help down the road. The Brewers have to strike while they can still afford the young guys they have and make a legit run at the W.S. Woodruff would bring quite a haul from 4-5 teams with the type of talent the Brewers need right now.

I'd rather roll the dice on 10/150 or 10/200 for Wander after 70 G | 308 PAs than 14/340 for Tatis after 143 G | 629 PAs. Gotta be hard to turn down that kind of money, but If I were Franco I'd probably wait until the CBA gets sorted out before agreeing to anything. The CBA is probably the reason the Rays are doing this also. Pre arb and arbitration players are going to become more expensive. I think the days of paying a 1st year MLB $250k are now gone. Probably going to cost $1m or more. Then when arbitration hits you could see FA $'s for these players in their first year of arbitration. Current MLB proposal is to have players paid based on their WAR numbers which could be an average of their last 4 years or anything in-between. I think if you average Burnes WAR he would get something like $18m in his first year of arbitration. So the Rays offering this they could actually be saving money especially for those arbitration years. But this all depends on the next CBA and how younger players are going to be paid. This will also probably be a reason why some smaller market teams will shy away from FA until the new CBA is signed. For example the Brewers maybe in trouble financially if the new CBA raises the amount Burnes, Woodruff, Houser, Hader and others could get in arbitration. If their salaries effectively double don't expect the Brewers to sign anyone in FA beyond roster fillers. I believe you are way over estimating arby costs. Owners can't let expenses get that high that quickly. Baseball would morph into a 10 team organization. Players wouldn't want that either because so many jobs would be lost.

I'd rather roll the dice on 10/150 or 10/200 for Wander after 70 G | 308 PAs than 14/340 for Tatis after 143 G | 629 PAs. Gotta be hard to turn down that kind of money, but If I were Franco I'd probably wait until the CBA gets sorted out before agreeing to anything. The CBA is probably the reason the Rays are doing this also. Pre arb and arbitration players are going to become more expensive. I think the days of paying a 1st year MLB $250k are now gone. Probably going to cost $1m or more. Then when arbitration hits you could see FA $'s for these players in their first year of arbitration. Current MLB proposal is to have players paid based on their WAR numbers which could be an average of their last 4 years or anything in-between. I think if you average Burnes WAR he would get something like $18m in his first year of arbitration. So the Rays offering this they could actually be saving money especially for those arbitration years. But this all depends on the next CBA and how younger players are going to be paid. This will also probably be a reason why some smaller market teams will shy away from FA until the new CBA is signed. For example the Brewers maybe in trouble financially if the new CBA raises the amount Burnes, Woodruff, Houser, Hader and others could get in arbitration. If their salaries effectively double don't expect the Brewers to sign anyone in FA beyond roster fillers. I believe you are way over estimating arby costs. Owners can't let expenses get that high that quickly. Baseball would morph into a 10 team organization. Players wouldn't want that either because so many jobs would be lost.

For me it would depend on if Stearns found a difference maker before he made any deal for Vientos or Baty. Neither is any more than what the Brewers have in Urias.

Murphy (.216/.306/.710) is cheap and controllable. He seems to be the kind of guy they would want to keep if their are going to tank and tear down the team. With catchers being in high demand, even with his poor numbers he may bring a modest return if they did sell.

I like Urias at 3B. He has good power (23 HRs.- 75 RBIs) and should get better. I think he could be a 27-28 HR/ 85+ RBI guy. If he is a bench player, every AB he gets means another good hitter at 2B-3B-SS is on the bench. Until they get RF fixed, I'd hope if Stearns trades Hader it's for a young power hitting RF.

I like Canha. He always seems to sneak onto my fantasy team at some point, seems very undervalued for what he brings to the table. He's got quite a bit of time at all the outfield spots, but also has played a bit at first base. He'd be a great guy to grab early in the offseason so Stearns/Arnold have some extra positional flexibility in their annual late offseason bargain grabs. I don't understand the fascinatiion with Canha. What does he offer that Taylor doesn't? Canah in 625 PAs: 17 HRs - 61 RBIs - .231/.746 OPS. Taylor in 271 PAs: 12 HRs - 43 RBIs - .247/.778 OPS..Canha will cost approx. $8M where Taylor is still at minimum. I'd rather Stearns use the $8M and go after a difference maker.

To me I don't see spending $7M on a .211/.305 hitter. I'd rather see Stearns go for one big bat in RF and use any available money on him.

I don't think those four guys would get you even close to Marte. It's a pretty big under pay for KM and Marte will be highly priced if he is available. I think they'll be looking for much higher upsides than Lutz and Robinson.

If he was a free agent, I'd agree. Perfect fit. But it will come down to who offers the best package in return so I don't see how anybody can be called a favorite at this point. The Yankees need a 1B and he should cost about the same as any of the FA that are currently on the market at 1B and is better than them by a considerable amount offensively. It really depends on what the A's want in return for Olson. Do they want immediate help or do they want help in the future? The Yankees probably could even make a deal without including Dominguez their best prospect for Olson. They could center a deal around Volpe or could even trade their latest draft pick in Sweeney. Even something centered around Luis Medina and Oswaldo Cabrera would probably be a good start for a deal for Olson. There is a huge fit for the Yankees to go out and get someone like Olson and not have to break the bank in free agency. The Yankees need some more starting pitching behind Cole and there are a few veteran pitchers they could get this off season who could help and bolster their starting rotation in free agency who won't absolutely break the bank. The A's past history says they will be looking for young MLB ready talent or guys who could help mid season. They'll take lower level guys as fillers, but usually not as primary players.

IF Stearns has fixed the offense before the trade, I'd be for it although IMO a Vesia/Vargas for Hader would help more. Vargas hasn't seen AAA yet, but so far looks like the real deal. Vesia would help fill the later innings hole left by Hader.

Can someone explain SPOTRAC's estimate of Brewers' salaries. It has been said numerous times on this site that SPOTRAC has the Brewers 2022 salaries at about $105. Yet when I look at their site they have approx. $105M estimate for only 18 players! It doesn't include Lindbloom, Ashby, Cousins, ect... When I look at their 2022 estimate for starting pitchers it's $15,500,000 yet when you add up their estimated totals of Burns, Woody, Peralta, Houser, and Lauer it equals $18,000,000. Outfield at $48,500,000 yet they have just 3 outfielders (Cain-Yelich-JBJ) at $52,500,000! They have the exact estimate for infielders (Tellez-Vogey-Adames-Urias-Wong-Peterson) at $19,500,000... What am I missing?