brewerfan82

You mean 3.1 innings out of 850+ career innings? Yeah, I'm willing to look past that.

Trade may not happen till Wednesday or even Thursday. Contract issues. Does this most likely mean someone with a no-trade clause needs to approve it? I really hope that's not pointing to the Ellsbury rumor being true (albeit even if that's the case, I guess we shouldn't judge it in a vacuum, it just seems to be the "most likely to go wrong" situation that's been rumored).

I’ll take that bet, since he’s not a free agent Sure about that? http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/kansas-city-royals/melky-cabrera-575/

Perez has a career slash line of .257/.283/.388/.671 and has slashed the following the past two seasons: 2016 .272/.302/.428/.730 2017 .259/.289/.414/.704 He's a nice utility player, but I would definitely want another option than him to man first base if Thames and/or Aguilar are traded. Choi's slashed the following at triple A the past two seasons: 2016 .346/.434/.527/.960 2017 .288/.373/.538/.911 I'd definitely give him a shot before falling back on Perez at first.

I would lean towards I don't think you trade Shaw unless you have already signed or are 99.999% sure you can sign Moustakas first. If you sign Moustakas and then don't have a trade lined up for Shaw, you still have options (playing Shaw at 1st, trading Thames instead, etc.) and an incredibly deep major league roster at the corner infield spots. If you trade Shaw and then aren't able to convince Moose to sign here, the big league club takes a huge hit. Either way isn't preferable/optimal, but I think that strategy requires both pieces to be done almost simultaneously, while leaning towards "getting stuck" with too much talent instead of having a hole in your roster. Definitely would need to be a huge return to deal Shaw, however, to the second point: Moustakas Prediction via MLBTR: Five years, $85MM Shaw Contract: Under team control and arbitration eligible through 2021 This offseason has seen teams hesitant to spend on big name free agents and maneuvering their rosters to keep payroll down. The market for a player like Shaw is simply larger than it is for an expensive free agent like Moustakas. With the added emphasis on spending money wisely, the value of low-cost, team controlled talent is higher than ever and you might get the return you need to pull it off. There's been a few rumors floating around involving Stearns signing a FA in order to flip less expensive players (ie. Cain), perhaps he sees this as an opportunity that the Brewers can take advantage of with their current payroll.

Cleveland does have more prospects than two of the guys that were rumored to be part of the Lucroy deal. Why Chang and Allen, besides the fact that fans started doing their homework on them 1 1/2 years ago? Because DS and the Indians' brass supposedly also did their homework on a trade involving those exact same players (and likely other players in the Indians' system as well) 1 1/2 years ago and already once agreed to exchange them so it's not out of the realm of possibilities that DS is still interested in obtaining them and that Cleveland is still open to letting them go. Seems like a reasonable starting point for speculation.

Not advocating going after him, but... 2016 (w/ Brewers) - .299/.359/.482/.841 (120 OPS+) 2016 (w/ Rangers) - .276/.345/.539/.885 (128 OPS+) 2017 (w/ Rangers) - .242/.297/.338/.635 (66 OPS+) 2017 (w/ Rockies) - .310/.429/.437/.865 (115 OPS+) At least offensively, I wouldn't say he's looked "totally cooked" for two years and I understand why some people haven't given up on him.

24 starts with 3 ER or less, 16 QS in 32 starts (Duffy had 13 QS in 24 starts)

This seems to possibly apply here (although the initial definition of a non-guaranteed contract on that page doesn't seem like this situation...): http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/non-guaranteed-contract Ah... missed this paragraph:

I'm getting antsy for something to happen just from a pure entertainment standpoint, but I wouldn't say I'm losing my patience in terms of how DS has approached the offseason yet. http://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/ranked https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-free-agent-tracker-2017-18-latest-hot-stove-signings-best-players-available/ Only 13 of the top 50 ranked FAs have signed (according to ESPN or 18 of 50 according to CBS) and there are countless guys on the trade market that are going to get moved still. There are a LOT of moves to be made still this offseason. Looks like it's going to be a busy January.

You can checkout his game logs and then sort by ER: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=chacijh01&t=p&year=2017 His first game of the year he got pounded for 9 ER at LAD. And then he had two 7 ER games before the end of May at ARI and at NYM. Other than that, he was pretty servicable to excellent (one 5 ER game, two 4 ER games, seven 3 ER games, and 18 2 ER or less games).

Except it was only high last season (.325), his first 5 seasons were all .296 or lower (.290, .253, .296, .295, .296)

FanGraphs has a nice Pitch Type section of the leaderboard that you can sort by FB%: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=c,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,6,42,45,59&season=2017&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=3,d If you look over the past 4 seasons, there are quite a few pitchers with high FB%, notably: Bartolo Colon (84.7% - 4.07 FIP) Lance Lynn (81.7% - 3.86 FIP) Aaron Sanchez (77% - 3.98 FIP) JA Happ (70.7% - 3.85 FIP) Danny Salazar (68.4% - 3.60 FIP) Robbie Ray (67% - 3.77 FIP) James Paxton (65.7% - 3.08 FIP) Jimmy Nelson (65.3% - 4.06 FIP) Kyle Hendricks (65.3% - 3.43 FIP) Wouldn't call that a list of aces, but a lot of decent pitchers do pull it off.

To be fair, looks like it was pulled from the Associated Press and the error has been corrected.

Domingo is not really all that replaceable right now on the roster. Beyond Shaw Santana is the only player on the Brewers that you can expect to have an all star like season next year. Removing Santana and replacing him with Phillips or Brinson leaves a void in the offense. The replacement for Santana is far less than who Archer is replacing. Basically replacing Santana with Archer gets you an above average rotation but your offense now goes down to below average. I don't see the Brewers winning many games without Santana in the lineup. The Brewers offense without Santana is not all that great but without him it is just horrible. I like Domingo a lot and definitely don't think he should be given away (which I don't consider getting a very good, controllable starter like Archer giving him away in this scenario), but I think people are a little over confident in him repeating last year's production. Last offseason it was Villar and Guerra that we'd need a king's ransom to trade... Villar was coming off his 4th major league season: 2013 - 0.0 WAR in 241 PAs (age 22) 2014 - 0.5 WAR in 289 PAs (age 23) 2015 - 0.9 WAR in 128 PAs (age 24) 2016 - 3.9 WAR in 679 PAs (age 25) Santana's coming off his 4th major league season: 2014 - -0.4 WAR in 18 PAs (age 21) 2015 - 0.4 WAR in 187 PAs (age 22) 2016 - -0.2 WAR in 281 PAs (age 23) 2017 - 3.0 WAR in 607 PAs (age 24) Again, I really like Santana and am *fairly* confident in him producing at a quality rate, but MLB history is full of guys that show a flash one year and struggle to be consistent the rest of their career. And while replacing him in the outfield with some combination of Brinson/Phillips/Broxton is no guarantee to replicate his stats from last year, they're all talented players capable of putting up a year like that and becoming just as *proven* as Santana is at this point. Meanwhile, and this seems to be ignored for some reason, the poster was suggesting replacing him with Archer who would likely be our most reliable starter for the next four years that he's under contract for. He's basically been Nelson and Anderson from last year (those guys' best seasons to date) every year for 5 seasons now. That would be a huge return that can't be ignored. I just don't see how that swap adds 14 losses to this team.

Why do you want us to lose 90 games? Explain. Losing Domingo who's replaceable on the roster, but gaining a fairly young, controllable, affordable, frontline pitcher who walks under 3 per 9, k's over 10 per 9 and FIPs 3.50 makes them a 90 loss team? Not sure the trade works for everyone, but seems pretty solid for the Brewers at least.

This has *nothing* to do with Jared Hughes. They gave the guy a $1.75M deal... that has zero affect on any other transaction they've negotiated or will negotiate. There is no reason to get upset about this deal. When was the last time a $1.75M deal had a detrimental affect on this or any team?

Well I mean come on, it's not like we would consider any of these non-infielders athletic in their day: Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr., Bo Jackson, Rickey Henderson, Mickey Mantle. Barry Bonds, Roberto Clemente, Tim Raines. What a bunch of bumbling buffoons. Couldn't even play the infield!

I'm not sure exactly that stat proves. Seems just like a thing that has no correlation to anything else. Not to mention, that graph shows us as being 7th in the NL in the stat, so it's not like they were terrible in that regard.

Found a good tool on baseball-reference for this: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/?month=7&day=29&year=2017 They have the 6th best NL record in that timeframe with the Cubs (29-18), Nationals (30-19), Cardinals (27-19), Brewers (26-19), and Diamondbacks (27-21) ahead of them. The Pirates are 18-30 in that timeframe, oof.

How's that one work? I tried tracing it without any luck. http://disciplesofuecker.com/mark-loretta-trade-tree-still-bearing-fruit/26414 Aha, the supplemental draft pick for losing Cordero was where I slipped. Thanks for the link!

How's that one work? I tried tracing it without any luck.

I thought this argument died in the 2000s. It's a weak excuse that covered for the cheap/bad ownership the Brewers had in the 1990s and early 2000s when the sport grew past the point where Selig could afford it. Mark Attanasio has proven that with deep pockets and good stewardship a small-market team can do just fine. No the Brewers will not be able to sign big free agents, but neither can teams in at least half of the markets, and the game has really evolved beyond that anyway. With front offices, including ours, getting far more savvy about controllable years or locking down players early, the day where the success of a team is determined by a free agent signing is waning. And this system only works without a salary cap. If there was a salary cap, there would be all kinds of road blocks in the way of building a team by locking down young talent. The only way I'd ever support a MLB salary cap is if it was a NBA-style soft cap with tons of exceptions and some form of the Larry Bird rule. And I'd say the NFL cap has been bad for the sport. The NFL is awash in mediocrity and the games are suffering. The on-field product is extremely mediocre because the hard cap is anathema to real team building. And, no, I don't care that all 32 teams can theoretically "be in it". I want something watchable on a Sunday to Sunday basis. Baseball doesn't have the same issue. I guess it's just a coincidence that teams in the top 10 in payroll have made it to the playoffs at over double the rate of teams in the bottom 10 in payroll the past 5 years (48% vs. 22%)

He also had a bit of a slow start when he first came up when he struck out in 9 of his first 14 plate appearances. Since then he's had a .262/.380/.452/.832 line in 42 ABs. He seems to have gotten the jitters out quickly to become a productive bat in the lineup.

Brault vs. Brewers: 6 IP, 1.5 BB/9, 9.0 K/9, 0.00 ERA, 0.33 WHIP Brault vs. Everyone Else: 18 2/3 IP, 3.9 BB/9, 4.3 K/9, 5.79 ERA, 1.93 WHIP I'm calling fluke on his Brewer outing. He also hasn't pitched since then (9 days ago), so he could be a bit rusty tonight. I thinks the Brewers bounce back nicely against him tonight seeing him for the 2nd time in 9 days.