Matt Breen
-
Posts
9,122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Matt Breen
-
Regarding Brinson - I would keep him over Phillips. Yes, Brinson has had injury issues. But the guy has the tools and talent to be an all star level player in the majors. None of our bats has that capability in the upper minors of our system. Milwaukee has a lot of solid players right now - but we need to add exceptional players to take us to the next level. Brinson has that potential. I'm not saying that Phillips won't be a good player - but his hit tool is a concern. He looked good in his short time he was in Milwaukee, but he's not going to sustain a .400+ BABIP going forward like he did last year. Brinson is no perfect player - and I think he will have his own growing pains in the majors - but his reward can be massive if things come together. Personally, I'd love to see Phillips and Brinson in our outfield next year. Lo Cain is a good player - but I'd rather roll the dice with our young guys.
-
I think you're right about this kind of thing. And not just pitching. I think it's anything of need. But I think the key thing is giving the team financial flexibility going into the season. It's why I'm good with passing on a guy like Arrieta. Yes, it's a risk going with an unknown guy, but if the season progresses well, then you look to make a move. We have a lot of prospect capital that will be of interest to teams. As you noted, the Astros did that with Verlander - and he was a huge addition. I'm not saying no to an Arrieta - but I'm wary at the price being bandied about.
-
The funny thing is that the final number (years and money) was exactly what MLB Trade Rumors predicted - 3-years/$39M. As you state, the initial asking prices are crazy. But it's a game these guys play. Ask high and adjust. I mean, it only takes one team to be stupid - so why not try? I'm not sure if the high numbers hurt the players that much, but I think where it definitely does hurt is when major league jobs get filled you could have some guys left standing without a gig. Sort of like the 1B market last year as guys like Chris Carter and Logan Morrison had to settle as teams filled roster holes with other players. I think asking a lot for elite players rarely hurts. They're going to get paid at some point. But the guys that tend to have to come down are the middle and lower class players. Not always, but often.
-
I get what you're saying here, but that's not how things work in many cases. First, Archer's salary is tied to a salary structure that by its nature will deflate his pay. Arrieta is a free agent - and is more guided by true market forces than a pre-determined payroll structure. And it should be noted that Archer costs a lot to acquire - not necessarily in money - but it other assets. Arrieta's acquisition cost is money (and a forfeited draft pick). Second, premium performance often commands premium pricing. You only have 25 guys on a roster. A club wants to have the best possible team. A team of 25 average players gets you average results. So players who are better than average often command much more money due to their scarcity. A 4 WAR player is much, much rarer than a 2 WAR player. There might be an available pool of ten 2.0 WAR players - but only two 4.0 players. The 4.0 WAR guys don't just get twice the 2.0 guys - they can command 3 or 4 or 5 times that value due to their scarcity. Those guys move the needle for a team from average to above average - and thus cost more. Now, is Arrieta a 'premium' pitcher? That's a good question. There's support for both sides. I'm honestly not sure. But the Brewers appear to be looking at adding a premium level pitcher - and those higher level guys simply cost a lot more on the open market.
-
I don't know if the 2011 draft was 'normal' or not - but the failure rate of baseball players is really high - no matter what year you look at. I looked at the 2010 draft - and found that 20 of the top 50 picks haven't been in the majors yet. 14 more have produced 0.5 bWAR or lower for their careers. That's 34 out of 50 - roughly 2/3 of these guys have done nothing. It sucks when we miss on our picks, but that's sort of the nature of the baseball draft. Especially when you're not picking in the top 10 or so.
-
Bruce signs with the Mets. 3-years, $39M. He gets $10MM in 2018 and $13MM in both 2019 and 2020, plu a $3MM signing bonus that will be paid in two installments of $1.5MM — one in 2019 and one in 2020. He also gets a limited no-trade protection where he will specify five clubs to which he cannot be traded without each consent on an annual basis. A solid power bat, Bruce has hit 33 and 36 HR the last couple of seasons while putting up batting averages of around .250. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/01/mets-to-sign-jay-bruce.html
-
I had initially wanted Baez or Lindor - but as expected, neither dropped to us. The two guys I wanted were Sonny Gray and Kolten Wong for these picks. I knew Wong was a bit high, but I really liked what I read about him. But to be honest, most people thought we did well at the time.
-
Well, I'd certainly trade a big chunk of our 7, if not all of them, for a World Series title. Unfortunately, that trade deal is not available - and has never been available. -
RIP Rob Picciolo (1982-1983 Brewers IF)
Matt Breen replied to hawing's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Picciolo never took took a walk. 25 total walks in over 1600 ABs in his career. That is pretty amazing. -
I'd also like to point out that starting pitching is an area of need for Tampa, so keeping Archer fills a vital position for the Rays. And remember, this is a team that isn't necessarily 'rebuilding' and is looking to unload all their veteran talent. They won 80 games last year. Yes, they made a big deal when they traded Longoria. But he was scheduled to make a lot more money than Archer ($80M+ vs $34M). Their payroll is at about $80M this year - so they don't need to move Archer. If they want to shed some more money, they could move Denard Span - even if they have to eat some of his salary. The team is actually pretty interesting with several of young position players (Adams, Arroyo, Adames) to go with an OF of Souza, Dickerson, Span, Malix Smith and Keirmaier. Archer would anchor the rotation with Odorizzi, Honeywell and Snell. It would be a very young team, but with some good luck, they might be able to get to the playoffs. Trading Archer really hurts the team's chances. Also, Tampa can hang on to Archer and Odorizzi for the first half of 2018 and see how the club is doing. If they are contending, they can stay the course. If not, they can look to move the guys. Yes, there's a chance of injury and/or poor performance, but there's also a chance to be in a playoff race. Ultimately, the Rays can really use Archer in 2018 - so they are going to need to be blown away right now if someone wants the guy.
-
Broxton, Ray and Burnes is light for Archer in my opinion. And they don't really need Broxton as they have one of the best defensive CFers in the game in Kiermaier.
-
What 'media' people are saying that baseball players are getting screwed for asking for a lot of money (and not getting that much)? - This is a bit indirect but I definitely get the vibe he has a pro-player anti-owner stance. https://www.royalsreview.com/2017/12/26/16812704/are-baseball-owners-colluding-against-the-players - Article about owners being evil. http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/12/18/marc-carig-mets-owners-are-cheap-unaccountable-unconcerned/ - Mets owners are cheap and terrible. One writer says it and another justifies it. These are 3 examples I found in about 5 minutes. The common theme is pro-players getting paid and anti-rich greedy owners. It's not exactly as specific as you are stating, but the premise is there. I guess I go back to the original line - No idea how the media has come up with the idea that if a player isn't paid every penny of what he wants that he is somehow getting screwed? - I guess I don't see this as a pro owner vs pro player statement. It's saying that the media is writing articles stating that players are getting screwed when they don't get what they ask for. The quoted articles aren't necessarily written by journalists saying that players are getting screwed because they aren't getting what they are asking. One is an anti-salary cap story, another is simply about the Mets owners being bad, and the other is comparing spending in the past with this year (and finding it is down thus far). Perhaps I simply misinterpreted the original statement. Not a big deal. Didn't mean to take the thread off topic.
-
Well said, I find this aggravating too. It's probably just part of their war against the greedy rich owners that are providing us with baseball and are at least partially responsible for the jobs these writers have...but how dare they! What 'media' people are saying that baseball players are getting screwed for asking for a lot of money (and not getting that much)?
-
In 1978 Mike Caldwell was absolutely an ace. Caldwell is a good example of a guy who was brilliant for one season - then merely good for several others. He's a guy I would say had an 'ace-like' performance - but I wouldn't call him an ace. He just never reproduced his 1978 season. He was a good player for a few years after 1978 - but not even close to great.
-
Looking at the responses, I think most people have a feel for what an ace is. There's an 'ace' of a staff and there's an 'ace.' They can be two different things. The former is simply the best former on any given team. The latter is an elite pitcher in the league who has displayed dominance over an extended period. Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, Greinke - those are the kinds of guys that I think are aces. I do think showing extended success contributes to being classified as an ace. A good pitcher can put up ace-like numbers one year - but that doesn't make him one of baseball's best. Same goes for a young player. Also, an ace can have a poor year - but it won't knock him out of ace status (at least not yet). I think it's fine to debate who is an ace and who is just very good. There's nothing wrong with that. Some guys just need more time to establish their status as one of the best in the league. Others have to stay healthy. Others have to simply get a little bit better. As for the Brewers - I loved Sheets - but I don't think he ever stepped into the role of an 'ace'. He had one brilliant season, but after that, he was just very good. Teddy Higuera was probably the closest the Crew ever had to a true ace. He was pretty amazing for about four years before injuries ruined his career. Guys like Greinke and Sutton weren't with us that long - and not that dominant when they were here.
-
Brewers worst Free Agent signing of this past decade
Matt Breen replied to patrickgpe's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
Last decade is the what the article discusses. So the Stubbs and Hammonds stuff if not really I relevant. Although as noted - the Stubbs deal transcends time. -
Anyone else losing their patience?
Matt Breen replied to Madhawk23's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
Are the Brewers not in on Darvish at all? My source didn't say yes or no about Darvish - but it sounds like he is going to get upwards of $30M a year - and that might just be too rich. Again, I won't say no, but it didn't seem like there was much buzz about him. Should add that the Brewers are playing things very, very close to the vest (as are a lot of other teams). No one wants to appear to be desperate - and no team wants to build up expectations and then get shot down. -
The addition of Chacin - plus the Brewers interest in another starter and the lack of adding any big FA relievers - makes me think the club wants Hader in the bullpen for next year. Of course, we have to make another big addition to the rotation - but if that happens - I think Hader's role is in the bullpen.
-
I'm warming to this move. He did well last year - and I'm letting my previous take on the guy - which wasn't good - cloud my vision a bit. I'm mainly concerned about the guy's history - he's been all over the map as a pitcher - and I just don't want the crappy version (which has been more common than the good version of Chacin). I really only wanted a one-year deal - but so be it. If he can provide stability in backend of the rotation - that's great.
-
I have heard that Milwaukee is interested in Archer - and at least made an exploratory inquiry. Tampa is holding out for a lot, however, and the price would have to come down.
-
I have heard that Arrieta is likely to net a deal of at least five years at $25M+. Milwaukee is interested - even at that price. The lack of quality starters has made Arrieta of interest to many teams - which may drive him out of our price range.
-
Anyone else losing their patience?
Matt Breen replied to Madhawk23's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
A source I have says that the Brewers have been targeting higher end starting pitching thus far - and have made several offers - but nothing has come together yet. The market is waiting on Darvish, who is generally regarded as the best starter out there. Once Darvish picks a team, you'll start to see other guys start to come off the board. Milwaukee is pursuing high-end pitching both in the FA market - and via trade. Whether anything comes to fruition is another thing - but the Brewers are being patient. I do not know if the Chacin deal affects our pursuit of other pitchers - but I doubt it. -
That would be horrible in my book. But I'm not a fan of the guy.
-
Total WAR by Draft Picks since 2011
Matt Breen replied to Eye Black's topic in MLB Draft & International Signings
Thanks, Eye Black. It was interesting to see. I think it just reinforces how barren this system was a few years ago. -
So much of the rotation depends on what you do with Hader. Unless the club really doesn't think he can make it as a starter, I think you have try him in the rotation to begin the season. If he falters, they shift him back to the pen by mid-season - when someone like Corbin Burnes might be ready to come to the majors. For some reason I think the club will keep him as a reliever. No special info to support that - just a guess. I'm just thinking the team - and Hader - are going to say, this is what Josh is. Let's not try and make him something he's not. Again, just a guess.
