Matt Breen

Perhaps the comps for Braun being boom or bust players at age 33 is not unique to him - maybe that's just a point where most players start to go in the tank. I looked at Fangraphs and saw that 8 position players had a WAR of 2.0 or better last year who were age 33 or older (this was out of 96 players). That's not a lot. I don't know if this is the answer - but maybe, on average, guys just start to really fade at this age. Sure you have exceptions to the rule - Beltre and Beltran and Molina, etc. - but on the whole, buys just tend to fade around 33. So guys that pretty much have produced their whole careers, with maybe a season that didn't, like Braun has. No. I don't think - or know - if there's a way to identify what kind of player is going to age well. Is the fact that a player is good from age 25-33 mean he's going more likely to be good at age 34 or 35 or whatever? Perhaps that's the case. But (and this is just my guess) who ages poorly and who doesn't seems to be a guessing game. What makes Andruw Jones fall off a cliff at age 30 - after averaging 5-6 WAR a year for a decade? To me, every person is unique. Some fall apart at 30. Some fall apart at 33. Some fall apart at 37. Perhaps there's a better answer - but I don't think it's a simple as better guys last longer.

Perhaps the comps for Braun being boom or bust players at age 33 is not unique to him - maybe that's just a point where most players start to go in the tank. I looked at Fangraphs and saw that 8 position players had a WAR of 2.0 or better last year who were age 33 or older (this was out of 96 players). That's not a lot. I don't know if this is the answer - but maybe, on average, guys just start to really fade at this age. Sure you have exceptions to the rule - Beltre and Beltran and Molina, etc. - but on the whole, buys just tend to fade around 33.

It's important to know that Fangraphs does not do projections. The projections on their site are from outside sources - such as Steamer and Zips. The 'Depth Charts' section of Fangraphs is a combination of those numbers - plus projected playing time from the Fangraphs stats (and the ZIPS numbers are not in there - so the Depth Charts is really mostly based on one projection system). So the numbers derived are not really projections from Fangraphs - just a way to aggregate various systems into one number. In the end, Zips, Steamer and Depth Charts are just tools. Just as the 0.5 WAR drop for a player of Braun's age is a tool. If a player has a WAR of 1.0 at age 32, then a 4.0 WAR at 33, do you project him to drop to a 3.5 WAR at age 34? Again, it's just a general rule - but not every player needs to be assessed beyond the analytics to find their ultimate value. I don't know why Steamer has Braun dropping off pretty dramatically - but projections are always a dicey business. I enjoy seeing them, but I don't get too worked up about them.

Agreed. That's bizarre. i always thought the same thing. Glad I'm not crazy.

July 8 game vs Cardinals. Back and forth game - Brewers won it in the 9th on a walk off. So sweet to beat the Cardinals like that.

Castlillo got 1 years, $6M and a player option for $7M - so essentially a 2-year, $13M deal at a minimum - about what was expected. The player option is a nice protection for him.

I actually use baseball cube frequently. It is really good for college baseball stats. Yeah, the college stuff they have is great. That's why I usually use it.

Dozier is 30 and has a career OPS of .762. He had a career year last year (.886 OPS), but that was the only time in his career that his OPS has been over .762. Highly likely that last year was an outlier. Braun is 32 and has a career OPS of .910, and .903 last year. Last year was an average year for Braun, and his worst season was better than all but one of Dozier's seasons (last year). Yes, Dozier is making far less money, but he is not in the class of hitter that Braun is. I doubt that being unwilling to give up De Leon for Dozier means anything about whether or not they would give him up for Braun. Dozier's owed $15M over the next two years. Braun is owed $76M over the next four. Dozier had a 6.5 rWAR last year - and 14.1 WAR over the last three years. Braun had 4.4 WAR last year, and 9.2 WAR over the last three years. Braun has missed 76 games over the last three years. Dozier has missed 18 in three years. I don't think many people would consider Dozier in Braun's class as a hitter - but there's lots more going on than that. Money is a consideration. Defense is a consideration. Health is a consideration. Age is a consideration. Luxury Tax situation is a consideration, etc., etc.. etc. I bet that if you asked the GMs of baseball if they could have for Braun (4 years, $76M, including around $15M deferred) or Dozier (2 years, $15M), not taking account position need, almost all of them - if not all of them - would take Dozier. Of course, that's just my opinion.

While I'd love Bellinger or DeLeon, I also don't have a problem picking the guys from the lower levels that haven't quite emerged. Yadier Alvarez is one guy I'd love - but I don't think the Dodgers are going to let him go. Walker Buehler is the other guy I'd really like. I think he can be a top of the rotation guy. He's undervalued coming off TJ surgery, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pops up on some top 100 lists after looking good at the end of the year.

Cubs got some of their best players in trades - particularly by adding guys who were still in the minors or had had limited major league success. Arrieta, Rizzo, Russell, Kendrick. Right there you have around 18.0 rWAR. The Cubs can thank the Astros for Bryant (man, can you imagine Houston's lineup if they had taken Bryant instead of Appel). But that just goes to prove that finishing high in the draft doesn't guarantee you a star. For every Bryant there are three Appels. You just have to draft as best as possible - and hope for a little luck. It's great to have the higher picks, but you can still score huge lower down.

In reality, the best way for Milwaukee to develop a superstar type player is to draft well (no matter the draft pick), and make astute trades. I'll use the Indians as a team we could model ourselves after: Lindor was the 8th pick in the draft. Kipnis was a 2nd round pick. Kluber a 4th round pick by SD. Josh Tomlin a 19th round pick. Kluber, Carrasco, Bauer, Santana (I can even add Michael Brantley, who was great until his injury) - all trades when they were minor leaguers in other systems. Ramirez, Salazar - amateur free agents. With the exception of Lindor, no one was a particualrly heralded player. The team drafted guys, kept adding talent to the minor league system via trades and amateur signings - and thus they have a team that almost won the World Series. They have a younger superstar in Lindor. An ace in Kluber. They aren't loaded with onerous free agent contracts. They use free agency - but as a way to supplement their core. Cleveland succeeded by targeting talent in the amateur and minor leagues - and adding them to their system. It's what we are doing - and what we should keep doing. Otherwise, you really only have two ways to add a guy who is - at this moment - an franchise hitter or ace level pitcher - trade for one, or sign one as a free agent. We saw what Sale cost. It's a very high price. No one ever drafts a franchise hitter or ace level pitcher. Those elite players take time to reach that level. The higher you pick in the draft certainly helps you get players that have that potential - but there's no guarantee. To me, it's adding talent - and lots of it. Players flame out a lot in baseball, especially pitchers. You have to expect that. But the more guys you have, the better chance for players to blossom into something special - sometimes even an all-star type player.

There you go. On the nose.

Ah but he was. Elmore's played more games at SS in the big leagues than any other position. Elmore didn't play a game last year at SS - in the big leagues or the minors. The majority of his SS time in the majors was in 2012 and 2013. Less than 20% of his playing time in his career (majors and minors) has been at SS - and it's gotten less and less as he's gotten older and his weakness at the position exposed. He's a classic type of guy that can play the position in a pinch, but you don't want him there because he's a defensively liability.

First, well done on the original trade idea! (at least that I recall in this long thread) Second, I think this is a reasonable trade - we take on salary in exchange for a couple of decent prospects. Beede has never thrilled me, but he's certainly looked solid as a pro. Not a great prospect, but a solid guy. Shaw is an interesting guy. Certainly looks like he has some raw power - which is always nice. Third, I have heard that Arroyo isn't particularly good at SS - read the MLB Pipeline review and they don't like his range or speed. So a move to 3B or corner OF is possible in the future. But for all the love the guy gets from scouts, the production hasn't been there. He doesn't walk much, and his season high HR is only 9. And only 3 last year at AA. Of course, he's only 21 - and he's been young wherever he's played.

Did someone say my name? http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/6218.png&w=350&h=254

I think he is competition for Rivera. Elmore wasn't a shortstop. DeJesus can play all over the diamond - including shortstop.

Most scouts and analysts were not been impressed with Giolito's major league debut this past year. Or his time in the minors. After the trade, the general consensus was that no one - the Nats and the White Sox - valued Giolito like they had a year or two ago. It doesn't mean everyone hates Giolito - just that there are more questions than there were in the past. He's still got a ton of talent, and I'm sure every team in baseball would love to have him in their system. It's why prospect status is so fluid. Players change (or don't change) over time. We gather more data. I bet we see Giolito's ranking go down a bit in the 2017 prospect rankings. How much, I don't know. But I won't be surprised if it happens. I'm not defending the trade for Eaton. I'm just saying that while it was a lot, as noted, Giolito's trade value was not as high as some perceived.

The end scouting grade a player has does not strictly reflect an 'average' grade of the player's tools. Yes, they are absolutely a big part of the grade, but evaluators will ultimately use that final number to describe how valuable a player is on the overall player market, taking into account risk, distance to ceiling as well as other factors that might not show up in a player's tool numbers. I'm not saying the ratings on Woodruff or Nottingham or anyone else are right or wrong. Just that there is more in consideration for that final rating than seems to be acknowledged.

Baseball America did their review of the Boston system just last month - so they have a 1/2 season more of ball to assess Dubon - specifically the excellent results he put up at AA. Regarding the MLB.com rankings - these were originally done mid-season. It's why, for example, Woodruff is so low on our list. So the ranking MLB.com had of Dubon was for mid-season - meaning they didn't see the progress he made at AA. MLB.com did adjust some of Dubon's values when they re-ranked him with Milwaukee - so perhaps they took into account his second half performance (as his grades went up when moved to Milwaukee's list). As you say, I don't think Dubon is going to be a Top 100 player - but he's probably in the next 100 guys. And that's not a bad thing. Continued success should get him moved up even more. I remember John Sickels at minorleagueball.com saying that there really isn't that much of a difference between a guy at 150 and 100 (or something like that).

The Cardinals have added OF Dexter Fowler. The cost was 5-years and $82M, plus a full no-trade clause. Fowler will also cost the Cardinals their 1st round pick in next year's draft. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/cardinals-nearing-deal-free-agent-with-dexter-fowler.html

It is a fun exercise. I'm going to put a twist on it. Braun has a set salary in place. It is debated - but generally regarded - that it is a bargain. The comparison of expected WAR, and using $8M as a proxy for 1 WAR, has its merits. But what if you compared Braun's contract to what he or a similar player would get in the open market as a free agent? Assuming Braun is a 3.8 WAR player, his salary at $8M/WAR as a free agent would start around $30M/year. His WAR/year is likely to decline, but few contracts decline in salary in the latter years (I believe Braun's does because of the deferred $). The labor agreement also caps how much a contract can decline from year to year, which I believe is 20% per year. So let's say Braun gets $30M/year in the open market (fair value at 3.8 WAR) and two scenarios, one where it declines by 20% per year (max allowed by labor agreement) and one where it is flat for four seasons. I'd argue that you would not get Braun for only four seasons, but we'll say four to compare apples to apples. Scenario 1 his salaries are $30M, $24M, $19.2M, and $19.4M, or $89M. Close to the original estimate. Scenario 2 - more likely - the total salary in the open market would be $120M, making his excess value $44M, in which case it would take more than two Top 100 prospects to get him. Now add in the option year - because he will likely still be in the game and would likely get a 5th year in free agency - and the excess value could be >$50M. Now add in the Brewers taking back salary in McCarthy ($22M)... and you see why some people think the Brewers could get both De Leon and Bellinger from the Dodgers. The excess value of the rumored trade to the Dodgers - as opposed to acquiring a similar free agent - could be in upwards of $70M. Stuff like this is fun - isn't it. A few things to consider: 1. I placed Braun's value as 3.8 WAR for 2016 - so his 2017 value drops to 3.3 WAR. Just making that note. 2. I don't believe there is any rule saying a player's salary can't change by less than 20% for contracts signed by free agents. For players in arby years - yes, I believe that's true. Ian Desmond's new contract pays out as $8M, $22M, $22M, $15M and $8M. 3 - One thing all the calculations do not take into account the individual aspect each player brings to a situation - as well as the situation a team might be in. The Dodgers know Braun's injury and PED history. They know that Milwaukee has a limited number of teams that they can deal him to. All those things will likely have the Dodgers trying to get Ryan at a lower price. Also, there are things like the team's financial situation. A club like the Dodgers may - or may not - be wanting to cut payroll. It can drive up - or down - a team's interest. And then there's the team's personnel. Who is Braun replacing? If you replace a 1.0 WAR player with a 3.5 WAR player - that's a pretty big deal. But if you replace a 2.5 WAR player with a 3.5 WAR player, the improvement isn't that great. And therefore the value of the 3.5 WAR probably isn't as much as to the team as the first scenario. In the end, everyone wants a bargain. Why pay full price if you can get it lower? The Brewers - not the Dodgers - really have the difficult situation. No on really matches up with Braun like the Dodgers - and they know that. They are going milk it for all that it's worth and extract as much value as they can. It's why I won't be shocked if Braun isn't traded - as each side won't budge from their spot (and I don't blame either side). Braun represents a lot of value on the ball field (even if as an asset he may not be that valuable due to his contract). The Brewers aren't in the business to give away assets with that kind of performance ability. So he just might stay put. We shall see. I find it fascinating.

"We don't know" is the answer for every trade value of every player - because every evaluation tool has different values for every player. This would happen with Bryce Harper or Chris Sale or Scooter Gennett. My point was simply to take some data and plug into an evaluation tool. As different tools bring out different answers. Different people like different tools (rWAR, fWAR, WARP) - thus every evaluation of a player is always different. And again, this is plugging in data. It doesn't take into account the intangibles and nuances associated with a person. It doesn't account for the player's injury history, their body type and skill set - all things that may make a team feel a player will age better - or worse - than average. To just plug in numbers and come up with an answer is foolish. So ultimately, every player's trade value is 'we don't know."

Yankees lost four player in the draft.

Was this counting done before the winter meetings or after it started (& moves made). I'd think some changes would result with the various trades... I believe it was up to date. I just looked at it a couple of hours ago.

I read one assessment that said this signing is a year too early. The Rockies were just getting interesting, and they go and try to make a move a little bit before they are ready. Perhaps it's a disease going through the NL West. San Diego to Arizona to Colorado.