adambr2

I'd do Woodruff for Sanchez without hesitation. Ace stuff and controlled through 2020.

+1 +2. Skepticism is healthy. It's why MLBtraderumors doesn't post every whisper across the internet. In any other regard when someone posts a rumor from a little known source, people ask, "Is this a reliable source?" And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You know what's weak? Shaming posters for not accepting a source at face value just because you want access to any juicy whisper you can get a hint of. Frankly to me, the pining and begging for any possible hint of a rumor was getting to be old and a distraction. I have no idea what the extent of HH's 'insider' information is, if any, but if you truly want to share, having your audience accept your word as gospel without reservations shouldn't be a condition for it. Either way, getting that kind of access to me isn't important enough to me for people to risk getting into trouble or putting friendships on the line to do it.

If you're investing for retirement and have the proper stock/bond/cash mix for your age, you have nothing to worry about. Short term market volatility is and will always be a part of the market both high and low. The key is being less vulnerable to volatility the closer you get to retirement. I lost about $7,000 in the last week or so and could not care less because I'm 35 and have about 30 years before retirement. If you're investing for the short term or day trading that's an entirely different scenario, but why 401K investors panic time and time again when this happens or carry an inappropriate portfolio mix after decades of these simple lessons really amazes me.

If you think 'value' has anything to do with only acquiring OFers if we had an OF problem, I don't think you understand what 'value' means as the term was used. Cain and especially Yelich are multi year investments who were acquired because Stearns and his analytical team believe the value they bring in production exceeds the price paid in money and prospects. That's why they were acquired, not (prinarily) because we wanted to 'go for It' in 2018.

I guess I'm still hoping everyone will come around as to why trading a prospect haul for him is such a bad idea. I understand the temptation but it would be an awful trade, like being on the wrong side of the Gomez deal. Here's my problem with this -- you state these as if they're simply fact with no room for debate. I ask this -- if it's such an awful idea, why is it something we're pursuing so strongly? Do you not think Stearns was aware of what kind of a trade price tag the Rays would have for Archer? Of course he did. The Rays just turned down 3 top 100s with 2 of them being top 50s last year at this time from the Astros, who are also a very competently run organization, (the Astros), wouldn't you agree? Also, don't you think Stearns and his team are aware of the aging curve on pitchers? Of course they do. These guys have access to data far beyond the data we have. So why is he interested? Numerous possibilities exist. - Perhaps they believe Archer has been underperforming and believe they can get at least 3 good years from Archer, and figure even if they don't get a 4th, the price tag still can't be beat. - Perhaps they think that they will get 2 strong rebound years from Archer moving to the NL. Perhaps they think the trade market is depressed right now and believe after rebounding that he'll be worth even more in trade in 2 years and anticipate trading him sometime down the line. That's something that often gets overlooked in these types of deals -- guys with significant cheap control and without no trade clauses have significant resale value as long as their production doesn't fall off a cliff. For all we know, Stearns thinks that renting these guys is a market inefficiency and plans to resell Yelich in 2-3 years and Archer too if acquired. Most importantly, if Chris Archer ends up taking us to a World Series in 2019, does it matter if we 'lose' the trade or he fades starting in 2020? I think you have to look at these things a bit more broadly and with some context. It's not always as simple as a trade won or lost. For example, I would imagine the Royals feel they won the Greinke trade -- but I doubt the Brewers feel that they lost it. Also, yes we certainly won the Gomez trade. However, a few things here: 1) Goes to show you can recover from trading a slew of prospects even when the worst happens on both sides as the Astros built a heck of a team from within. 2) The way that trade worked out for the Brewers (3, maybe still all 4) prospects panning out so well for them, is incredibly rare. 3) Neither side could have anticipated that Gomez was going to turn into a giant pumpkin so quickly. If he had helped carry the Astros to a World Series in 2015 like he looked capable of when we traded him, I doubt they'd have any complaints.

Isn’t the “rest of the world” in this case just the American League? Not really. Most of the minors, amateur, college, international and other leagues have adopted the DH by now. A few still don't but the ones who have it outweigh them.

I voted yes and given the current structure of our team it would be very beneficial to us. I think it's inevitable anyway, so the sooner they implement it the better it would be for the Brewers. That said it's more important to me that it simply be the same across both leagues. Doesn't seem like a fair thing at all that NL teams who otherwise deal with the same rules and constraints as AL teams, have to take on so much additional risk for their starting pitchers when starting pitching is such a valuable and important commodity. If they had the pitchers bat in both leagues, I'd be fine with that. But that ain't happening, so my default answer is yes.

We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true. 2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS) 1. Posey • SFG 171 2. Trout • LAA 168 3. Cabrera • DET 164 4. McCutchen • PIT 162 5. Braun • MIL 158 6. Encarnacion • TOR 153 7. Fielder • DET 151 8. Cano • NYY 148 9. Headley • SDP 145 10. Wright • NYM 144 2017: 1. Trout • LAA 187 2. Judge • NYY 171 3. Votto • CIN 168 4. Stanton • MIA 165 5. Altuve • HOU 164 6. Freeman • ATL 157 7. Gonzalez • HOU 149 8. Turner • LAD 149 9. Cruz • SEA 146 10. Ozuna • MIA 145 For pitchers I used adjusted ERA. 2012: 1. Verlander • DET 161 2. Price • TBR 150 3. Kershaw • LAD 150 4. Cueto • CIN 148 5. Sale • CHW 140 6. Dickey • NYM 139 7. Gonzalez • WSN 138 8. Zimmermann • WSN 136 9. Weaver • LAA 135 10. Harrison • TEX 133 2017: 1. Kluber • CLE 202 2. Kershaw • LAD 180 3. Scherzer • WSN 177 4. Strasburg • WSN 176 5. Ray • ARI 166 6. Sale • BOS 157 7. Severino • NYY 152 8. Gonzalez • WSN 150 9. Greinke • ARI 149 10. Stroman • TOR That's not what I said. Of course you can find one season where the turnover on the list of pitchers was about the same as the list of position players. You have to do this for dozens of pairs in order to approach statistical significance (2011:2016, 2010:2015, etc). This is not nearly rigorous enough to test the theory because just a few exceptional players could completely conceal the larger trend and then some, as could a weird anomaly like having literally every single top position player except Trout be about 29 as they were in 2012 (and thus likely to fall off the list 5 years later). '16 and '11 had 0 similar top 10 pitchers, '15 and '10 had 1, '14 and '09 had 2. '16 and '11 had 1 similar top 10 hitter, '15 and '10 had 2, '14 and '09 had 0. Now using 4 years and still don't see a trend to support that the top pitchers break down faster than hitters at least in recent history.

How is Archer likely to have his performance improve? Read the link I posted above. The average pitcher starts declining at 27, and it is pretty dramatic at 30. Archer turns 30 before the season is over. He's also already trending down noticeably since his best season at - you guessed it - age 27. He had the 3rd-highest rate of hard contact against him in baseball last year, but I don't think FIP takes that into account, so it fails to acknowledge that his BABIP should continue to be unusually high. And he throws a ton of sliders, which give many pitchers premature arm problems. I agree with you on the Yelich trade, and the best players they gave up were outfielders anyway so it's fine. This is not at all like the Yelich trade. Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close. We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true. 2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS) 1. Posey • SFG 171 2. Trout • LAA 168 3. Cabrera • DET 164 4. McCutchen • PIT 162 5. Braun • MIL 158 6. Encarnacion • TOR 153 7. Fielder • DET 151 8. Cano • NYY 148 9. Headley • SDP 145 10. Wright • NYM 144 2017: 1. Trout • LAA 187 2. Judge • NYY 171 3. Votto • CIN 168 4. Stanton • MIA 165 5. Altuve • HOU 164 6. Freeman • ATL 157 7. Gonzalez • HOU 149 8. Turner • LAD 149 9. Cruz • SEA 146 10. Ozuna • MIA 145 For pitchers I used adjusted ERA. 2012: 1. Verlander • DET 161 2. Price • TBR 150 3. Kershaw • LAD 150 4. Cueto • CIN 148 5. Sale • CHW 140 6. Dickey • NYM 139 7. Gonzalez • WSN 138 8. Zimmermann • WSN 136 9. Weaver • LAA 135 10. Harrison • TEX 133 2017: 1. Kluber • CLE 202 2. Kershaw • LAD 180 3. Scherzer • WSN 177 4. Strasburg • WSN 176 5. Ray • ARI 166 6. Sale • BOS 157 7. Severino • NYY 152 8. Gonzalez • WSN 150 9. Greinke • ARI 149 10. Stroman • TOR

Nelson has a torn labrum. Nelson wouldn't fetch nearly the prospect haul that Archer will anyway. If somebody made such a lopsided, short-sighted offer for Nelson as TB is requesting for Archer, I would do it in a heartbeat. Many, many people have a problem with paying Yu what he will likely get. An overwhelming amount of statistical evidence supports the notion that most players are already in decline at age 30. If you want to dismiss that in the case of a particular player, you better have a good reason to. A precipitously declining WAR over the last 3 years, combined with one of the highest hard contact %'s in baseball, for a guy who throws a ton of sliders, suggests an aging curve that's likely to be even worse than usual. WAR IMO is a bad starting point for a pitcher on a guy with such a major differential between fWAR and bWAR and therefore no strong consensus. My entire point was that the 4 remaining years of Archers' control are years where his age will be such that (32 and under) where it's reasonable to think he could still perform at a high level.

When did 30 become the benchmark for when starting pitchers lose effectiveness? Jimmy Nelson is only 9 months younger than Archer, so we shouldn't be excited about him because of his age? If you don't want to invest in Archer because of age, why wouldn't you support trading Nelson for prospects now? Darvish is a full 2 years older than Archer yet very few seem to have qualms about giving him a huge 4-5 year deal. If acquired Archer is under control for his age 29-32 seasons which is actually a great time of his career to have him under that control. While there's obviously no guarantees his age is being really overblown.

Santana is nowhere near what Moncada was when the Red Sox dealt him. Kopech is kind of closer to Burnes but only because I'm still processing the Santana/Moncada comparison. Kopech is/was the far better pitching prospect. You can disregard the other two prospects the Red Sox gave up and add in Phillips and Peralta for the Brewers to Santana and Burnes and it still doesn't come close to what Moncada and Kopech were worth when traded.

Which in a way is kind of a good thing for us now because he should be more affordable as far as trade currency goes.

Right. This absolutely falls into the category of "it's business." There are certain things the Brewers have done in the last decade or so that I would consider to be ethical gray areas -- demoting Davies after a start to gain a bench spot, demoting Hardy just long enough to gain an extra service year. But releasing Vogt in ST if we found a better 2nd catcher that we liked, is perfectly acceptable. Scooter almost certainly would have gotten the same treatment last spring if he wasn't claimed by the Reds. You don't mold your opening day 25 man roster based on an unwritten rule that doesn't even exist.

There is no such unwritten rule. It's exactly what the Pirates did to Jared Hughes last spring and there were no hard feelings. It's not terribly common but it does happen and there's no rule written or otherwise against it. The team owes 45 days pay as a severance in such cases.

Not good news for Lucroy. He should still get a better deal than Avila but this doesn't bode well for his market.

Yeah, kind of. I am still unsure if the K rate itself is a major point of emphasis, or a side effect of other points of emphasis. This is still a high K team. Broxton may be the king, but guys like Santana, Thames, Villar and Phillips aren't far behind. I don't know why people see Yelich as a very strikeout averse player. I guess if you're comparing him to Broxton, certainly, but he'll be right there with Braun, Pina, and Arcia among starters at around 20% and then there's a big gap between them and the 30% group of Santana, Phillips, Villar and Thames, assuming Broxton isn't starting at the MLB level here, who is pretty much in a category his own in that department. Cain might be the only guy under 18-20% and he'll be close. Don't know what else will change with the roster between now and opening day but this team will still strike out a ton. Just not a record breaking ton.

Is Darvish really that superior to Arrieta? If both are 28M a year players for example, but it takes 5/140 for Yu and 3/84 for Arrieta, I'll take Arrieta.

I think we really need to be careful about dealing Corbin Burnes and evaluate what we think of him and his future before trading him for pitching. What is Corbin Burnes? A future back end starter coming off an unsustainable season? Or a future #2 type who could be a force in our rotation for years? That's an important internal evaluation to make right now.

This may be your longest post ever.

I just don't think the Indians are going to trade Mejia. Since the Lucroy non-deal, he's upped his value to the point where I doubt the prospect of getting Santana and/or Shaw is enough for the Indians to move him. My issue with saying that Salazar is better than Suter/Guerra/etc, is that while it's true (when he's healthy), the Brewers shouldn't be trading a couple of mid-20s .360+ wOBA guys for an upgrade over Suter. You can go out and get Patrick Corbin for that. For Santana and Shaw, I want a pitcher that's an upgrade over Jimmy Nelson and Chase Anderson. FWIW, it also would seem to run counter to Stearns' MO to package Santana and Shaw. The one part I disagree on is the Indians not being open to trading Mejia. It would likely cost a lot (something like Santana plus a good Brewers prospect), but I think the Indians would do it for proper valuation. While Mejia’s hitting talent is undeniable, he has some things working against him. He is blocked at catcher for the foreseeable future. He has an elite arm, but is reportedly a below average receiver. He is small for a catcher (likely not even 5’10”). The Indians were obviously willing to trade him at the height of his hitting streak stardom in 2016. His first attempt at playing 3B seemingly failed, and doesn’t seem likely at this point to be an option for him at the major league level. I don’t want this to come across as dismissing Mejia because he is a player I would be very happy for the Brewers to acquire, but much like the situation with Brinson for the Brewers, Mejia could potentially be more valuable to the Indians as a trade chip than as a major leaguer. Perhaps, but Mejia has substantially more value than he did when we traded for him previously. Its hard to compare, he just has much more value now.

1) Darvish 2) Archer 3) Anderson 4) Davies 5) Chacin And in June you can slot in Nelson at #3. Would look like 2011 again only with a much bigger window. I don't know what it would take to get Archer. I imagine we'd have to be dangling Santana and Woodruff both just to get the conversation started, and I don't even know how much they like Santana.

My money is on the Cubs increasing their offer in the 11th hour here to land Darvish, they are unfortunately in a better position to win a bidding war and they'll certainly throw around a few million more before they risk losing Darvish to a division rival. But I think we'll respond with a trade for a starter be that Archer or whoever else.

I have no idea if this was a complaint about him coming up, but Susac was the worst pitch framer I have ever seen. That guy could take pitches on the corner and make them look 6 inches outside.

Well, an alternative would have been to sign Mike Minor to a 3/30 deal. I'm assuming you would have to beat the offer of 3/28 from Texas, not just match it. Minor would have taken Hader's old pen role but then you're up to $100M or so and probably out of room for a major splash beyond that as in one of the frontline starters.