adambr2

There is zero chance that villar is non-tendered. It baffles me that the idea even found it's way to the table. I Don't think there's any circumstance in which we wouldn't tender him at this stage with the team control remaining, but especially given our payroll flexibility. I doubt very much that Villar is non-tendered, but I wouldn't put the chances at 'zero". They may not want to go with him in 2018 as the 2B, and he's not a great fit as a utility player. More likely, they'd look for a trade partner first, but I wouldn't expect much back. I really don't think payroll flexibility has much to do with it either. Stearns is more concerned with value than price. It's not like we couldn't afford to pay Scooter Genett 2.5M back in March. (not to pull at that thread again).

https://reviewingthebrew.com/2017/10/02/milwaukee-brewers-2018-off-season-preview/ Here's an article about this kind of thing on page 5. A lot of his comments though, like the one about Nelson only in line for a fraction of what he would have made if he hadn't gotten hurt, make me think he really doesn't understand the arbitration process.

I would agree with 1 division title but I wouldn't say that it's not even remotely close. 2 Wild Cards gives you double the chances at a run. Two late Septembers of excitement (At minimum). Under the old system that would be enough for me to prefer the WC. But now that the WC is no longer guaranteed a playoff series, it's a lot different. I guess to fully answer the question I'd want more context -- are the Wild Card games at home? Are we the #1 seed as the division winner or the #3 and on the road in the first round? But all things being equal and having none of those answers, in our situation right now I'd rather miss the playoffs next year and win the division in 2019 than win the WC both years.

I just find it kind of hilarious that the entire baseball world has advanced into the 21st century by now with the lone exception of arbitration panels who are still stuck in the 80s. It makes absolutely no logical sense and guys end up non-tendered at times because GMs these days are not stupid and they're not going to pay a player double his open market value just because an arbitration panel likes old school numbers. That's exactly what happened with Chris Carter last year -- if the Brewers thought they could tender him at closer to his real market value at the time, 3M or so, good chance they would have. Unfortunately for Carter, David Stearns is not insane and thus isn't going to pay $8-$10M for a $3M asset just because he hit 41 HRs. Potentially, the same thing could happen to Villar. I'm not saying he's worth significantly less than 3M, but if the Brewers believe that his 2016 steals count will overinflate his arbitration numbers too much for their liking, they might go a different direction.

Man, the Cubs better not. That system is atrocious.

Do you have a link to anything that indicates this? Not to question your credibility, but I've just never heard that to be the case.

Should be clarified he's not claiming Thames and Aguilar were 0 WAR players, just that they were exactly league average in production. Thames and Aguilar combined for 3 WAR. According to that our pen and rotation were both above average. We were below average in LF, CF, and 2B, average or better everywhere else.

I realize they take his entire body of work into account, but 3M seems a bit generous for Villar given the year he's coming off of. I'm also not crazy about 4M for a backup catcher but we're not brimming with other options. Nelson's career numbers don't look like someone who is going to make 4.7M in his first arby year to me. Old school numbers are somewhat meaningful in arbitration and his career ERA is fairly similar entering arbitration to what Anderson's was when he was awarded 2.2M in his first go-around. I'd guess closer to 3.5M for Nelson. Either way we'll be paying him for what will most likely be a lost year, but I suppose we have little choice if we want to retain his rights. The rest look about right to me and likely to be tendered besides Torres who I agree will go non-tendered.

To each their own, I personally think that kind of thing is a little overblown. The Dodgers are a veteran team to be sure, but they have some talent on the roster that is as young or younger than anyone we have in Seager and Bellinger. If Puig's presence was a distraction it certainly didn't affect those two.

Really? Do you remember Puig in 2016? Braun had more HR's than Puig had extra base hits (yes there were 200 more ABs). Puig is just as injury prone as Braun is. He was sent down in 2016 because of his poor play and immaturity. When he got recalled, he was in a strict platoon. Not to mention Puig is a gamble when it comes to team chemistry. How would he deal with playing in Milwaukee and not making the playoffs every year? There were a small number of people on this board in favor of the deal. Most weren't. I think people tend to overreact to the current year of production. Most people wrote off Phillips after his 2016 season. Most are currently writing off villar after the 2017 season. I also think some people are overreacting to his season this year and not looking at his body of work or any of the advanced metrics pointing to some lousy luck. I personally thought there was a very real chance that Puig was a comparable player to Braun at the time, but I didn't want any part of Puig under any circumstances as a bad clubhouse guy on a young/impressionable team. Calling Puig a gamble when it comes to team chemistry is actually very generous in my opinion. You guys are talking about Braun for Puig+McCarthy+2 prospects like its a good thing we didn't take that deal when it pretty clearly would have been a good deal. Puig isn't perfect, he's a talented young player with some maturity issues. You're not getting that kind of upside and talent without some risk for Braun who has plenty of red flags of his own, just different kinds. There's no way L.A. would offer that same deal now.

The overturning of the 4th down stop on Elliott, which might be a bit overlooked because it didn't cost us the gsme fortunately, was beyond awful as well. First of all, it didn't appear conclusive on the Elliot reach that he reached the 19 which is what he needed for the 1st. Even excusing that, here's the more important part: A 'reach' like that for a spot is not the same damn thing as breaking the plane of the goalline. The runner has to maintain that spot or have his forward progress stopped by the opposition at that point. Elliot reaches out for a moment, and then on his own accord, presumably to avoid fumbling, pulls the ball back, thus giving up his right to that spot. And yet even with the benefit of replay he is awarded the most favorable possible spot. Absolutely inexplicable overturn and the officials should be embarrassed having apparently not understood the rule.

Yeah, I mean this is a far different era in baseball from the 80s. GMs are smarter, sabermetrics are much better understood and most (every?) team has a staff dedicated just to analytics. I suppose the higher payroll teams have a little more leeway in what they can ignore and tolerate, but simply spending at will with no regard to surplus value is a good way to end up with a 70 win team for 200M, which can and does happen.

It's notable too that the Rays already turned down a substantial offer from the Astros prior to the 2017 season which included 3 top 50 prospects (29, 35, and 47). https://www.draysbay.com/2017/1/5/14177084/mlb-trade-rumors-rays-chris-archer-houston-astros So they do value Archer very highly. How our offer compares to that I guess depends on what kind of value Santana brings, and you have to take into account it's a season later now with a year less of control for Archer. But its worth mentioning either way. I doubt I would go much higher than the proposed offer here. Maybe Diaz instead of Ray or Ortiz...

I think you're absolutely right, I didn't think about that. That explains why Phillips didn't make it. I would expect he'll rise considerably in the January lists before graduating next spring. Ray and Diaz probably out, maybe a guy like Lutz or Peralta in.

Yesterday in an MLBtraderumors chat, someone proposed the idea of Domingo Santana for Chris Archer, given the options that both teams have to replace both players. The writer noted that Archer is worth more than Santana, but that Santana is definitely a legitimate asset. So to build on that, I'd propose something like Santana, Ortiz, and Corey Ray. It's a nice haul for the Rays while also giving us a chance to acquire a cheap and controllable high end rotation asset without giving up Brinson. While there's no doubt Santana is a tough loss it would tighten up our OF defense and we could move forward with Brinson and Phillips in CF and RF with Broxton as the 4th OF. Our OF depth is taking a hit at this point but we still have some upside on the farm in the OF with guys like Clark, Lutz and Harrison. Archer is controllable through 2021 with his current deal which includes a couple very reasonable team options.

I expect Woodruff in the 2018 rotation but I am not too concerned with his options. Even if they burned an option on him next year they'd still have one left for 2019. They wouldn't have to worry about him being out of options until spring of 2020 when he'd be 27 years old. If there is still any desire to send him to the minors by then, then pretty clearly his development did not go as hoped.

Yeah Ray is definitely still rated off his draft stock, but I'm surprised he hasn't been demoted more for his performance this season. Same with Diaz. After seeing Clark and Phillips both tumble out last year I'm a bit surprised Diaz and Ray did not. Speaking of Phillips, based on the eligibility he still carries I can't understand how he is not back in the top 100. How does a former top 40 prospect with a .944 OPS in AAA and top notch glove in CF who has had great success in his first MLB stint in his age 22-23 season not even show up in the top 100? Makes no sense to me. Feels like if he played for Boston they'd be raving about him. I also think Freddy Peralta is somewhat underrated, should be a borderline top 100. He was basically 1B to Burnes' 1A as far as minor league pitchers went this season for us.

Brewers somewhat quietly have an impressive 7 prospects in the MLB Pipeline postseason top 100. 12. Brinson 58. Ray 69. Ortiz 80. Woodruff 81. Hiura 85. Diaz 96. Burnes

You might not care about the money Mark A. has to spend but he's not working with an endless supply of it. Hosmer/Cozart alone with a couple spare parts would be enough to pretty much remove all flexibility to improve any more weak spots that come up so I think you'd definitely care at that point. I don't think those two are the answer or the difference between us winning 86 games or a World Series.

Doubt Santana would show any better defense in left than right. Probably worse, his defensive instincts already seem pretty weak and he'd have to learn new nuances and angles. Plus his only real defensive asset is his arm which would be less useful in LF vs. RF.

Brinson plus Ortiz would be a starting point. He probably has similar value to Quintana. DeGrom looks superior in terms of K/9, FIP, and cxFIP. Maybe not vastly superior but superior. Quintana has the LHP thing going for him, but I think DeGrom is clearly better. Similar ages and both are controlled through 2021 but I don't think the Mets are going to use Quintana as a comparable price point. In addition to Brinson and Ortiz I would bet they'd also ask for an MLB piece like Santana.

Don't see the problem with Sogard back off the bench. He's a lefty bat that can get on base and play above average D all around the infield. If you're talking a million bucks or so, for a utility infielder you could certainly do worse.

This makes sense on the surface, but I think it would constitute an overreaction to the season they just had. Look at the strategies that got them here in the first place. It's a testament to how under-the-radar guys in their prime are just as good as the questionable aging free agents they signed so often in the Melvin era, if not better. Why deviate from that now? For example, there's a legitimate chance that Villar's WAR exceeds Walker's over the next 3 years, at about 1/10th of the price. I'm by no means a Villar fan, but you should expect the real JV to be about halfway between this year and last year, and you should expect Walker to decline - perhaps precipitously - at his current age. He's already a negative defender. Besides, he only got 1/$17.2m after having season-ending back surgery last year; no way he ends up settling for the kind of contract you're suggesting here after the relatively healthy bounce-back year he had. Darvish should age well compared to other pitchers his age, which probably only means that his next deal will be awful as opposed to godawful. Hardly anyone ages well anymore in this post-steroid era. I totally agree with you. I think there's some temptation to look at the 86 win season, look at our payroll and think, "Ok David, we're almost there, now go spend some money and let's have an even better year next year." It's absolutely possible Villar outproduces Walker over the next couple years. It's absolutely possible that two out of Wilkerson, Burnes, Ortiz, and Woodruff outproduce starting pitchers that may go for 15M a year on the FA market. By no means am I against spending money but we should be cautious of spending money for the sake of doing so or we'll walk this franchise back 5 years again. I want us to contend in 2018, but I don't want us to look at 2018 and decide it will be a failure if we don't contend. We need to keep an eye on the big picture. Spend, but spend wisely. Don't get into bidding wars. Look to take advantage of market inefficiencies. Give your young guys a shot when needed. 2/10 for Swarzek makes a lot of sense. A split contract for Sogard makes a lot of sense. Blockbuster deals, I don't know. It just depends. Suppose we go sign Sogard and Swarzek and then go all in on Hosmer and Cozart. You're probably talking 40-50M a year just for Hosmer and Cozart, so just like that you go from all kinds of payroll flexibility to none, and you added two infielders who, to be sure are coming off of great years, but when you look at their career averages instead, look like little or no upgrade to our internal options. Is that really smart money?

Seeing a guy as the potential best trade chip in the organization for a possible high end rotation piece is not nearly the same thing as 'writing off' a player.

On that note, I wish Taylor Williams had been given a longer look in September. He has that kind of high leverage upside that we desperately need. I understand we were in a pennant race but there were opportunities to get him some more work. Either way, I'd still trust him over Torres, or Drake vs. RHP. Drake is nothing more than a reverse LOOGY. He may literally be the worst pen option against righties in baseball. I think back to the extra inning games against the Cubs, Bryant vs. Drake, which again, it's tough to imagine a worse matchup. I didn't question it much at the time but I have to wonder in retrospect why Williams wasn't used. Inexperience to me isn't a good enough answer when your alternative was a guy with literally a 1.000+ OPS against him vs. righties. I think it's fair to question that.