adambr2

Anyone is available for the right price, but I don't see offers for Villar justifying giving him up yet. He's versatile, valuable, young and controlled. I wouldn't give him up for less than a top 25 prospect which I don't think we could get.

Shaw and Perez I'm guessing will from a fairly hard platoon at 3rd, with Perez subbing elsewhere against RHP. Villar is definitely freed up for 2nd now, and there's even less room for Scooter on this team now than there was before.

Just curious, but did anything happen in the CBA to discourage the common practice of teams deliberately delaying the promotions of their prospects or sending them back down at certain points in order to gain an extra year of service time or prevent them from becoming a Super 2? I know that the MLBPA is very frowny on that practice and was hoping to change things, but I hadn't heard if anything was actually done to do so. Obviously with guys like Brinson and Hader nearly MLB ready, it's something that affects us.

Stearns said this today: “For the past week, we’ve been engaged in talks that have progressed at a pretty good clip. I’m terrible at predicting when a trade gets over the hump or when it doesn’t, but we’re engaged on a number of fronts. We’re setting ourselves up for the possibility of making a deal.” I'm not saying anything is inevitable, but it would seem like an odd thing to say for a team that isn't planning on making any trades.

McCutcheon was not good last year, but the five years prior to that he averaged over 6 WAR per year. Perhaps the Pirates can't demand the king's ransom for him that they would have a year ago, but they are not going to just take a bad offer now because of one bad year. It will still take a significant return to get him out of Pittsburgh. For what it's worth the Pirates were asking for both Gioloto and Robles for McCutcheon. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mystery-team-in-on-andrew-mccutchen.html?fv-home=true&post-id=79253 Obviously they are going to ask for the moon and stars first and negotiate from there, but if that's even in the same atmosphere as what they expect for McCutcheon, the Nationals aren't going to be in the running for him after giving up Gioloto and Robles for Sale. Put yourself in the Pirate's GMs shoes. You have a guy who is still only 30, and has been one of the premiere centerfielders in the game for years and the cornerstone of your franchise, a perennial 6 WAR player, top 5 in MVP voting 4 straight years. Now for whatever reason, he has a down year. Are you going to sell for what you can, take a low top 50 and low top 100 and call it a day? Not a chance IMO . If they can't get what they're looking for, they'll wait and hope he regains value in 2017.

Nationals actually want both of them badly. It sounds like Gioloto and Robles are both headed to the White Sox for Sale which is a significant haul. Unless the Nationals can somehow land Sale without dealing Robles I don't think there is enough left in the farm to still land McCutcheon after that. I'm sure they won't deal Turner.

Volquez had a very nice 2015 though, so it's easier to look at his 2016 as an aberration, Garza is now coming off of an okay year following a terrible year. I am not saying Garza couldn't possibly get 2/22 in this market, I'm just saying he has relatively no trade value.

Rich Hill got 48M because he's coming off an extremely good season, Garza is not. Career numbers matter but with the career projectory of these two, it's much more about 'What have you done for me lately?' The concerns about his age, health and career workload are certainly legitimate and I would bet it's much more likely than not that the Dodgers end up regretting this deal.

I'll be disappointed if Braun isn't dealt this offseason, but the last thing Stearns should do is appear eager to do so. Let the market come to him, and if there isn't strong enough of one, so be it. But even if everything appears quiet on Braun at the winter meetings, that doesn't mean something won't get done before spring training. I know Braun would rather know sooner than later where or if he is going anywhere but it'd a fluid situation for him right now and that's the reality of it at least until he has 10/5 rights.

I saw most of these but I hadn't seen it reported anywhere that the Dodgers never had an interest it in Braun.

Seems like a plausible scenario to me, but indications were that they preferred Villar at 2nd going forward and didn't see him as a 3rd baseman. I prefer Villar at 2nd myself and feel he could develop into at least an average defender there while also having his bat play better there.

Yep, you said it better than me in a lot less words.

Not really sure why you felt that the snide, sarcastic response was necessary. The point I was making, the only point, was to illustrate that most starters can look pretty good if you take a favorable sample, not to mention pulling an even more favorable sample from that first sample. Chase Anderson had zero to do with it other than simply being used as Exhibit A to illustrate my original point. I never was saying 'Chase Anderson is better than Matt Garza because of sample X.' You have to take the bad with the good in determining trade value, and Garza's good stretch over the end of 2016 and career track record isn't enough to overcome his overall struggles the last 2 years, his recent injuries, and his relatively expensive 2017 salary in making him an asset that a team would be willing to give up anything of real value for.

With the Dodgers likely to lose Kelley Jansen, I can't help but wonder if they would be interested in a Braun/Thornburg blockbuster now rather than just Braun. Thornburg is a great fit for LA if they lose Jansen as he can slide right into the pen and replace Jansen, and his salary isn't an issue. If the Nationals manage to land both Sale and McCutchen as speculated, the Dodgers may start feeling some serious pressure to make a move to stay relevant in the NL. This would be that move. Obviously at this point, to deal both, we need a significant return that likely needs to include all of Puig, Bellinger, and DeLeon.

Agree with HighHeat. I wouldn't mind him, but I wouldn't part with anything in our top 10. Some excess OF prospect, like the aforementioned or maybe Cordell or Tyrone Taylor would be okay.

I couldn't agree more. I think we all agree he's an elite player even with just the HOF players. Even if he's a 9 WAR the cost, both in terms of prospects/vets and financial, is insanely absurd that it doesn't even make sense to do it. Between Braun, Villar, Thornburg + Arcia, Brinson, Diaz (not to mention Ray, Phillips, Erceg, Clark, Nottingham given they're AL) + Hader, Ortiz, Bickford, Woodruff. The Brewers absolutely have enough talent to land Trout. Doesn't make sense to do so (not that people are saying it does but...) It depends what your existing supporting cast and financial flexibility is though, too. I agree it doesn't make any sense for us to do so. The one team I could possibly see it making sense for is the Yankees. They have a top tier farm and therefore have the pieces to pull it off, but they also have a good enough existing team to contend, not to mention plenty of financial flexibility to not only acquire Trout, but keep him in town. A player like Trout could push them over the top and make them WS favorites.

Why do you say that? The changes on the International signing where essentially small markets can spend 10mil. Vs. a Big Market 8.3mil. Luxury tax penalties? Confusing but seems pretty painful to exceed multiple seasons. Would put big markets most likely to keep payrolls towards the max and not go over. You get a 1st pick+500k international spend bonus, or a 2nd pick+1mil international bonus. How that's decided I wouldn't know but no more lotteries where St Louis gets a 1st round comp and the Brewers get nothing in unfortunate years. The QO penalties award small markets over big markets. Truthfully, this seems to me to restrict big markets quite massively. And the Players, I'm not sure why they'd want to hurt their earning potential so much. How likely is it Bryce Harper will get 10/500 in free agency if the big market team leaves 150mil roughly left to spend on the team? I guess if teams like New York are going from making 500million profit to 725million profit with these restrictions they aren't going to concern 100million in tax penalties if they decide to grow to 300million payroll. Returning them back to a 500million profit. The international part is really hurting. Hard Capped at 4.75mil for 20teams and the other 10, unsure again how determined if receive 1/500 or 2/1mil. If you split it adds 7.5mil. Means 102.5million hard capped. The Padres as that article states paid 80million this period alone in 40+40tax on the last signing period....you know supposedly the tax that induces MLB international funding to promote and develop in that area more... Now how does that money come to this supposed prior penalty receiver? KC not liking new CBA..... switching strategy- trading off starters- rebuild underway. The Royals not liking the new CBA is one man's Twitter opinion...here is another opinion of the exact opposite. http://kingsofkauffman.com/2016/11/30/kc-royals-new-cba-good-for-the-royals/ The Royals may rebuild but IMO it has a lot more to do with their current situation than the new CBA.

I think the way this conversation is unfolding is kind of illustrating the point that there just isn't an offer out there good enough for Trout. This is the dilemma for the Angels. They can't get fair value for Trout, he's just too valuable. In any case of them trading him they'd want a boatload of prospects. Most teams do not even have a good enough farm system to even pursue him. On the other hand, they're not winning right now with him, so it doesn't really pay to even have a Trout talent on the roster if you'll never win with him.

I could be mistaken on this, but my interpretation of it from looking at that link is that the 'non-guarantee' only applies when a player is actually awarded salary in arbitration. Scooter signed even before the non-tender deadline, it's not an arbitration contract, so I would think his contract is already guaranteed.

Seems like a lot of the arby eligible guys so far have signed for less than expected. With borderline non-tender candidates, clubs do have some leverage before the non-tender deadline. My guess is that the Brewers told Scooter this was their best offer for him and he could either take it or be non-tendered, and Scooter, not wanting to risk throwing away a 500% raise betting on his limited skillset in free agency, wisely took the money.

Any chance he bumped out the Dodgers just for his own leverage since he knows that's his most likely destination? I doubt it, but he could leverage that to his own advantage to waive it if he wanted to. Something like demanding that his 2021 club option be converted to a player option.

I would guess Gennett would fit in as a platoon 2nd baseman on a team with a sharp fielding RHB 2nd baseman who struggles against RHP, but I admittedly have no idea who that would be or if said player even exists out there. Gennett's lack of versatility really hamstrings our ability to trade him. Off the bench he's nothing more than a serviceable pinch hitter against RHP. If he were marketable as a utility infielder or at least an elite defensive 2B, he'd probably draw a lot more interest.

So Villar, Arcia, Hader, Nelson, Lopez, Thornburg, and a competitive balance pick for Trout. Gotta say, I still don't think that's enough.

I'm all about Susac getting most of the starts in 2017. There isn't a better year to audition him.

Completely disagree. He was injured in 2015 and ended up being shut down the final 5wks. He had 26 starts with his final 4 being awful before being shut down, most likely due to injury. The first 22 he had a 4.8 ERA. Additionally, outside of one of those 22 starts (10ER) he posted a 4.24 ERA. His overall ERA needs some context. 2016 he missed a lot of time with that spring injury and his final 11 starts (of his 19 overall) he posted numbers in line with his entire career. 9 of those starts he had a 2.65 ERA. Without looking it up, I'll bet I can make any regular starter on our team last year look great if I cherry pick the best 9 starts over an 11 start stretch . EDIT: Ok, I looked one up just for fun. Chase Anderson had a 2.96 ERA in his last 11 starts. 2.37 if you just take his best 9 of those.