adambr2

The idea of the Brewers resigning him doesn't add to his value or not make him a rental. Sure, they could sign him, but every other team would have the same opportunity. If they deal for him, it has to be with the idea that it is for the rest of this season and that's it. This is all true, but there is something to be said for the current team possibly having an advantage in some cases. I doubt Moose is here now if we don't trade for him. Smith always struck me as someone who liked being here.

The feeling is getting to be mutual for many, I'm sure.

I think the soft rebuild is a pretty reasonable idea. Sell off your rentals, and you've got a big weapon coming back in 2020 in Knebel, presumably. If you go that route, I think you stretch Burnes out, stick him in the MLB rotation, and stick with him there for 2019 no matter what happens. I'm less sold on Peralta and Houser. I think these are pen guys who are going to be more successful in that role. I wouldn't trade Davies unless you're blown away. I'm really not that high on him, but I can't deny he's been effective, and we're not really in a position to trade away effective starters right now. I don't know what you can expect from Jimmy Nelson. I think you have to go into 2020 expecting nothing from him, perhaps even being non-tendered, sadly. But, assuming you can get Burnes turned around (he's too promising not to at some point, hopefully), you're relatively set at 4 rotation spots with Woodruff, Davies, Burnes and Anderson. I would be fine with some combination of Gio and maybe even Suter the rest of the year, then you probably look to upgrade one spot in the offseason.

Wilson isn't on the 40, so Williams or Barnes.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/ I guess these guys are ignorant and flat out wrong too, since they peg both Chacin and Albers at a value of -0.6 each, or in other words, worth less than nothing. This isn't a really good comparison. You're talking about a trade vs. a waiver claim. I don't think you'd get more than potato chips for Chacin. But cutting him loose and only giving up a pretty small pile of cash, someone's going to do it. But that aside low trade value != worthless. I mean the reason some guys have negative value is because they're considered to be worth less than your contract. So by definition a waiver claim on a negative value player would be considered to be a bad deal by the site. I'm not saying that its gospel and I'm not saying he definitely wouldn't be claimed. I'm just supporting the points that I made that were pretty thoroughly blasted.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/ I guess these guys are ignorant and flat out wrong too, since they peg both Chacin and Albers at a value of -0.6 each, or in other words, worth less than nothing.

LOL ... watch them go on a run now. I hope they go on a run one way or another. I'd rather win, but I don't want to stand pat either.

Alright fellas, that wraps up the easy stretch of our schedule. 16 of the next 19 against winning teams. Good times.

He can’t hurt it, that much seems clear. I hear ya’, but that is not much of a marketing slogan. Well, "Maybe the rest of the division will continue to stink", has been our rallying cry for hanging onto hope the last month.

I can't believe that anyone can watch this team and say "Yeah, just a decent arm or two here and we'll turn this right around." This team is in trouble. Roster management has stunk, they aren't getting lucky, I suspect the coaching is poor, and they've been getting their lunch handed to them for 6 weeks now from the worst teams in the league. It's entirely possible that last year was an aberration. If you had to bet your house, would anyone really take the over on 84 wins right now?

That would be a highlight reel play in a game that mattered.

Ok, let's talk it out as a real life scenario. We place Chacin on waivers. Any team claiming Jhoulys Chacin owes him over $3.25M for the rest of 2019. Chacin has a FIP near 6 and an ERA of 5.18, and a WHIP of 1.50 for the season. Which contender is making that claim and picking up that tab? The sellers aren't going to, because that's just a waste of their money. Contenders are likely in the market for better options than that. Who is paying $3.25M for a 2 and a half month rental of that? Every team in baseball isn't going to make a decision based on his 2019 stats. A team for whom $3 million is peanuts is going to see a chance to make a claim and give up nothing for a guy who at times has been a pretty good SP and has playoff experience. I can't believe you're that serious about this. There is not a chance he'd clear waivers. I get everyone is upset how the season is going, but come on. Really no need to condescend, I think you guys are overvaluing Chacin pretty significantly. He's not on the level of guys like Gio or Hamels that contenders could really hope for a rebound to an extremely high level of play, in my opinion, that make him a sure pickup. Straight pickups off waivers are rare. Usually if a team does claim, they work something out to pick up some salary relief while sending the other something in return. We don't have to agree, and that's ok. If we continue to falter we will probably find out soon enough exactly what he's worth.

Ok, let's talk it out as a real life scenario. We place Chacin on waivers. Any team claiming Jhoulys Chacin owes him over $3.25M for the rest of 2019. Chacin has a FIP near 6 and an ERA of 5.18, and a WHIP of 1.50 for the season. Which contender is making that claim and picking up that tab? The sellers aren't going to, because that's just a waste of their money. Contenders are likely in the market for better options than that. Who is paying $3.25M for a 2 and a half month rental of that?

If Chacin continues to pitch like he has the last 3-4 times out, he will have a solid amount of value at the deadline. Albers is obviously hit and miss, but if he goes on another run of good outings, his contract is cheap enough that he will have value as well. Telling you to get a clue was definitely wrong. But I think in this case, saying those pitchers have no value is wrong as well. And Bailey was dealt for a former 1st rounder and that A's 17th ranked prospect. That isn't middling. I am amazed they got that for Bailey, even though it still isn't much in terms of top organizational talent. Middling, was probably the wrong word. I stand by Albers and Chacin bringing back essentially nothing. 5 ERA starter/reliever rentals do not have a big market for buyers. In Albers' case he's already coming off a poor year and hurt by that. Chacin has a not particularly cheap salary, if you're getting back anything you're also dumping salary. If you were a buyer, especially knowing we have to take on salary too, would you give up anything of real value for these guys? Do the 2019 versions of Jhoulys Chacin and Matt Albers make any contender better? I never said if we dumped them that they wouldn't get new teams so I don't know why he went spewing on about that, although frankly, they both would have a chance to clear waivers because of their salaries. Hernan Perez cleared, I wonder who would have called him worthless a month ago? My point was never that they couldn't be dumped but they'll bring back total nothing burgers in terms of value and therefore shouldn't be lumped in with names like Grandal or Moustakas, that's all I was saying.

Chacin is worth nothing. Albers is worth nothing. If you were a buyer, would you want them? Homer Bailey!!! Was traded today. Get a clue For a very middling prospect, and they were able to get that because Bailey is essentially owed no money this year. I didn't say Chacin and Albers weren't tradeable. I said they were worth nothing. In regards to surplus value, they aren't. Maybe you can get a salary dump, or you'll eat some salary and get an organizational depth type. (I.e, nothing). Don't ever tell me to get a clue again.

Chacin is worth nothing. Albers is worth nothing. If you were a buyer, would you want them?

Says the guy who continues to insist he'll be in the September playoff rotation. It is Burnes' fault. He's paid to get outs. He isn't doing it. It can certainly be argued that management isn't putting him in a spot to succeed, but excluding him from all blame is a clear cop out. Actually, I’ve been saying he should’ve been in AAA for more than a month, working on his pitches, starting. So earlier this season when Burnes stunk, you said, don't demote him, just use him in hugh leverage. So he'd come into a game, get shelled, and you would say he can't be held responsible, he's a high leverage guy. Now that you've been saying he should be starting in AAA, he pitches in a high leverage situation today, but again, apparantly can't be held responsible because you said he should have been sent down before. Let us know when Corbin Burnes can actually be held responsible for a bad Corbin Burnes pitching performance.

We seem to be the only team in baseball whose pitching staff cowers in fear when they see "San Francisco Giants" on the opposing jerseys.

Dude, give me a break. You were the same one saying earlier this year when Burnes struggled that he didn't need to go down, that he could work through it up here as a high leverage reliever. It is 100% his fault he isn't getting it done. Stop making excuses for him, he stinks this year, period. That's it.

I don't think that was much of an "almost". He was a dead duck. Bad send. I don't know. I got no problem sending a guy with 2 outs like that. If the throw isn't on the money he scores.

I can't believe he almost scored from 1st on that.

Aguilar too. And Shaw.

Way too much good happening that inning to only get one run. Disappointing.

Yelich. Come on budd. Terrible baserunning. Well, at least we scored.

I think the point was that he's not nearly a top 20% outfielder. He's been solid, worth putting on the field, and not a liability, but he's not a top 20% OF'er, and whether or not the money is already spent, really not worth his contract (as guys over 35 almost never are). It's valid to point out that his production (while solid) doesn't match his pay. The Brewers are in a position, and probably always will be where they shouldn't be paying guys in their late 30's this kind of money. Given the contracts players are getting these days, if you aren’t willing to pay players some big money in their mid to late 30’s you probably aren’t going to have them in their prime years. Like it or not you have to look at much of that money as deferred payment for earlier production. The problem with this argument here is that it didn't apply to Braun's situation at all. He was already under contract through his age 31 season before the 5 year extension was given. He was extended in 2011 for 2016-2020 and was already under contract through 2015 at the time.