rluzinski

Except of course Cameron was worth $18.4m last year while Cabrera was worth $0 according to fangraphs. Those are not projections, though. Cameron does not project to be as good as his 2008 numbers. Offense: 2008: .243/.331/.477/.809 209' Marcel: .243/.328/.436/.765 Defense (UZR): 2008: 9.7 runs 3 year average: 2.7 runs (and he's getting old) Offensively, he's basically projected to repeat his 2007 numbers, so using fangragh values: 10.1 offense +2.7 defense +16.9 replacement level +1.9 positional adjustment = 31.6 runs = 3.2 wins = $14.1 mil (using 2008 $/win) That's about $ 4 mil higher than the projection I saw at insidethebook.com (IIRC). I'd be happy to call him $2 mil more valuable than his current salary. Melky projects to be about 5 runs better offensively in 2009 but his defense is a big question mark. If he is even an average defender, he'd probably have a little positive value in 2009, making a straight up trade pretty even overall (Cabrera isn't a free agent for 3 years, correct?). It would probably make the Brewers a little worse in 2009, though. Giving the Yankees any money in the trade makes it a worthless trade though, IMO.

I wish we had an idea what he wants per year. If we are talking 2/$12, great. 2/$18.... no thanks. I starting pitcher is much more valuable than a closer.

Otherwise, for a team with deep pockets, e.g. Red Sox or Yankees, the "wins per dollar" is somewhat of a secondary consideration behind straight up "wins". The Cameron deal was nixed because the Yankees wanted money in return, so money is clearly a consideration for every team, including the biggest spender of them all. If that wasn't the case, teams would not be spending big money on free agents because (theoretically, given a totally efficient market) the players would not be outperforming their free-agent salaries. The Yankees would have to may market value for Cameron AND give up a player with a positive value. That's paying above the going rate for wins. The only players with trade value would be guys who have not yet hit free-agency. To wit, Manny Parra is almost certainly going to outperform his salary, but good luck trying to trade him straight up for Mark Teixeira, Johan Santana, or ARod--three players who are, arguably, less likely to be worth more than their salary. There are plenty of players who are signed to a contract that don't match up with their projected output. Player projections change all the time. And I realize that certain players may be more valuable to some teams than others for various reasons (1 win is worth more to team A than team B, a player may represent a larger upgrade over the alternative for a team, etc...). Finally, MLB aren't buying cars. They are buying a finite resource, so things are certainly more complicated as a result. Generally speaking, though, every team is trying to buy wins and every team has a certain budget. They are going to buy those wins as cheaply as possible. To buy cameron in a trade, they will have to pay an above market price. That doesn't make him untradable but it certainly limits Melvin's trade possibilities.

If we simply split Hart's 2007 and 2008 season and as a rough projection for 2009, he's worth 3 wins over replacement, according to Fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/...erid=1945&position=OF He's also just now entering his prime, turning 27 this year. In contrast, Manny has averaged 3.8 WAR over the last 3 seasons and is going to turn 37 next year. Manny is still the superior hitter but his defense really cuts into his overall value. When you also consider their relative age's, there just isn't much difference between the two, IMO The Brewer's outfield is for 2009 is the strength of this team. I don't get why some people are so quick to want to change that. If pitchers found a big hole in his [Hart's] swing that he can't close, he might not be nearly as good as most are projecting. So, after hundreds of minor league AB and 1200 major league AB, the entire league found some way to pitch to Hart to make him into a bad hitter overnight? What exactly did they change that could have caused such a drastic change? I just don't think it works that way.

I still believe that Sheets is still injured. You mean, he couldn't start the season right now? Isn't that a given? I assumed his injury would take some time to be 100%.

3.6 ERA @ 160 IP = $15 mil Rough numbers, of course, but that's around what we would have expected Sheets to get if the 09 off season market, had it followed recent trend. Now, I can buy that the current free agent market has experienced a down turn but it's not by 50%. Teams may not be offering as long of deals as they may have been a year ago but the per year salaries don't appear to be that off.

An often injured pitcher isn't anymore a financial risk than any other pitcher if his projected IP is reflected in his salary. I'm beating a dead horse at this point but I don't think some people can wrap their head around that fact, yet. No team is going to pay Sheets a salary that presumes he'll log 200 innings next year. On the other hand, I think Johnbriggs is wrong in assuming he'll be paid something like $7 mil next year.

Replacement level is a slippery number but most peg it at about 50 wins for a team. That means that a league average player is worth about 2 wins over a replacement level player. Since teams pay around $5 mil per win, Weeks is very valuable at his current salary. I don't think he's average defensively (his troubles with turning the DP hurts him) but he projects to be an above average hitter for his position. And this idea that average = bad and is easily replaceable mistifies me. The definition of average could not be more clear. The fact that teams pay $9 - $10 mil for a league average player should tell you all you need to know. Take a league average team, add 10 wins and you make the playoffs.

Using Lowe's Marcel projection (3.65 ERA for 185 IP), he's about 38 runs better than a replacement level pitcher (~5.5 ERA). Using 10.5 runs/win and $4.8 mil/win above replacement, that makes him worth $17.4 mil next year. So 3/$50 gets the yearly salary about right. It doesn't really adjust for the risk associated with signing a 35 year old to a 3 year deal, however (even a historically healthy one). I'd rather give him 2/$38 than 3/$50.

The Red Sox could easily extend Hardy right away, so I don't think the contract situations are as big a deal to them as to many other teams. If they extend Hardy, they'll have to pay him market value. He's worth a lot in a trade because his projected performance is worth significantly more than what he's going to get paid over the next 2 two years. We are talking maybe $30 mil more. In contrast, Cameron is going to get paid about what he's projected to be worth. If he's going to be traded for someone, it may be for a marginal prospect or a player getting paid what he's worth as well.

For reference, as a reliever, Villy has had a 3.58 ERA over 155.2 IP. He's averaged about a strikeout an IP and a walk every 3 inning. He's given up 1.16 HR/9: http://www.baseball-refer...i?n1=villaca01#role-sprel

I think the Brewers need to add another reliever to be the closer but I don't think he has to have had prior closer experience. I don't see the value in paying for closer experience. If he's a talented pitcher, he'll be able to close.

If the Cubs signing Miles justifies yet another round of complaining about Brewer inactivity this off season, we are in for a great 3 months at BF.net.

I wouldn't trust any one metric from any one year, nor would I trust the opinion of just one scout. Taking all the information that we have about Hardy's defensive ability, it appears that he's at least an average SS. I'd be willing to wager that he's above average. As Hardy gets older and looses a step, that's going to be his natural position change anyway. Moving an above average defender to an easier position is a complete waste of his talents. Generally speaking, you do your best to play a positional player at the most difficult defensive position he can handle. Hardy probably won't even be a Brewer by the time his eroding defensive skills justify a positional change.

I agree with NDOG with regard to the chances of Sheets coming back. Bridges appear to have been burned. I still think someone will offer him a 2/$30 mil deal, if he wants it. He may roll the dice and take a 1 year deal, though.

I don't think a simple average is the best way to quantify it. And this isn't about finding excuses. It's about looking at average aging curves and realizing that the majority of the starting positional players are still on the upward slope of it. Just look at any decent projection system. It has those curves accounted for. If you think they don't apply to a specific player (like Fielder for instance), let's talk about that.

(Possibly meaning that he might miss some of 2009 on his current injury ... but he declined $12+ mil guaranteed in arbitration? I'll be happy to put a couple of bucks against that theory. I'll even give you 2:1 odds. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

No it's not a young team. It's a veteran team. Some of the veterans are still on the young side, but their still veterans. Young, veteran... label them any way you want. Each player is different of course but baseball players, on average, peak around 27-29. It seems like people are suggesting that if a guy comes up at age 20, he's probably already peaked by his 25th birthday. I don't think the data supports that. The Brewers have 5 positional players and 2/5th of their starting rotation that would be expected to improve with age. How many other teams have 5 guys in their starting lineup under 27?

and McClung's Bill James is 4.69 and Marcel is 4.35; certainly much better than the 5.5 replacement level. I think our rotation is closer to average than bad. Those projections are based on him mostly being a reliever. That makes a big difference. Sure but its not worth 10 million dollars. Cameron easily projects to be an average CFer next year. An average player is worth around $9-$10 mil, in free agency. Even if you could find this average starting pitcher to sign for a one year deal, if you replace Cameron with a below average CFer, you are mostly spinning your wheels anyway.

Let's try a quick and dirty estimate for the starting rotation next year: ZiPS Projections, 2009: Gallardo: 3.71 ERA Bush: 4.50 ERA Parra: 4.57 ERA Suppan: 5.04 ERA Let's assume that they all have 180 P next year. That covers 720 IP. The average NL team got 932 IP from their starters, so let's add 200 IP at replacement level (5.5 ERA). Brewer Ave: 4.79 ERA Compared to: NL 08' Ave: 4.47 ERA NL 07' Ave: 4.65 ERA NL 06' Ave: 4.66 ERA -------------------------- 4.59 ERA Not terrible but not good. Assuming that no one is added, My WAG is that the starting rotation is bad, the relief pitching a little below average and the offense above average. 78-80 wins?

Compare the negative run value of a strikeout and out in every base out situation: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html With a runner on 1st and no out, a K is preferred to a BIP out, for obvious reasons.

they just opened a bw3 on howell south of rawson in OC next to the woodmans. i would assume they would have plenty of games on. I tried to eat dinner there with the wife for last Thursday's game but it was insanely busy.

To me, that's the reason Sheets hasn't been rumored in deals...the injury is more serious than we know and my guess is he may not be ready for spring training. Can you honestly imagine a scenario where Sheets knows he has a chance of not being ready for spring training but would still decline arbitration?

Unless 1B opens up via a Fielder trade, I'd have no real interest in Dunn. Much of his offensive value is erased because of his terrible defense in the outfield. I've seen one estimate that says he's only worth about $10 mil/year because of it.

I think Sheets injuries may be more of a problem then we have been lead to believe. Sheets and his agents have all the medical information everyone else has. They still decided to decline arbitration.