Chris Archer

[trwi7]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

 

Prospect hugging...brewerfan members are experts at it.

 

Crazy how some see the value of having good, young players making next to nothing for multiple years.

[bill hAll Star]

Prospects can be overrated a lot. I think the Yelich trade may be close to a win 5 years from now.

 

However, if you’re a small market, saying that about every possible trade will be a losing effort over the years.

[homer]

If you can't be civil post on another board. Also, try the ignore feature if someone bothers you.

[superfly]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

 

Prospect hugging...brewerfan members are experts at it.

 

Crazy how some see the value of having good, young players making next to nothing for multiple years.

 

It is crazy. Short of obtaining an in his prime Miguel Cabrera or Clayton Kershaw it's never a good deal to trade them.

 

I don't want us to give our lives away but if it's within reason I am dealing either Burnes or Woodruff for Archer. The Brewers have an atrocious record of developing pitching throughout the franchise's history and while I'd like to think Stearns and company will turn that track record around, i'd err on the side of caution.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Building a mlb roster never should be done by completely ruling out ways to improve it, regardless of market size.

 

If people don't see archer as a top tier starter that should seriously be looked at by the brewers via trade, then it's obvious whatever path their life has led them down besides being a mlb gm was an improvement. He would easily be their best starter even with a healthy nelson in the fold. That said, archer isn't a pitcher that Stearns should just cut a blank check of prospects to tampa for, particularly when he could be even more available via trade at this year's deadline or next offseason...the brewers are far from paInted into a corner here.

[brewcrewdue80]

I like Burnes as much as the next guy but he's not an ace. His safe bet is a #3 starter who eats innings with the potential to, perhaps, someday be a #2 starter. Yeah, he's likely a safe prospect but he's still that...a prospect. Plus, I don't think you guys really have to worry about losing him due to HH19 saying that once the Rays added Burnes to the conversation, DS backed off.

 

Here's the question...would you rather the package be Santana, Burnes and A ball fliers or Santana, Ortiz, and top 30 depth (think guys like Ponce, Erceg, Pennington, Peralta, etc)? Because, if you remove Burnes, you're stuck giving up more on the back end of the trade. I think I'd rather have more chances at hitting on depth than I would worrying about losing one guy. Especially considering Burnes' ceiling isn't a TOR type ceiling.

 

Here's the thing, all Burnes has done is perform to an "Ace" level. Hendriks for the Cubs was never supposed to be a #3 much less Cy Young a cpl years back.

 

Guys with Ace ceilings are pitching in a bullpen for Arizona who never produced to where Burnes is.

 

The thought process of the Pitching coach improving Archer yet, it would seem that doesnt include an ability to improve Burnes from being just a #3? Or how about Woodruff rising to a #3? (if not better stats imo)

 

Im amazed honestly that Archer is 29. What is Arrieta? 30? The decline happened and will continue with him. Archer whos declined in impactful stats, now enters the age Arrieta's decline began.

My complaint with Archer now adds age. This isnt a Yelich addition in the begginging of prime age who's ceiling is yet to be determined. But 29yr old Archer who typically would have reached his ceiling and crested that at this stage...which maybe thats why a few concerning impactful stats are declining.

[danzig6767]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

If Archer keeps serving up homers as he has the last two years, 57 combined, he is being overrated as an ace.

 

The strikeout numbers are nice, but back to back 4 ERA seasons isn't top of the rotation production. Gutting our farm system to get Zach Davies like results would suck.

 

Maybe Archer can get over his gohper ball issues and get back to the low 3 ERA pitcher he once was, but maybe he won't.

[brewmann04]

I just don't ant to see the Brewers trading young pitchers at this point. Yes I want them to add an arm but not at the cost of losing any of our top 3 arms

[beekay414]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

 

...and some of "y'all" are massively overrating Archer.

 

Not a chance. 4 years, $33.7 Million for a bonafide workhorse and all its going to cost is a surplus OF who can't field and a MOR prospect with fliers? Yeah, we can play the what if game all day but the one thing you can't deny is Archer is always on the mound.

[beekay414]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

 

Prospect hugging...brewerfan members are experts at it.

 

Crazy how some see the value of having good, young players making next to nothing for multiple years.

 

Crazy how some value true MLB production for next to nothing. For what he produces, Archer makes peanuts.

[beekay414]

Building a mlb roster never should be done by completely ruling out ways to improve it, regardless of market size.

 

If people don't see archer as a top tier starter that should seriously be looked at by the brewers via trade, then it's obvious whatever path their life has led them down besides being a mlb gm was an improvement. He would easily be their best starter even with a healthy nelson in the fold. That said, archer isn't a pitcher that Stearns should just cut a blank check of prospects to tampa for, particularly when he could be even more available via trade at this year's deadline or next offseason...the brewers are far from paInted into a corner here.

 

In a way, I agree. You don't offer a blank check for him but you don't let Corbin Burnes hold you back from acquiring him either.

[beekay414]

I like Burnes as much as the next guy but he's not an ace. His safe bet is a #3 starter who eats innings with the potential to, perhaps, someday be a #2 starter. Yeah, he's likely a safe prospect but he's still that...a prospect. Plus, I don't think you guys really have to worry about losing him due to HH19 saying that once the Rays added Burnes to the conversation, DS backed off.

 

Here's the question...would you rather the package be Santana, Burnes and A ball fliers or Santana, Ortiz, and top 30 depth (think guys like Ponce, Erceg, Pennington, Peralta, etc)? Because, if you remove Burnes, you're stuck giving up more on the back end of the trade. I think I'd rather have more chances at hitting on depth than I would worrying about losing one guy. Especially considering Burnes' ceiling isn't a TOR type ceiling.

 

Here's the thing, all Burnes has done is perform to an "Ace" level. Hendriks for the Cubs was never supposed to be a #3 much less Cy Young a cpl years back.

 

Guys with Ace ceilings are pitching in a bullpen for Arizona who never produced to where Burnes is.

 

The thought process of the Pitching coach improving Archer yet, it would seem that doesnt include an ability to improve Burnes from being just a #3? Or how about Woodruff rising to a #3? (if not better stats imo)

 

Im amazed honestly that Archer is 29. What is Arrieta? 30? The decline happened and will continue with him. Archer whos declined in impactful stats, now enters the age Arrieta's decline began.

My complaint with Archer now adds age. This isnt a Yelich addition in the begginging of prime age who's ceiling is yet to be determined. But 29yr old Archer who typically would have reached his ceiling and crested that at this stage...which maybe thats why a few concerning impactful stats are declining.

 

Burnes was an advanced college pitcher. He should produce the way he has against lesser competition. Still doesn't change what his MLB ceiling is.

[beekay414]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

If Archer keeps serving up homers as he has the last two years, 57 combined, he is being overrated as an ace.

 

The strikeout numbers are nice, but back to back 4 ERA seasons isn't top of the rotation production. Gutting our farm system to get Zach Davies like results would suck.

 

Maybe Archer can get over his gohper ball issues and get back to the low 3 ERA pitcher he once was, but maybe he won't.

 

1) Quit using ERA to judge pitching.

2) 39 of the 57 were solo shots so they were minimized in impact. You can interpret HR rate however you want but there are a variety of factors that lead to it.

3) Both Darvish and Arrieta posted similar HR/9 rates as Archer. It's the nature of the beast with modern MLB hitting approaches. You're going to give up long balls. It's how you minimize the rest of the game that matters.

4) Archer was better than both Darvish and Arrieta this last season.

[beekay414]

I mean, Archer has posted a 13.0 fWAR over the last 3 seasons, which would put him at #8 in baseball over that span, and hes making, on average, less than $9 Million per season through the next 4 years of his contract. Saying you wouldn't trade Corbin Burnes or Brandon Woodruff for that type of production is just lunacy.

[paul253]

I think the biggest issue is that as a small market team if we are to trade away quality pitching prospects we HAVE to get it right We can’t cover up mistakes with expensive free agents like other teams can. We have to develop our own talent so we can spend our limited resources to fill areas of weakness. I have no idea how good a Burnes or an Ortiz will be but just having them fill out the rotation at minimum cost is a huge value to us. That’s not to say we should never trade away a pitching prospect. I was all for moving some to get Sonny Gray last season. But we have to be careful about it. And we can’t reach for MLB pitchers like some think we would be doing with Archer and some thought we’d be doing with Gray. We should definitely inquire about Archer as he would be a huge upgrade over what we have. But we have to ask ourselves if the return is worth the cost. I think many of us would be more willing to do it if the prospects that were traded were position players but obviously TB will want some pitching in return.

 

I honestly don’t think I’d include two of Burnes Ortiz and Woodruff, not necessarily because I think they’ll all be aces but because as a small market team it’s almost a necessity to have home grown starting pitching and they all seem capable of at least being #3 type guys. That’s very valuable to us.

[trwi7]

I mean, Archer has posted a 13.0 fWAR over the last 3 seasons, which would put him at #8 in baseball over that span, and hes making, on average, less than $9 Million per season through the next 4 years of his contract. Saying you wouldn't trade Corbin Burnes or Brandon Woodruff for that type of production is just lunacy.

 

The thing about that 13 fWAR is it's based on FIP, which is obviously going to make Archer look really good because of the high strikeout and low walk rates. The problem is he gives up a lot of hard contact, so when hitters do actually hit him, it's a lot harder for the defense to actually make a play and convert it into an out. Over the last three years he's 5th out of 110 qualified starters in percentage of hard contact Compare that to 42nd out of 110 in hard contact rate from 2012-14. That's still in the bottom half but at least you could manage that with the strikeouts he was able to get. That's not going to be calculated in FIP. His soft contact rate dropped to a career low 13.9% in 2017.

 

So his FIP is going to be excellent which means his WAR is going to be excellent which makes him look like an ace or at the very least an extremely valuable, high quality #2 starter on a great contract. The problem is he hasn't pitched like that the last two years. So the question is, do you want to pay the price of an ace/high quality #2 starter and hope he gets back to actually pitching like that or are you wary that the guy the past two years is the new Archer and while still valuable, is not going to be worth the insane price tag that Tampa is likely going to put on him?

[danzig6767]

 

Not a chance. 4 years, $33.7 Million for a bonafide workhorse and all its going to cost is a surplus OF who can't field and a MOR prospect with fliers?

This is an assumption by you that Tampa would only ask for this.

 

They very well could have little or no interest in Santana, but instead just want 3-4 of our better prospects. Or expect Santana/Burnes/Woodruff and another talent.

 

Until a trade actually happens, it's really hard to say pro or con. The exact details are what matters.

[TJseven7]

If we are adding 2 arms and 1 is Archer:

Santana woodruff ray ortiz dubon is a load... im not adding Burnes Huira Lutz Erceg Phillips or Peralta to anything. I'd rather add more than up it to burnes. He's a starter. There isnt much doubt that he'll at least be a solid starter.

[beekay414]

I mean, Archer has posted a 13.0 fWAR over the last 3 seasons, which would put him at #8 in baseball over that span, and hes making, on average, less than $9 Million per season through the next 4 years of his contract. Saying you wouldn't trade Corbin Burnes or Brandon Woodruff for that type of production is just lunacy.

 

The thing about that 13 fWAR is it's based on FIP, which is obviously going to make Archer look really good because of the high strikeout and low walk rates. The problem is he gives up a lot of hard contact, so when hitters do actually hit him, it's a lot harder for the defense to actually make a play and convert it into an out. Over the last three years he's 5th out of 110 qualified starters in percentage of hard contact Compare that to 42nd out of 110 in hard contact rate from 2012-14. That's still in the bottom half but at least you could manage that with the strikeouts he was able to get. That's not going to be calculated in FIP. His soft contact rate dropped to a career low 13.9% in 2017.

 

So his FIP is going to be excellent which means his WAR is going to be excellent which makes him look like an ace or at the very least an extremely valuable, high quality #2 starter on a great contract. The problem is he hasn't pitched like that the last two years. So the question is, do you want to pay the price of an ace/high quality #2 starter and hope he gets back to actually pitching like that or are you wary that the guy the past two years is the new Archer and while still valuable, is not going to be worth the insane price tag that Tampa is likely going to put on him?

 

That's the thing...we're not paying the price for an ace. Santana and Burnes doesn't get you an ace. We're paying for that high quality cheap starter with swing and miss stuff.

 

Also, you have to equate for changing leagues. Going from the AL to the NL isn't anything to write off. He won't be pitching against the AL East offenses anymore.

[beekay414]

 

Not a chance. 4 years, $33.7 Million for a bonafide workhorse and all its going to cost is a surplus OF who can't field and a MOR prospect with fliers?

This is an assumption by you that Tampa would only ask for this.

 

They very well could have little or no interest in Santana, but instead just want 3-4 of our better prospects. Or expect Santana/Burnes/Woodruff and another talent.

 

Until a trade actually happens, it's really hard to say pro or con. The exact details are what matters.

 

I still don't lose sleep over that deal.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Well, this seems to throw a little water on the fire:

 

@Ken_Rosenthal

Sources: #Brewers, casting wide net for SP, have had recent contact with #Rays on Archer. Deal would appear unlikely. TB might not view Santana or Phillips as enough of a centerpiece for a controllable ace. MIL might not want to cut deeper into its farm system after Yelich trade.

 

Cool to see that Rosenthal calls Archer an ace, though. That stands in stark contrast to a few arguments here.

[Mr Southpaw]

Some of y'all are massively overrating Burnes.

 

...and some of "y'all" are massively overrating Archer.

 

Not a chance. 4 years, $33.7 Million for a bonafide workhorse and all its going to cost is a surplus OF who can't field and a MOR prospect with fliers? Yeah, we can play the what if game all day but the one thing you can't deny is Archer is always on the mound.

 

Bonifide workhouse = 2-4 starter, not top of the rotation. He has a nice price, but I don't see top of the rotation.

[Mr Southpaw]

I mean, Archer has posted a 13.0 fWAR over the last 3 seasons, which would put him at #8 in baseball over that span, and hes making, on average, less than $9 Million per season through the next 4 years of his contract. Saying you wouldn't trade Corbin Burnes or Brandon Woodruff for that type of production is just lunacy.

 

Send me to the Nut House.

[Devinep]

Well, this seems to throw a little water on the fire:

 

@Ken_Rosenthal

Sources: #Brewers, casting wide net for SP, have had recent contact with #Rays on Archer. Deal would appear unlikely. TB might not view Santana or Phillips as enough of a centerpiece for a controllable ace. MIL might not want to cut deeper into its farm system after Yelich trade.

 

Cool to see that Rosenthal calls Archer an ace, though. That stands in stark contrast to a few arguments here.

 

well if Rosenthal that said it, then it must be right

[Mr Southpaw]

Well, this seems to throw a little water on the fire:

 

@Ken_Rosenthal

Sources: #Brewers, casting wide net for SP, have had recent contact with #Rays on Archer. Deal would appear unlikely. TB might not view Santana or Phillips as enough of a centerpiece for a controllable ace. MIL might not want to cut deeper into its farm system after Yelich trade.

 

Cool to see that Rosenthal calls Archer an ace, though. That stands in stark contrast to a few arguments here.

 

I read that as Rosenthal saying TB views Archer as a controllable ace and Santana or Phillips are not enough of a centerpiece.