Chris Archer

[Dadbauer]

Saying Archer is not an "ace" and merely "a 2" doesn't make me want him any less. How many aces are there at that point? Now how many could we actually get? I'm looking at this rotation, and sure Anderson and Nelson are 2s if they pitch anything like they did last year (spoiler alert, they haven't in past years). Realistically they are maybe 3s if they regress slightly? 4 if they return to what they were. Davies is a 3 or a 4, Chacin is a 4 or a 5. I don't know, but a 2 is looking real good right now.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Saying Archer is not an "ace" and merely "a 2" doesn't make me want him any less. How many aces are there at that point? Now how many could we actually get? I'm looking at this rotation, and sure Anderson and Nelson are 2s if they pitch anything like they did last year (spoiler alert, they haven't in past years). Realistically they are maybe 3s if they regress slightly? 4 if they return to what they were. Davies is a 3 or a 4, Chacin is a 4 or a 5. I don't know, but a 2 is looking real good right now.

 

There's the true question. Nearly everyone saying that Archer isn't an ace (arguable) or even a TOR starter (less arguable) has yet to come up with a pitcher that the team can feasible acquire that is a bonafide ace. Not "ace potential", these posters seem to want a bonafide, ready-made ace.

 

My argument would be that there are absolutely none available, and Archer is the closest you are going to get to one. Does that mean the team should give up a haul and "settle"? That's the argument. Is Archer going to provide enough of an upgrade over a guy like Woodruff? Does he match up better than Chase Anderson in an NLCS against Kershaw? I'd answer both those questions with an affirmative yes. Because not only does he slot in at the top of the rotation, he kicks your other quality pitchers – Anderson, Davies, Chacin and eventually Nelson – down a notch, giving them better matchups.

[splitterpfj]

I don’t see anything new in Rosenthal’s comment - the Brewers want Archer, but the Rays seem to want a package the Brewers would prefer not to give.

 

Isn’t that what HighHeat already said?

 

I don’t think the conversation is over at this point.

[3and2Fastball]

If we signed Arrieta and traded for Archer, does anyone doubt we'd then be a potential World Series team?

 

Arrieta

Archer

Nelson

Anderson

Chacin or Davies

 

Is one heckuva rotation

[superfly]

Saying Archer is not an "ace" and merely "a 2" doesn't make me want him any less. How many aces are there at that point? Now how many could we actually get? I'm looking at this rotation, and sure Anderson and Nelson are 2s if they pitch anything like they did last year (spoiler alert, they haven't in past years). Realistically they are maybe 3s if they regress slightly? 4 if they return to what they were. Davies is a 3 or a 4, Chacin is a 4 or a 5. I don't know, but a 2 is looking real good right now.

 

There's the true question. Nearly everyone saying that Archer isn't an ace (arguable) or even a TOR starter (less arguable) has yet to come up with a pitcher that the team can feasible acquire that is a bonafide ace. Not "ace potential", these posters seem to want a bonafide, ready-made ace.

 

My argument would be that there are absolutely none available, and Archer is the closest you are going to get to one. Does that mean the team should give up a haul and "settle"? That's the argument. Is Archer going to provide enough of an upgrade over a guy like Woodruff? Does he match up better than Chase Anderson in an NLCS against Kershaw? I'd answer both those questions with an affirmative yes. Because not only does he slot in at the top of the rotation, he kicks your other quality pitchers – Anderson, Davies, Chacin and eventually Nelson – down a notch, giving them better matchups.

 

The funny part is if Archer was a FA today he would be getting every single dime of what Arrieta is getting and probably more. Also would probably be getting as much as Darvish.

[StearnsFTW]

I've cooled on Archer significantly. I'd rather see what the youngsters have over this year and next.

 

I'd deal for him of course, cut only on my terms, which isn't going to get him here.

 

My offer would be Santana, Ortiz, one of Ray/Erceg, take it or leave it. And I'm assuming they'd leave it.

[splitterpfj]

The Brewers are trying to, “win now”, or, “win NOW!”

 

We’ll know which soon, they could get Darvish and Archer, Darvish or Archer, or neither.

 

My guess - TB’s not knocking Santana or Phillips - they just aren’t focusing on adding an outfielder, and would prefer multiple prospects. If this is true, Burnes or Huira would be gone, and possibly both.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I've cooled on Archer significantly. I'd rather see what the youngsters have over this year and next.

 

That is well and good, but every indication out there says the Brewers are going to acquire at least one more upper-end starter somehow. I don't think "stand pat" is even an option at this point. They are going to get at least one, if not two, and are going to pay a lot of money and/or prospect capital to do it.

 

It's just a matter of who, and at what price.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don’t see anything new in Rosenthal’s comment - the Brewers want Archer, but the Rays seem to want a package the Brewers would prefer not to give.

 

Isn’t that what HighHeat already said?

 

I don’t think the conversation is over at this point.

 

I think Rosenthal's comment confirms that HighHeat is on the money (again). I will admit I was skeptical of the inside info leading up to the Yelich deal, but I've been turned.

 

As for Rosenthal's tweet, you're probably right. He's just trying to start a conversation in an offseason that, other than one week ago today, has been dead. I do like that a national voice is using the Brewers to keep the baseball conversation going. If I were a fan of some of these other teams that have big holes to fill, I'd be going crazy. The sheer number of upper-end free agents who are still out there is mind boggling ... and that has trickled down to the point where a lot of the role-player types are still going to be searching for jobs after camps open.

[tigerbrew]

The funny part is if Archer was a FA today he would be getting every single dime of what Arrieta is getting and probably more. Also would probably be getting as much as Darvish.

 

I wouldn't mind signing Archer as a FA but he's not. The Rays want our top pitching prospects (Corbin Burnes) which is unacceptable to me. Very glad Stearns said no to Rays.

 

Stearns is right, it's better for the Brewers to develop homegrown cheap controllable SPs. They did it with Nelson and Burnes could be just as good as Nelson in the future.

[MrTPlush]

If you needed to be told we had recent discussions about Archer...yikes. Biggest no news rumor I have seen in a while. No crud we are talking about Archer, duh. Let me guess we are also still talking to Arrieta too and Cobb.

 

Some things are just obvious.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Burnes could be just as good as Nelson in the future.

 

"Could" is the operative word, and considering the Brewers' success developing TOR pitchers over the last 20 years, and the sheer amount of "coulds" that have flamed out or haven't lived up to expectations, what are the chances that Burnes reaches Nelson's level as a strong #2/borderline #1? 10%? 5% Less than that?

 

Now if the team had the Cardinals' or Braves' track records for developing pitchers, that would be one thing. But I'm jaded by our history. For every Nelson or Ben Sheets, there are dozens of Taylor Jungmanns, Eric Arnetts, Will Inmans and Mark Rogers. So if the question is whether we should deal one or two of our "coulds" for proven MLB talent, I'd lean toward yes.

[JohnBriggs12]

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.

 

Baseball Reference puts Archer's WAR at 1.8 for 2016, and 1.2 for 2017. If that's an ace, what does that make Zach Davies, who's WAR the past two years per B-R is 5.2 and that number doesn't even include his +0.4 WAR he got as a hitter in 2017 thanks in large part to his league leading 14 sacrifice bunts? Don't think his ability to get bunts down have something to do with Davies having a splendid .633 winning percentage? Think again. That's winning baseball and part of the reason Davies is so underappreciated.

[coolhandluke121]

Friendly reminder that you wouldn't be trading for what Archer has done in the past, you'd be trading for what he will do in the future. Not sure everyone understands that. With his recent history of giving up hard contact and throwing tons of sliders, he's a strong candidate for a massive decline a la Gallardo. I wouldn't even trade Woodruff for him straight up. That would be a return to the Mark A era of impatience. I know they are back in "win-now" mode, but I think Stearns will make sure they take better risks than they have in the past.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Friendly reminder that you wouldn't be trading for what Archer has done in the past, you'd be trading for what he will do in the future. Not sure everyone understands that. With his recent history of giving up hard contact and throwing tons of sliders, he's a strong candidate for a massive decline a la Gallardo. I wouldn't even trade Woodruff for him straight up. That would be a return to the Mark A era of impatience. I know they are back in "win-now" mode, but I think Stearns will make sure they take better risks than they have in the past.

 

Ok, throw out another option that the team can trade for and throw in as the #1 or #2 in their rotation.

[JosephC]

Archer would very likely command a 100+ million surplus value, Yelich-type of return package. Brinson was the one major piece in the minor league system, and it's questionable if the Brewers have the pieces left to swing this deal without emptying the entire top tier of their minor league system. I like Santana but find it extremely hard to believe he would be valued so highly that he could be considered a centerpiece in an Archer deal. Arcia would probably be under-valued because they likely see Willy Adames as their shortstop of the future. They could use corner infielders so Shaw may be valued properly by them and they could desire Thames although he probably only has about 20 million in surplus value (20 million is probably slightly less than 1/5th of what it takes to land Archer). Then the discussion has to turn to, can the Brewers afford to part with Shaw at this point? I don't think they can.

[Boomer5]

After seeing what the fire sale Marlins just took from Stearns, the Rays probably upped their demands quite a bit.

 

The Brewers have to come away with a TOR guy and possibly a second starter, and other teams know that. Probably the best course will be the FA route because the trade route will be painful.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

The Crew should move on from Darvish/Archor and pursue Arrieta/Fulmer. Atleast with Arrieta you know he will be in great shape and not be playing these games. We want to win!

[bill hAll Star]

Friendly reminder that you wouldn't be trading for what Archer has done in the past, you'd be trading for what he will do in the future. Not sure everyone understands that. With his recent history of giving up hard contact and throwing tons of sliders, he's a strong candidate for a massive decline a la Gallardo. I wouldn't even trade Woodruff for him straight up. That would be a return to the Mark A era of impatience. I know they are back in "win-now" mode, but I think Stearns will make sure they take better risks than they have in the past.

 

Ok, throw out another option that the team can trade for and throw in as the #1 or #2 in their rotation.

 

Overpay a free agent. Keep the guys in our system. Let the #1s or #2s actually come from our own system someday.

[bill hAll Star]

Also, I misread a bit of what CHL21 said, but it is my next point:

 

We wouldn't be looking at trading for all of these pitchers if we developed our own starters. We are finally at the point of developing our own pipeline of pitchers (or acquiring them relatively cheaply in trades like Davies and Anderson).

 

The only way the Brewers are going to consistently win is if Archer works out perfectly (does not regress/have hard contact issues) or if the Brewers finally develop their own consistent pitching. Something that will not happen yet again for a long time if they empty the farm for Archer.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Overpay a free agent. Keep the guys in our system. Let the #1s or #2s actually come from our own system someday.

 

If the team signs Arietta or Cobb, they surrender their 4th rounder ... the round Burnes was drafted in two years ago. That's on top of the $100+ million contract. So free agency is not the be all/end all either.

 

I think they will probably sign a free agent (losing that pick) and make a trade (losing a haul of prospects), and posters here will be upset about both. But it will position this team to be a contender for the next 4 years, which is why you have a farm system.

[Boomer5]

Friendly reminder that you wouldn't be trading for what Archer has done in the past, you'd be trading for what he will do in the future. Not sure everyone understands that. With his recent history of giving up hard contact and throwing tons of sliders, he's a strong candidate for a massive decline a la Gallardo. I wouldn't even trade Woodruff for him straight up. That would be a return to the Mark A era of impatience. I know they are back in "win-now" mode, but I think Stearns will make sure they take better risks than they have in the past.

 

Ok, throw out another option that the team can trade for and throw in as the #1 or #2 in their rotation.

 

Stroman and Fulmer but their returns would be equally large if not more so.

 

The problem is if other teams don't view Santana as a headliner, then we don't have the farm system to get these guys, or more to the point we would literally have to empty all of our top 100 plus to get there if Santana isn't in the trade.

[bill hAll Star]

Overpay a free agent. Keep the guys in our system. Let the #1s or #2s actually come from our own system someday.

 

If the team signs Arietta or Cobb, they surrender their 4th rounder ... the round Burnes was drafted in two years ago. That's on top of the $100+ million contract. So free agency is not the be all/end all either.

 

I think they will probably sign a free agent (losing that pick) and make a trade (losing a haul of prospects), and posters here will be upset about both. But it will position this team to be a contender for the next 4 years, which is why you have a farm system.

 

I am OK punting a single draft pick. I am not OK punting everything on the farm for a team that I can't say with certainty will win a division in the next few years if an Archer trade.

 

I'm not on the Fangraphs 77 win bandwagon pessimism level but I also think people are a tad bit optimistic on being contenders with Archer. If they add a free agent on top of that, I'd get on board...but that's a lot.

 

For me, I know that salary could get a bit tight in 2020 or so, but I'm all for overpaying a free agent. If some things fail, we have the optimism of Burnes and others coming up. If we trade for Archer and things don't go right, we're looking at a looooooong way to go before things can get better.

[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.

 

Send me to the Nut House.

 

Baseball Reference puts Archer's WAR at 1.8 for 2016, and 1.2 for 2017. If that's an ace, what does that make Zach Davies, who's WAR the past two years per B-R is 5.2 and that number doesn't even include his +0.4 WAR he got as a hitter in 2017 thanks in large part to his league leading 14 sacrifice bunts? Don't think his ability to get bunts down have something to do with Davies having a splendid .633 winning percentage? Think again. That's winning baseball and part of the reason Davies is so underappreciated.

 

BR's analytics are bad. FG blows BR out of the water with true value.

[tmwiese55]

Was just going to write the same thing as superfly. The key decision point is that those two aces are going to cost you about $100 mil more than Archer, would you rather give up prospects or take on the risk of such a massive contract as those guys? That's the debate and it could go either way, no one is crazy. Those bashing the other side and calling names aren't helping the conversation. If he was a 29 yr old FA without injury history, he'd be right in the same financial window as the top two guys. Heck might even get more. Yu is what 3 years older and had a TJ. Arrieta is older and showed huge signs of decline last year, and was an out of nowhere guy to begin with who's own team seems content to not want. With PED rumors in his past. I can see all sides, since it's not my money I guess I lean toward paying the FA and keeping the P prospects as insurance.

 

But if Archer is Santana and only one of Wood/Burnes, no Ortiz, No Huerra, and two other prospects I could probably accept that since we're all in. then enjoy the ride the next 3 years. At the start of this whole process I was on the side of not emptying the farm right now, but since we're half in right now anyway, you kinda have to go all the way now, you're pot committed.

 

Of course it sounds like MKE is considering doing both, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

Also, I do like Garcia as a really cheap option as the other guy acquired with one of the higher level guys. I'd be curious how much he's asking, can't be much and can't be more than two years after his blah last couple of years. Should be low cost/risk. Gives a lefty starter which we don't have and none of the rumored targets are