Chris Archer

[JosephC]

I really think the Denard Span acquisition changed things in terms of Tampa Bay's outfield. Prior to that, they really had use for another outfielder. While Span certainly wouldn't figure into their future plans, they would probably be more than content to go with the combination of Mallix Smith and Span in left field and see if Smith can prove to be an everyday outfielder. So they have Dickerson at DH, and Smith/Span, Kiermaier and Souza in the outfield. I don't see them really coveting Santana with the way their roster looks. And I certainly can't see Santana being a centerpiece in a deal for a player like Chris Archer.

 

If an Archer deal gets done it's likely all prospects headed to Tampa Bay, although I do think the Rays would have interest in Travis Shaw. Not crazy to think that someone like Zach Davies would also interest them.

 

My guess would be:

 

Brewers get:

RHP-Chris Archer

 

Rays get:

2B-Keston Hiura

RHP-Corbin Burnes

3B-Lucas Erceg

RHP-Freddie Peralta

 

And I'll calculate the prospect value in that deal as 97.66 million, under the 100+ million I would expect Archer to get. So one might actually classify that move as a small bargain for the Brewers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I really think the Denard Span acquisition changed things in terms of Tampa Bay's outfield. Prior to that, they really had use for another outfielder. While Span certainly wouldn't figure into their future plans, they would probably be more than content to go with the combination of Mallix Smith and Span in left field and see if Smith can prove to be an everyday outfielder. So they have Dickerson at DH, and Smith/Span, Kiermaier and Souza in the outfield. I don't see them really coveting Santana with the way their roster looks. And I certainly can't see Santana being a centerpiece in a deal for a player like Chris Archer.

 

If an Archer deal gets done it's likely all prospects headed to Tampa Bay, although I do think the Rays would have interest in Travis Shaw. Not crazy to think that someone like Zach Davies would also interest them.

 

My guess would be:

 

Brewers get:

RHP-Chris Archer

 

Rays get:

2B-Keston Hiura

RHP-Corbin Burnes

3B-Lucas Erceg

RHP-Freddie Peralta

 

And I'll calculate the prospect value in that deal as 97.66 million, under the 100+ million I would expect Archer to get. So one might actually classify that move as a small bargain for the Brewers.

 

I think that move is palatable if they can turn around and deal Santana for a package of prospects that includes one high-end guy.

[Madhawk23]

I really think the Denard Span acquisition changed things in terms of Tampa Bay's outfield. Prior to that, they really had use for another outfielder. While Span certainly wouldn't figure into their future plans, they would probably be more than content to go with the combination of Mallix Smith and Span in left field and see if Smith can prove to be an everyday outfielder. So they have Dickerson at DH, and Smith/Span, Kiermaier and Souza in the outfield. I don't see them really coveting Santana with the way their roster looks. And I certainly can't see Santana being a centerpiece in a deal for a player like Chris Archer.

 

If an Archer deal gets done it's likely all prospects headed to Tampa Bay, although I do think the Rays would have interest in Travis Shaw. Not crazy to think that someone like Zach Davies would also interest them.

 

My guess would be:

 

Brewers get:

RHP-Chris Archer

 

Rays get:

2B-Keston Hiura

RHP-Corbin Burnes

3B-Lucas Erceg

RHP-Freddie Peralta

 

And I'll calculate the prospect value in that deal as 97.66 million, under the 100+ million I would expect Archer to get. So one might actually classify that move as a small bargain for the Brewers.

 

Man, no way I'm giving up Hiura and Burnes in a deal for Archer. It's hard enough to stomach the idea of a Santana, Burnes, Phillips (or Erceg) and Peralta package, but I'd want Santana to be in the deal instead of Hiura.

[3and2Fastball]

Burnes is a year older than Archer was when he had his first dominating stretch of AA ball. Burnes throws 93-95 mph, Archer throws 94-96

 

Yes, Burnes could be as good as Archer, but Archer is already proven....

 

The proposed trade has risk, but is worth the risk to me

[3and2Fastball]

Archer's MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=archer001chr

 

Burnes' MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=burnes000cor

[KeithStone53151]

Burnes is a year older than Archer was when he had his first dominating stretch of AA ball. Burnes throws 93-95 mph, Archer throws 94-96

 

Yes, Burnes could be as good as Archer, but Archer is already proven....

 

The proposed trade has risk, but is worth the risk to me

 

I think with Burnes you are moreso hoping to get Odorizzi than Archer. The stuff isn't quite there. Though Burnes is still young enough that stuff could improve.

[jonescm128]

I just can't see Stearns dealing both Santana and Phillips. That leaves our outfield depth to Keon Broxton and Hernan Perez? I know he can go out and sign a FA outfielder for cheap, but I just really do not see this happening.

[Madhawk23]

I thought there were reports this year that Burnes was topping out at 96-97 fairly routinely in games? If so, what separates Archer from Burnes (outside of the obvious that Archer's been in the big leagues and proven himself already)? Is it the secondary stuff that makes Archer more attractive? I guess I don't know how all of their secondary pitches compare to each other.

[Humans Need Water]

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.

 

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.

What evidence is there to suggest your statement is factual?

 

Fangraphs is based on FIP, which is very basic and very flawed. It *intentionally* ignores a ton of information whereas BF is based on RA/9, which is run prevention as opposed to earned run prevention. It's about getting the job done regardless of how sexy it looks. FIP highly benefits the sexy pitcher (ie high K). Defense also matters and FIP ignores that. Pitchers literally pitch into their defensive shifts, which we all know is a huge part of today's game, while also attacking a hitters weaknesses. In doing so, they're trying to minimize the hard contact knowing balls will be put in play. A pitcher *controls* that, to a certain extent of course, which also isn't factored into Fangraphs.

 

MLB Now on MLB Network is sabermetrics based for the "thinking baseball fan" and uses bWAR (and OPS+) a hell of a lot more than fWAR when discussing both pitchers and position players (ie Hosmer breakdown yesterday was all BR work outside of his plate discipline, which brought in Fangraphs with O-swing, etc). If someone believes 2yrs straight, at ages 27/28, that 1.250 whip, 8.5 H9, 3 BB9, 4 ERA = AS level production (fWAR) then there's plenty of AS pitchers in MLB and it shouldn't be difficult to land one. Last year Chase was a 3.3 fWAR and Archer was 4.6 - if you give Chase the same number of innings as Archer he then posts a 4.7 fWAR, except he was without question head and shoulders better than Archer in every category except K9. Fangraphs overrates the hell out of Archer due to his high K9. Chase was 4.1 bWAR and 1.2 fWAR - which makes much sense. TB also had a much better defense than the Brewers as well. Fangraphs also relies on defense much more heavily for position players when defensive analytics are still flawed. I'm not saying bWAR is perfect and an on-point indicator because any WAR by itself is pure garbage. But WAR used with a ton of other stats/variables can help paint a relatively accurate picture of one's overall performance.

 

Sexy talk aside, Archer helps this team. No question about it. But the foundation of the argument against giving up a haul for Archer lies with his age/performance the past 2yrs as they can be red flags for what can be expected over the next 4yrs. While he's leaving the DH behind and coming to the NL he's also leaving a pitcher friendly park and coming to a hitter friendly park. For me, Santana has to be part of that deal otherwise you move on. If a pitcher is going back it should be Ortiz. I'm a huge fan of Ortiz as the kid has a lot of potential and is still very young but I think Stearns is signing a FA *and* trading Santana for a rotation arm then factor in Chase/Davies/Nelson/Woodruff/Burnes moving forward. It just makes sense to part with Ortiz since he's 1.5yrs away most likely and we still have Peralta behind him who's killing it. For all we know the package was Santana/Peralta to start and I'd be fine with that as well. Woodruff can put up solid numbers as a rookie right now and improve moving forward - he showed this last year in 8 starts. Burnes is a 4th rd pick but 2nd rd talent who has completely and utterly dominated A+ (1yr young for level) and AA (2yrs young for level). He's sitting 93-95 touching 97 with some cutting action he added due to adjustment made prior to the season. He has a power fastball and power slider while also having an above average curve with a change he'll mix in throwing them all for strikes. He, like Woodruff, leads with the fastball and has a bulldog mentality. There are 1st/2nd rd advanced college arms that don't put up the numbers he put up (Puk, Quantill, Hansen) and they're all rated higher so lets not pretend he *should* be dominating when others drafted and rated higher aren't and haven't in the past (obviously some have). Woodruff and Burnes can both put up better numbers (other than K9) than Archer posted the past 2yrs but do it during their prime with 6yrs of cheap control. That's why I wouldn't part with either of them - they're ready now and later this year most likely. Yelich you know exactly what you're getting. Archer you don't - are you getting 2015 or 2016/2017? For the right package you nab him otherwise you move on.

[Brew Crew Buster]

I think it is a bit much. I can see why people are excited. Archer has the stuff. And he will be going to the National League which will help. But the last 2 years his ERA has been just over 4.00. He walks a few too many and his WHiP is above 1.25. This isn't a small sample and he is almost 30 so he should have been at peak production the last two years.

 

He may be a guy that turns into an ace for a few years or he may be someone with electric stuff but never gets an ERA below 3.00 and wins 15 to 20 games.

There are intangibles in pitching which lead to top level success. I don't know that Archer gets there.

[rwa12]

Burnes is a year older than Archer was when he had his first dominating stretch of AA ball. Burnes throws 93-95 mph, Archer throws 94-96

 

Yes, Burnes could be as good as Archer, but Archer is already proven....

 

The proposed trade has risk, but is worth the risk to me

 

I think with Burnes you are moreso hoping to get Odorizzi than Archer. The stuff isn't quite there. Though Burnes is still young enough that stuff could improve.

 

I agree with this. Burnes, by all accounts, is not a TOR prospect. He's a control/stuff guy. Very Odorizzi like. I would rather a package based around Santana, as I don't believe he has tremendous value. If we could get them to take Santana/Burnes/Erceg, I'd pull the trigger.

[KeithStone53151]

I thought there were reports this year that Burnes was topping out at 96-97 fairly routinely in games? If so, what separates Archer from Burnes (outside of the obvious that Archer's been in the big leagues and proven himself already)? Is it the secondary stuff that makes Archer more attractive? I guess I don't know how all of their secondary pitches compare to each other.

 

For starters, as far as velocity goes as long as you are hitting 93-94 consistently...you can be effective. If you don't have that, you need a true plus/double plus offering. Once you're hitting at least 93-94, offspeed stuff matters more than added velocity in my opinion. Archer has a true plus if not double plus slider. I understand Burnes works with 93-95 heat and a 4 pitch mix of average-above average offerings...but everything plays up due to plus/double plus command. Unless his stuff improves, that profiles as a #3/4 starter that could play up to #2 results due to command. That's what we're seeing from Davies, he's more of a #4 but his stuff plays up to a #2/3 results because his command is so good(also he has so much movement on his FB/change).

[Point Beer Is Best]

I’m pretty much resigned to the fact we’ll lose Santana and Burnes in a deal for Archer. I’ll echo the comments of others that Phillips, in my view, has a significant role to play on this team as a very versatile OF and would really like to hold onto him.

[djd1228]

I thought there were reports this year that Burnes was topping out at 96-97 fairly routinely in games? If so, what separates Archer from Burnes (outside of the obvious that Archer's been in the big leagues and proven himself already)? Is it the secondary stuff that makes Archer more attractive? I guess I don't know how all of their secondary pitches compare to each other.

 

For starters, as far as velocity goes as long as you are hitting 93-94 consistently...you can be effective. If you don't have that, you need a true plus/double plus offering. Once you're hitting at least 93-94, offspeed stuff matters more than added velocity in my opinion. Archer has a true plus if not double plus slider. I understand Burnes works with 93-95 heat and a 4 pitch mix of average-above average offerings...but everything plays up due to plus/double plus command. Unless his stuff improves, that profiles as a #3/4 starter that could play up to #2 results due to command. That's what we're seeing from Davies, he's more of a #4 but his stuff plays up to a #2/3 results because his command is so good(also he has so much movement on his FB/change).

 

Right but you can be a #1-#2 with having elite control. The Braves are pretty familiar with that. If just one of Corbins pitches improves (which id say theres a solid chance of, dude has been in the system less than 2 years) then he goes "control pitcher" to being a stud TOR because he has the velocity to back him up.

[tigerbrew]

Archer's MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=archer001chr

 

Burnes' MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=burnes000cor

 

 

I absolutely will not trade Burnes for Archer. Burnes should be as untouchable as Hader.

 

According to HH, Stearns had already said no to the Rays regarding Burnes, because he knows this would make it a really awful trade for the Brewers. It's much better to walk away than make an awful trade.

[coolhandluke121]

I still say no way on Archer. He's got Johnny Cueto written all over him. I don't want to be on the wrong side of a Gomez/Lucroy type of trade, and I'm sure Stearns doesn't either. The question is whether the ghosts of Mark A's sordid past will rear their ugly heads again.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Archer's MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=archer001chr

 

Burnes' MiLB stats https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=burnes000cor

 

 

I absolutely will not trade Burnes for Archer. Burnes should be as untouchable as Hader.

 

According to HH, Stearns had already said no to the Rays regarding Burnes, because he knows this would make it a really awful trade for the Brewers. It's much better to walk away than make an awful trade.

 

If the Brewers acquire Archer, and Burnes is still Brewers' property, I would be absolutely shocked. If I'm the Rays, I'm demanding him in a deal.

 

To me, Burnes's upside is Chris Archer. But that upside won't be there in theory for another 2-3 years. That's missing a lot of the window.

 

I think if Archer is going to be a Brewer, Burnes is long gone.

[tigerbrew]

If the Brewers acquire Archer, and Burnes is still Brewers' property, I would be absolutely shocked. If I'm the Rays, I'm demanding him in a deal.

 

Just say no to the Rays and walk away. According to HH, Stearns did just that and told the Rays no.

 

Don't get fleece by the Rays and make an awful trade, it's better to walk away.

[And That]

I look at it as, how is trading a guy you hope might turn into Archer, actually turning him into Archer, an inherently bad trade?

[StCroixCtyBrewer]

If the Brewers acquire Archer, and Burnes is still Brewers' property, I would be absolutely shocked. If I'm the Rays, I'm demanding him in a deal.

 

Just say no to the Rays and walk away. According to HH, Stearns did just that and told the Rays no.

 

Don't get fleece by the Rays and make an awful trade, it's better to walk away.

Just because you think it would be an awful trade doesn’t mean it would be. We likely wouldn’t know for sure for a couple of years.

[ZBTMP]

I still say no way on Archer. He's got Johnny Cueto written all over him. I don't want to be on the wrong side of a Gomez/Lucroy type of trade, and I'm sure Stearns doesn't either. The question is whether the ghosts of Mark A's sordid past will rear their ugly heads again.

Huh? I cannot imagine a more different player. Cueto has so consistently outperformed his FIP metrics that you question its validity. Archer is trending toward and probably the best example the other way. Not to mention Archer is 3 inches taller and strikes out 5-10% more batters in the AL vs NL.

[tigerbrew]

So far Burnes is better than Archer in the minors, what if he turns out to be better than Archer in a few years? He will be cheaper and younger than Archer, and the Brewers control him for more years.

 

A small market team like the Brewers has to keep their TOP pitching prospects and develop them into the big leagues, like what they did with Nelson.

[coolhandluke121]

I still say no way on Archer. He's got Johnny Cueto written all over him. I don't want to be on the wrong side of a Gomez/Lucroy type of trade, and I'm sure Stearns doesn't either. The question is whether the ghosts of Mark A's sordid past will rear their ugly heads again.

Huh? I cannot imagine a more different player. Cueto has so consistently outperformed his FIP metrics that you question its validity. Archer is trending toward and probably the best example the other way. Not to mention Archer is 3 inches taller and strikes out 5-10% more batters in the AL vs NL.

 

I meant that he will decline dramatically soon, hence the comparison to being on the wrong side of a Lucroy/Gomez type of trade. It's a terrible time to be thinking about trading for him.

[StCroixCtyBrewer]

So far Burnes is better than Archer in the minors, what if he turns out to be better than Archer in a few years? He will be cheaper and younger than Archer, and the Brewers control him for more years.

 

A small market team like the Brewers has to keep their TOP pitching prospects and develop them into the big leagues, like what they did with Nelson.

Fair question, but what if he doesn’t? What if he doesn’t and you pass a chance to get a proven commodity now? I’m not saying you’re 100% off, but either way it’s a roll of the dice

[KeithStone53151]

I look at it as, how is trading a guy you hope might turn into Archer, actually turning him into Archer, an inherently bad trade?

 

I'm concerned about Archer declining to some degree, also it isn't just Burnes but all the other pieces going to them. Archer for Burnes straight up, I think everyone on this board takes it. When you start adding significant pieces like Santana, Phillips, Peralta, etc...I'm not so sure I'm interested anymore.