Chris Archer

[anglotiger]

Why would we want Arrieta if the Cubs don't?

What makes the Cubs the benchmark for free agent decisions?

 

He's just talking about Arrieta here, not free agents in general. And I understand why. They have first-hand knowledge of Arrieta's current talent and health, and are (at least in theory) in a better position to judge his value relative to what he's asking for...

[homer]

There aren't that many pitchers who K/9 10+ while giving you 200 innings with a FIP in the 3's who are under bargain contracts for 4 more seasons.

 

 

As few as there are, there are precious fewer who continue to do it after they're 30. This would be extremely short-sighted. I'm confident that they're not even considering it for what TB is asking.

 

First of all he's 29. Secondly, he's cheap for the production you are getting. Lastly, the last two years of his contract have team options so if he starts to falter at 31 they can cut bait. Obviously it depends on what TB is asking for.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Why would we want Arrieta if the Cubs don't?

What makes the Cubs the benchmark for free agent decisions?

 

He's just talking about Arrieta here, not free agents in general. And I understand why. They have first-hand knowledge of Arrieta's current talent and health, and are (at least in theory) in a better position to judge his value relative to what he's asking for...

 

 

I think it really comes down to age. Teams are done rewarding pitchers for past performance and they are NOT going to get stuck paying Arrietta and Darvish’s of the world $25 million per at age 35, 36 and 37 etc...

 

How is the Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera contracts looking, not to mention Braun’s. You think those teams want a do over on those deals?

[coolhandluke121]

We don't need Archer to out-WAR Santana. We need him to out-WAR the likes of Woodruff, Guerra, and Suter.

 

The funny thing about the future is that it always becomes the present. The only "need" that doesn't change much is "needing" to make responsible choices and have discipline. Based on what TB is asking, trading for Archer would be awful. The reason we "need" Archer now is because of their cavalier attitude about planning for the future years ago. It's okay to live in the present but not at the "WAR interest rate" you pay on trades like this. There should be usury laws protecting fans from their team owners' own short-sighted impulses in situations like this.

[TURBO]

There aren't that many pitchers who K/9 10+ while giving you 200 innings with a FIP in the 3's who are under bargain contracts for 4 more seasons.

 

 

As few as there are, there are precious fewer who continue to do it after they're 30. This would be extremely short-sighted. I'm confident that they're not even considering it for what TB is asking.

 

...and I hope and pray that you are correct.

[Boomer5]

Why would we want Arrieta if the Cubs don't?

What makes the Cubs the benchmark for free agent decisions?

 

Well they did see the guy up close and desperately need starting pitching and clearly don't want the guy back.

 

You don't think that's a giant red flag?

[adambr2]

When did 30 become the benchmark for when starting pitchers lose effectiveness?

 

Jimmy Nelson is only 9 months younger than Archer, so we shouldn't be excited about him because of his age? If you don't want to invest in Archer because of age, why wouldn't you support trading Nelson for prospects now?

 

Darvish is a full 2 years older than Archer yet very few seem to have qualms about giving him a huge 4-5 year deal.

 

If acquired Archer is under control for his age 29-32 seasons which is actually a great time of his career to have him under that control. While there's obviously no guarantees his age is being really overblown.

[3and2Fastball]

Why would we want Arrieta if the Cubs don't?

What makes the Cubs the benchmark for free agent decisions?

 

Well they did see the guy up close and desperately need starting pitching and clearly don't want the guy back.

 

You don't think that's a giant red flag?

 

Not being willing to pay the astronomical amounts that Scott Boras wants for his client, and "not wanting him back" are very very different things.

 

Anyone who saw Arrieta in the playoffs 3-4 months ago knows he is a very valuable asset.

[McRibMcLove]

Anyone who saw Arrieta in the playoffs 3-4 months ago knows he is a very valuable asset.

 

Looking at Arrieta's numbers the last 2 years compared to 2014-2015 and one issue I noticed is that he was very similar pitcher 1, 2 and 3 times through the lineup during his elite years while the last 2 he has been extremely good 1 and 2 times through the lineup and bad the 3rd time through the lineup. That may be a function of his drop in velocity or it could be that he's older and tires earlier than he did before. He may need to change his approach to pitching when he approaches the third time through the lineup to remain elite. I don't think its just a velocity issue as his BB/9 and K-BB/9 go up and down dramatically 3rd time through the lineup which may indicate fatigue leading to issues with pitch location/command. I still think he has a lot of upside compared to Cobb/Lynn. As someone else said it's really elite 2 SP (Darvish/Arrieta) not 4 SP (Cobb/Lynn).

[coolhandluke121]

When did 30 become the benchmark for when starting pitchers lose effectiveness?

 

Jimmy Nelson is only 9 months younger than Archer, so we shouldn't be excited about him because of his age? If you don't want to invest in Archer because of age, why wouldn't you support trading Nelson for prospects now?

 

Darvish is a full 2 years older than Archer yet very few seem to have qualms about giving him a huge 4-5 year deal.

 

If acquired Archer is under control for his age 29-32 seasons which is actually a great time of his career to have him under that control. While there's obviously no guarantees his age is being really overblown.

 

Nelson has a torn labrum.

Nelson wouldn't fetch nearly the prospect haul that Archer will anyway.

If somebody made such a lopsided, short-sighted offer for Nelson as TB is requesting for Archer, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Many, many people have a problem with paying Yu what he will likely get.

An overwhelming amount of statistical evidence supports the notion that most players are already in decline at age 30. If you want to dismiss that in the case of a particular player, you better have a good reason to.

A precipitously declining WAR over the last 3 years, combined with one of the highest hard contact %'s in baseball, for a guy who throws a ton of sliders, suggests an aging curve that's likely to be even worse than usual.

 

mod edit: removed condescending opener. stop it

[adambr2]

When did 30 become the benchmark for when starting pitchers lose effectiveness?

 

Jimmy Nelson is only 9 months younger than Archer, so we shouldn't be excited about him because of his age? If you don't want to invest in Archer because of age, why wouldn't you support trading Nelson for prospects now?

 

Darvish is a full 2 years older than Archer yet very few seem to have qualms about giving him a huge 4-5 year deal.

 

If acquired Archer is under control for his age 29-32 seasons which is actually a great time of his career to have him under that control. While there's obviously no guarantees his age is being really overblown.

 

 

 

Nelson has a torn labrum.

Nelson wouldn't fetch nearly the prospect haul that Archer will anyway.

If somebody made such a lopsided, short-sighted offer for Nelson as TB is requesting for Archer, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Many, many people have a problem with paying Yu what he will likely get.

An overwhelming amount of statistical evidence supports the notion that most players are already in decline at age 30. If you want to dismiss that in the case of a particular player, you better have a good reason to.

A precipitously declining WAR over the last 3 years, combined with one of the highest hard contact %'s in baseball, for a guy who throws a ton of sliders, suggests an aging curve that's likely to be even worse than usual.

 

WAR IMO is a bad starting point for a pitcher on a guy with such a major differential between fWAR and bWAR and therefore no strong consensus. My entire point was that the 4 remaining years of Archers' control are years where his age will be such that (32 and under) where it's reasonable to think he could still perform at a high level.

[82brewcrew82]

Why would we want Arrieta if the Cubs don't?

What makes the Cubs the benchmark for free agent decisions?

 

Well they did see the guy up close and desperately need starting pitching and clearly don't want the guy back.

 

You don't think that's a giant red flag?

No, see Hayward, Jason. There is so much scouting and video on these guys. There is not advantage just because he was pitching for them.

[homer]

When did 30 become the benchmark for when starting pitchers lose effectiveness?

 

Jimmy Nelson is only 9 months younger than Archer, so we shouldn't be excited about him because of his age? If you don't want to invest in Archer because of age, why wouldn't you support trading Nelson for prospects now?

 

Darvish is a full 2 years older than Archer yet very few seem to have qualms about giving him a huge 4-5 year deal.

 

If acquired Archer is under control for his age 29-32 seasons which is actually a great time of his career to have him under that control. While there's obviously no guarantees his age is being really overblown.

 

An overwhelming amount of statistical evidence supports the notion that most players are already in decline at age 30. If you want to dismiss that in the case of a particular player, you better have a good reason to.

 

I'm guessing that will edge higher. Historically speaking this is true but players the last 20 years have had cutting edge nutrition and exercise that players the previous 100 years did not.

[homer]

See how much nicer this thread is when we just remove the one offending sentence? Please keep it like this. Thanks.

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

I'm guessing that will edge higher. Historically speaking this is true but players the last 20 years have had cutting edge nutrition and exercise that players the previous 100 years did not.

 

What about the PED enforcement? Anecdotally it's making drastic changes in the other direction already, and I'm sure a statistical analysis would back that up.

 

ETA: Also, there's nothing stopping young players from taking advantage of the same advances in training and nutrition. It's all relative.

[McRibMcLove]

I believe there was some analysis years ago that the performance peak wasn't changing, but the curve as to how players dropped off relative to there peak was changing. While years ago there was a much more dramatic dropoff from peak, more recently (whether a result of widespread PEDs or widespread changes to nutrition/workout or both) that the dropoff was less so players still had significant value through mid-30s in many cases.

[homer]

 

 

I'm guessing that will edge higher. Historically speaking this is true but players the last 20 years have had cutting edge nutrition and exercise that players the previous 100 years did not.

 

What about the PED enforcement? Anecdotally it's making drastic changes in the other direction already, and I'm sure a statistical analysis would back that up.

 

ETA: Also, there's nothing stopping young players from taking advantage of the same advances in training and nutrition. It's all relative.

 

Come to think of it I don't recall the 30+ threshold applying to pitchers. I thought it was just hitters (where the real cliff is 33 years). Do you have a link to something about pitchers?

[coolhandluke121]

I believe there was some analysis years ago that the performance peak wasn't changing, but the curve as to how players dropped off related to there peak was changing. While years ago there was a much more dramatic dropoff from peak, more recently (whether a result of widespread PEDs or widespread changes to nutrition/workout or both) that the dropoff was less so players still had significant value through mid-30s in many cases.

 

I vaguely remember that too, but I'm pretty sure that was early on in the era of ramped-up PED enforcement, so some of the data they were using was still from the PED era.

[coolhandluke121]

 

Come to think of it I don't recall the 30+ threshold applying to pitchers. I thought it was just hitters (where the real cliff is 33 years). Do you have a link to something about pitchers?

 

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/25/5437902/pitching-aging-curves

 

ETA: Probably really hard to tease out the survivorship bias in that data, but it's still pretty damning for a guy like Archer. I thought a lot of sliders was supposed to be bad for your arm, too, but I don't remember where I read that.

[McRibMcLove]

ETA: Probably really hard to tease out the survivorship bias in that data, but it's still pretty damning for a guy like Archer. I thought a lot of sliders was supposed to be bad for your arm, too, but I don't remember where I read that.

Its really hard to see from that data. If you look at the Ave fWar/pitcher for various ages (estimates from graph) you get:

 

All Pitchers 26 = 1600/1080 = 1.48

All pitchers 30 = 900/700 = 1.29

All pitchers 35 = 380/300 = 1.26

 

20+G Pitchers 26 = 790/305 = 2.59

20+G Pitchers 30 = 500/205 = 2.44

20+G Pitchers 35 = 200/75 = 2.67

 

So there's clearly an age related decline overall, but it looks like there's still good value in a 30 YO who can start 20+G compared to a 26YO who can start 20+ games. The uptick at 35YO starting 20+ games is likely a bias of the "elite" starters at the end of their career. While this isn't really an applicable analysis it does indicate that the dropoff is very pitcher specific (2.67 fWar exceeds the value Lynn or Cobb bring to the table).

 

Where I think Archer is different is that he is almost guaranteed to be worth his contract based on even bad projections of his future production (because he is signed to the pitchers version of the Yellich contract). The issue is will he be worth the prospects we give up and that's a lot harder to judge. I want the Brewers to walk away from a Santana/Phillips/Burns/Peralta type of deal unless it's for Archer/Bauer and that deal I might do.

[coolhandluke121]

ETA: Probably really hard to tease out the survivorship bias in that data, but it's still pretty damning for a guy like Archer. I thought a lot of sliders was supposed to be bad for your arm, too, but I don't remember where I read that.

Its really hard to see from that data. If you look at the Ave fWar/pitcher for various ages (estimates from graph) you get:

 

All Pitchers 26 = 1600/1080 = 1.48

All pitchers 30 = 900/700 = 1.29

All pitchers 35 = 380/300 = 1.26

 

20+G Pitchers 26 = 790/305 = 2.59

20+G Pitchers 30 = 500/205 = 2.44

20+G Pitchers 35 = 200/75 = 2.67

 

So there's clearly an age related decline overall, but it looks like there's still good value in a 30 YO who can start 20+G compared to a 26YO who can start 20+ games. The uptick at 35YO starting 20+ games is likely a bias of the "elite" starters at the end of their career. While this isn't really an applicable analysis it does indicate that the dropoff is very pitcher specific (2.67 fWar exceeds the value Lynn or Cobb bring to the table).

 

 

This is exactly the survivorship bias I'm talking about. You recognize it with the 35-year-old's starting 20+ games, but for some reason you fail to acknowledge that it's present in the 30-year-old's too. This is a self-fulfilling method of analysis because you eliminate all the guys who rarely start 20+ games after 30, usually due to arm deterioration.

 

You also include a lot of objectively bad pitchers if you include all the 26-year-old's who never get another chance to start 20+ games because they're not good. This needs to be about how much the average pitcher will decline from age 27 to age 30 and beyond - not how the averge 30 year old compares to the average 26 year old, but how he compares to his 26 year old self. By any account, it's a pretty steep decline on average, and the only debate is just how steep. If you think Archer will buck that trend, you will need a very convincing argument - especially since he already appears to be getting worse and throws a lot of sliders, which arguably are bad for your arm (hard to parse the data on that though).

[TJseven7]

So I'm ok with going all in. But something is driving me a bit batty.

 

Bauer... has not put up 1 year sub 4 era

Archer... yes the first 3 in the 3.3 era area are fantastic. The last two at 4 era?

 

 

Be careful, though, of just using ERA. Archer's FIP numbers the last four seasons are 3.39, 2.90, 3.81, and 3.4. You can make a valid argument that HR's would be more of an issue in Milwaukee, but that may be cancelled out to a degree by the AL/NL switch. Great K/9 and K/BB ratios, and durability that shouldn't be discounted.

 

I get people believe fip is a truer indicator than era. Era involves "luck." But we now have 4 straight years where Bauer was unlucky. 1 year I get it, heck half is an anomoly, 4 straight years, every year, is a pattern. Davies finds a way to mitigate his fip to post a sub 4 era. Bauer hasn't.

 

Buy low, upside laden target. Sure. Big trade target, eh.

 

People overrate Burnes and Peralta, sure I guess. But looking at guys who are 4 era guys increases their chances of being equals some day.

 

Now I know Anderson fits this idea as well... but we sold segura at a point of low value for diaz and anderson. Santana coming off a big season isn't worth more than Bauer? Unless we fix him he's only a good back end guy or 4 starter at best.

 

Archer was a star his first 2+ years. His last 2 he's a 4 era guy. Certainly an upgrade to the rotation but we are being asked top 2 arm price on him. His talent says yes, the last 2 years says no.

[PDXBrewCrew]

Boy, if FIP is the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, we might as well put Suter and his 3.75 FIP from last year in the rotation. Oh wait, for some reason everybody thinks he sucks.

[coolhandluke121]

Boy, if FIP is the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, we might as well put Suter and his 3.75 FIP from last year in the rotation. Oh wait, for some reason everybody thinks he sucks.

 

I would much rather start Suter than most of the options we seem to be hearing about. Santana for Salazar + a lotto ticket might be the exception. I'd gamble on his health for a few years, I would be clearing out a logjam, and I don't think I'd regret trading Santana a whole lot.

 

People have to remember why we ended up in this "win-now, surprise contender" situation in the first place. It's because we bailed on 30-something's and gave a bunch of younger guys second chances to prove themselves. The only guys left from the Melvin era of keeping guys past their prime, as their salary peaked while their trade value kept going down, were Garza and Braun last year. Those guys weren't even better than the guys they called up from the minors in the middle of the season, in part to replace them (Phillips and Woodruff).

 

Why abandon the principles that turned them around so fast in the first place? Why mortgage so much for the immediate gratification of buying high when there's such a good chance you'll have buyer's remorse not one year later? Guys like Suter and Woodruff could very well be out-performing Yu and Archer in 2 years time.

 

Re: Suter, I would add that his bat and glove play very nicely as a starter and he brings other solid intangibles as well, plus they have the opportunity to carry 13 pitchers for extended stretches which would allow them to regularly pull him after 5 ip's or less. With all their versatile position players, especially if Braun moves to 1b, and all their former starters turn long relievers (Gallardo and Guerra, for example, but also Hader and maybe even Lopez at some point) this team is perfectly built for piggy-backing and should use it to their full advantage.

[SRB]

If the front office thinks Suter can hold up for an entire season in the rotation with stats similar to the ones he put up last year, we would be in great shape. I just don't think anyone expects that.

 

(I say this as someone who absolutely loves Suter and watching him pitch, by the way!)