Chris Archer

[PeaveyFury]

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.

 

Sustainable success is the key, not just one year. Archer's FIP has been consistently good.

[Nader Raider Tim]

Since everyone else has said their piece I'll add mine in.

 

Archer is going to cost a lot. The value the Brewers have to give up is going to frustrate the heck out of me because I love watching young players develop through the minors and then become key pieces of the team I love. This is why I love Baseball more than any sport. Well except for Ultimate or Spikeball, so I guess this is why Baseball is my favorite of the four big sports.

 

However this isn't a rental. This isn't trading for Grienke with two years left on his deal. Archer is a guy who is a solid front line starter and it's rare those are available. When you can get one, and get one locked up for a long time at a huge discount you need to pay up, even though it's going to put a huge dent in your minor league system.

 

The biggest thing I look at, and why I loved the Yelich deal is that you are acquiring a young controllable player who is likely to have his performance trend up while playing for the Brewers. So if the Brewers have young players develop you are going to be able to trade them for a significant amount. I legitimately would not be shocked if the players value was near where it currently stands if the Brewers look to trade either Yelich or Archer, assuming an Archer trade actually happens. Contracts in baseball are going to continue to trend upwards and those deals are going to continue to be things team seek out. On top of that Yelich is an asending player moving from a pitchers park to a hitter park. His counting stats should look a heck of a lot better with the Brewers. Archer seems like a guy who should have his ERA trend downwards based on FIP and moving to the NL should help tick his ERA down, making him look more like the front line starter he is.

 

I know a lot of my value premise is assuming the luck of the draw and players stay healthy, but I love the Yelich deal for it's future trade value. Not that I want the player to be traded just that moves like Yelich and Archer trades have value on so many fronts. All Star players. Value contracts. Future trade value.

 

Make a deal happen. I'd hate to see Burnes go but as long as Tampa values him as a top 50 prospect he'd have to be included. Not sure the value Domingo Santana has to the Rays but I hope Stearns is working the phones trying to find a prospect trade for Santana that the Rays would value. Burnes and Santana (or prospects acquired for Santana) would be a nice starting point for the Rays. Then I'd add in either Phillips or Peralta. These are the two I'd hate to give up, which is why I'd say only as an either or. If it's Phillips then add Ortiz. If it's Peralta then add Erceg. Right there are four dang good prospects that it'd hurt to give up, but I'd have a hard time saying no to that trade offer. With the Brewers offering this much up I'd try and get Colome too, with adding in one or two more moderate prospects. Supak, Bickford, Houser, Medeiros, Nottingham. I am not a big fan of offering up much for Colome so this is more looking at adding in a couple more moderate prospects while taking a bit of salary back from Tampa. If Colome's value is significantly higher than I think it is then you immediately move on.

 

I guess my whole thing is that I think young proven controlled All Star caliber players have a value that far exceeds the prospect value they go for. Even if said prospect value is huge.

 

 

Also this deal would hopefully push the Brewers into getting Darvish (or Arrietta next, or Cobb next). The current Brewers roster is a Wild Card contender (75% likely) with and modest shot at winning the division . The Brewers adding Archer (minus Santana) seem like a probable Wild card team with decent shot at the division title (35%). The Brewers with Archer (minus Santana) with Darvish seem like the odds on favorite for the division title. Those Yelich and Archer value deals would have done a tremendous amount to allow the Brewers the pay market value for Cain and Darvish.

 

One last reason I love the Brewers going all in on Darvish this year is that I think next year is going to be crazy and price mid market clubs out of the market for most good to elite players next season. Teams are sitting out this year waiting for next years binge. Go all in while the market allows it.

[coolhandluke121]

 

The biggest thing I look at, and why I loved the Yelich deal is that you are acquiring a young controllable player who is likely to have his performance trend up while playing for the Brewers.

 

How is Archer likely to have his performance improve? Read the link I posted above. The average pitcher starts declining at 27, and it is pretty dramatic at 30. Archer turns 30 before the season is over. He's also already trending down noticeably since his best season at - you guessed it - age 27. He had the 3rd-highest rate of hard contact against him in baseball last year, but I don't think FIP takes that into account, so it fails to acknowledge that his BABIP should continue to be unusually high. And he throws a ton of sliders, which give many pitchers premature arm problems.

 

I agree with you on the Yelich trade, and the best players they gave up were outfielders anyway so it's fine. This is not at all like the Yelich trade.

 

Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close.

[adambr2]

 

The biggest thing I look at, and why I loved the Yelich deal is that you are acquiring a young controllable player who is likely to have his performance trend up while playing for the Brewers.

 

How is Archer likely to have his performance improve? Read the link I posted above. The average pitcher starts declining at 27, and it is pretty dramatic at 30. Archer turns 30 before the season is over. He's also already trending down noticeably since his best season at - you guessed it - age 27. He had the 3rd-highest rate of hard contact against him in baseball last year, but I don't think FIP takes that into account, so it fails to acknowledge that his BABIP should continue to be unusually high. And he throws a ton of sliders, which give many pitchers premature arm problems.

 

I agree with you on the Yelich trade, and the best players they gave up were outfielders anyway so it's fine. This is not at all like the Yelich trade.

 

Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close.

 

We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true.

 

2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS)

1. Posey • SFG 171

2. Trout • LAA 168

3. Cabrera • DET 164

4. McCutchen • PIT 162

5. Braun • MIL 158

6. Encarnacion • TOR 153

7. Fielder • DET 151

8. Cano • NYY 148

9. Headley • SDP 145

10. Wright • NYM 144

 

2017:

1. Trout • LAA 187

2. Judge • NYY 171

3. Votto • CIN 168

4. Stanton • MIA 165

5. Altuve • HOU 164

6. Freeman • ATL 157

7. Gonzalez • HOU 149

8. Turner • LAD 149

9. Cruz • SEA 146

10. Ozuna • MIA 145

 

For pitchers I used adjusted ERA.

 

2012:

1. Verlander • DET 161

2. Price • TBR 150

3. Kershaw • LAD 150

4. Cueto • CIN 148

5. Sale • CHW 140

6. Dickey • NYM 139

7. Gonzalez • WSN 138

8. Zimmermann • WSN 136

9. Weaver • LAA 135

10. Harrison • TEX 133

 

2017:

1. Kluber • CLE 202

2. Kershaw • LAD 180

3. Scherzer • WSN 177

4. Strasburg • WSN 176

5. Ray • ARI 166

6. Sale • BOS 157

7. Severino • NYY 152

8. Gonzalez • WSN 150

9. Greinke • ARI 149

10. Stroman • TOR

[coolhandluke121]

 

Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close.

 

We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true.

 

2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS)

1. Posey • SFG 171

2. Trout • LAA 168

3. Cabrera • DET 164

4. McCutchen • PIT 162

5. Braun • MIL 158

6. Encarnacion • TOR 153

7. Fielder • DET 151

8. Cano • NYY 148

9. Headley • SDP 145

10. Wright • NYM 144

 

2017:

1. Trout • LAA 187

2. Judge • NYY 171

3. Votto • CIN 168

4. Stanton • MIA 165

5. Altuve • HOU 164

6. Freeman • ATL 157

7. Gonzalez • HOU 149

8. Turner • LAD 149

9. Cruz • SEA 146

10. Ozuna • MIA 145

 

For pitchers I used adjusted ERA.

 

2012:

1. Verlander • DET 161

2. Price • TBR 150

3. Kershaw • LAD 150

4. Cueto • CIN 148

5. Sale • CHW 140

6. Dickey • NYM 139

7. Gonzalez • WSN 138

8. Zimmermann • WSN 136

9. Weaver • LAA 135

10. Harrison • TEX 133

 

2017:

1. Kluber • CLE 202

2. Kershaw • LAD 180

3. Scherzer • WSN 177

4. Strasburg • WSN 176

5. Ray • ARI 166

6. Sale • BOS 157

7. Severino • NYY 152

8. Gonzalez • WSN 150

9. Greinke • ARI 149

10. Stroman • TOR

 

That's not what I said. Of course you can find one season where the turnover on the list of pitchers was about the same as the list of position players. You have to do this for dozens of pairs in order to approach statistical significance (2011:2016, 2010:2015, etc). This is not nearly rigorous enough to test the theory because just a few exceptional players could completely conceal the larger trend and then some, as could a weird anomaly like having literally every single top position player except Trout be about 29 as they were in 2012 (and thus likely to fall off the list 5 years later).

[adambr2]

 

Here's an exercise for everyone, regardless of where you stand on Archer. Make a list of roughly the 10 most productive pitchers and 10 most productive hitters in baseball for each season as long as you are comfortable making such comparisons. Then compare each list to the same list 5 years later. Which list do you think is going to have more turnover, the pitchers or the hitters? I'm pretty sure it's the pitchers, and it's probably not even close.

 

We can do that right now, and from what I found that does not appear to be true.

 

2012 Position Player top 10 (for hitters I used Adjusted OPS)

1. Posey • SFG 171

2. Trout • LAA 168

3. Cabrera • DET 164

4. McCutchen • PIT 162

5. Braun • MIL 158

6. Encarnacion • TOR 153

7. Fielder • DET 151

8. Cano • NYY 148

9. Headley • SDP 145

10. Wright • NYM 144

 

2017:

1. Trout • LAA 187

2. Judge • NYY 171

3. Votto • CIN 168

4. Stanton • MIA 165

5. Altuve • HOU 164

6. Freeman • ATL 157

7. Gonzalez • HOU 149

8. Turner • LAD 149

9. Cruz • SEA 146

10. Ozuna • MIA 145

 

For pitchers I used adjusted ERA.

 

2012:

1. Verlander • DET 161

2. Price • TBR 150

3. Kershaw • LAD 150

4. Cueto • CIN 148

5. Sale • CHW 140

6. Dickey • NYM 139

7. Gonzalez • WSN 138

8. Zimmermann • WSN 136

9. Weaver • LAA 135

10. Harrison • TEX 133

 

2017:

1. Kluber • CLE 202

2. Kershaw • LAD 180

3. Scherzer • WSN 177

4. Strasburg • WSN 176

5. Ray • ARI 166

6. Sale • BOS 157

7. Severino • NYY 152

8. Gonzalez • WSN 150

9. Greinke • ARI 149

10. Stroman • TOR

 

That's not what I said. Of course you can find one season where the turnover on the list of pitchers was about the same as the list of position players. You have to do this for dozens of pairs in order to approach statistical significance (2011:2016, 2010:2015, etc). This is not nearly rigorous enough to test the theory because just a few exceptional players could completely conceal the larger trend and then some, as could a weird anomaly like having literally every single top position player except Trout be about 29 as they were in 2012 (and thus likely to fall off the list 5 years later).

 

'16 and '11 had 0 similar top 10 pitchers, '15 and '10 had 1, '14 and '09 had 2.

 

'16 and '11 had 1 similar top 10 hitter, '15 and '10 had 2, '14 and '09 had 0.

 

Now using 4 years and still don't see a trend to support that the top pitchers break down faster than hitters at least in recent history.

[PDXBrewCrew]

Top ten might restrict the data. A player could appear in one year's top ten, improve that stat and not make the following season's top ten.

 

A better methodology might be to use the top ten percent of pitcher and position players each season. Or use a stat that has a baseline for the average player and make the list all players whose performance exceeds a certain level above that baseline each season.

 

This is your assignment for today. What else where you going to do? Watch the stinking Patriots win another Super Bowl?

[brewcrewdue80]

Wouldn't it be more of players that are top 10 and their adjusted ERA the next 5 seasons to see the decline?

 

Seeing Jered Weaver in the first list and his drop to today is alarming. Price, Dickey and Zimmerman.

 

Passing on the hard hit contact or HR rate, remember Archer throws 2 pitches 92% of the time. Hitters adjust his stats in on time through an order OPS

In reverse order of years: 17/16/15/14

1:682/736/534/525

2:594/640/614/801

3:852/714/661/613

4:1.228/1.119/1.265/901

 

Or based on Pitches:

1-25:750/852/595/545

26-50:603/618/574/649

50-75:502/673/610/735

76-100:947/689/690

100+:894/908/556/514

 

Pct on FB/Slider/CH in 14/15/16/17 order

65.9 28.9 5.2

54.1 39.2 6.7

48.5 40.2 11.3

47.6 44.4 8.0

 

by the numbers, he should abandon his sliders so much and return to more FBs.

It is concerning when your TOR option is just a 75 pitch Starting pitcher. And clearly he shouldn't see any past 99pitches.

 

You could wonder that his Slider being rated so high has impacted the extra Ks in his game, so he feels he should throw it more to K over throwing his FB. Catcher shows a 1, he shakes it off and then throws his Slider.

 

Something on FG vs BRef WAR ratings. FGs doesn't have a Whip statistic vs BRef. Archer is around 1.25 the last two years and 1.14 in '15 when BRef gave him a 4.3 vs the under 2 BWar the last 2 seasons. I dunno, may be something or just FGs goes on Fip which Whip should affect.

 

Who knows, maybe my behind the numbers is what Stearns and co. have done as well where they see a FB thrown more often makes him more effective and they plan to make that adjustment.

[coolhandluke121]

 

That's not what I said. Of course you can find one season where the turnover on the list of pitchers was about the same as the list of position players. You have to do this for dozens of pairs in order to approach statistical significance (2011:2016, 2010:2015, etc). This is not nearly rigorous enough to test the theory because just a few exceptional players could completely conceal the larger trend and then some, as could a weird anomaly like having literally every single top position player except Trout be about 29 as they were in 2012 (and thus likely to fall off the list 5 years later).

 

'16 and '11 had 0 similar top 10 pitchers, '15 and '10 had 1, '14 and '09 had 2.

 

'16 and '11 had 1 similar top 10 hitter, '15 and '10 had 2, '14 and '09 had 0.

 

Now using 4 years and still don't see a trend to support that the top pitchers break down faster than hitters at least in recent history.

 

That's still not even close to statistical significance. The same cohort of 29-year-old hitters that biased the 2012 group is in most of those other groups. Again, it only takes a few exceptions to the trend to completely mask it for a few years. An excellent hitter at 27 is more likely to still be an excellent hitter at 32 than a pitcher is.

 

Neither is particularly likely though because the average decline from 27 to 32 is drastic for all roles, which is exactly why you need so many side-by-side comparisons of this type before you can even begin to think about making any inferences. For example, if the average hitters' list has 2.5 repeats and the average pitchers' list has 1.5 repeats across 30 years of data, then you'd have a noteworthy difference.

 

Personally, I'm not really attached to any of this data either way because I don't need evidence that pitchers break down faster to know that trading this package for Archer is a terrible idea. I don't see why the Brewers don't have more leverage, because the Rays are the ones who have to make sure they don't pull a Pittsburgh and keep him until an obvious start to his inevitable decline.

[MrTPlush]

Why are you guys arguing over some set of data that even if you figure it out has absolutely nothing to do with Chris Archer because he isn't a Top 10 starter by a mile.

[coolhandluke121]

Why are you guys arguing over some set of data that even if you figure it out has absolutely nothing to do with Chris Archer because he isn't a Top 10 starter by a mile.

 

I guess I'm still hoping everyone will come around as to why trading a prospect haul for him is such a bad idea. I understand the temptation but it would be an awful trade, like being on the wrong side of the Gomez deal. Maybe it's less likely to happen if the most hardcore fans don't like the idea? I don't know.

 

You're right; as I said, the fact that I think pitchers decline even faster than hitters is tangential at best, but a lot of people seem to think Archer won't decline enough to make you regret giving up a king's ransom for him. I think that's generous at best.

[adambr2]

Why are you guys arguing over some set of data that even if you figure it out has absolutely nothing to do with Chris Archer because he isn't a Top 10 starter by a mile.

 

I guess I'm still hoping everyone will come around as to why trading a prospect haul for him is such a bad idea. I understand the temptation but it would be an awful trade, like being on the wrong side of the Gomez deal.

 

Here's my problem with this -- you state these as if they're simply fact with no room for debate. I ask this -- if it's such an awful idea, why is it something we're pursuing so strongly? Do you not think Stearns was aware of what kind of a trade price tag the Rays would have for Archer? Of course he did. The Rays just turned down 3 top 100s with 2 of them being top 50s last year at this time from the Astros, who are also a very competently run organization, (the Astros), wouldn't you agree?

 

Also, don't you think Stearns and his team are aware of the aging curve on pitchers? Of course they do. These guys have access to data far beyond the data we have. So why is he interested? Numerous possibilities exist.

 

- Perhaps they believe Archer has been underperforming and believe they can get at least 3 good years from Archer, and figure even if they don't get a 4th, the price tag still can't be beat.

 

- Perhaps they think that they will get 2 strong rebound years from Archer moving to the NL. Perhaps they think the trade market is depressed right now and believe after rebounding that he'll be worth even more in trade in 2 years and anticipate trading him sometime down the line.

 

That's something that often gets overlooked in these types of deals -- guys with significant cheap control and without no trade clauses have significant resale value as long as their production doesn't fall off a cliff. For all we know, Stearns thinks that renting these guys is a market inefficiency and plans to resell Yelich in 2-3 years and Archer too if acquired.

 

Most importantly, if Chris Archer ends up taking us to a World Series in 2019, does it matter if we 'lose' the trade or he fades starting in 2020?

 

I think you have to look at these things a bit more broadly and with some context. It's not always as simple as a trade won or lost. For example, I would imagine the Royals feel they won the Greinke trade -- but I doubt the Brewers feel that they lost it.

 

Also, yes we certainly won the Gomez trade. However, a few things here:

 

1) Goes to show you can recover from trading a slew of prospects even when the worst happens on both sides as the Astros built a heck of a team from within.

 

2) The way that trade worked out for the Brewers (3, maybe still all 4) prospects panning out so well for them, is incredibly rare.

 

3) Neither side could have anticipated that Gomez was going to turn into a giant pumpkin so quickly. If he had helped carry the Astros to a World Series in 2015 like he looked capable of when we traded him, I doubt they'd have any complaints.

[coolhandluke121]

It should go without saying that any time someone here takes a stance, they know there's a lot of uncertainty involved. I don't think we have to start every single prediction with a disclaimer that "I don't know this for sure but I would be willing to be on this outcome" because it's implied.

 

I definitely think the Brewers lost the Greinke trade. He wasn't even that good as a Brewer and they would have made the playoffs anyway. He had an e.r.a. over 6 in both playoff series, and Estrada was nearly as effective as his substitute in the regular season when he missed 6 weeks with a rib injury. His best pitching was in 2012 when the Brewers were out of it by the deadline anyway. The Brewers should have been a borderline contender every year for almost a decade considering what an awesome farm system they built up, but they needlessly closed their window for guys like Greinke and Sabathia.

 

I don't think they're after Archer that hotly. I can see why Houston would have been last year, but I think that's a mistake on their part too. There's no need for them to close their window. Present needs are usually just future needs that you failed to plan for years ago, and there's no reason to continually increase your future needs for present gratification. It's the same as borrowing money at an exorbitantly high interest rate. Don't kick the can down the road all the time.

 

So why do good teams make irresponsible trades for guys like Archer? Because the temptation is incredibly strong no matter how good you are at team-building. Because having access to the best scouting and aging and injury risk data in the world doesn't mean you're going to be incredibly disciplined, even though you should be. And I'm praying that Stearns will be, because I plan to be a Brewers fan for the rest of my life and they have to be incredibly disciplined if they plan to be a relevant team as often as possible.

[SRB]

Why are you guys arguing over some set of data that even if you figure it out has absolutely nothing to do with Chris Archer because he isn't a Top 10 starter by a mile.

 

I guess I'm still hoping everyone will come around as to why trading a prospect haul for him is such a bad idea. I understand the temptation but it would be an awful trade, like being on the wrong side of the Gomez deal. Maybe it's less likely to happen if the most hardcore fans don't like the idea? I don't know.

 

You're right; as I said, the fact that I think pitchers decline even faster than hitters is tangential at best, but a lot of people seem to think Archer won't decline enough to make you regret giving up a king's ransom for him. I think that's generous at best.

 

We don't have a king's ransom to give up. It's not like we have the #1 prospect in baseball.

 

I don't think Archer is a top 10 pitcher in baseball, but he's certainly a top 10 pitcher in value. People on here are too in love with prospects as lottery tickets.

[MrTPlush]

People on here are too in love with prospects as lottery tickets.

 

No, not all of us people. I don't overvalue prospects and I wouldn't trade Burnes/Phillips/Santana+ for Chris Archer. Not sure who he gives so much value to, but I don't think it is us. The loss of Santana is worth at least 2 WAR on offense, I believe Burnes makes a decent impact next year so we lose value there, and losing both Phillips/Santana together is a huge hit when a OFer goes down. Add in the increase in payroll Archer brings what exactly are we gaining? I don't even know if Archer has a big positive impact next year and every year after I don't think it will trend up.

 

Chris Archer is a terrible target. Not a big impact, but a big impact on what we give up with most of it potentially on the MLB team or MLB ready? Of course I am going off a rumored "what it will take". If it involves lower in the farm guys it changes things a lot. However we are talking about a lot of guys who are already helping us or that will early into the time we would control Archer. That kind of trade seems primed as something we will regret.

[splitterpfj]

FWIW, my offer for Archer is: Santana, Woodruff or Burnes, Peralta, and Gatewood or Grisham.

 

I would replace Santana with Phillips if TB wants to, but I doubt they would.

 

I think Archer is, “really good”, but not elite, and I think Santana is being a bit undervalued by some.

[clancyphile]

People on here are too in love with prospects as lottery tickets.

 

No, not all of us people. I don't overvalue prospects and I wouldn't trade Burnes/Phillips/Santana+ for Chris Archer. Not sure who he gives so much value to, but I don't think it is us. The loss of Santana is worth at least 2 WAR on offense, I believe Burnes makes a decent impact next year so we lose value there, and losing both Phillips/Santana together is a huge hit when a OFer goes down. Add in the increase in payroll Archer brings what exactly are we gaining? I don't even know if Archer has a big positive impact next year and every year after I don't think it will trend up.

 

Chris Archer is a terrible target. Not a big impact, but a big impact on what we give up with most of it potentially on the MLB team or MLB ready? Of course I am going off a rumored "what it will take". If it involves lower in the farm guys it changes things a lot. However we are talking about a lot of guys who are already helping us or that will early into the time we would control Archer. That kind of trade seems primed as something we will regret.

 

I agree. He's a bit like Jimmy Nelson, kind of a top-end #2 starter. The Brewers already have Nelson, Anderson, and Davies as #2s. Chacin is a #3. You have Woodruff and Suter as #3/#4 types.

 

I think the Crew gave up a lot already for Yelich. Archer's going to have a high cost - and for what? An extra #2 starter? Yeah, he only costs $25 million over the next four seasons, but the money isn't the only cost the Brewers will pay.

 

He's not worth a likely package of Santana, Phillips/Erceg, and Ortiz/Burnes.

 

I'd rather assemble a smaller package to get Bauer.

[Dantae]

I completely agree with this proposal. If Rays can't agree to that then Brewers move on (maybe they already have). Tampa has some risk here too. They must bank on Archer having a decent season and most importantly staying healthy.

[Devinep]

I’d agree with what seems like the majority that if TB has an outrageous asking price for Archer, move on. I get why they have a high one, but it needs to be realistic. Santana and Burns should closely get TB what they want, and not much more beyond a Villar/Aguilar addition

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I’d agree with what seems like the majority that if TB has an outrageous asking price for Archer, move on. I get why they have a high one, but it needs to be realistic. Santana and Burns should closely get TB what they want, and not much more beyond a Villar/Aguilar addition

 

We know how we as fans and how experts rate the Brewers' prospects, but we really have no idea how they are rated by the Brewers and by other GMs. There are indications that Burnes is rated quite highly by other teams, but really no idea with Peralta or Phillips. Santana at least has a little bit of a MLB track record to draw comparisons from value-wise.

 

Personally, I think Peralta's upside is as a potential 6th-7th inning reliever. He just doesn't have that live fastball to make him a top-end prospect. Burnes is tougher, because his location and moxie are better than his "stuff" right now, but I think his upside is as a #3. Santana is what he is ... probably a consistent 30 HR guy who's going to bat .275 and be below average in the OF. It's a matter of how another team values that. I would hate to lose Phillips, though. I think he's just scratching the surface of what he can be, and worst case, I think he gives you a .250-.260 BA with 20 HRs, 30 SBs and Gold Glove-caliber defense in RF.

 

I'd trade them Santana, Burnes and Peralta, but if they require a 4th piece, it would need to be more of the "throw-in" type.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I agree. He's a bit like Jimmy Nelson, kind of a top-end #2 starter.

 

I'm sorry, but that comparison is ridiculous. Nelson hasn't come close to 200IP in a season, and it took a fantastic season stats-wise for him to get his career ERA (a stat naysayers constantly harp on Archer for) down close to 4.1. Nelson's 2017 K/9 = 10.2, career average of 8.1. And, this is basically his 29-yr old season that he's opening up on the DL, with no definitive timeframe when he'll be back after getting his throwing shoulder cut on.

 

Archer is basically 0.5 year older, under more team control on his current contract than Nelson is with arbitration, has gone over 200IP each of the last 3 seasons, his career ERA is 3.6 pitching in the AL east, and his career K/9 is 9.7 pitching in the AL (11.1 in 2017). He simply is much better than Nelson. Might still be considered a high end #2, but that means Nelson, Anderson, etc aren't in that category.

 

I'm as big a Nelson fan as anyone, but he's produced at the current rate you're apparently expecting him to continue at/improve upon for about 5 months. Archer has been producing at or above that rate for about 4 seasons.

 

Now, when it comes to what it should cost to acquire Archer, I agree that the Brewers shouldn't just send any and every prospect/player just to get him. I don't really hear much noise about other teams pushing hard to trade for Archer, so I think the Brewers need to avoid competing against themselves, particularly right now. If the Brewers sign one of the FA starters, I don't think they need to sign/acquire another one at the start of this season - they may have a better play revisiting the SP market come this year's trade deadline, when there will likely be many more quality SP options available as teams who are paying lip service to contention are no longer interested and looking to make more palatable trades for starters who may have less team control, but could be better options to anchor a rotation and likely wouldn't cost as much than what some of the current Archer proposals are rumored to be.

[brewcrewdue80]

I agree. He's a bit like Jimmy Nelson, kind of a top-end #2 starter.

 

I'm sorry, but that comparison is ridiculous. Nelson hasn't come close to 200IP in a season, and it took a fantastic season stats-wise for him to get his career ERA (a stat naysayers constantly harp on Archer for) down close to 4.1. Nelson's 2017 K/9 = 10.2, career average of 8.1. And, this is basically his 29-yr old season that he's opening up on the DL, with no definitive timeframe when he'll be back after getting his throwing shoulder cut on.

 

Archer is basically 0.5 year older, under more team control on his current contract than Nelson is with arbitration, has gone over 200IP each of the last 3 seasons, his career ERA is 3.6 pitching in the AL east, and his career K/9 is 9.7 pitching in the AL (11.1 in 2017). He simply is much better than Nelson. Might still be considered a high end #2, but that means Nelson, Anderson, etc aren't in that category.

 

I'm as big a Nelson fan as anyone, but he's produced at the current rate you're apparently expecting him to continue at/improve upon for about 5 months. Archer has been producing at or above that rate for about 4 seasons.

 

Now, when it comes to what it should cost to acquire Archer, I agree that the Brewers shouldn't just send any and every prospect/player just to get him. I don't really hear much noise about other teams pushing hard to trade for Archer, so I think the Brewers need to avoid competing against themselves, particularly right now. If the Brewers sign one of the FA starters, I don't think they need to sign/acquire another one at the start of this season - they may have a better play revisiting the SP market come this year's trade deadline, when there will likely be many more quality SP options available as teams who are paying lip service to contention are no longer interested and looking to make more palatable trades for starters who may have less team control, but could be better options to anchor a rotation and likely wouldn't cost as much than what some of the current Archer proposals are rumored to be.

 

The comparison by the numbers are different. The results between the two are relevant moving forward. If Nelson returns healthy pitching as he did last year, he's better than Archer as he's now got 3 quality pitches and improved control of that quality. Archer,s a 2 pitch pony.

One pitcher is improving, the other isn't, so whereas Archer puts up #2 stuff in his past and Nelson #3.5, his improvement lifted him to #2 and that bolds well as he ages. Archer's stale progression has aging problems moving forward. Velocity drop the largest with injury concerns 2nd most.

[Warning Track Power]

I'd trade them Santana, Burnes and Peralta, but if they require a 4th piece, it would need to be more of the "throw-in" type.

At this point, I agree. I love Santana but with Braun-Cain-Yelich he is going to be underutilized. Furthermore, Phillips is the ideal 4th OF with the starters as I would feel very comfortable playing Phillips in the event of an injury. I hate losing Burnes but you have to give some to get some. Peralta and a lottery pick really should complete the deal. I understand if Milwaukee or TB walks away if it isn't enough but I don't think TB gets much more than that.

 

Something I have been thinking about...HH19 said the trade is being held up by one player and he said that Burnes has to be in the deal. What if the Rays would take Santana and Hiura for Archer and none of Woodruff, Burnes, Ortiz, Peralta are in the deal? Would we all prefer moving Hiura instead of Burnes? Tough choice for sure...

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Something I have been thinking about...HH19 said the trade is being held up by one player and he said that Burnes has to be in the deal. What if the Rays would take Santana and Hiura for Archer and none of Woodruff, Burnes, Ortiz, Peralta are in the deal? Would we all prefer moving Hiura instead of Burnes? Tough choice for sure...

 

I would say the price to acquire solid starting pitching is higher than the price to acquire an above-average 2B, so despite Hiura's potentially superstar hit tool, I think I'd rather go with him in a deal than Burnes. Burnes is likely closer to being ready to make an MLB contribution, and Hiura has serious questions about where he fits defensively. Hopefully he puts those to rest this season.

 

That said, I highly doubt the Rays are going to trade Archer without solid starting pitching potential coming back.

[clancyphile]

I agree. He's a bit like Jimmy Nelson, kind of a top-end #2 starter.

 

I'm sorry, but that comparison is ridiculous. Nelson hasn't come close to 200IP in a season, and it took a fantastic season stats-wise for him to get his career ERA (a stat naysayers constantly harp on Archer for) down close to 4.1. Nelson's 2017 K/9 = 10.2, career average of 8.1. And, this is basically his 29-yr old season that he's opening up on the DL, with no definitive timeframe when he'll be back after getting his throwing shoulder cut on.

 

Archer is basically 0.5 year older, under more team control on his current contract than Nelson is with arbitration, has gone over 200IP each of the last 3 seasons, his career ERA is 3.6 pitching in the AL east, and his career K/9 is 9.7 pitching in the AL (11.1 in 2017). He simply is much better than Nelson. Might still be considered a high end #2, but that means Nelson, Anderson, etc aren't in that category.

 

I'm as big a Nelson fan as anyone, but he's produced at the current rate you're apparently expecting him to continue at/improve upon for about 5 months. Archer has been producing at or above that rate for about 4 seasons.

 

Now, when it comes to what it should cost to acquire Archer, I agree that the Brewers shouldn't just send any and every prospect/player just to get him. I don't really hear much noise about other teams pushing hard to trade for Archer, so I think the Brewers need to avoid competing against themselves, particularly right now. If the Brewers sign one of the FA starters, I don't think they need to sign/acquire another one at the start of this season - they may have a better play revisiting the SP market come this year's trade deadline, when there will likely be many more quality SP options available as teams who are paying lip service to contention are no longer interested and looking to make more palatable trades for starters who may have less team control, but could be better options to anchor a rotation and likely wouldn't cost as much than what some of the current Archer proposals are rumored to be.

 

The comparison by the numbers are different. The results between the two are relevant moving forward. If Nelson returns healthy pitching as he did last year, he's better than Archer as he's now got 3 quality pitches and improved control of that quality. Archer,s a 2 pitch pony.

One pitcher is improving, the other isn't, so whereas Archer puts up #2 stuff in his past and Nelson #3.5, his improvement lifted him to #2 and that bolds well as he ages. Archer's stale progression has aging problems moving forward. Velocity drop the largest with injury concerns 2nd most.

 

I'd be willing to go with one of two base packages:

Santana, Barnes/Bickford, and Wilkerson for Archer

OR

Santana, Aguilar, Bickford, and Nottingham for Archer, LHP Travis Ott, OF/1B Joe McCarthy, and IF Robbie Tenerowicz