Jake Arrieta

[splitterpfj]

We have no idea what, if any, offers Arrieta has at this point, so it's possible he's looking at shorter term deals than he expected, but honestly, if Darvish got 6 years, I don't think anyone should expect Jake to wind up with less than five.

 

Why should he? The market forces favor the player in this case, whether the press says so or not - there are too many teams who need a pitcher, and Jake is clearly the most accomplished starter available. For those who say Jake's numbers have gone backwards, his agent will point to his strong second half of 2017. For everyone who says teams aren't spending, Darvish wound up with two six-year offers. For everyone who says loss of velocity, his agent will talk about postseason experience, etc.

 

My point is, I think the odds are in favor of a contract in the same neighborhood as Darvish got, for Arrieta - maybe not quite as much, but more than it has sounded like all winter.

 

I would say the biggest number the Brewers might put out there is 5/110, but as others have said, I'd prefer something like 2/50, if both sides are willing.

 

(Prepare yourselves for Cobb or Lynn)

[Boomer5]

5/110 for Arrieta?

 

The Brewers have no business giving out $190 million and losing two draft picks to two 32 year old players who are both good but not great.

[MrTPlush]

I don’t get this 2/50 3/70 talk. Sure that would be cool, but entirely unrealistic. The later his market would have to be absolutely dead. A two year deal would have to be 2/~65 and a three year deal 3/~80 if you ask me. Even then I bet he would just prefer to tack on a fourth year, hit nine figures, and not risk decline at his age. Taking a shorter deal and hoping for another shot at FA seems dangerous. Maybe then he would bite on such a short term deal. My guess is teams want to go 4 years instead of 5 years.

 

4/100 would be my guess, maybe a little less. If it goes higher than that the Brewers won’t be getting him.

[splitterpfj]

5/110 for Arrieta?

 

The Brewers have no business giving out $190 million and losing two draft picks to two 32 year old players who are both good but not great.

 

My point is, after Darvish got 6, I don't see a reason to believe Mr Boras won't find 5 for Arrieta - there's too much need, even in a year where most teams seem content to admit defeat. Given that, I expect the Brewers to be outbid, whatever the numbers are, as they were for Darvish.

 

Hence .... prepare for Cobb or Lynn - one in Milwaukee, and one in Minnesota.

[jonescm128]

5/110 for Arrieta?

 

The Brewers have no business giving out $190 million and losing two draft picks to two 32 year old players who are both good but not great.

 

My point is, after Darvish got 6, I don't see a reason to believe Mr Boras won't find 5 for Arrieta - there's too much need, even in a year where most teams seem content to admit defeat. Given that, I expect the Brewers to be outbid, whatever the numbers are, as they were for Darvish.

 

Hence .... prepare for Cobb or Lynn - one in Milwaukee, and one in Minnesota.

 

I agree with you. I don't love it and don't think they are TOR starters, but it would make the staff better. The Brewers don't necessarily need a TOR starter, you can win with a staff full of #3's if your bullpen and offense are solid enough. Look at the Royals in '15.

[coolhandluke121]

 

1 year $30 million (30 per year)

2 year $54 million (27 per year)

3 year $72 million (24 per year)

4 year $88 million (22 per year) with a team buy out for $5 million

 

Let Boras choose his contract. I think both sides would be happy. Jake would get more than Davish per year and the Brewers would get a safer shorter term contract. Personally, I like the 2 year deal.

 

I would go a good deal higher on a 1-year deal because the Cubs would not get a Round B comp pick if it's under $50m. It's also in Arrieta's interest to get back on the market right away because teams are saving money for next year.

[MrTPlush]

I’d feel a lot better about Arrieta if he had a solid month of September. Then I could get on board with Arrieta adjusting in the second half and maybe he still is ace-like . However he instead was terrible which makes me not feel as good about him.

[splitterpfj]

you can win with a staff full of #3's if your bullpen and offense are solid enough. Look at the Royals in '15.

 

Now, take what you said, and walk it out a little further - KC chose an approach and built to it, they had players who fielded well and ran the bases well, with less emphasis on power. They built a dominant bullpen, and an, "acceptable" rotation, but remember, they traded kids for James Shields, and later, for Johnny Cueto (and Ben Zobrist).

 

The core they built got them to within a win of a World Series win, then the push for Cueto and Zobrist got them over the top. Maybe that's what the Brewers have chosen - they build to whatever philosophy it is they've chosen (so far, clearly more OBP and glove, and less reliance on home runs), and they finish the job at the trade deadline.

 

They needed to improve the offense, which they have, and they needed to replace the depth that was lost when Garza got hurt and become ineffective, and more significantly, they have to fill the hole left by Nelson's injury. Chacin in Garza's former spot - ok - but simply patching, and hoping Nelson pitches as though he'd never been hurt for at least half the season seems to counteract what they've done with the offense.

 

I see no way around it, to make the moves for Yelich and Cain make sense for 2018, they need a starting pitcher they don't currently have. Honestly, I'd prefer it to be a younger, probably better pitcher obtained through trade, but I think the need is big enough to force things a bit - if the trade isn't there, I think it's going to be Cobb or Lynn.

[Warning Track Power]

With no stats or advanced metrics to prove my point, I want Arrieta bad now. Just seems like the type of dude who will have a massive chip on his shoulder given how negotiations reportedly went down with the Cubs.

[KCBrewerfan34]

The guy turned down 4/110, I would be heated at myself as well.

[nate82]

you can win with a staff full of #3's if your bullpen and offense are solid enough. Look at the Royals in '15.

 

Now, take what you said, and walk it out a little further - KC chose an approach and built to it, they had players who fielded well and ran the bases well, with less emphasis on power. They built a dominant bullpen, and an, "acceptable" rotation, but remember, they traded kids for James Shields, and later, for Johnny Cueto (and Ben Zobrist).

 

 

The Royals really didn't have that dominant of a bullpen in '15. Yes I know people like to repeat this as fact but the Royals bullpen in '15 was 15th overall in xFIP while the Brewers had the best bullpen in '15. Brewers bullpen in '15 had an xFIP of 3.45 while the Royals had an xFIP of 3.85 the starters weren't much better for the Royals either with an xFIP of 4.48 and the Brewers had an xFIP of 4.32 the best starters xFIP in 2015 were the Cubs at 3.24. The Royals offense wasn't all that great either but they did have a wRC+ of 99 that year which I believe puts them at the 2nd lowest wRC+ to win a World Series the Cardinals have the lowest at wRC+ of 98 most World Series teams have a wRC+ of 100 or more. The Astro's last year had a wRC+ of 121 and the Dodgers had a wRC+ of 104.

 

I think the Brewers need to wait on getting a starting pitcher. I don't think this is the year to get one maybe you can get Atlanta to part with Teheran or one of their younger pitchers for Santana but I don't think that is going to happen. The Braves and the Brewers actually match up pretty well in terms of a trade the Braves need a corner OF and they have a bunch of young pitching to spare. The Braves OF would look rather good with Inciarte in CF , Santana in LF and Acuna in RF. That would give the 2018 and 2019 Braves a big boost in offense. I am not sure if the Brewers could get either Allard or Soroka 1 for 1 for Santana but it is something I would at least kick the tires on to see if the Braves would do that or see who the Brewers would have to kick in to get that done.

 

Allard and Soroka would be #5 in the rotation for 2018 but 2019-2023 you could have a rotation of Davies, Anderson, Allard/Soroka, Burnes, Woodruff. That isn't an all that bad rotation while you are missing that ace or true #1 guy you still have a very good overall rotation with a lot of upside in Allard/Soroka and Burnes. You could even toss in Hader in there if you wanted to.

 

If the Brewers are competing for a playoff spot come the trading deadline then they should definitely look to get someone then but otherwise I hope the Brewers just don't add anyone this offseason unless it is for a younger player who is going to contribute to the team further down the road.

[coolhandluke121]

With no stats or advanced metrics to prove my point, I want Arrieta bad now. Just seems like the type of dude who will have a massive chip on his shoulder given how negotiations reportedly went down with the Cubs.

 

I've made this argument a few times too. Can he reach into the tank and come up with a few more really good years? His personality is a double-edged sword though. While it made him unexpectedly great, he may have been pushing himself too hard, like Guerra did to overachieve for a year.

 

I'm still trying to understand the pick implications. I guess the Cubs get a comp B pick no matter what he signs for because they're neither a luxury tax team nor a revenue-sharing recipient? So the $50m cut-off only matters if the team with the QO was a revenue-sharing recipient...

 

I'd go 2/$60m in that case. Opt-out after 1 year to try again next year if/when the market stabilizes. Take it or leave it.

[MrTPlush]

FIP is absolutely worthless when looking at past results. FIP doesn’t win games or reduce runs. If we are talking about future performance or what should have happened sure use FIP.

 

The Royals bullpen put up elite results in 2015 with a 2.72 ERA(#2 in baseball). Heck only one has sniffed that low of an ERA for a bullpen the last two years. In 2016 the best bullpen ERA was 3.35.

[MrTPlush]

The guy turned down 4/110, I would be heated at myself as well.

 

Are we referring to the Cubs offer this offseason? He likely never had a chance to actually accept it because Darvish went to Chicago. Arrieta was likely the fallback option for them if they lost out on Darvish.

[McRibMcLove]

As SGM (Sofa GM) I'd offer one or both of these to Arrieta:

 

1) 2/$49.5M with $30M in year 1 and $19.5M in year 2 with a player opt out after year 1

2) 3/$75M with 30M/25M/20M per year and vesting options for year 4 ($24M) for cummulative fWAR >= 10 for years 1 to 3 and vesting option of year 5 ($24M) for fWar >= 3 in year 4.

 

Offer 1 is basically a one year rental with downside protection for Arrieta that year 1 isn't as good as he expects and needs year 2 to regain market value.

 

Offer 2 gives him an AAV better than Darvish, an achievable year 4 giving Arrieta more security and ultimately costs the brewers on average about $8M per fWAR. Total contract with vested options would be 5/123, if he hits the 13 war vesting numbers in years 1 to 4.

[KeithStone53151]

you can win with a staff full of #3's if your bullpen and offense are solid enough. Look at the Royals in '15.

 

Now, take what you said, and walk it out a little further - KC chose an approach and built to it, they had players who fielded well and ran the bases well, with less emphasis on power. They built a dominant bullpen, and an, "acceptable" rotation, but remember, they traded kids for James Shields, and later, for Johnny Cueto (and Ben Zobrist).

 

 

The Royals really didn't have that dominant of a bullpen in '15. Yes I know people like to repeat this as fact but the Royals bullpen in '15 was 15th overall in xFIP while the Brewers had the best bullpen in '15. Brewers bullpen in '15 had an xFIP of 3.45 while the Royals had an xFIP of 3.85 the starters weren't much better for the Royals either with an xFIP of 4.48 and the Brewers had an xFIP of 4.32 the best starters xFIP in 2015 were the Cubs at 3.24. The Royals offense wasn't all that great either but they did have a wRC+ of 99 that year which I believe puts them at the 2nd lowest wRC+ to win a World Series the Cardinals have the lowest at wRC+ of 98 most World Series teams have a wRC+ of 100 or more. The Astro's last year had a wRC+ of 121 and the Dodgers had a wRC+ of 104.

 

First off, you can't look at one stat to define anything on it's own. Second, the bullpen stats as a whole are largely irrelevant when determining how dominant a bullpen is in postseason play. Ideally, only 3-5 arms at most pitch out of the bullpen. In 2015, Holland got injured but they had Herrera, Davis, and Hochevar combine for 1 run allowed in the entire postseason. They had a handful of guys with sub 3 era's in the regular season. It surely wasn't as good as the 2014 pen, but still fairly dominant.

[DR28]

Haurdicourt doesnt see us adding Jake.

[nate82]

FIP is absolutely worthless when looking at past results. FIP doesn’t win games or reduce runs. If we are talking about future performance or what should have happened sure use FIP.

 

The Royals bullpen put up elite results in 2015 with a 2.72 ERA(#2 in baseball). Heck only one has sniffed that low of an ERA for a bullpen the last two years. In 2016 the best bullpen ERA was 3.35.

 

Incorrect FIP is just like ERA if you want to predict a future ERA for a pitcher yes use FIP over ERA. FIP actually does win games and reduces runs because FIP is heavily dependent on strike outs, walks, and home runs. xFIP takes out the home run portion of the equation and replaces it with a calculated how many home runs the pitcher should have given up from their fly balls. xFIP formula is below:

xFIP = (13x(Fly Balls x LgHR/FB%) + 3x(BB+HBP) - 2xK / IP) + FIP Constant

 

So as you can see there it actually is a measurement for winning games and reducing runs. xFIP and FIP show you the same thing as ERA does it just gives you more in terms of a calculated expectancy on what the pitcher can control. Strike outs and Walks have the highest correlation to winning for pitchers than any other stat so you are incorrect in stating FIP doesn't win games or reduce runs. FIP by definition is more accurate at determining winning games and reducing runs.

[nate82]

 

First off, you can't look at one stat to define anything on it's own. Second, the bullpen stats as a whole are largely irrelevant when determining how dominant a bullpen is in postseason play. Ideally, only 3-5 arms at most pitch out of the bullpen. In 2015, Holland got injured but they had Herrera, Davis, and Hochevar combine for 1 run allowed in the entire postseason. They had a handful of guys with sub 3 era's in the regular season. It surely wasn't as good as the 2014 pen, but still fairly dominant.

 

xFIP is taking more than one stat and putting it together into one. Overall that is a better stat to look at when you are looking at a full year for the bullpen. The Royals bullpen in 2015 as a whole wasn't as dominant as some claim it was. The post season is a completely different animal and there is more randomization in the playoffs than there is in the regular season due to there being less games being played thus less opportunities for the randomness to normalize. The 2015 Royals were definitely not the best team in baseball in 2015 and yet still won the World Series. The best teams don't always win in the playoffs in baseball most of it is due to random outcomes. Bullpens can be very random at when they are good and when they are bad.

[82brewcrew82]

Hey, Cool! We have analytical analysis board.

[82brewcrew82]

I'm starting the think they make a trade first. Depending on the salary they take back in that trade may be a determining factor in who they may or may not go after as a free agent.

[DR28]

I'm starting the think they make a trade first. Depending on the salary they take back in that trade may be a determining factor in who they may or may not go after as a free agent.

 

Odorizzi and Cobb or Lynn?

[PeaveyFury]

I'm starting the think they make a trade first. Depending on the salary they take back in that trade may be a determining factor in who they may or may not go after as a free agent.

 

I've come around to this as well. I previously was on the train that keeping prospects and signing a FA arm made the most sense, but with the three FA arms left, it seems like hand-picking an affordable, young arm that we like to trade for is worth the prospects we'd have to trade relative to a potentially franchise-crippling, big-money deal + pick.

 

I think Arrieta is the one arm I'm willing to sign if we can't find a trade that makes sense. If we're looking for TOR arms, he's the only one of the three left that has fit the bill and recently. Whether the Brewers think he'll fit that bill going forward or not is the key question, I guess.

[MrTPlush]

FIP is absolutely worthless when looking at past results. FIP doesn’t win games or reduce runs. If we are talking about future performance or what should have happened sure use FIP.

 

The Royals bullpen put up elite results in 2015 with a 2.72 ERA(#2 in baseball). Heck only one has sniffed that low of an ERA for a bullpen the last two years. In 2016 the best bullpen ERA was 3.35.

 

Incorrect FIP is just like ERA if you want to predict a future ERA for a pitcher yes use FIP over ERA. FIP actually does win games and reduces runs because FIP is heavily dependent on strike outs, walks, and home runs. xFIP takes out the home run portion of the equation and replaces it with a calculated how many home runs the pitcher should have given up from their fly balls. xFIP formula is below:

xFIP = (13x(Fly Balls x LgHR/FB%) + 3x(BB+HBP) - 2xK / IP) + FIP Constant

 

So as you can see there it actually is a measurement for winning games and reducing runs. xFIP and FIP show you the same thing as ERA does it just gives you more in terms of a calculated expectancy on what the pitcher can control. Strike outs and Walks have the highest correlation to winning for pitchers than any other stat so you are incorrect in stating FIP doesn't win games or reduce runs. FIP by definition is more accurate at determining winning games and reducing runs.

 

Yes, but the point at the end of the day is how many runs you scored and how many you gave up. FIP and xFIP make assumptions on what should have happened etc. and ERA tells me how it was. You can argue they weren’t actually elite, but reality is they limited runs at an elite level.

 

This is getting a bit off topic, but sometimes I think there is too much love for FIP and xFIP. Some guys consistently overperform or underperform this number. At some point you have to take into account a guy historically doing one of those things.

[bluescale]

2) 3/$75M with 30M/25M/20M per year and vesting options for year 4 ($24M) for cummulative fWAR >= 10 for years 1 to 3 and vesting option of year 5 ($24M) for fWar >= 3 in year 4.

 

I know this is nitpicking, but I don't think such a contract would be possible, even if both sides wanted it. fWAR (or any other iteration of WAR) isn't an official stat, and therefore subject to change. What happens if Fangraphs unexpectedly closes up shop sometime in the middle of his contract?