Anyone else losing their patience?

[trwi7]

Fangraphs provides valuable data for sure, but their team projections are always absolutely terrible. My issue came from the poster that said we shouldn't bother signing relievers because fangraphs says we are going to be 7th worst in the league. It's basically the classic bf.net pick one statistical measure that supports your claim and ignore all evidence to the contrary...and the supporting measure they chose was an awful one at that. Fangraphs is terrible at projecting young players and regression of aging players. Not that it's easy, it doesn't change that they typically project aging players to be timeless until shown otherwise and young players to be terrible until shown otherwise.

 

It wouldn't take a lot for us to dip down to 73 wins. We won 86 but we're going to be without Nelson for an undetermined amount of time and if he gets back during the season it will probably just be to get some innings, not expecting ace like production. That's probably a 3-4 win drop and we're already down to 82 or 83 wins. If Anderson regresses to say a 1.5 WAR pitcher (last year's 3.3 WAR was more than he accumulated in 400+ innings over his career previously) then we could be in for another 2 win drop and we're down to 80 or 81. Knebel could regress, Santana could regress, Shaw could regress, Braun could get hurt and all of those things happening and they aren't as far fetched as some think, then we're probably in the 72-75 win range.

 

Now obviously we could get breakouts from Arcia, Phillips, Brinson etc to push the win total back up but you had a lot of guys that are older doing things they never came close to doing before, so projections are probably going to have them regressing to somewhere between what they had done prior to last year and what they did last year and weighted closer to the lower end because there's more of a sample size of production or lack thereof.

[StearnsFTW]

]Fangraphs has been one of the worst things to come to the world of baseball fans.[/b] Plenty of people that believe they are the holy answers to everything and the end all of a discussion.

 

I don't think I've ever read anything on this site that I disagreed with more.

[pacopete4]

Fangraphs has been one of the worst things to come to the world of baseball fans. Plenty of people that believe they are the holy answers to everything and the end all of a discussion.

 

I don't think I've ever read anything on this site that I disagreed with more.

 

 

That's okay. We all have opinions. I'm just in the camp that thinks the majority of fans see a lot of these numbers, uses them in arguments, and really have no clue what they are using them for.

[KeithStone53151]

Fangraphs provides valuable data for sure, but their team projections are always absolutely terrible. My issue came from the poster that said we shouldn't bother signing relievers because fangraphs says we are going to be 7th worst in the league. It's basically the classic bf.net pick one statistical measure that supports your claim and ignore all evidence to the contrary...and the supporting measure they chose was an awful one at that. Fangraphs is terrible at projecting young players and regression of aging players. Not that it's easy, it doesn't change that they typically project aging players to be timeless until shown otherwise and young players to be terrible until shown otherwise.

 

It wouldn't take a lot for us to dip down to 73 wins. We won 86 but we're going to be without Nelson for an undetermined amount of time and if he gets back during the season it will probably just be to get some innings, not expecting ace like production. That's probably a 3-4 win drop and we're already down to 82 or 83 wins. If Anderson regresses to say a 1.5 WAR pitcher (last year's 3.3 WAR was more than he accumulated in 400+ innings over his career previously) then we could be in for another 2 win drop and we're down to 80 or 81. Knebel could regress, Santana could regress, Shaw could regress, Braun could get hurt and all of those things happening and they aren't as far fetched as some think, then we're probably in the 72-75 win range.

 

Now obviously we could get breakouts from Arcia, Phillips, Brinson etc to push the win total back up but you had a lot of guys that are older doing things they never came close to doing before, so projections are probably going to have them regressing to somewhere between what they had done prior to last year and what they did last year and weighted closer to the lower end because there's more of a sample size of production or lack thereof.

 

There is no doubt that the Brewers could win 73 games, or less. I just think projecting us there is silly. And meanwhile the Cubs and their(at the time) 3 starting pitchers are going to win 100 games? Anything less than a 78 win projection is a terrible projection in my opinion. We have so many guys that could break out. If even 1 or 2 of our many breakout candidates do indeed break out, the 73 win projection is going to look incredibly terrible.

[pacopete4]

As I see more teams signing guys today, maybe the waters are beginning to open up and the Brewers will actually do something this offseason.

[reillymcshane]

Fangraphs has been one of the worst things to come to the world of baseball fans. Plenty of people that believe they are the holy answers to everything and the end all of a discussion.

 

I don't think I've ever read anything on this site that I disagreed with more.

 

 

That's okay. We all have opinions. I'm just in the camp that thinks the majority of fans see a lot of these numbers, uses them in arguments, and really have no clue what they are using them for.

In many ways, I guess I disagree about this. The nice thing about Fangraphs (really WAR - whether Fangraphs or BP or BR) - is that it tries to take all the aspects of a player and put a value on a guy. I honestly think most people like that - understand that - and appreciate having that single, all-encomposing number.

 

Most people know it incorporates the elements of offense and defense. However, I do think you are right in that most people don't really understand exactly how these elements are put together to come up with the number. They have a vague idea - but they really don't know the formula. But in the end, that's okay. People will look at all the data out there and appreciate that there's a 'value' being assigned by running of all of this data through a system.

 

Now, is that system good? That's a different question. If you dig into how these things are calculated - people will see things that give them pause.

 

But one important thing about WAR is that I don't think any of its creators ever say it's a perfect system. It's been tweaked many times over the years. And like any statistic, it's just one thing that people can look at in evaluating a player.

 

I think the reason it's used a lot is because it is fast and easy. You don't have to go into nuances - walk rates, batting ave, etc., etc. It's just a nice, simple answer. Yes, that's probably a bit lazy at times - but that's okay. Not everyone has the time or energy or desire to dig deep into the analytics. WAR gives them that easy answer. I'd rather people embrace WAR than RBIs.

 

I should also point out that Fangraphs isn't just about WAR. People say they hate Fangraphs and it seems to be they don't like WAR or don't understand it. But the site has a lot of great info. Just the data is pretty cool. Finding a place that shows you percentages of pitches a guy throws, the velocity, etc. - that's pretty cool. I appreciate the work that they do. I get a bit frustrated when people dismiss them just because they don't like WAR or whatever. The site is so much more than that.

[bill hAll Star]

It's the same with KenPom in basketball or recruiting rankings.

 

If someone takes the system and applies it as the bible, they'll be wrong. In both cases, the creators will admit that there are some factors that we just cannot judge and there is also just variance in real life, of course.

 

That said, all of this stuff is "as good as we can get." Those are excellent systems to approximate with.

 

I just laugh when I hear someone say, "recruiting rankings just don't matter! Look at all of those 2-star guys in the 1st round of the draft!" Well, yeah, they still are correct given that there is a much higher of 4 and 5 star guys. Rivals or 247 will admit to you that it's impossible to be much more exact than they currently are with 16 and 17 year-old kids...but it's pretty darn good overall. I'd rather have it than not have it.

[pacopete4]

In many ways, I guess I disagree about this. The nice thing about Fangraphs (really WAR - whether Fangraphs or BP or BR) - is that it tries to take all the aspects of a player and put a value on a guy. I honestly think most people like that - understand that - and appreciate having that single, all-encomposing number.

 

Most people know it incorporates the elements of offense and defense. However, I do think you are right in that most people don't really understand exactly how these elements are put together to come up with the number. They have a vague idea - but they really don't know the formula. But in the end, that's okay. People will look at all the data out there and appreciate that there's a 'value' being assigned by running of all of this data through a system.

 

Now, is that system good? That's a different question. If you dig into how these things are calculated - people will see things that give them pause.

 

But one important thing about WAR is that I don't think any of its creators ever say it's a perfect system. It's been tweaked many times over the years. And like any statistic, it's just one thing that people can look at in evaluating a player.

 

I think the reason it's used a lot is because it is fast and easy. You don't have to go into nuances - walk rates, batting ave, etc., etc. It's just a nice, simple answer. Yes, that's probably a bit lazy at times - but that's okay. Not everyone has the time or energy or desire to dig deep into the analytics. WAR gives them that easy answer. I'd rather people embrace WAR than RBIs.

 

I should also point out that Fangraphs isn't just about WAR. People say they hate Fangraphs and it seems to be they don't like WAR or don't understand it. But the site has a lot of great info. Just the data is pretty cool. Finding a place that shows you percentages of pitches a guy throws, the velocity, etc. - that's pretty cool. I appreciate the work that they do. I hate people dismiss them just because they don't like WAR or whatever. The site is so much more than that.

 

This was well-written but to me, it was written on behalf of the 1%'ers. Someone like you that is well-read in terms of baseball statistics it makes a lot of sense and you probably can use the numbers to help back up your claims/arguments. But there are just so many others, again to me, that don't have a flippin clue what they are using or why they are using it when they begin to express themselves on certain players. That's my issue with it. I do go there myself for things you mentioned above as I do find some things very interesting though.

[homer]

Fangraphs provides valuable data for sure, but their team projections are always absolutely terrible. My issue came from the poster that said we shouldn't bother signing relievers because fangraphs says we are going to be 7th worst in the league. It's basically the classic bf.net pick one statistical measure that supports your claim and ignore all evidence to the contrary...and the supporting measure they chose was an awful one at that. Fangraphs is terrible at projecting young players and regression of aging players. Not that it's easy, it doesn't change that they typically project aging players to be timeless until shown otherwise and young players to be terrible until shown otherwise.

 

It wouldn't take a lot for us to dip down to 73 wins. We won 86 but we're going to be without Nelson for an undetermined amount of time and if he gets back during the season it will probably just be to get some innings, not expecting ace like production. That's probably a 3-4 win drop and we're already down to 82 or 83 wins. If Anderson regresses to say a 1.5 WAR pitcher (last year's 3.3 WAR was more than he accumulated in 400+ innings over his career previously) then we could be in for another 2 win drop and we're down to 80 or 81. Knebel could regress, Santana could regress, Shaw could regress, Braun could get hurt and all of those things happening and they aren't as far fetched as some think, then we're probably in the 72-75 win range.

 

Now obviously we could get breakouts from Arcia, Phillips, Brinson etc to push the win total back up but you had a lot of guys that are older doing things they never came close to doing before, so projections are probably going to have them regressing to somewhere between what they had done prior to last year and what they did last year and weighted closer to the lower end because there's more of a sample size of production or lack thereof.

 

There is no doubt that the Brewers could win 73 games, or less. I just think projecting us there is silly. And meanwhile the Cubs and their(at the time) 3 starting pitchers are going to win 100 games? Anything less than a 78 win projection is a terrible projection in my opinion. We have so many guys that could break out. If even 1 or 2 of our many breakout candidates do indeed break out, the 73 win projection is going to look incredibly terrible.

 

I think what they do is project what each player might do and then cumulatively figure out what that translates to in terms of wins and losses. It'd probably be a better exercise to see the individual player projections and then see where they think the regression comes from.

[bill hAll Star]

This was well-written but to me, it was written on behalf of the 1%'ers. Someone like you that is well-read in terms of baseball statistics it makes a lot of sense and you probably can use the numbers to help back up your claims/arguments. But there are just so many others, again to me, that don't have a flippin clue what they are using or why they are using it when they begin to express themselves on certain players. That's my issue with it. I do go there myself for things you mentioned above as I do find some things very interesting though.

 

I fancy myself a entry-level statistician and all I really would say is you don't need to know what's going on. Just tell yourself that it's a pretty good valuation to be treated with skepticism.

 

Just take it as a generally good measure and use your judgment to disagree with a handful of things with it.

 

Recruiting rankings are a great tool 80% of the time. We all know that it is off on Wisconsin Badgers recruiting when projecting wins/losses (but it does tell us that when matched with Ohio State, they're still "out-talented" in football). So do things like that. Take it as a pretty good system but filter out the idea that the Badgers are the 35th best team in the country and that Tennessee is the 5th best. Beyond that, it's pretty darn good.

[StearnsFTW]

In many ways, I guess I disagree about this. The nice thing about Fangraphs (really WAR - whether Fangraphs or BP or BR) - is that it tries to take all the aspects of a player and put a value on a guy. I honestly think most people like that - understand that - and appreciate having that single, all-encomposing number.

 

Most people know it incorporates the elements of offense and defense. However, I do think you are right in that most people don't really understand exactly how these elements are put together to come up with the number. They have a vague idea - but they really don't know the formula. But in the end, that's okay. People will look at all the data out there and appreciate that there's a 'value' being assigned by running of all of this data through a system.

 

Now, is that system good? That's a different question. If you dig into how these things are calculated - people will see things that give them pause.

 

But one important thing about WAR is that I don't think any of its creators ever say it's a perfect system. It's been tweaked many times over the years. And like any statistic, it's just one thing that people can look at in evaluating a player.

 

I think the reason it's used a lot is because it is fast and easy. You don't have to go into nuances - walk rates, batting ave, etc., etc. It's just a nice, simple answer. Yes, that's probably a bit lazy at times - but that's okay. Not everyone has the time or energy or desire to dig deep into the analytics. WAR gives them that easy answer. I'd rather people embrace WAR than RBIs.

 

I should also point out that Fangraphs isn't just about WAR. People say they hate Fangraphs and it seems to be they don't like WAR or don't understand it. But the site has a lot of great info. Just the data is pretty cool. Finding a place that shows you percentages of pitches a guy throws, the velocity, etc. - that's pretty cool. I appreciate the work that they do. I hate people dismiss them just because they don't like WAR or whatever. The site is so much more than that.

 

No chance I could have said it better. I agree 100%. They go so far beyond WAR. There is no site I've learned more from than Fangraphs.

[brewcrewdue80]

Fangraphs provides valuable data for sure, but their team projections are always absolutely terrible. My issue came from the poster that said we shouldn't bother signing relievers because fangraphs says we are going to be 7th worst in the league. It's basically the classic bf.net pick one statistical measure that supports your claim and ignore all evidence to the contrary...and the supporting measure they chose was an awful one at that. Fangraphs is terrible at projecting young players and regression of aging players. Not that it's easy, it doesn't change that they typically project aging players to be timeless until shown otherwise and young players to be terrible until shown otherwise.

 

It wouldn't take a lot for us to dip down to 73 wins. We won 86 but we're going to be without Nelson for an undetermined amount of time and if he gets back during the season it will probably just be to get some innings, not expecting ace like production. That's probably a 3-4 win drop and we're already down to 82 or 83 wins. If Anderson regresses to say a 1.5 WAR pitcher (last year's 3.3 WAR was more than he accumulated in 400+ innings over his career previously) then we could be in for another 2 win drop and we're down to 80 or 81. Knebel could regress, Santana could regress, Shaw could regress, Braun could get hurt and all of those things happening and they aren't as far fetched as some think, then we're probably in the 72-75 win range.

 

Now obviously we could get breakouts from Arcia, Phillips, Brinson etc to push the win total back up but you had a lot of guys that are older doing things they never came close to doing before, so projections are probably going to have them regressing to somewhere between what they had done prior to last year and what they did last year and weighted closer to the lower end because there's more of a sample size of production or lack thereof.

 

Don't forget the likely uptick in having Woodruff over Garza or Peralta having starts. The win change from #4/5 whomever that may end up being(Hader/FA sign/Trade?) That is one thing I'm looking forward out of this club and from within the minors, are the quality additions to a #4 or #5. I do expect Anderson to regress back some to his norm, but then again, maybe that is offset by play from Villar. Aguilar/Pina could be strong regress candidates. I'd still like to think the team is closer to 80wins than 70 wins with a bright future/more upside than regression concerns.

[Mr Southpaw]

Fangraphs provides valuable data for sure, but their team projections are always absolutely terrible. My issue came from the poster that said we shouldn't bother signing relievers because fangraphs says we are going to be 7th worst in the league. It's basically the classic bf.net pick one statistical measure that supports your claim and ignore all evidence to the contrary...and the supporting measure they chose was an awful one at that. Fangraphs is terrible at projecting young players and regression of aging players. Not that it's easy, it doesn't change that they typically project aging players to be timeless until shown otherwise and young players to be terrible until shown otherwise.

 

It wouldn't take a lot for us to dip down to 73 wins. We won 86 but we're going to be without Nelson for an undetermined amount of time and if he gets back during the season it will probably just be to get some innings, not expecting ace like production. That's probably a 3-4 win drop and we're already down to 82 or 83 wins. If Anderson regresses to say a 1.5 WAR pitcher (last year's 3.3 WAR was more than he accumulated in 400+ innings over his career previously) then we could be in for another 2 win drop and we're down to 80 or 81. Knebel could regress, Santana could regress, Shaw could regress, Braun could get hurt and all of those things happening and they aren't as far fetched as some think, then we're probably in the 72-75 win range.

 

Now obviously we could get breakouts from Arcia, Phillips, Brinson etc to push the win total back up but you had a lot of guys that are older doing things they never came close to doing before, so projections are probably going to have them regressing to somewhere between what they had done prior to last year and what they did last year and weighted closer to the lower end because there's more of a sample size of production or lack thereof.

 

Don't forget the likely uptick in having Woodruff over Garza or Peralta having starts. The win change from #4/5 whomever that may end up being(Hader/FA sign/Trade?) That is one thing I'm looking forward out of this club and from within the minors, are the quality additions to a #4 or #5. I do expect Anderson to regress back some to his norm, but then again, maybe that is offset by play from Villar. Aguilar/Pina could be strong regress candidates. I'd still like to think the team is closer to 80wins than 70 wins with a bright future/more upside than regression concerns.

 

Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016.

[TURBO]

 

Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

[Devinep]

 

Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

 

There are also 2 wildcard spots available

[TURBO]

 

Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

 

There are also 2 wildcard spots available

 

Yup, but WC is one and done, way to risky to mortgage the future for a one game sudden death match-up imo. I want to build for the future. A future that we are in place to sustain an actual run deep into the playoffs as division champs.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

 

Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

 

There are also 2 wildcard spots available

Good space out in left field for another Wild Card Banner....I mean it’s been ten years since the last one.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

That should all be in blue!

[reillymcshane]

In many ways, I guess I disagree about this. The nice thing about Fangraphs (really WAR - whether Fangraphs or BP or BR) - is that it tries to take all the aspects of a player and put a value on a guy. I honestly think most people like that - understand that - and appreciate having that single, all-encomposing number.

 

Most people know it incorporates the elements of offense and defense. However, I do think you are right in that most people don't really understand exactly how these elements are put together to come up with the number. They have a vague idea - but they really don't know the formula. But in the end, that's okay. People will look at all the data out there and appreciate that there's a 'value' being assigned by running of all of this data through a system.

 

Now, is that system good? That's a different question. If you dig into how these things are calculated - people will see things that give them pause.

 

But one important thing about WAR is that I don't think any of its creators ever say it's a perfect system. It's been tweaked many times over the years. And like any statistic, it's just one thing that people can look at in evaluating a player.

 

I think the reason it's used a lot is because it is fast and easy. You don't have to go into nuances - walk rates, batting ave, etc., etc. It's just a nice, simple answer. Yes, that's probably a bit lazy at times - but that's okay. Not everyone has the time or energy or desire to dig deep into the analytics. WAR gives them that easy answer. I'd rather people embrace WAR than RBIs.

 

I should also point out that Fangraphs isn't just about WAR. People say they hate Fangraphs and it seems to be they don't like WAR or don't understand it. But the site has a lot of great info. Just the data is pretty cool. Finding a place that shows you percentages of pitches a guy throws, the velocity, etc. - that's pretty cool. I appreciate the work that they do. I hate people dismiss them just because they don't like WAR or whatever. The site is so much more than that.

 

This was well-written but to me, it was written on behalf of the 1%'ers. Someone like you that is well-read in terms of baseball statistics it makes a lot of sense and you probably can use the numbers to help back up your claims/arguments. But there are just so many others, again to me, that don't have a flippin clue what they are using or why they are using it when they begin to express themselves on certain players. That's my issue with it. I do go there myself for things you mentioned above as I do find some things very interesting though.

 

The funny part is that I really don't know that much about calculating WAR. I periodically have to look at exactly what it is calculating to remind myself - and even then, I don't really remember the specifics.

 

I will say that - on the whole - I like the end result. I can look at players and sort of look at it and say, "Okay, that makes sense." When I don't agree with something, I can look a little deeper, and try and understand why it is the way it is. It doesn't always work. I think Archer is a great example. I see a high ERA and wonder how he can be as good as Fangraphs says - or as poor as Baseball-Reference says. But in the end, I just trust that the stat is going to - roughly - give me a value on a player that I can live with as a reference.

 

But you know, I totally get that many people don't care for using WAR. And that's fine. There's lots of stats out there that help define a player's value (not to mention other factors that aren't necessarily a 'statistic'). And I really like it when people try and use a combination of stats when discussing a player. WAR is not the final word in a player's value. But I think it's an okay thing to discuss. And if people use it as an easy reference point - that's okay as well. Again, the idea is that it's encompassing a player's full production value - and that makes it easy to use. But as I said, it's not the only thing.

[Devinep]

.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

 

There are also 2 wildcard spots available

Good space out in left field for another Wild Card Banner....I mean it’s been ten years since the last one.

 

The 2014 Giants, 2011 Cardinals, 2004 Red Sox, etc don’t mind having that banner next to their World Series ones.

 

And the Cubs aren’t exactly a dynasty yet just because of 2016. They weren’t that good and Archer isn’t mortgaging the future. He has 4 years yet on his deal and Stearns won’t overpay either

[Devinep]

.

 

We do all that, are we still going to be able to catch the Cubs now?

 

There are also 2 wildcard spots available

Good space out in left field for another Wild Card Banner....I mean it’s been ten years since the last one.

 

The 2014 Giants, 2011 Cardinals, 2004 Red Sox, etc don’t mind having that banner next to their World Series ones.

 

And the Cubs aren’t exactly a dynasty yet just because of 2016. They weren’t that good and Archer isn’t mortgaging the future. He has 4 years yet on his deal and Stearns won’t overpay either

[TJseven7]

I dont really know about us talking playoffs at this point. We are still down nelson and a 3era pen arm from last year. We can improve leaps and bounds at 4-5 starter and in the pen. We are currently leaning very heavily on woodruff suter jungemann williams and houser.

[Boomer5]

"Add one starter (Archer) ane bullpen arm and sign Walker 3/30.. I personally like trading with the Marlins for S. Castro and Urina. I think they would do that for a 4 prospect deal. Then sign a reliever who had a bad 2017, but good 2014-2016."

 

You're looking at two 4 prospect trades there.

 

I'm not saying you don't do that, just that it would be 8 of our top 30-40 guys and certainly Brinson. Which you would only do if you think we are those two trades away from the playoffs or you think our prospects are more meh than good and you want to sell high on their current value.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

I would ride with our prospects in Williams, houser, etc. there is a huge gap between squeaking into the playoffs for a winner take all game, to competeting for a World Series. Trust the process and Stearns to not overspend foolishly to wreck this whole rebuild. Our time is coming.

[Jenkins5]

Is is just me or is Neil Walker maybe the most overrated and valued 2B. I really just don't think he is as good as his contracts make him out to be. He should be an All-Star for prices he gets paid. He has been steady for 9 years but has never hit .300 (close first year) .280 twice but usually a .260/.270 hitter. Has hit HRs but outside of the two 23 HR seasons, he is usually around 15. Is a solid .775 OPS career guy but that is not elite at 2b. He doesn't run at all and never has. He has WAR's over 2.0 7x over career but only in 2013/2014 did he post in the 3's. Defensively he is solid and average.

 

I just can not justify giving him 10 million a year def over his 32-34 year old seasons. He is past his prime so hard to expect massive seasons coming from him. Again not taking anything away from him but not sure we need to pay him that kind of money. I'd rather deal for Merrefield or see Dubon for 9.5 million cheaper. Even Villar over putting quality money we could use more effectively down the road into Walker