Wade Davis to Rockies - 3 years/$52M

[homer]

Knebel might be the most valuable reliever in baseball.

[KeithStone53151]

Why not save that money and use it towards retaining their premier offensive players approaching free agency in future years, or extend some of their young pitching to buy out a few years of free agency to lengthen their competitive window? There are countless better ways to spend $ on players compared to wildly overpaying for a bullpen. Contracts like this not only impact the team who issued it, they impact every team's future payroll by setting new market goalposts. That's the biggest problem I have with this contract, longterm it prices a team like the brewers even farther from both signing impact free agent talent but also from retaining premier homegrown/acquired talent through their prime years.

 

Good on Davis and his representation for finding a team dumb enough to give him that contract.

 

It's funny that I just mentioned in a different thread how these top free agents were setting ridiculous asking prices and hoping one dumb GM would make a bold(or stupid) move and pay near that asking price. I figured it would be Dombrowski or Epstein, but looks like this new Rockies GM is the guy.

 

Most of these contracts should clear before they impact the ability to sign their big free agents. Blackmon and Lemahieu's contracts could be backloaded a bit to ease the burden the first couple years. They probably can't afford Arenado and his likely 250 million or more regardless, so considering him is pointless. The problem for me is their ability to patch any holes in 2019 and 2020 if some players underperform. They generally seem stuck with what they have in the system and roster for the next couple years, they can only add by losing in other areas.

 

It's quite possible that if they're "a hole patched away" that ownership would allow it. They have a lot more money than you suggest next year and they went up to $155 million last year by the end of the season for their 40.

 

I think people need to look at baseball free agency with some nuance. There is too much: "smaller market, lots of money = this very bad" simple equations. We all get it. Teams that aren't massive markets should not be living off of huge free agency deals, especially of guys over 30. But if you're a payroll nerd like I am, this deal totally makes sense. I wouldn't call this GM dumb.

 

I would call this a bad deal because they significantly overpaid for the value they are likely to get. Davis benefited from pitcher friendly conditions and an elite defense behind him. He was also much worse in the 2nd half and gave up 7 homers from August through the playoffs. I don't think he's going to be a consistently sub 3 ERA pitcher for Colorado, so he's not worth that money based on that alone. The short term deals for the other relievers made a ton of sense to me. This is a bad deal and this is the one that puts them over the top to overspending on payroll in the near term. They would have so much more flexibility without this deal and flexibility is extremely valuable.

[bill hAll Star]

I would call this a bad deal because they significantly overpaid for the value they are likely to get. Davis benefited from pitcher friendly conditions and an elite defense behind him. He was also much worse in the 2nd half and gave up 7 homers from August through the playoffs. I don't think he's going to be a consistently sub 3 ERA pitcher for Colorado, so he's not worth that money based on that alone. The short term deals for the other relievers made a ton of sense to me. This is a bad deal and this is the one that puts them over the top to overspending on payroll in the near term. They would have so much more flexibility without this deal and flexibility is extremely valuable.

 

The example I generally give, and yes, I know Kershaw is 8x more valuable than Davis, but if the Brewers had a 24 man roster that won 88 games and had a payroll of $20 million total...Clayton Kershaw comes by and says, "I'll come chase a World Series ring, 1 year, $100 million." Mark OKs the deal as he is willing to pay $120 million this year.

 

Would you turn it down because he probably will not be "good value" for that cost? Would you instead sign Jhoulys Chacin for $15 million/2 years as your #4 starter because he'll be a better WAR/$ guy to be the 25th man on your roster?

 

There are also considerations that you have only 25 roster spots and a relatively fixed payroll.

 

I get the rest of what you're saying. I would just assume that given the owner is paying up to $130 million to "finish off" this roster for 2018 that given some room that they have afforded in '19 or '20 that they won't have any problem patching holes if they need to.

[FVBrewerFan]

Knebel might be the most valuable reliever in baseball.

 

Every time one of these relievers signs for a big contract I wonder about what kind a package Knebel is worth. Only thing against him is he had just the one big year. If he repeats in 2018, he could be flipped for a massive haul at the deadline. Good thing about that is even the small market teams in contention will compete for him, since salary isn't an issue.

[KeithStone53151]

Knebel might be the most valuable reliever in baseball.

 

Every time one of these relievers signs for a big contract I wonder about what kind a package Knebel is worth. Only thing against him is he had just the one big year. If he repeats in 2018, he could be flipped for a massive haul at the deadline. Good thing about that is even the small market teams in contention will compete for him, since salary isn't an issue.

 

The only trade in recent memory resembling what that might look like is the Giles trade. You could look there and get an idea of the value he's worth.

[homer]

Knebel might be the most valuable reliever in baseball.

 

Every time one of these relievers signs for a big contract I wonder about what kind a package Knebel is worth. Only thing against him is he had just the one big year. If he repeats in 2018, he could be flipped for a massive haul at the deadline. Good thing about that is even the small market teams in contention will compete for him, since salary isn't an issue.

 

Even better is he isn't a FA until 2022. So Brewers aren't forced to do anything with him for a while.

[DuWayne Steurer]

This is a trend that is only going to continue. 7 guys pitched 200 innings in the NL last year. The average starter in the NL pitched 5.5 innings. Guys that can shorten the game are going to be at a premium. Relievers that don't give up runs are the new market premium. Granted, that the Wade Davis from 2017 isn't what he was from the previous three years, but I'm sure that's what the Rockies are hoping they get. When you have a guy, or guys in your bullpen that can shorten games because they just don't give up runs, that's a premium, and teams are starting to pay premium prices, both in dollars and in prospects, as we've been seeing the last few years.

[Lathund]

This is a trend that is only going to continue. 7 guys pitched 200 innings in the NL last year. The average starter in the NL pitched 5.5 innings. Guys that can shorten the game are going to be at a premium. Relievers that don't give up runs are the new market premium. Granted, that the Wade Davis from 2017 isn't what he was from the previous three years, but I'm sure that's what the Rockies are hoping they get. When you have a guy, or guys in your bullpen that can shorten games because they just don't give up runs, that's a premium, and teams are starting to pay premium prices, both in dollars and in prospects, as we've been seeing the last few years.

 

I'm not so sure it's only going to continue (EDIT: The constantly skyrocketing closer trades/salaries that is, I agree that the trend of starters covering fewer innings will continue). At some point the diminishing returns will mean other areas of the bullpen give you bigger upgrades with each $ spent (Although of course if you already have 7 above average relievers and a great team overall, then a Wade Davis will make sense at higher prices as well. But there aren't many of those teams around at any one point) Are we at that point yet? I don't know, but at some point we will be.

 

If anything, I think the multi-inning relievers will see increased importance and more money allocated. And not just the Andrew Miller "fireman" types or the multi-inning saves, but in general valuing the added flexibility that gives you in using your setup guys and closer when you need them the most.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The example I generally give, and yes, I know Kershaw is 8x more valuable than Davis, but if the Brewers had a 24 man roster that won 88 games and had a payroll of $20 million total...Clayton Kershaw comes by and says, "I'll come chase a World Series ring, 1 year, $100 million." Mark OKs the deal as he is willing to pay $120 million this year.

 

I would say absolutely not as a GM, because setting that sort of precedent leads to more problems down the road with that 20 million, 24 man roster. once several of your budget friendly starters are no longer affordable to a team due to changes in the pitching market directly influenced by themselves years earlier.

 

And I get that the above example is an over the top scenario - That said, a GM good enough to field an 88-win team for 20 Million would be smart enough to tell Kershaw and his owner to pound sand at that contract request.

[FVBrewerFan]

This is a trend that is only going to continue. 7 guys pitched 200 innings in the NL last year. The average starter in the NL pitched 5.5 innings. Guys that can shorten the game are going to be at a premium. Relievers that don't give up runs are the new market premium. Granted, that the Wade Davis from 2017 isn't what he was from the previous three years, but I'm sure that's what the Rockies are hoping they get. When you have a guy, or guys in your bullpen that can shorten games because they just don't give up runs, that's a premium, and teams are starting to pay premium prices, both in dollars and in prospects, as we've been seeing the last few years.

 

I'm not so sure it's only going to continue (EDIT: The constantly skyrocketing closer trades/salaries that is, I agree that the trend of starters covering fewer innings will continue). At some point the diminishing returns will mean other areas of the bullpen give you bigger upgrades with each $ spent (Although of course if you already have 7 above average relievers and a great team overall, then a Wade Davis will make sense at higher prices as well. But there aren't many of those teams around at any one point) Are we at that point yet? I don't know, but at some point we will be.

 

If anything, I think the multi-inning relievers will see increased importance and more money allocated. And not just the Andrew Miller "fireman" types or the multi-inning saves, but in general valuing the added flexibility that gives you in using your setup guys and closer when you need them the most.

 

Yes. If average start stays the same or even declines, relievers who can go multiple innings are as valuable as a closer.

 

Used to be the long relief guy was used to eat innings during a blow-out. These days, wouldn't it be nice to have a couple guys who could go 2 innings in close games? I think this a trend we'll see. Just makes more sense than paying huge money to a 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, and closer. Especially when they all need rest at times.

[jerichoholicninja]

I would call this a bad deal because they significantly overpaid for the value they are likely to get. Davis benefited from pitcher friendly conditions and an elite defense behind him. He was also much worse in the 2nd half and gave up 7 homers from August through the playoffs. I don't think he's going to be a consistently sub 3 ERA pitcher for Colorado, so he's not worth that money based on that alone. The short term deals for the other relievers made a ton of sense to me. This is a bad deal and this is the one that puts them over the top to overspending on payroll in the near term. They would have so much more flexibility without this deal and flexibility is extremely valuable.

 

The example I generally give, and yes, I know Kershaw is 8x more valuable than Davis, but if the Brewers had a 24 man roster that won 88 games and had a payroll of $20 million total...Clayton Kershaw comes by and says, "I'll come chase a World Series ring, 1 year, $100 million." Mark OKs the deal as he is willing to pay $120 million this year.

 

Would you turn it down because he probably will not be "good value" for that cost? Would you instead sign Jhoulys Chacin for $15 million/2 years as your #4 starter because he'll be a better WAR/$ guy to be the 25th man on your roster?

 

There are also considerations that you have only 25 roster spots and a relatively fixed payroll.

 

I get the rest of what you're saying. I would just assume that given the owner is paying up to $130 million to "finish off" this roster for 2018 that given some room that they have afforded in '19 or '20 that they won't have any problem patching holes if they need to.

 

Your example is outrageous but I agree with you. So many people seem to think you get extra credit if you only sign players to below market/cheap deals.

[TJseven7]

This is a trend that is only going to continue. 7 guys pitched 200 innings in the NL last year. The average starter in the NL pitched 5.5 innings. Guys that can shorten the game are going to be at a premium. Relievers that don't give up runs are the new market premium. Granted, that the Wade Davis from 2017 isn't what he was from the previous three years, but I'm sure that's what the Rockies are hoping they get. When you have a guy, or guys in your bullpen that can shorten games because they just don't give up runs, that's a premium, and teams are starting to pay premium prices, both in dollars and in prospects, as we've been seeing the last few years.

 

I'm not so sure it's only going to continue (EDIT: The constantly skyrocketing closer trades/salaries that is, I agree that the trend of starters covering fewer innings will continue). At some point the diminishing returns will mean other areas of the bullpen give you bigger upgrades with each $ spent (Although of course if you already have 7 above average relievers and a great team overall, then a Wade Davis will make sense at higher prices as well. But there aren't many of those teams around at any one point) Are we at that point yet? I don't know, but at some point we will be.

 

If anything, I think the multi-inning relievers will see increased importance and more money allocated. And not just the Andrew Miller "fireman" types or the multi-inning saves, but in general valuing the added flexibility that gives you in using your setup guys and closer when you need them the most.

 

Yes. If average start stays the same or even declines, relievers who can go multiple innings are as valuable as a closer.

 

Used to be the long relief guy was used to eat innings during a blow-out. These days, wouldn't it be nice to have a couple guys who could go 2 innings in close games? I think this a trend we'll see. Just makes more sense than paying huge money to a 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, and closer. Especially when they all need rest at times.

 

So you mean Hader ;-)

 

This is too much. Good for him and good for colo if that's what they want but if we did this I'd be speechless in a bad way. Makes me really wish we had cishek at his price over this nonsense. Where did cishek land again... oh thats right. Don't count on theo being dumb.

[Austin Tatious]

The Cubs are damn smart. I keep hoping they do something stupid and they just do not bite. That’s an absurd contract. Get ready for the Wade Davis decline. The Cubs will not regret this move in the final analysis. Epstein rarely does.

[monty57]

The Brewers aren't done. While everyone else was signing 2nd tier relievers for around $8M/year, Stearns got Chacin for $8M/year. It's not that I think the Brewers should be unwilling to pay money for players, but when one area of the market is overpriced, there will generally be areas where you can find bargains. If two players are worth "x," why pay "x + 1" for one of them when you can pay "x-1" for the other?

 

It appears that starting pitching is an area where you may be able to find bargains, which was certainly not the case in the recent past. I'm glad that Stearns retained his composure and didn't get into the bidding war for today's hot item, and instead found a valuable player for what seems to be less than what he's worth. Stearns may have also found an overlooked area with multi-inning relievers, which is where I think he's going to use Gallardo.

 

Generally speaking, chasing after the hot commodity will get you burned, while the ability to find value will allow for a team like the Brewers to have a few higher priced guys on the roster and remain competitive over the long haul. Rarely should a team spend money just because they have it. That can lead to lots of problems.

[Boomer5]

Page 2 shows why Hader is correctly in the pen.

 

In 2018, elite relievers >>> 3-5 starters

[monty57]

Page 2 shows why Hader is correctly in the pen.

 

In 2018, elite relievers >>> 3-5 starters

 

I don't think that's absolute proof, but I do think that the reason the Brewers aren't committing to Hader one way or the other is they want to see how the market plays out. If they can get a steal on another starter, then they may keep Hader in the pen. If they find some guys they're confident in to fill out the pen then Hader may be in the rotation.

 

Also, the reason those of us who would like to see Hader get a chance in the rotation is that we believe Hader >>>>> 3-5 starter.

[KeithStone53151]

Page 2 shows why Hader is correctly in the pen.

 

In 2018, elite relievers >>> 3-5 starters

 

#3 starters close in on the value of elite relievers, but Hader has the potential to be a frontline starter...which is far and away more valuable than an elite reliever. The pen option is an easy fallback at any time if he fails in the rotation, it's much more difficult to transition from the pen to the rotation later in your career than vice versa. Hader to the rotation is a no brainer decision.