Alex Cobb (Part 1)

[Fear The Chorizo]

He's never pitched more than 180 innings in a year, right? Very hard pass on him anywhere close to his asking price

[RockCoCougars]

Unless I missed the news that MLB has instituted a salary floor, I see no reason to burn high 8 figures on this guy. It would be infuriating to see the Brewers enter into another big money multi-year deal with a pitcher north of 30. For heaven's sake, we are this close to entering a the season without an old, expensive, mediocre at best(albatross at worst), starting pitcher burning starts for the first time in over a decade. Please don't screw it up now.

[NOMAAM]

I'd rather give a year and an option deal to Tillman or Jaime Garcia.

[3and2Fastball]

Lot of risk in signing Cobb to a big contract, only if the Brewers refuse to take on other financial risks. It is infuriating as a fan to be told "we can't afford him". That is completely ridiculous. Mark A has more than doubled his money since buying the Brewers. I don't give a care if he loses some money back, I want a Brewers World Series!

[bill hAll Star]

I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Since Archer is a better pitcher, 1 year younger, and will be much, much cheaper over the next four years than Cobb, I'd rather take a long look at what it would take to acquire him than hamstring your budget on a starter that isn't a difference maker.

 

Sure, you can't empty the farm for him, but if Archer isn't moved this offseason and Tampa gets off to a rough 2018 start, stars may align for the Brewers to try trading for him at this year's deadline. By then they'd have a much better idea on Nelson's status, too. If they are 1/2 way into next year and their 40 man roster crunch is that much closer, DS is going to have a pile of controllable arms/prospects that were here before his tenure started who are going to have their best value to the Brewer organization as trade bait.

[JohnBriggs12]

Bruce Levine says Cobb looking for $17-19 million per year. Cubs balked at that price. I think Brewers could be players at the lower end of that, but not for more than 4 years tops. That would be an overpay but not a drastic one.

[benji]

I would rather get Archer, and tolerate the prospects given up. Archer’s performance and saving a draft pick is better than Cobb’s performance and price in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnBriggs12]

I would rather get Archer, and tolerate the prospects given up. Archer’s performance and saving a draft pick is better than Cobb’s performance and price in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Either way they will overpay. If you look at Cobb vs. Archer, they are actually very close performance wise. One has a 3.50 career ERA and a 3.68 caree FIP and the other has a 3.63 career ERA and a 3.46 FIP pitching in the same park. Their career WHIP is nearly identical. Archer is the flashier of the two because he strikes out a lot.

 

I'd roll the dice on Cobb, because if he fails or gets hurt, he can be replaced with a minimum salary young arm. If Archer fails or gets hurt, they'd have one or two less young arms around to replace him. Cobb is another year removed from surgery and thus some progression from a decent 2017 is reasonable. Last year they paid Garza $12 million or so to be the 5th starter. For roughly an extra $5 million you can get a guy who's no worse than a #3 and only give up a draft pick and still have room to sign Walker. Brewers can afford a $100 million payroll if not a bit more. Revenues are up from 4-5 years ago substantially. With a team that fell one game short last year, anything less short changes a loyal fan base. I like Cobb more than Lynn because teams in the NL are less familiar with Cobb than Lynn.

[KeithStone53151]

I would rather get Archer, and tolerate the prospects given up. Archer’s performance and saving a draft pick is better than Cobb’s performance and price in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Either way they will overpay. If you look at Cobb vs. Archer, they are actually very close performance wise. One has a 3.50 career ERA and a 3.68 caree FIP and the other has a 3.63 career ERA and a 3.46 FIP pitching in the same park. Their career WHIP is nearly identical. Archer is the flashier of the two because he strikes out a lot.

 

I'd roll the dice on Cobb, because if he fails or gets hurt, he can be replaced with a minimum salary young arm. If Archer fails or gets hurt, they'd have one or two less young arms around to replace him. Cobb is another year removed from surgery and thus some progression from a decent 2017 is reasonable.

 

They actually aren't all that close performance-wise. One guys consistently posts high inning totals while the other you'd be lucky to get 160 innings from. Those 40-50 innings might be filled with someone like Wilkerson/Jungmann and a likely low 5s ERA.

[JohnBriggs12]

I would rather get Archer, and tolerate the prospects given up. Archer’s performance and saving a draft pick is better than Cobb’s performance and price in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Either way they will overpay. If you look at Cobb vs. Archer, they are actually very close performance wise. One has a 3.50 career ERA and a 3.68 caree FIP and the other has a 3.63 career ERA and a 3.46 FIP pitching in the same park. Their career WHIP is nearly identical. Archer is the flashier of the two because he strikes out a lot.

 

I'd roll the dice on Cobb, because if he fails or gets hurt, he can be replaced with a minimum salary young arm. If Archer fails or gets hurt, they'd have one or two less young arms around to replace him. Cobb is another year removed from surgery and thus some progression from a decent 2017 is reasonable.

 

They actually aren't all that close performance-wise. One guys consistently posts high inning totals while the other you'd be lucky to get 160 innings from. Those 40-50 innings might be filled with someone like Wilkerson/Jungmann and a likely low 5s ERA.

 

Cobb threw more innings in 2017 than anytime in his career, more than any Brewer other than Davies, and he averaged more innings per start than Davies. The only 2 starts he missed in 2017 were for turf toe. Had he made those two starts, he'd have exceeded 190 innings. He's good to go.

[bill hAll Star]

I would rather get Archer, and tolerate the prospects given up. Archer’s performance and saving a draft pick is better than Cobb’s performance and price in my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Either way they will overpay. If you look at Cobb vs. Archer, they are actually very close performance wise. One has a 3.50 career ERA and a 3.68 caree FIP and the other has a 3.63 career ERA and a 3.46 FIP pitching in the same park. Their career WHIP is nearly identical. Archer is the flashier of the two because he strikes out a lot.

 

I'd roll the dice on Cobb, because if he fails or gets hurt, he can be replaced with a minimum salary young arm. If Archer fails or gets hurt, they'd have one or two less young arms around to replace him. Cobb is another year removed from surgery and thus some progression from a decent 2017 is reasonable.

 

They actually aren't all that close performance-wise. One guys consistently posts high inning totals while the other you'd be lucky to get 160 innings from. Those 40-50 innings might be filled with someone like Wilkerson/Jungmann and a likely low 5s ERA.

 

Cobb got drilled in the head by a liner and had Tommy John. So he's over Tommy John for a little while, we'd hope, and had a fluky liner to the head.

 

Archer has been healthy. However, he throws a ton of hard sliders and high velocity. If his elbow starts to weaken and the slider % goes down or velocity goes down that is cause for concern. Plus, that many sliders still scares me that he'd have Tommy John somewhere in the 2019 range.

 

You're right that he's been more durable than Cobb but I almost think he's a higher risk for the next 4 years.

[JosephC]

Durability would still be the #1 thing I'd look at if making a major acquisition. In that category there is simply no comparison between the two. We'll start with 2013 as that was Archer's first season with 20+ starts. In the last five years Archer has 937 2/3 innings, so a 188 inning/year average and that's with only making 23 starts that first season. Over that same timeframe Cobb has thrown 511 innings for a 128 inning/year average. Archer has been over 200 innings each of the last three years and Cobb has never cracked the 180 inning mark.

 

I've been a big proponent of obtaining a injury-riddled pitcher like Ryu and would be more than willing to do that for the cost of 7 million and a couple fringe prospects. But when a guy is asking 90 million and probably will end up with a 4 year deal in the 56-58 million dollar range, I'd have absolutely no interest if he can't get to 180 innings and Cobb hasn't done that once.

[homer]

There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

[Fear The Chorizo]

IMO, Cobb will cost too much for the production he'd provide and also costs the team a draft pick if the Brewers sign him. IIRC, the Garza signing was viewed as purely a financial commitment, because he didn't cost the Brewers a pick. Small market teams need to be very cautious about free agency to preserve their draft picks more often than not.

 

It is very surprising to me that none of the marquee free agent starters have been signed, yet. Definitely an unprecedented game of chicken being played by all parties at this point, likely driven by big market teams' drive to stay under the luxury tax threshold and small market teams' reluctance to give up draft picks and hamstring their payroll flexibility. With what relievers are getting, I'm surprised the quality arms that will provide 3x the innings pitched aren't being prioritized.

 

At this stage, TB's demands for Archer may be too steep for the Brewers to acquire him, but if they are willing to accept a mix of prospects that won't decimate the farm, it's worth the Brewers to explore trading for him. His contract is basically what Lucroy's last deal was in terms of value through their prime years at their respective positions, perhaps even better.

 

All pitchers have injury risk every time they take the mound, so I'm hesitant to try and prognosticate when one's about to break. Historical durability is definitely an advantage for Archer, but I'd focus on his better K rate when comparing both pitchers moving from Tampa's home park to Miller Park

[superfly]

I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.

 

 

The difference however is IF you give 20 million/year to Cobb, then you HAVE to spend more money elsewhere on multiple players or the move makes absolutely zero sense. You can't sign a mid rotation guy and then be done. With Archer we give up prospects but we don't need to blow our budget in order for it to work.

[Warning Track Power]

There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

This is a good point.

 

Stearns' style to date would be to target controllable, pre-breakout players via trade. Signing a FA like Arietta, Darvish, Cobb, Lynn all fly in the face of what Stearns MO has been to date (granted the Brewers were in "rebuild" mode and not looking for FA). In regard to Archer, I would say that also isn't Stearns MO. Looking at a few trades in particular, Shaw, Villar and Anderson, I think Stearns is looking for SP in a similar vein. Archer has already "broken out" which doesn't make me think he is Stearns target at this point. All of this leads me to believe a trade target would be more a Sean Manaea-type if he is searching for SP via trade. Chacin seems to fit the Anderson profile, late 20s who could still bloom.

 

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?

[TJseven7]

Dylan Bundy. Has been solid but there's more there.

 

Woulda said Taijan Walker a year ago.

[bill hAll Star]

I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.

 

 

The difference however is IF you give 20 million/year to Cobb, then you HAVE to spend more money elsewhere on multiple players or the move makes absolutely zero sense. You can't sign a mid rotation guy and then be done. With Archer we give up prospects but we don't need to blow our budget in order for it to work.

 

I think the exact opposite. If you trade prospects for Archer, it's time to try to win a World Series. You've turned the clock on and the countdown timer is at 4 years (maybe less). Time to start dealing more prospects for other players and spending money. Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in.

 

If you sign Cobb, you still have the entire future in front of you but still can win with Cobb.

 

On top of all of that, keeping said prospects when not trading for Archer means you have more cheap players to fill holes in your organization. Not necessarily this year, but definitely beyond. So you save a lot of money in 2020 for instance on the players other than Cobb.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?

 

Seems like a good thread starter to me...

 

For a talented young starter that was in the process of breaking out with the Mets before running into hamstring issues, what about Robert Gsellman? My guess would be that he's unavailable and the Mets would be more inclined to listen to offers for some of their more established starting pitching.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

This is a good point.

 

Stearns' style to date would be to target controllable, pre-breakout players via trade. Signing a FA like Arietta, Darvish, Cobb, Lynn all fly in the face of what Stearns MO has been to date (granted the Brewers were in "rebuild" mode and not looking for FA). In regard to Archer, I would say that also isn't Stearns MO. Looking at a few trades in particular, Shaw, Villar and Anderson, I think Stearns is looking for SP in a similar vein. Archer has already "broken out" which doesn't make me think he is Stearns target at this point. All of this leads me to believe a trade target would be more a Sean Manaea-type if he is searching for SP via trade. Chacin seems to fit the Anderson profile, late 20s who could still bloom.

 

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?

 

A few names come to mind that may be "buy low" types with breakout potential:

 

1. Dylan Bundy

2. Matt Harvey

3. Jake Odorizzi

[TJseven7]

Im a big Lance Mccullers fan too. Not sure if he can ever get his innings up as high as you'd want but he's not near his upside.

 

Eduardo Rodriguez seems to fit as well.

[Lathund]

I believe we should stay away from Cobb. And Archer. And Arrieta. And Darvish. And any other available "TOR" starter. I just don't think those deals are worth it. In free agency it's about the money and the years; you go into such a deal essentially knowing that the latter part of the deal will be underwater, and just praying that it's not by too much. Trading for a starter will mean giving up one or more of the advanced pitching prospects, which just creates a hole down the line and removes a usually underrated strength; pitching depth.

 

To me, a TOR starter is not something you acquire, it's something you develop. Either through your own farm system, or through acquiring advanced prospects or through acquring a #3-#4 with upside and getting lucky. Either way, you don't pay for the finished product as it's just too expensive in relation to what you're actually getting. I'd rather sign the Chacins of this world and use the $10m or so saved to strengthen elsewhere, can even get creative and turn it into acquiring pitching prospects indirectly. With this strategy there's obviously the risk of ending up without that TOR pitcher (Which tbf is a risk even when directly signing or trading for one too), but while you obviously want one, you don't strictly needone. Fill a rotation with 5 #3s and you'll get far. And secondly, if you're not stuck with any albatrosses you can always go out and add that TOR arm once you're truly a contender.

 

Now I'm obviously not opposed to signing or acquiring a TOR arm at the right price, I just don't see them ever being available like that. So I'd rather try to find the next Chase Anderson or Zach Davies trade instead, improving the rotation from the bottom up while seeing what Burnes or Ortiz or Peralta can do. If it turns out none of them are the (or an) answer, then we might want to splash big. It also hinges on the position players, plenty of unproven guys who can either be stars (Or useful starters) or regress. That also decides when money should be spent on pitching.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in.

 

Marcum was acquired before the trade for Greinke...and the Brewers' downfall following those trades was not being able to draft well enough to replenish the prospect talent given up that offseason.

 

There are smart ways for the Brewers to acquire talent both via free agency and via trade - since not every prospect currently in the Brewers' system (not even close) will contribute in Milwaukee, when their value is highest they should be dealt to help the big league club. It's a GM's role to evaluate when the time is right to move on from those players and get maximum value in return. Hoarding prospects is great, but eventually you run out of room and roster space for them all - and the ones that don't force themselves into MLB with their performance dramatically lose value to the parent organization if they are held a bit too long.

 

If there are Matt LaPorta's currently in the system who could headline a deal for impact MLB talent instead of being held and exposed at the MLB level, I'm all for trading them when their value is highest. Obviously a GM needs to limit losing prospects that develop into solid MLB players, but part of improving depth of a small market team's farm is being able to draw from it during trades and having confidence in the front office's ability to identify amateur talent to replenish it.

[brewcrewdue80]

The concern on the draft pick? It's not like the Lohse debacle and #17. It's now the 3rd pick and stated elsewhere, that's going to fall around the 73rd pick after the 2nd round. Historically that is pick doesn't produce anyone worthwhile and if so to the tune of a 2-3WAR Career. I'd expect Cobb will accomplish that career on average yearly with 170+IP in a season. I mean what is that going to be slot value in the draft? 700k? (looked it up was 791k last season)

 

I do like someone's mention on Cobb being more an unknown to the NL over picking up Lynn who's known well in the Central.

 

We've gotten that 4/60mil contract previously if it's 4/68mil, I'd say that doable. Pay up say 20 and 19mil the first two years, and he's a 15 and 14mil cost those final two years which wouldn't hit the payroll as hard when our guys hit arb.