Darvish to Cubs - 6 yrs/~$126M

[SRB]

Cubs had no choice but overpay for Darvish's services... We are now able to concentrate on other pitchers verses waiting. The key is OVER PAY

 

Here's the kicker, it's not an overpay. Darvish will be making about 1.5--roughly---less than Mad Max and he'll make similar money to Homer Bailey, James Shields (Shields/Bailey, wanna take overpay?) and Jonny Cueto. And he'll be making around a million to million five more than Wainwright and Strasburg. (Darvish was looking for 6/175 to begin the off-season.)

 

Overpay? It's closer to being a steal than an overpay. Throw in the opt-out, and it's a clear steal.

 

The Cubs did not react to the Brewers Cain/Yelich moves, so the Brewers cannot knee jerk react to the Darvish move.

 

How does the opt out make it a clear steal? The opt out makes it much, much worse for Chicago.

 

I think it's a fair deal for a non-super-elite (which isn't to denigrate Darvish, he's just not a Kershaw or Scherzer tier SP) with major durability issues whose never had a 5+ fWAR season.

[Sixto]

Not shocked. West coast, warm weather, or dome.

 

or

 

$$$$$$$$$$

[adambr2]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/reactions-to-and-effects-of-the-yu-darvish-deal.html

 

Sounds like although we did offer something in the ballpark of 5/100, we weren't really competitive on Darvish and more in it as a price driver. Per Heyman and Rosenthal.

[bill hAll Star]

Cubs had no choice but overpay for Darvish's services... We are now able to concentrate on other pitchers verses waiting. The key is OVER PAY

 

Here's the kicker, it's not an overpay. Darvish will be making about 1.5--roughly---less than Mad Max and he'll make similar money to Homer Bailey, James Shields (Shields/Bailey, wanna take overpay?) and Jonny Cueto. And he'll be making around a million to million five more than Wainwright and Strasburg. (Darvish was looking for 6/175 to begin the off-season.)

 

Overpay? It's closer to being a steal than an overpay. Throw in the opt-out, and it's a clear steal.

 

The Cubs did not react to the Brewers Cain/Yelich moves, so the Brewers cannot knee jerk react to the Darvish move.

 

How does the opt out make it a clear steal? The opt out makes it much, much worse for Chicago.

 

I think it's a fair deal for a non-super-elite (which isn't to denigrate Darvish, he's just not a Kershaw or Scherzer tier SP) with major durability issues whose never had a 5+ fWAR season.

 

Here’s where the opt-out can be good:

 

Darvish has 2 excellent seasons.

Darvish opts out.

Darvish signs somewhere else.

Darvish flames out as he crosses age 34.

 

Obviously a team option would make this better (and obviously this was not available) but you can get the best of both worlds. They got burned by Heyward but this could work.

 

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

[pacopete4]

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

This stuff is so silly.

[TJseven7]

This makes our offseason foolish.

 

First off would you offer him 21/2... yeah 42 mil over 2 years would be insanely good on him so the opt out would be great.

 

6 years, yeah long time. Too long. Its a 100/5 with 5 mil defered yo the 6th year each year. Our offseason was to get a 4 year window. Where would we be year 5-6 rebuilding with a 60 mil payroll. He'd be our braun in that.

 

This hurt mke over the next 3 years dramatically. We just added 2 guys for 5 years and have a 4 year contract on all our established talent. Tick tack toe and they just threw an X in the spot we needed. No one is excited about year 4-5 of cain. The market depreciating so the big budget cubs can get a sweetheart deal on a 3.2-3.4 era arm is not to our benefit in any way.

 

Basically I see another round of firesale coming before a division title. Stearns reaction to this should be to do less. Q for less than TB wants to stick us up for Archer and now Darvish on a soft deal.

 

3 years of wc hunting and a fire sale. Just awesome!

[liveforoctober]

This makes our offseason foolish.

 

First off would you offer him 21/2... yeah 42 mil over 2 years would be insanely good on him so the opt out would be great.

 

6 years, yeah long time. Too long. Its a 100/5 with 5 mil defered yo the 6th year each year. Our offseason was to get a 4 year window. Where would we be year 5-6 rebuilding with a 60 mil payroll. He'd be our braun in that.

 

This hurt mke over the next 3 years dramatically. We just added 2 guys for 5 years and have a 4 year contract on all our established talent. Tick tack toe and they just threw an X in the spot we needed. No one is excited about year 4-5 of cain. The market depreciating so the big budget cubs can get a sweetheart deal on a 3.2-3.4 era arm is not to our benefit in any way.

 

Basically I see another round of firesale coming before a division title. Stearns reaction to this should be to do less. Q for less than TB wants to stick us up for Archer and now Darvish on a soft deal.

 

3 years of wc hunting and a fire sale. Just awesome!

 

It's funny how opinions can differ so significantly.

 

In my eyes, this off-season didn't change our path one bit. Yelich was Brinson's ceiling (I understand this is my opinion) ... so we simply swapped our best outfield prospect for what we hoped he could be. I certainly consider that a win. Harrison becomes blocked because of Cain/Santana/Braun. We won't need another starting outfielder until 2020ish when Braun is on his way out and Cain is presumably declining. By that time Harrison would have been dealt anyway and/or it will be the Tristen Lutz show... Harrison was never going to start for the Milwaukee Brewers.

 

The only real loss we have is Diaz and depending on Hiura's trajectory ... he too may not have had a place on the 2020 squad either. Admittedly I'm not as high on Yamamoto as others.

 

This year is to figure out which of our young starters (Burnes, Woodruff, Wilkerson, etc) are going to be staples in the future. I don't think the intention in our rebuild was to contend this year ... and while we are closer to that than I think was planned, I don't believe the moves we have made will hinder our ability to compete in '19, '20 etc. as you seem to be insinuating. We sold high on Brinson. It is very possible we sold high on Harrison as well.

[pacopete4]

This makes our offseason foolish.

 

First off would you offer him 21/2... yeah 42 mil over 2 years would be insanely good on him so the opt out would be great.

 

6 years, yeah long time. Too long. Its a 100/5 with 5 mil defered yo the 6th year each year. Our offseason was to get a 4 year window. Where would we be year 5-6 rebuilding with a 60 mil payroll. He'd be our braun in that.

 

This hurt mke over the next 3 years dramatically. We just added 2 guys for 5 years and have a 4 year contract on all our established talent. Tick tack toe and they just threw an X in the spot we needed. No one is excited about year 4-5 of cain. The market depreciating so the big budget cubs can get a sweetheart deal on a 3.2-3.4 era arm is not to our benefit in any way.

 

Basically I see another round of firesale coming before a division title. Stearns reaction to this should be to do less. Q for less than TB wants to stick us up for Archer and now Darvish on a soft deal.

 

3 years of wc hunting and a fire sale. Just awesome!

 

It's funny how opinions can differ so significantly.

 

In my eyes, this off-season didn't change our path one bit. Yelich was Brinson's ceiling (I understand this is my opinion) ... so we simply swapped our best outfield prospect for what we hoped he could be. I certainly consider that a win. Harrison becomes blocked because of Cain/Santana/Braun. We won't need another starting outfielder until 2020ish when Braun is on his way out and Cain is presumably declining. By that time Harrison would have been dealt anyway and/or it will be the Tristen Lutz show... Harrison was never going to start for the Milwaukee Brewers.

 

The only real loss we have is Diaz and depending on Hiura's trajectory ... he too may not have had a place on the 2020 squad either. Admittedly I'm not as high on Yamamoto as others.

 

This year is to figure out which of our young starters (Burnes, Woodruff, Wilkerson, etc) are going to be staples in the future. I don't think the intention in our rebuild was to contend this year ... and while we are closer to that than I think was planned, I don't believe the moves we have made will hinder our ability to compete in '19, '20 etc. as you seem to be insinuating. We sold high on Brinson. It is very possible we sold high on Harrison as well.

+1 Agreed with everything you just said and I’ll add that the Cubs adding Darvish may or may not help them continue their winning ways but I’m really hoping Stearns is just focused on doing what’s best for the Brewers. Taking on Darvish at his age and injury history for six seasons would not have been wise for the Brewers. He will find us pitching. We are in such a better place this season that last year and the year before that. We can’t overreact to these types of things. Stay the course.

[TJseven7]

You point at 2020. That my exact point. 18 19 Darvish helps them a great deal. Likely the same in 2020 if no opt out. Our 3 guys we dealt would be 25 then. Every pospect doesnt have to be in the mlb by 23 to end up good. They are blocked sure. But 2020-2021 is a big sell off year unless they think they have a ws team in the next 2 years.. A lot of impact players control ceases and they go FA in 2021-2022. Fas we wont be able to retain if they continue to be good.

 

Pushed the cubs in their down year. They get Q

Improve this year and keep the heat on them. They steal Darvish. He'll fade sure, but not in the window we have lined up.

 

Its getting old. I'm sick of them being able to pull another ace out of their sleeve and GET A GOOD DEAL on that ace. Again... archers asking price beats Qs by a lot and I'm not even sure archer is as good.

[SRB]

Here’s where the opt-out can be good:

 

Darvish has 2 excellent seasons.

Darvish opts out.

Darvish signs somewhere else.

Darvish flames out as he crosses age 34.

 

Obviously a team option would make this better (and obviously this was not available) but you can get the best of both worlds. They got burned by Heyward but this could work.

 

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

 

Right, but that's also why the opt-out is terrible for the team. The best case scenario for the contract is that Darvish does great and leaves after two years. The worst case is that he does terribly and they are stuck with a $126 million albatross. You are taking on all of the risk without the possible reward of 6 years of a great pitcher.

 

Obviously any team would love to have Darvish on a 2/$42M contract and then he leaves. But here you have the major added risk of him being bad and a $85M penalty kicks in for your misfortune.

[TJseven7]

Here’s where the opt-out can be good:

 

Darvish has 2 excellent seasons.

Darvish opts out.

Darvish signs somewhere else.

Darvish flames out as he crosses age 34.

 

Obviously a team option would make this better (and obviously this was not available) but you can get the best of both worlds. They got burned by Heyward but this could work.

 

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

 

Right, but that's also why the opt-out is terrible for the team. The best case scenario for the contract is that Darvish does great and leaves after two years. The worst case is that he does terribly and they are stuck with a $126 million albatross. You are taking on all of the risk without the possible reward of 6 years of a great pitcher.

 

Obviously any team would love to have Darvish on a 2/$42M contract and then he leaves. But here you have the major added risk of him being bad and a $85M penalty kicks in for your misfortune.

 

Yeah he opts out after a great 2 years paid at 21/2 the cubs make out like bandits. Removed long term risk and a bargain deal at 21 mil per.

[MrTPlush]

Not that it really matters, but an opt out almost surely means the deal is front loaded. I’m guessing it is more like 2/50 minimum if he opts out. So I doubt they are paying Darvish $21mil in years 5 and 6.

[adambr2]

This makes our offseason foolish.

 

First off would you offer him 21/2... yeah 42 mil over 2 years would be insanely good on him so the opt out would be great.

 

6 years, yeah long time. Too long. Its a 100/5 with 5 mil defered yo the 6th year each year. Our offseason was to get a 4 year window. Where would we be year 5-6 rebuilding with a 60 mil payroll. He'd be our braun in that.

 

This hurt mke over the next 3 years dramatically. We just added 2 guys for 5 years and have a 4 year contract on all our established talent. Tick tack toe and they just threw an X in the spot we needed. No one is excited about year 4-5 of cain. The market depreciating so the big budget cubs can get a sweetheart deal on a 3.2-3.4 era arm is not to our benefit in any way.

 

Basically I see another round of firesale coming before a division title. Stearns reaction to this should be to do less. Q for less than TB wants to stick us up for Archer and now Darvish on a soft deal.

 

3 years of wc hunting and a fire sale. Just awesome!

 

It's funny how opinions can differ so significantly.

 

In my eyes, this off-season didn't change our path one bit. Yelich was Brinson's ceiling (I understand this is my opinion) ... so we simply swapped our best outfield prospect for what we hoped he could be. I certainly consider that a win. Harrison becomes blocked because of Cain/Santana/Braun. We won't need another starting outfielder until 2020ish when Braun is on his way out and Cain is presumably declining. By that time Harrison would have been dealt anyway and/or it will be the Tristen Lutz show... Harrison was never going to start for the Milwaukee Brewers.

 

The only real loss we have is Diaz and depending on Hiura's trajectory ... he too may not have had a place on the 2020 squad either. Admittedly I'm not as high on Yamamoto as others.

 

This year is to figure out which of our young starters (Burnes, Woodruff, Wilkerson, etc) are going to be staples in the future. I don't think the intention in our rebuild was to contend this year ... and while we are closer to that than I think was planned, I don't believe the moves we have made will hinder our ability to compete in '19, '20 etc. as you seem to be insinuating. We sold high on Brinson. It is very possible we sold high on Harrison as well.

+1 Agreed with everything you just said and I’ll add that the Cubs adding Darvish may or may not help them continue their winning ways but I’m really hoping Stearns is just focused on doing what’s best for the Brewers. Taking on Darvish at his age and injury history for six seasons would not have been wise for the Brewers. He will find us pitching. We are in such a better place this season that last year and the year before that. We can’t overreact to these types of things. Stay the course.

 

 

I agree. We worry far too much about what the Cubs do. They've got a good team, they've got money, and they're going to spend when they can. We need to do what's best for us -- we can't make every move with the Cubs in mind and we can't go toe to toe with every move they make in free agency. We're not going to win that game.

 

Build from within and spend our resources wisely. Trading for Yelich and signing Cain weren't done to try to catch the Cubs by 2020, they were done to try to make the Milwaukee Brewers better. Which is all we should concern ourselves with.

 

Also keep in mind that so many things can happen that could change fortunes. Yu or Quintana could decline in 2 years, Nelson or Burnes could emerge in a big way. Nor do we even necessarily need to win the division, being one of the top 5 teams in the NL would give us a shot.

[adambr2]

 

Yeah I mean he could have gotten 5/125 and no one would have batted an eye. 6/126 is obviously better for the team. Same argument people were making against Cain's 5th year when he could have gotten 4/80 and it would have not surprised many.

 

The problem with that thinking is it borrows from one year to pay for another. If in four years he's paid more than he's worth it hurts that team. The fact he was worth more a couple years ago doesn't change that. To be a perennial contender we cannot do that sort of thing. The Cubs may be able to do that but no way is it right for us. The only way I'd pay that much is to frontload it so the overpay comes in a year where we could afford it.

 

Pretty easy to budget around the problem. Whether that be frontloading like you said or simply budgeting ahead for what you expect to be a lost year, more control for the same overall amount is a good thing. Doesn't make any sense to me that the same people who would say "good deal" for 5/125 would say "too many years" for 6/126 .

[Boomer5]

This makes our offseason foolish.

 

First off would you offer him 21/2... yeah 42 mil over 2 years would be insanely good on him so the opt out would be great.

 

6 years, yeah long time. Too long. Its a 100/5 with 5 mil defered yo the 6th year each year. Our offseason was to get a 4 year window. Where would we be year 5-6 rebuilding with a 60 mil payroll. He'd be our braun in that.

 

This hurt mke over the next 3 years dramatically. We just added 2 guys for 5 years and have a 4 year contract on all our established talent. Tick tack toe and they just threw an X in the spot we needed. No one is excited about year 4-5 of cain. The market depreciating so the big budget cubs can get a sweetheart deal on a 3.2-3.4 era arm is not to our benefit in any way.

 

Basically I see another round of firesale coming before a division title. Stearns reaction to this should be to do less. Q for less than TB wants to stick us up for Archer and now Darvish on a soft deal.

 

3 years of wc hunting and a fire sale. Just awesome!

 

Great analogy on the tic tac toe.

 

If the offseason hinged on landing Darvish then yes, this is was a really silly offseason because Darvish was never ever coming here. Never. Nada. No way. He was only going to play in a glamour city for the highest possible dollar.

 

I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the off season. They will bring in a big arm otherwise they should have just let Brinson and Phillips develop. As long as they don't foolishly sign Arrieta or unload the rest of the farm for Archer, then the offseason was odd with two big over pays, but not destructive to the long term health of the team.

[adambr2]

Well, it sounds more like from what was reported today that our offer was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5/100.

 

Stearns is smart enough to know that was never going to be accepted. So if that really was the offer, it was a lot more just trying to force the Cubs to be competitive in their offer and not land him for a big discount. If we weren't willing to go 6/126, we were never really that serious about getting him.

 

That's kind of the problem JD Martinez is having now, no bidding war. It's Red Sox or bust and they're offering 5/125 and Martinez has no leverage. Boras I'm sure will try his damndest to manufacture some sort of bidding war but I don't believe for a second that the Diamondbacks are interested in matching that offer.

[dpapo]

The Brewers were never going to sign Darvish for the deal he got with the Cubs. They would have had to get into a bidding war with the Cubs, so we really don't know what it would have taken for the Brewers to sign Darvish. No point in getting overly upset and going over and over again why the Brewers should or shouldn't have signed Darvish for the deal he got with the Cubs, because that wasn't what it would have taken for the Brewers to sign Darvish.

And the Cubs can afford to sign Darvish to the deal he got and more, will still being able to have already signed Hayward, Lester, Chatwood, trading for Quintana, etc.. while still being able to keep all their other players and still be able to make a run at Harper next year.

The Brewers on the other hand wouldn't have been able to add any more salary if they needed to and would have probably have had to dealt some players in order to fit in Darvish, Cain and Braun contracts, not just this year, but in future years as well.

[badwolf1981]

How does that impact them in the Harper derby next year?

 

Back to reality, their chances of signing Harper are virtually zero. Much more likely that Boston, LA, or SF gets him. NY has their corners well covered, will be more apt to target machado/donaldson/kershaw.

 

Swing and a miss. That's wishful thinking about the Cubs landing Harper being "virtually zero." In fact, believe it or not, signing Darvish will not prevent the Cubs from going after and/or signing Harper. If Theo thought for one second signing Darvish negatively impacts their chances at Harper, he would have passed on Darvish. So, imo, signing Darvish actually help the Cubs go after Harper. You can chose to believe that or not, which I'm sure you won't believe. Not saying Harper to the Cubs is guarantee, I'm saying your "virtually zero" comment is pretty much, wrong.

[bill hAll Star]

Why would their chances of signing Harper be zero? Maybe they’ve been biding their time all along to go over the luxury tax threshold next year if Harper or Machado wanted to come.

[coolhandluke121]

 

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

 

They were going to win the division regularly anyway. Like the Brewers early this century, they suffered through a bunch of terrible seasons to build up one of the best farm systems in my lifetime, but unlike those Brewers, they're not botching it to an extent that would make Herb Kohl proud.

 

The Brewers just have to be opportunistic and get good values and maximize their chances of making the wild card every year for a few years without compromising their ability to take over the division when the Cubs go through their inevitable cycle of having an extremely expensive core on the tail end of its prime, with no farm system to speak of. Even the best big market teams still have to go through that cycle, though not as often or for as long as small market teams.

 

I'm much more mad about them getting Chatwood. That's exactly the type of guy the Brewers should have been after. Then maybe the Cubs sign two risky contracts instead of one, giving up two comp picks in the process.

[brewerfan82]

Right, but that's also why the opt-out is terrible for the team. The best case scenario for the contract is that Darvish does great and leaves after two years. The worst case is that he does terribly and they are stuck with a $126 million albatross. You are taking on all of the risk without the possible reward of 6 years of a great pitcher.

 

Obviously any team would love to have Darvish on a 2/$42M contract and then he leaves. But here you have the major added risk of him being bad and a $85M penalty kicks in for your misfortune.

I can understand not liking the opt out if he was a younger player and the deal was for his age 27 to 33 seasons, but Darvish is going to be 32 years old this year, no matter how well he performs the next two seasons, the final 4 years on this contract, when he's 34-37 years old, are going to be a gamble. Teams would have loved him on a low year, high salary contract to begin with and the Cubs may get him on a low year, low salary (relatively) contract and then get out of all the worrisome years as well.

 

On the flip side, if he falls off a cliff the next two seasons and they're stuck with him for all 6 years, well, if there was no opt-out to begin with, they would have been stuck with him anyways. So really the downside's the same. Heck, it's possible he was demanding a 7th year and came down to 6 if they included the opt-out. So it may have been a worse, worst-case scenario if they didn't agree to it.

 

You might be a little irked if he performs well and you don't have him locked down for the final four years, but you also all of a sudden free up $84M over those 4 years if he does decide to leave.

[adambr2]

 

Sorry, everyone can get back to dancing in the streets about how the Cubs are going to be overpaying a guy 4 years from now by $7 million/year after 3 more division titles.

 

They were going to win the division regularly anyway. Like the Brewers early this century, they suffered through a bunch of terrible seasons to build up one of the best farm systems in my lifetime, but unlike those Brewers, they're not botching it to an extent that would make Herb Kohl proud.

 

The Brewers just have to be opportunistic and get good values and maximize their chances of making the wild card every year for a few years without compromising their ability to take over the division when the Cubs go through their inevitable cycle of having an extremely expensive core on the tail end of its prime, with no farm system to speak of. Even the best big market teams still have to go through that cycle, though not as often or for as long as small market teams.

 

I'm much more mad about them getting Chatwood. That's exactly the type of guy the Brewers should have been after. Then maybe the Cubs sign two risky contracts instead of one, giving up two comp picks in the process.

 

I actually thought Chatwood was a pretty considerable overpay at 3/38 and now that we've seen how the market developed I think it's even more of an overpay. I think they got better value with Darvish, actually.

 

Chatwood could possibly end up being a steal for the Cubs, or maybe not . He carries high risk, and how much people were noticing how underrated he was, was starting to make him overrated, if that makes any sense.

 

Chacin was our Chatwood signing. I'll take Chacin for 2/16 over the probably 3/40 it would have taken for Chatwood anyday.

[LouisEly]

Darvish missed almost two full seasons due to injury. He's only started 30 games in a season twice.

 

Chatwood missed almost two full seasons due to injury and has never started more than 27 games or pitched more than 158 innings in a season.

 

These guys are significant injury risks. Lester is 34 and starting to regress. Thinking that the Cubs are going to own the division for the next four years is getting a little ahead of your skis.

[Fear The Chorizo]

This move essentially takes the cubs out of the running for next year's harper sweepstakes, AND more importantly takes them out of the equation at this year's trade deadline for an impact starter. They have no prospects of significant interest at the moment and now will be hamstrung taking on significant salary in a any trades that would also need to include one of their young mlb players as a centerpiece to acquire any difference making pitchers. We knew they would sign a starter...they were always going to be the favorite in the division anyways - theo has done a great job of turning their roster into what he did with Boston after their 1st title...they are acting like the monster market team they are, and are throwing longterm caution to the wind to try and win now. Here's hoping things progress for them like it did Boston - another title sprinkled in over the next few years amongst some uneven and disappointing seasons that leave the organization muddled 5 years from now.

 

The brewers may be big deadline players this year, and I still think they sign a fa starter before the season starts. MadBum would be a great target if he's healthy and the giants realize they are out of it. Cole Hamel in texas, archer or stroman 5 months from now, an Indians package that includes a healthy Salazar and Kipnis, pick of diamondback starters if they falter...there will be alot of options.

[coolhandluke121]

I actually thought Chatwood was a pretty considerable overpay at 3/38 and now that we've seen how the market developed I think it's even more of an overpay. I think they got better value with Darvish, actually.

 

Chatwood could possibly end up being a steal for the Cubs, or maybe not . He carries high risk, and how much people were noticing how underrated he was, was starting to make him overrated, if that makes any sense.

 

Chacin was our Chatwood signing. I'll take Chacin for 2/16 over the probably 3/40 it would have taken for Chatwood anyday.

 

Ultimately it probably just depends on your gut feeling about a player. I believe Chatwood has decent stuff and pedigree and is on the brink of his peak, which will result in a couple pretty good years like so many slightly above average pitchers have had in their late 20's. Think Chase Anderson or Shaun Marcum, for example. I understand the worry about mediocrity and not being a good value, but this isn't like Garza, Lohse, or Suppan. Chatwood is potentially like getting one of those guys 3 years earlier than they did.

 

The lack of a qualifying offer or comp pick and the number of years is perfect for the Brewers, too. Getting guys like him is exactly what got the Brewers 86 wins last year. Admittedly they would be paying a little more than they did for, say, Eric Thames, but that's what you do when you just missed the playoffs by 1 game.

 

I agree about Chacin. No reason they can't have both though. Who knows what Nelson will be when he gets back, and they don't need any roster spots free this year anyway. Surely someone will bomb and they'll be glad they had an extra reliable starter without making any kind of seriously regrettable long-term commitment.