What if we don't add a starter?

[badger3034]

I guess my theory on it all is you should build a big farm with a lot of talent, and pick and choose pieces from the farm to trade away for major league talent when you're getting ready to compete, while not getting rid of the guys you really see as part of your future. The only time I see trading big league talent away as a viable strategy is when you're tanking, as Joey said, or if you have a major surplus at a specific position. Right now, starting pitching is by far the weakest department we have currently, and trading away for prospects isn't a very good idea.

[tmwiese55]

I guess my theory on it all is you should build a big farm with a lot of talent, and pick and choose pieces from the farm to trade away for major league talent when you're getting ready to compete, while not getting rid of the guys you really see as part of your future. The only time I see trading big league talent away as a viable strategy is when you're tanking, as Joey said, or if you have a major surplus at a specific position. Right now, starting pitching is by far the weakest department we have currently, and trading away for prospects isn't a very good idea.

 

Or when they're about to be a FA. Not when they have 4-5 years of control left.

[TJseven7]

Our own patriots way... is what I'm getting at. It's not simple. It started highly proactive and due to some rough draft classes became very reactive. Hasn't hemorrhaged yet though so who am I to say. The trade chandler jones collins mankins part is what I'm getting at in that mold.

 

It was cost interactive, depth and scheme/impact based and very proactive.

 

The question of who you trade out, I believe can be shown through metrics and threshold requirements. What does it take to win broken down on the entire 25 plus position contribution requirements etc. I'm certain they have this, so how would this lead to a decision on whom you trade.

 

1-5 requirements at pitcher. Lets suppose era from your starting staff is required at 4.0 or under for the threshold of what makes you win 90 games. Ok so in this add 2 starters scenerio Davies is on the block immediately. 2018 you got arrieta cobb anderson expecting sub 4 from them all. Arrieta ace (ish) 1or2 year deal gets you back to ace (ish) Nelson 3 years, cobb 4 year, anderson 4 year. 2 years of chacin bridge to Burnes or farm. Woodruff. If you have faith in arrieta/nelson cobb anderson to carry an era sub 4... and it should be 3.6 at worst... you simply need faith chacin woodruff suter AAA depth can cover the 4-5 spots at sub 4.6 and you clear the 4.0 requirement. It makes Davies the overkill because hes 1... not rated over your top 3/4 arms. Has 4 years of control unlike burnes woodruff. He becomes the cycle out option. 2019 nelson anderson cobb... same deal chacin woodruff burnes. In reality if Nelson (2 control) is back, Anderson (3) stays good and cobb (3) is 3.6 or better... Arrieta becomes a flip on his 1 year deal.

 

Side plus... you want to get burnes woodruffs feet wet when they are 4th and 5th guys who require them only to be solid so that they are ready to top the rotation or have shown they can't top the rotation when nelson anderson cobb near the end of their deals.

 

Obviously as it sits now... davies is in the top 3 and can't be moved. 1 add like cobb and a return of nelson makes Davies available in the 2019 offseason.

 

It's a minimalist approach. What is required to win in multiple areas. What talent carries that category what talent can step in and do enough. Requires depth and pieces in place to hit a requirement but no more.

 

Same goes for pen. Knebels into arby 2 after this year. I would not trade him prior to the deadline... if its going bad... or offseason if its going well. But say the threshold is 3.4 era from the pen. Knebel helps that a great deal... so does hader, maybe albers and while people can say maybe 2 will be ready of peralta williams houser lopez diplan we could be replacing knebel and jeffress. All 5 don't need to work. Enough need to be tested to a point where they are trusted. Maybe barnes williams start in the pen this year and by years end are looking to be 7th 8th inning guys.

 

However if you never get the farm into the mlb... you never know if you have a knebel sitting in your farm. Houser williams peralta aren't chumps. They each have 2 60 grade offerings.

 

You look to fill requirements and allow players to move into bigger roles. Once someones displaced, he's prospect fodder.

 

The comment... well prospects don't turn out. Sure plenty fail. Plenty fail because they never get a shot. Plenty succeed. You're not seeking certainties. You are seeking a plethora of possibilities to twist odds your way.

 

83 wins is not the goal... the team had a TON of warts last year. Black hole lead off man. Disaster pen until late. 4-5 starters who were a downright mess. I'm seeking a deep team with less warts that makes other teams beat you. Win by being tough at every spot. Elite at few.

 

If you havent noticed we are looking at a team that's essentially free... and still wondering if we can add another 15 mil to payroll. Braun is the only dude overpaid and we are near broke. Knebel pitches well for a few years and he's core until his arby goes too high. We aren't keeping a 17 mil closer. We are a turn and burn market. You can window spike and rebuild or get ahead of it. Because one way or another... CLEVELAND... you are going to get run over by cap demands. Fend it off proactively with farm restocking and hard choices... or watch it smash you into a new rebuild.

 

But to be clear as day. Knebel wouldn't be shopped until the deadline if the playoffs are lost... and would be in the 2019 offseason if his value holds. Davies would be shopped if displaced. Cobb makes that maybe 2019 offseason. 2 makes that today.

[TJseven7]

I guess my theory on it all is you should build a big farm with a lot of talent, and pick and choose pieces from the farm to trade away for major league talent when you're getting ready to compete, while not getting rid of the guys you really see as part of your future. The only time I see trading big league talent away as a viable strategy is when you're tanking, as Joey said, or if you have a major surplus at a specific position. Right now, starting pitching is by far the weakest department we have currently, and trading away for prospects isn't a very good idea.

 

Or when they're about to be a FA. Not when they have 4-5 years of control left.

 

People don't pay up for rentals. They woke up.

 

Knebel would be down to 3.5 or 3 by the time he's dealt dependent on this seasons outlook at the deadline. The last year arby 4 will be pricey.

 

Unless we add an arm Davies isn't available. If we added cobb he'd be down to 3 arby years at the point of trade.

 

The deals are right before arby or arby 2 of 4. 3 years... not 4 or 5. Also on select pieces, not them all.

[badger3034]

Our own patriots way... is what I'm getting at. It's not simple. It started highly proactive and due to some rough draft classes became very reactive. Hasn't hemorrhaged yet though so who am I to say. The trade chandler jones collins mankins part is what I'm getting at in that mold.

 

It was cost interactive, depth and scheme/impact based and very proactive.

 

The question of who you trade out, I believe can be shown through metrics and threshold requirements. What does it take to win broken down on the entire 25 plus position contribution requirements etc. I'm certain they have this, so how would this lead to a decision on whom you trade.

 

1-5 requirements at pitcher. Lets suppose era from your starting staff is required at 4.0 or under for the threshold of what makes you win 90 games. Ok so in this add 2 starters scenerio Davies is on the block immediately. 2018 you got arrieta cobb anderson expecting sub 4 from them all.

 

Ok you've lost me already, I'm sorry I didn't really take much of the rest of your post seriously. When are we signing Cobb AND Arrieta? I can understand one of the two, but obviously we've gone almost 5 months without signing a single one of the two, what makes you think we're going to acquire both? If that's your logic behind trading Davies, you need to have both signed first. If you trade Davies before that happens (which he is pre-arb, and not even in the REALM of their price tags currently), you're trading away your current #2 pitcher, with very little starting pitching depth. I'm sorry that I can't take your argument seriously for this scenario, I wish I could see your point of view

[pacopete4]

Signing free agent pitchers at $15-$30 million a pop isn’t realistic. It’s why guys like Davies are so valuable. He puts up a stat line close to a healthy Cobb and Arrieta for a fraction of the cost.

[TJseven7]

It makes sense in theory until you trade the proven guy on a contending team and the replacement(say Phillips) is a total bust. Trading 100% known guys for guys who have a 70%+ to dissapoint greatly is a sure fire way to kill your competing team and end up in the same rebuilding window you tried to avoid. That is high risk for questionable high reward. I’d love to see a team do this because I bet it would end up terribly. Look at how many major players get traded and the whole package ends up dissapointing 5 years down the line.

 

Ok so to use the Santana example to phillips.

 

The offense was mid pack. High K. Terrible at the top of the order. Lets say there are specific numbers you must reach at starter era/pen era+ defensive range and obp/ops (aka run production) to hit a 90 win expectation.

 

Now adding cain over broxton is a big increase not only at CF defense but leadoff production ks obp etc. Yelich replaces Santana but + defense in LF and #2 batter consistency with lower ks. 1-2 goes from troubled to elite. That's going to impact the entire offenses production. Would Santana be more productive offensively than a phillips/broxton platoon? Offensively yes, defensively no. How little do you need from phillips/broxton to get your projections within the production thresholds you require.

 

The strength at 1-4 could carry the numbers far enough that 5-8 could be very mediocre and still succeed as a whole. Santanas bat could at that point be seen as an unnecessary plus. You could plug in phillips broxton platoon saying all we should need there is 235/310 and 20hr to not revert past positive threshold we just crossed into. If he fails... its enough. If he succeeds... the offense gets special, the defense is special.

 

It's about knowing whats needed... what you project and being confident in it. At that point you push guys into action when you can achieve your goals while expecting a low floor from them. Limiting fail risk.

 

Statistics era. Im sure there's a win total projection on runs per game scored and the actual wins gained from 4.5 runs to 4.7 runs. If Santana moves it even that much but that .2 runs hokds little to no statistical value... whats the point of the .2 runs.

[badger3034]

Sorry again, what makes you think that Broxton is going to be that huge of an improvement over Santana defensively? I absolutely know, no need to throw stats out there, that Santana is horrible defensively. But out of curiosity (someone on this board can probably help me out here), what makes you think that Broxton would be good in RF? I love Phillips, and he will be a very good player, but I think you need to wait for Santana to be traded before he gets regular playing time. Right now, hes the PREMIER 4th outfielder, I don't know how many teams have a better 4th outfielder than him. This frees Perez up to focus on the infield and potentially go towards playing 2B primarily, and playing other positions secondary. Broxton is no where near Santana, they are literally in different ball parks

 

Edit: stats might say differently, but I don't think Broxton is even good in CF defensively

[coolhandluke121]

But I'm not comparing that and my irritation come from being told... nope your wring despite evidence stating the contrary.

 

Please understand how foolish this sounds to me.

 

We traded thorny because were weren't contending... fine. Now we are contending so we will pay knebel into his arby save inflation. Despite the fact that in the NOW we are contending era we added albers logan and jeffress at pennies which is less than knebel before another year of arby where his cap # will spike. With hader peralta williams houser barnes who could all or some step into more prominent roles for next to no cost.

 

I'm not jaded about a prior regime trading stars. You need to in a small market if you want to consistently compete. You need to graduate talent. You need to hit thresholds yearly to stay in the mix. You have to turn over 1 year ahead and handle the farm well or you hit windows that have to go right between rebuilds. Maybe you can marlins a title... maybe you ride the roller coaster and never top out.

 

What I don't want to see is a gm who "trusts" his farm never trusting his young controlled talent and flipping it for short control that makes a tiny imact. We can get glue guys like swarzak walker jeffress for scraps. I loved that. It was genius. But to stay at that level of genius you have to flip out the extras for farm depth and trust your farm at some point.

 

If we rot these 5 promising pen arms, and block woodruff burnes or flip them for a 3 year window. You push for a title and run to a rebuild. Done well you can compete yearly if you are good, i think stearns is, and are proactive... i think he is but im being flat told no.

 

More farm torched for short term adds. Never trusting our talent... never letting it get to a sell high point. This would tick me off.

 

I totally get where your coming from, and we want the same things. I think we just have a different idea on how to get there. I have to say, if Stearns does follow your train of thought, it would be a novel approach, and he'd be betting a lot on himself and his player personnel department to know which players to sell high on, and which players are building blocks. He'd also have to be extremely thick-skinned, because the majority of the fanbase isn't going to take too kindly to trading off young pre-arb talent that can currently help the team. The typical fan doesn't care about whether a player is in arbitration or not. All they see is your contending team just traded its proven closer for a package of young prospects. Perhaps the "Brewers Way" can become the MLB's version of the "Patriots Way", but they sure as heck aren't there yet.

 

Isn't that one of the reasons the A's were so good for so long? They just kept trading away stars under team control because they knew they wouldn't be able to pay them soon, and they had an absolutely remarkable run for a team with such limited financial means.

 

What's ironic about it, and about the Brewers' success last year, is that "selling high" is often a better way to "win now" than by pursuing conventional "win now" moves, also known in many cases as "buying high", which is never a good philosophy in an asset management business (even if the fans themselves don't appreciate or care about the asset management aspect of it).

 

If they had the stones to trade guys like Anderson, Shaw, Davies, and Knebel right now, it wouldn't shock me if at least one of the guys each player was traded for was a better player within less than 2 years. And possibly 2 or 3 of them, in some cases. I like this team a lot and would be a little disappointed if that happened, but I'd trust their scouting and get over it in a hurry.

[badger3034]

Well thus far, their main trading piece who has big league time, big league control, and a cheap contract, is not getting the value he should get. This argument is about trading away starting pitching, which I don't find even remotely useful. Santana is an excess piece of this team, and I highly doubt anyone would argue against him being traded....... if he were to get a good value. The Diamondbacks traded for Steven Souza who batted .239 last year, when the Brewers were rumored to be in trade talks with them. I know batting average isn't much to go off, but the guy really isn't good for much more than HR's, and Santana has a bigger potential than that. Stearns is valuing Santana higher than what other teams are, and that's a good thing. Don't expect a Santana trade until maybe mid season in my opinion

[mrn1ceguy]

Our own patriots way... is what I'm getting at. It's not simple. It started highly proactive and due to some rough draft classes became very reactive. Hasn't hemorrhaged yet though so who am I to say. The trade chandler jones collins mankins part is what I'm getting at in that mold.

 

It was cost interactive, depth and scheme/impact based and very proactive.

 

The question of who you trade out, I believe can be shown through metrics and threshold requirements. What does it take to win broken down on the entire 25 plus position contribution requirements etc. I'm certain they have this, so how would this lead to a decision on whom you trade.

 

1-5 requirements at pitcher. Lets suppose era from your starting staff is required at 4.0 or under for the threshold of what makes you win 90 games. Ok so in this add 2 starters scenerio Davies is on the block immediately. 2018 you got arrieta cobb anderson expecting sub 4 from them all.

 

Ok you've lost me already, I'm sorry I didn't really take much of the rest of your post seriously. When are we signing Cobb AND Arrieta? I can understand one of the two, but obviously we've gone almost 5 months without signing a single one of the two, what makes you think we're going to acquire both? If that's your logic behind trading Davies, you need to have both signed first. If you trade Davies before that happens (which he is pre-arb, and not even in the REALM of their price tags currently), you're trading away your current #2 pitcher, with very little starting pitching depth. I'm sorry that I can't take your argument seriously for this scenario, I wish I could see your point of view

 

Here's my take on how this could work. Assume this optimistic (but plausible) scenario takes place:

 

2018:

-Sign Cobb to 4 year deal.

-Open the season with Anderson, Cobb, Davies, Chacin, Woodruff.

-All five do well (Anderson <3.0 ERA, Cobb, 3.5 ERA, Davies 3.75 ERA, Chacin <4 ERA, Woodruff ~4 ERA).

-Nelson rehabs well and performs great for half a season after someone (let's go with Cobb) gets hurt, Burnes impresses in AAA.

 

2019

-Trade Chacin for an ok prospect.

-Open the season with Nelson, Anderson, Cobb, Davies, Woodruff (all five continue to do well)

-Burnes gets about 8 weeks in the majors to fill for injuries (let's say Woodruff). Ortiz impresses in AAA.

 

2020

-Trade Anderson or Davies to clear a spot and get back stud prospects.

-Open season with Nelson, Anderson/Davies, Cobb, Woodruff, Burnes.

-Ortiz gets a half season to fill for injuries. Next round impresses in AAA (let's go with Kirby, Ponce, and Zach Brown).

 

2021

-Continue the cycle. Trade a SP for a stud prospect (let's go with Cobb or the other of Anderson/Davies).

-Now the stud prospects you acquired are the next wave to step up.

 

That is the scenario I'd like to get at. What you need is 5 expected starting pitchers and a top prospect in AAA. This becomes a continual pipeline of talent allowing you to extend a true rotation anchor and trade the rest one at a time after they perform for 2-4 years. Some years you skip because no-one stepped up or someone flames out. Some years you can work more than one prospect in because the farm is stronger. But overall, once you shoot for bringing up a rookie pitcher each year and extend one every 3-4 years so they are here for ~8 years of control, you will almost always have an extra pitcher to trade away.

 

We aren't there yet (but could have been if Nelson didn't get hurt) but we are one year away from churning a starter every off-season and two years from trading starters for top-100/top-50 prospects every year (assuming some good breaks/production).

[danzig6767]

 

Isn't that one of the reasons the A's were so good for so long? They just kept trading away stars under team control because they knew they wouldn't be able to pay them soon, and they had an absolutely remarkable run for a team with such limited financial means.

I think the bigger reasons why the A's back then had the run they did was two fold.

 

1. It was a time when Beane and the A's were vastly ahead of most teams when it came to using analytics. This allowed him to exploit market inefficiencies and thus land undervalued talent in free agency and trades. Once most of the league also accepted and dove into analytics, Beane's run largely ended.

 

2. Whether Beane simply had a great eye for pitching, got a little lucky, or a mix of both, he landed Mulder, Hudson, and Zito in a short period of time via he draft, leading to having basically three aces fronting the A's rotation.

 

Beane also had a great eye and i'm sure mixed with analytics way for landing cheap solid 4th/5th starters, along with quality bullpens without a spending a ton.

 

He gets so much credit for bringing about analytics and valuing OBP over batting average, but to me i think it's borderline criminal about how little mention is given to the amazing pitching staffs he put together over quite a long time.

[brewcrewdue80]

It makes sense in theory until you trade the proven guy on a contending team and the replacement(say Phillips) is a total bust. Trading 100% known guys for guys who have a 70%+ to dissapoint greatly is a sure fire way to kill your competing team and end up in the same rebuilding window you tried to avoid. That is high risk for questionable high reward. I’d love to see a team do this because I bet it would end up terribly. Look at how many major players get traded and the whole package ends up dissapointing 5 years down the line.

 

I feel the same as this. Kneble has too much going for him to trade at his team control. 1, he's cheap for a high end(nearing elite?) RP. 2, RPs are valued more than previously. You don't get the elite RPs for under 8million. Some it's near 15million. 3, Prospects as stated don't always turn out. A Great example of this to Kneble's value is Ken Giles who at this point has out Warred the 5 players Houston sent for him and by the looks of it, likely will continue.

 

Will Smith is our bad scenario.

Thornburg our best scenario. Only thing is, the good got 3 players and the bad got 2.

The other scenario is that both those were traded as the franchise was in the Rebuild mode. Clearly we aren't in that mode no more. Phillies? In Rebuild mode when traded Giles. Kneble at this time, has the highest value among our pitchers. Hader is chasing at this point. You trade him when either he's too expensive(12+mil a year) and/or has 1year team control left.

 

The only consideration I'm taking in trading Kneble is someone offers a top 20 type prospect in AA(where you'd understand a contending team trading away vs a AAA top 20) who is an unquestionable star in the making. Tatis Jr, Bichette, Whitley, Rodgers types.

[rickh150]

If we don't add a starter....

We probably should return Cain to the FA heap

[homer]

There will be starters available at the deadline. And this feels like a weird year...might be trades in April/May

[badger3034]

Our own patriots way... is what I'm getting at. It's not simple. It started highly proactive and due to some rough draft classes became very reactive. Hasn't hemorrhaged yet though so who am I to say. The trade chandler jones collins mankins part is what I'm getting at in that mold.

 

It was cost interactive, depth and scheme/impact based and very proactive.

 

The question of who you trade out, I believe can be shown through metrics and threshold requirements. What does it take to win broken down on the entire 25 plus position contribution requirements etc. I'm certain they have this, so how would this lead to a decision on whom you trade.

 

1-5 requirements at pitcher. Lets suppose era from your starting staff is required at 4.0 or under for the threshold of what makes you win 90 games. Ok so in this add 2 starters scenerio Davies is on the block immediately. 2018 you got arrieta cobb anderson expecting sub 4 from them all.

 

Ok you've lost me already, I'm sorry I didn't really take much of the rest of your post seriously. When are we signing Cobb AND Arrieta? I can understand one of the two, but obviously we've gone almost 5 months without signing a single one of the two, what makes you think we're going to acquire both? If that's your logic behind trading Davies, you need to have both signed first. If you trade Davies before that happens (which he is pre-arb, and not even in the REALM of their price tags currently), you're trading away your current #2 pitcher, with very little starting pitching depth. I'm sorry that I can't take your argument seriously for this scenario, I wish I could see your point of view

 

Here's my take on how this could work. Assume this optimistic (but plausible) scenario takes place:

 

2018:

-Sign Cobb to 4 year deal.

-Open the season with Anderson, Cobb, Davies, Chacin, Woodruff.

-All five do well (Anderson <3.0 ERA, Cobb, 3.5 ERA, Davies 3.75 ERA, Chacin <4 ERA, Woodruff ~4 ERA).

-Nelson rehabs well and performs great for half a season after someone (let's go with Cobb) gets hurt, Burnes impresses in AAA.

 

2019

-Trade Chacin for an ok prospect.

-Open the season with Nelson, Anderson, Cobb, Davies, Woodruff (all five continue to do well)

-Burnes gets about 8 weeks in the majors to fill for injuries (let's say Woodruff). Ortiz impresses in AAA.

 

2020

-Trade Anderson or Davies to clear a spot and get back stud prospects.

-Open season with Nelson, Anderson/Davies, Cobb, Woodruff, Burnes.

-Ortiz gets a half season to fill for injuries. Next round impresses in AAA (let's go with Kirby, Ponce, and Zach Brown).

 

2021

-Continue the cycle. Trade a SP for a stud prospect (let's go with Cobb or the other of Anderson/Davies).

-Now the stud prospects you acquired are the next wave to step up.

 

That is the scenario I'd like to get at. What you need is 5 expected starting pitchers and a top prospect in AAA. This becomes a continual pipeline of talent allowing you to extend a true rotation anchor and trade the rest one at a time after they perform for 2-4 years. Some years you skip because no-one stepped up or someone flames out. Some years you can work more than one prospect in because the farm is stronger. But overall, once you shoot for bringing up a rookie pitcher each year and extend one every 3-4 years so they are here for ~8 years of control, you will almost always have an extra pitcher to trade away.

 

We aren't there yet (but could have been if Nelson didn't get hurt) but we are one year away from churning a starter every off-season and two years from trading starters for top-100/top-50 prospects every year (assuming some good breaks/production).

 

Hopefully someone on this board can correct me, but I don't think that there are very many teams in history fielding a 5 man pitching staff with a sub or 4.0 ERA. This is including a guy you signed for a very small contract, and a "rookie," with a small amount of big league experience. Davies hasn't pitched under 4.0 ERA in his career, and Anderson only pitched like an ace for one year. I think Anderson will be a good pitcher this year, but don't expect him to be Kershaw level.

 

Now back to your previous point before your last post, where are we signing Cobb AND Arreita? Or was that just a typo? Everyone wants them to sign EITHER Cobb OR Arrieta, I don't think anyone would really have any complaints if we landed one of them. My whole point to you was the fact that your plan was to sign both, when neither have been signed by any team in all of the MLB this late into the offseason. I doubt we would sign both, and that trading Davies would be dumb, unless we did sign both

[mtrebs]

If we don't add a starter....

We probably should return Cain to the FA heap

 

This.

 

It's like we are going half-way right now. The rebuild is over, but we don't have all the pieces needed to push us to the next level... adding a decent starting pitcher is one of the pieces that could do that.

[McRibMcLove]

The rebuild is never over for a small market team that must build through the draft and player development. The next star is always developing on the farm and when the previous stars get too expensive/past their prime/aren't cost effective then you slot the rookie in. The Brewers got some major bumps last year (Nelson becoming an ace, Anderson become a near ace, Shaw & Santana having "breakout" year and ThamAguilar putting up great numbers at 1B.) Those developments shortened the timeline for the brewers to be competitive.

 

As several posters have pointed out in other threads, the issue with missing the playoffs last year by ONE game was not the pitching, but the hitting. Stearns has already added two near studs to the offense while only taking some away performance (reduced playing time for some). I think the Brewers are close to being the same team as they were last year even with Nelson being out for 2-3 months due to the addition of Cain and Yelich and improvement in the other SP (signing Chacin and Woodruff/Suter instead of the Milone/Garza/etc crap from last year). We don't know if there will be regression from some of the surprises last year, and we don't know when Nelson will be back to ace quality, but we have an excellent chance of competing for the wildcard.

 

I would love adding a Cobb to the rotation, but not at 4-5 years when we will have likely better options from the farm system by year 3 of his contract. Stearns looks for value in a transaction and if it's not there he moves on or looks for it in other ways. Having Cobb/FA SP in the rotation out of Spring Training is not going to dethrone the cubs. 2018 should be about getting into the playoffs and evaluating the talent we have. If talent becomes available during the season for the right price then Stearns has the flexibility to add pieces. The rebuild will continue and we will add pieces from the farm system or trade them for major league ready pieces as needed.

 

I still think the farm system is still a year away from providing players who can step into support roles and become productive. Broxton and Phillips could both benefit from daily AB in AAA, but one or both could be a perfect fit for the OF if Stearns finds an excellent deal for Santana. Until those deals materialize I am sure Stearns is fine sitting pat waiting for opportunities to appear. What are the chances one or both of Brantley/Chisenhall go on the DL in the first 2 months? 50/50? I am absolutely sure one of the contenders will lose a corner OF in the first month and probably 2 in the first half of the year. Then comes Santana time.

[TJseven7]

Our own patriots way... is what I'm getting at. It's not simple. It started highly proactive and due to some rough draft classes became very reactive. Hasn't hemorrhaged yet though so who am I to say. The trade chandler jones collins mankins part is what I'm getting at in that mold.

 

It was cost interactive, depth and scheme/impact based and very proactive.

 

The question of who you trade out, I believe can be shown through metrics and threshold requirements. What does it take to win broken down on the entire 25 plus position contribution requirements etc. I'm certain they have this, so how would this lead to a decision on whom you trade.

 

1-5 requirements at pitcher. Lets suppose era from your starting staff is required at 4.0 or under for the threshold of what makes you win 90 games. Ok so in this add 2 starters scenerio Davies is on the block immediately. 2018 you got arrieta cobb anderson expecting sub 4 from them all.

 

Ok you've lost me already, I'm sorry I didn't really take much of the rest of your post seriously. When are we signing Cobb AND Arrieta? I can understand one of the two, but obviously we've gone almost 5 months without signing a single one of the two, what makes you think we're going to acquire both? If that's your logic behind trading Davies, you need to have both signed first. If you trade Davies before that happens (which he is pre-arb, and not even in the REALM of their price tags currently), you're trading away your current #2 pitcher, with very little starting pitching depth. I'm sorry that I can't take your argument seriously for this scenario, I wish I could see your point of view

 

Ok both of you are getting caught up on a hypothetical aspect of what I'm saying so lets just talk about the situation as is or 1 step from here.

 

Assume era/runs diff = wins is a growth curve that plateaus. Top 15 team era is 4.48. Top 15 runs is at 4.6 per game. Top runs astros 5.5 runs scored to 4.1 era. Cle had 5.05 to 3.30 era dodgers had 4.75 to 3.4 era. 1.4, 1.75, 1.35 difference. 3 100 win teams. Follow the playoffs.

 

Lad 104 (4.75v3.4) +1.35, cle 102 (5.05v3.3) +1.75, astros 101 (5.5v4.1) +1.4

Nats 97 (5.05v3.9) +1.15, AZ 93 (5v3.65) +1.35, bos 93 (4.85v3.7) +1.15

Cubs 92 (5.05v3.95) +1.1, Yankees 91 (5.3v3.7) +1.6, colo 87 (5.05v4.5) +.55

Twins 85 (5.05v4.6) +.45

 

Looks like 5 runs per game 3.9 era is the sweet spot

 

Brewers 4.5 runs... 4.0 era. +.5.... 4.1 starter 3.85 pen

Tb 4.3v4 +.3.....stl 4.7v4 +.7......laa 4.4v4.2 +.2.......

Kc 4.3v4.6 -.3

And thats the end of the 80 win teams.

 

Yup score runs, don't allow runs win games. But a +1.1 team is a 90 win team. After that if falls off fast. 1.75 and 1.6 had 102 wins and 91 wins. 1.35 is the 104 win best dodgers and 93 win az team. There's no correlation in runs v era once you pass +1.1.

 

This is rumidial but also what I'd expect the plateau to look like. A 90 win team is a +1.1. A 100 win team is a +1.3. The cost/talent difference to move up that +.2 is likely siesmic.

 

As is...

Anderson 3.2 (203 ip od 2.75) davies 3.9 chacin 4.0 woodruff 4.4 fluff 4.8 (lets hope) roughly the 4.1 era and that's what we had last year. Say you get nelson back at 3.4 (was a 3.1 when he locked in) for 2019 and burnes is 4.4 inplace of fluff. You take out Davies and fluff for nelson burnes and its realistically a 3.9 era rotation. +.2 from last year. Just Nelson Anderson Chacin Woodruff Burnes. If you added a cobb even as a 3.6 era that spikes even lower. This is why I say adding cobb makes Davies expendable for assets if/when nelson is back. 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.4... anderson nelson cobb chacin woodruff is 3.7 not 4.1.

 

Pen 3.85... 3.85! Suter as a long man, knebel hader and 5 jeffress blows that out of the water! In the 3.5 range. Lets ignore 5 jeffress and assume we can get a 6 man average of 3.65 era out of albers peralta barnes williams houser and jeffress. Is that a big stretch? I do not believe so. If 1 of those 6 are sub 3 era...1 of that entire group, and the rest can still average 3.65 then you can hit the era you want from the pen without knebel. Roughly 3.55

 

Our unfinished rotation profiles equal to last years rotation at 4.1 if our 5th isnt worse than Garza and anderson doesn't fall off a cliff. Thats without nelson. Our pen with Knebel Hader Suter and 5 jeffress (3.65 guys) would be a stark improvement over last years pen. Instead of 4.0 team era... as is its looking more along the lines of 3.9 era. Done simply by removing gigantic depth weakness warts. Again thats no Nelson, no real 5th starter, no knebel. Add nelson burnes at 3.4 4.4 puts it more along the lines of a 3.8 era. Thats no Davies, no knebel.

 

Ok so... 3.8 era... need to score 4.9 runs per game. .4 increase. How huge of a difference does cain yelich batting 1-2 bring to this lineup.

 

Thats 793 runs. Teams sandwiching that total last year averaged:

251/325/743 with 2320 total bases.

We had:

249/322/751 with 2346 total bases.

 

Strange huh. 60 less runs... same numbers. That... I can not even begin to try to explain. What I can assume is cain 1 instead of a blackhole should help. Maybe it had something to do with leading off pedroia betts and bogaerts or deshields choo gomes over the the 300 obp villar. (They average 350-355)

[TJseven7]

Sorry again, what makes you think that Broxton is going to be that huge of an improvement over Santana defensively? I absolutely know, no need to throw stats out there, that Santana is horrible defensively. But out of curiosity (someone on this board can probably help me out here), what makes you think that Broxton would be good in RF? I love Phillips, and he will be a very good player, but I think you need to wait for Santana to be traded before he gets regular playing time. Right now, hes the PREMIER 4th outfielder, I don't know how many teams have a better 4th outfielder than him. This frees Perez up to focus on the infield and potentially go towards playing 2B primarily, and playing other positions secondary. Broxton is no where near Santana, they are literally in different ball parks

 

Edit: stats might say differently, but I don't think Broxton is even good in CF defensively

 

I agree broxton = bad. But in cf hes averaged +.25 dwar in 2 years

Santana has averaged -1.2 dwar in 2 years.

Phillips would be a huge defensive plus in rf playing most of the time.

If broxton can't play rf... cain can.

Broxton in cf for 50 games. Cain in rf 50 games. Phillips in rf 110 games is way better than Santana defensively.

 

That's how Im looking at it.

[TJseven7]

Mm1ceguy good layout idea.

 

Target staff era 3.8

Target runs per game 4.9 (how they scored so poorly in comparison to texas and boston, no idea)

 

2018

Cobb 60/4 to put the train in motion.

Anderson 3.2 cobb 3.6 davies 4.0 chacin 4.0 woodruff 4.6 straight average 3.9

Pen knebel hader 2.5 albers 3.0 jeffress logan barnes williams 3.7 average suter 4.0 straight average 3.35.

Staff 3.7 until nelson or deadline trade... fair?

Need 4.8 runs per game to be a 90+ win team.

 

2019

Nelson back at 3.4

Anderson 3.2 nelson 3.4 cobb 3.6 woodruff 4.3 Burnes 4.5 staff at 3.8

Trade Davies

Hader 2.5 albers peralta 3.0 barnes williams 3.5 houser chacin suter 3.8 average 3.36

Trade knebel

Staff shade under 3.7 until deadline trade?

Need 4.8 runs for a 90+ win team

 

That's what I'm after. Set the top, set reasonably low expectations for talent cutting their teeth. Deal out the extra so you can stay right at the +1.1 threshold while restocking the farm.

 

If you get blasted by injuries you lose. That's always the case. It can kill windows. If your guys flop, well you dont have the horses. If anderson sucks davies ain't saving us. Simply hit expectations and 90 wins is there to be had if not more. If guys surprise or flare you are headed towards a special season... but the goal is to consistently have that chance.

 

Remember after Giles houston's pen was fairly miserable. Our pen would have been a great deal better with 7 guys like hughes. Albers is that type of guy, and we got him for very little cost. Swarzak we acquired for next to nothing. Jeffress was absolutely fine as a 3.65 again got him for nothing. Right now we have 2 anchors. Knebel Hader. Is it impossible to think peralta barnes or williams could be one by this time next year and make knebel expendable... no.

 

You dont need tons of elite talent to win 90 games. You have to be deep enough so that you aren't playing garbage. Knebel Davies sure can help you get there but you can do it just as easily by having a talented deep 25 man roster. That talented deep roster can include a good number of cheap free agent add pieces like albers jeffress logan chacin... none of which "move the needle" except that they are steady and take the spot of garbage that would mitigate the value that your stars... anderson nelson cobb hader gain you.

 

We didn't miss the playoffs because we didn't have talent. We missed because we played a lot of garbage. Adding yelich cain bolstered the offensive talent dramatically. The staff simply needs to not be a dumpster fire that they were behind anderson nelson davies, knebel hughes and part years from hader swarzak. The bottom dragged the top down. That can't happen going forward. In a surprise rebuild year sure. Not now.

 

The pen looks far better already so thats a good sign. Going from a 3.85 pen to a 3.35 pen would lower a 4.1 era staff to 3.9 team era. So when they say they are comfortable with their staff, and they expect to score a lot of runs it could be honest. Anderson 3.2 davies chacin 4.0 woodruff 4.4 and all the other pieces adding up to 4.8 with a pen near 3.35 needs an offense that scores 5 runs a game to be a playoff team. Their analytics are surely far more complex. But this rumidial view makes sense and could be a soft look at their hard numbers stating the same approach.

[Boomer5]

We didn't make the playoffs because we didn't have the talent to win more games than the Cubs

 

CC and DJ can only do so much. When you sign Feliz to be your closer you really aren't expecting the team to compete. CC and DJ did their jobs in 2017 with a horrible bullpen to start the year and an offense built by design around the strike out.

 

Stearns is doing what he can to fix the roster. Cain and Yelich are more professional hitters and will add that element to the offense. The high cost to acquire them doesn't matter in 2018 and 2019.

 

That's part of the battle, but the offseason won't be complete until they bring in at least one quality SP that won't wear out the bullpen like that the 4/5 guys will. There is no way we break camp with this current group.

[clancyphile]

The rebuild is never over for a small market team that must build through the draft and player development. The next star is always developing on the farm and when the previous stars get too expensive/past their prime/aren't cost effective then you slot the rookie in. The Brewers got some major bumps last year (Nelson becoming an ace, Anderson become a near ace, Shaw & Santana having "breakout" year and ThamAguilar putting up great numbers at 1B.) Those developments shortened the timeline for the brewers to be competitive.

 

As several posters have pointed out in other threads, the issue with missing the playoffs last year by ONE game was not the pitching, but the hitting. Stearns has already added two near studs to the offense while only taking some away performance (reduced playing time for some). I think the Brewers are close to being the same team as they were last year even with Nelson being out for 2-3 months due to the addition of Cain and Yelich and improvement in the other SP (signing Chacin and Woodruff/Suter instead of the Milone/Garza/etc crap from last year). We don't know if there will be regression from some of the surprises last year, and we don't know when Nelson will be back to ace quality, but we have an excellent chance of competing for the wildcard.

 

I would love adding a Cobb to the rotation, but not at 4-5 years when we will have likely better options from the farm system by year 3 of his contract. Stearns looks for value in a transaction and if it's not there he moves on or looks for it in other ways. Having Cobb/FA SP in the rotation out of Spring Training is not going to dethrone the cubs. 2018 should be about getting into the playoffs and evaluating the talent we have. If talent becomes available during the season for the right price then Stearns has the flexibility to add pieces. The rebuild will continue and we will add pieces from the farm system or trade them for major league ready pieces as needed.

 

I still think the farm system is still a year away from providing players who can step into support roles and become productive. Broxton and Phillips could both benefit from daily AB in AAA, but one or both could be a perfect fit for the OF if Stearns finds an excellent deal for Santana. Until those deals materialize I am sure Stearns is fine sitting pat waiting for opportunities to appear. What are the chances one or both of Brantley/Chisenhall go on the DL in the first 2 months? 50/50? I am absolutely sure one of the contenders will lose a corner OF in the first month and probably 2 in the first half of the year. Then comes Santana time.

 

The Brewers have all of Spring Training to see what may happen. Jesus Aguilar is the odd man out at this point.

 

That said... just swing the kind of deal they got with Adam Lind, and now, the Crew can go with an "outfield rotation" of Braun-Yelich-Cain-Santana all season long.

 

162 games in a season. The Crew has 10 in AL parks. All four of the rotation plays with Braun as the DH.

 

Then, there will be the 27 or so games that Braun will spell Thames at first.

 

So, you really only need the "outfield rotation" for 135 games. That gives everyone about 130 starts a season.

 

That rotation issue can even be eased some more since Travis Shaw had 142 starts at third, meaning someone picked up 20 last year. Maybe work Braun there for 4-6 games when you want a more potent bat than Hernan Perez or Eric Sogard?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

That rotation issue can even be eased some more since Travis Shaw had 142 starts at third, meaning someone picked up 20 last year. Maybe work Braun there for 4-6 games when you want a more potent bat than Hernan Perez or Eric Sogard?

 

You made so much sense ... up until this last part. Bruan to 3B again is never, ever going to happen.

[clancyphile]

That rotation issue can even be eased some more since Travis Shaw had 142 starts at third, meaning someone picked up 20 last year. Maybe work Braun there for 4-6 games when you want a more potent bat than Hernan Perez or Eric Sogard?

 

You made so much sense ... up until this last part. Bruan to 3B again is never, ever going to happen.

 

A very occasional start is far different than playing every day.

 

Right now, if I'm Stearns, I'm working the phone with Seattle in particular. Their 1B situation is such they at least need a right-handed complement for Vegelbach at that position.

 

JP Sears, Matt Clancy, and Seth Elledge would seem to be a fair package of lottery tickets in return unless I could get them to go Aguilar-for-Pazos even up. Pazos looks like a lefty Corey Knebel. Either way, it's a win-win for the Crew. Bullpen arms four years from now, or a lights-out pen in the 2018-2021 window.