Alex Cobb (Part 3)

[wallus]

but i be very surprised to see these current 5 carry us into a wildcard spot.

 

Oh, I can guarantee that "these five" (Anderson, Davies, Chacin, Suter, Woodruff--or sub Miley in if you wish) will not "carry us into a wildcard spot." In fact, I'd even bet dollars to doughnuts that Stearns himself doesn't believe that, either. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole point of this rotation experiment.

 

But wait, you might say, didn't Stearns express confidence in this current group of starters? Sure did. Or, didn't Attanasio say late in the offseason that money was available to add a new piece? Yep (and more on that in a minute).

 

Others have noted this already, so I won't belabor the point too much, but our Brewers, as an organization, cannot get trapped into two fallacious modes of thought: 1) we must go tit for tat with the big-spending organizations on every single acquisition and 2) the way teams have been constructed in the past is the way they must always be constructed in saecula saeculorum and is The Only Right Way to Build a Champion ©. Many of the problems with this should be obvious, but in short:

 

1) We do not have the money to make the kind of mistakes the Cubs and Yankees can make and still field an above-average ball club. Guaranteed contracts and the difficulty we will always seem to have in luring people to spend much of their lives in Milwaukee mean we need to make all our dollars count as much as we can. Now, granted, I love Milwaukee as a town, although I've never really lived there, and sure, some people like Lorenzo Cain seem to like it a lot, too, but he seems more of an exception, not the rule. So we have to play a slightly different game. But, consider, the big-ticket FA route is still risky: if Darvish goes down, or Lester and Hendricks regress, all of which are serious possibilities, and the Cubs are in trouble, even if their offensive struggles last year were an aberration and the bullpen is improved (which, I will note, are still ifs and will have to be proven on the field this year).

 

2) Roster construction and deployment of pitching is changing. Relief aces are becoming more valuable all the time. In a sort of renaissance of the old fireman principle, people like Andrew Miller and his imitations (Josh Hader, anyone?) are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how teams are rethinking what it takes to build a successful pitching staff. It is about survival as much as it is about anything else. Your biggest threat to lose a game might not be in the 5/6 innings your starter happens to pitch, and it might not be in the 9th inning, either. If it comes after your starter leaves with two on and one out in the 5th inning, having multiple solid options to come into the game and take care of that situation is invaluable. Maybe that is a Hader who can go two and a third wipeout innings against the top-7 hitters of a squad like Chicago or New York. Maybe its a swingman like Guerra who can get you through an otherwise nightmare game without taxing the bullpen. And, in the biggest rethink of all, teams seem to be finally appreciating the fact that "those five" guys you start the season with are not the only ones you will ever hand the ball to at the start of ballgames, and those fill-in starts still count, too.

 

A few years ago, Fangraphs (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-how-many-starters-does-a-team-need-then/) estimated that on average, baseball teams have a 65% chance of two of their "preferred" starters will be hurt at the same time, and 32% chance of it happening to three of those starters at the same time. Most crucially, if a baseball team sees only average rates of attrition (6 DL stints for their starting staff throughout the year, totaling as many as 360 days), then that team will have it's preferred starters together for only 22% of the season. Even excluding year-long DL stints, that could still account for 32 starts made by starters 6-??. I don't have to tell you in a two-team wildcard scenario, those 32 games could more than make or break reaching the play-in game, or even winning a division.

 

So how do the Brewers look on that front? Baseball Prospectus Milwaukee (http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/03/12/the-rotation-is-good/) has a good rundown, but TL;DR--"While the Brewers’ overall rotation may have an 'average' outlook, once replacement rotations begin to appear in the 2018 MLB, the Milwaukee replacements will have a runs prevented advantage of at least 30 runs (assessed against other teams’ replacements)." That means our rotation is in position to save 30 runs above average just because of our fill-in starters when compared to the fill-in starters of most other clubs. Teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, National, and Yankees have invested a lot of resources in fielding great "top of the rotation" talent, and, sure, when all those pitchers take the field, advantage those teams. But they won't all take the field every 5th day, what's more, the Brewers know this, and have prepared enough above-average replacements to claw back the difference once attrition rears its ugly head. That is the plan for competing with the big wallets.

 

Finally, however, what about Attanasio's quote mentioned above? Maybe he was feeling good and was only telling an energetic crowd what they wanted to hear. Cynics might say its all a ploy by hucksters and cheapskates to sell more tickets and improve the bottom line without ever spending enough to field a real winner. That is possible, I suppose. Or, perhaps Attanasio and Stearns know something else: while what we might call the "defend against attrition" strategy is a great way to win games over a long season, it can all quickly go for nothing in a 5 or 7-game series during the playoffs. You don't have time to just play the averages when there might be no tomorrow. That is when you really need your aces. And having the prospect capital and financial wiggle room to go get a guy like that (and whatever Cobb is, I feel pretty confident in saying he isn't "TOR") when the season is nearing its second half is how you put an otherwise good team over the top for a championship run. That is how the Astros did it last year, and not trading for an Archer or signing a Cobb/Lynn/Darvish/Arrieta now means we can still do that when we absolutely need to and know our time is at hand.

 

So I say, forget about Cobb (although I wish him well), and let's realize we're looking at the bleeding edge of how to make a small-market club competitive. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe this all doesn't work. Round balls and round bats lead to some pretty random results, and all the planning in the world won't guarantee you a championship sometimes. But I am confident in saying that Stearns and Attanasio really do want to build a winner, and really do think this roster as constructed is the best way available to them to do it. I can't wait to see what happens.

 

I got more out of this post than all of the other ones in this thread combined. Thank you!

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

but i be very surprised to see these current 5 carry us into a wildcard spot.

 

Oh, I can guarantee that "these five" (Anderson, Davies, Chacin, Suter, Woodruff--or sub Miley in if you wish) will not "carry us into a wildcard spot." In fact, I'd even bet dollars to doughnuts that Stearns himself doesn't believe that, either. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole point of this rotation experiment.

 

But wait, you might say, didn't Stearns express confidence in this current group of starters? Sure did. Or, didn't Attanasio say late in the offseason that money was available to add a new piece? Yep (and more on that in a minute).

 

Others have noted this already, so I won't belabor the point too much, but our Brewers, as an organization, cannot get trapped into two fallacious modes of thought: 1) we must go tit for tat with the big-spending organizations on every single acquisition and 2) the way teams have been constructed in the past is the way they must always be constructed in saecula saeculorum and is The Only Right Way to Build a Champion ©. Many of the problems with this should be obvious, but in short:

 

1) We do not have the money to make the kind of mistakes the Cubs and Yankees can make and still field an above-average ball club. Guaranteed contracts and the difficulty we will always seem to have in luring people to spend much of their lives in Milwaukee mean we need to make all our dollars count as much as we can. Now, granted, I love Milwaukee as a town, although I've never really lived there, and sure, some people like Lorenzo Cain seem to like it a lot, too, but he seems more of an exception, not the rule. So we have to play a slightly different game. But, consider, the big-ticket FA route is still risky: if Darvish goes down, or Lester and Hendricks regress, all of which are serious possibilities, and the Cubs are in trouble, even if their offensive struggles last year were an aberration and the bullpen is improved (which, I will note, are still ifs and will have to be proven on the field this year).

 

2) Roster construction and deployment of pitching is changing. Relief aces are becoming more valuable all the time. In a sort of renaissance of the old fireman principle, people like Andrew Miller and his imitations (Josh Hader, anyone?) are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how teams are rethinking what it takes to build a successful pitching staff. It is about survival as much as it is about anything else. Your biggest threat to lose a game might not be in the 5/6 innings your starter happens to pitch, and it might not be in the 9th inning, either. If it comes after your starter leaves with two on and one out in the 5th inning, having multiple solid options to come into the game and take care of that situation is invaluable. Maybe that is a Hader who can go two and a third wipeout innings against the top-7 hitters of a squad like Chicago or New York. Maybe its a swingman like Guerra who can get you through an otherwise nightmare game without taxing the bullpen. And, in the biggest rethink of all, teams seem to be finally appreciating the fact that "those five" guys you start the season with are not the only ones you will ever hand the ball to at the start of ballgames, and those fill-in starts still count, too.

 

A few years ago, Fangraphs (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-how-many-starters-does-a-team-need-then/) estimated that on average, baseball teams have a 65% chance of two of their "preferred" starters will be hurt at the same time, and 32% chance of it happening to three of those starters at the same time. Most crucially, if a baseball team sees only average rates of attrition (6 DL stints for their starting staff throughout the year, totaling as many as 360 days), then that team will have it's preferred starters together for only 22% of the season. Even excluding year-long DL stints, that could still account for 32 starts made by starters 6-??. I don't have to tell you in a two-team wildcard scenario, those 32 games could more than make or break reaching the play-in game, or even winning a division.

 

So how do the Brewers look on that front? Baseball Prospectus Milwaukee (http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/03/12/the-rotation-is-good/) has a good rundown, but TL;DR--"While the Brewers’ overall rotation may have an 'average' outlook, once replacement rotations begin to appear in the 2018 MLB, the Milwaukee replacements will have a runs prevented advantage of at least 30 runs (assessed against other teams’ replacements)." That means our rotation is in position to save 30 runs above average just because of our fill-in starters when compared to the fill-in starters of most other clubs. Teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, National, and Yankees have invested a lot of resources in fielding great "top of the rotation" talent, and, sure, when all those pitchers take the field, advantage those teams. But they won't all take the field every 5th day, what's more, the Brewers know this, and have prepared enough above-average replacements to claw back the difference once attrition rears its ugly head. That is the plan for competing with the big wallets.

 

Finally, however, what about Attanasio's quote mentioned above? Maybe he was feeling good and was only telling an energetic crowd what they wanted to hear. Cynics might say its all a ploy by hucksters and cheapskates to sell more tickets and improve the bottom line without ever spending enough to field a real winner. That is possible, I suppose. Or, perhaps Attanasio and Stearns know something else: while what we might call the "defend against attrition" strategy is a great way to win games over a long season, it can all quickly go for nothing in a 5 or 7-game series during the playoffs. You don't have time to just play the averages when there might be no tomorrow. That is when you really need your aces. And having the prospect capital and financial wiggle room to go get a guy like that (and whatever Cobb is, I feel pretty confident in saying he isn't "TOR") when the season is nearing its second half is how you put an otherwise good team over the top for a championship run. That is how the Astros did it last year, and not trading for an Archer or signing a Cobb/Lynn/Darvish/Arrieta now means we can still do that when we absolutely need to and know our time is at hand.

 

So I say, forget about Cobb (although I wish him well), and let's realize we're looking at the bleeding edge of how to make a small-market club competitive. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe this all doesn't work. Round balls and round bats lead to some pretty random results, and all the planning in the world won't guarantee you a championship sometimes. But I am confident in saying that Stearns and Attanasio really do want to build a winner, and really do think this roster as constructed is the best way available to them to do it. I can't wait to see what happens.

 

After weeks of "the sky is falling" posts, this is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for taking the time to put together your thoughts. Please I urge you to keep contributing!

[brewmann04]

Thank you Seabass

[anglotiger]

Back on topic I was half expecting once Arrieta signed that Cobb would sign right away after that. I am curious what the hold up is with him; by now he knows what the market is and who is interested and I don't think it is worth it to wait and hope a starter gets hurt here in the next couple weeks. Just sign and get to camp so you can contribute before May.

 

The problem may be that his market has expanded, as teams who were waiting on Arrieta to decide (and thought that they were in with a real chance) have now switched focus to Cobb as the "best option remaining"... who knows - it may actually spark a bidding war where one didn't exist before.

 

Conversely, since Cobb was likened more to Lynn than to Arrieta, it's possible that he's only receiving one-year offers and he's holding out in hopes someone will break and give him a multi-year deal.

 

Also possible. We have no way to know right now. I was just throwing out a perfectly reasonable explanation to the curiousity expressed.

[MNBrew]

David Stearns on not adding another pitcher, via @1057FMTheFan: "we like the guys we have...we just didn't find something that made sense. The players that we identified as meaningful improvements over what we have didn't make sense cost-wise."

Sounds like the Cobb bus has left the gate.

 

Yep, I saw the same thing. I have thought for awhile that this is just GM-speak, but at some point I guess we have to take him at his word. So apparently the rumored interest was all smoke?

 

I guess Cobb doesn't move the needle. I swear, though, that if he signs a cheap deal somewhere and pitches well, while we watch Wade Miley slog through 5 innings a start while giving up 5 runs, I'm going to be even more disappointed.

Joey, you may be right re: what I bolded. However, one could also interpret Stearns' quote to mean that...

 

- Stearns DOES view Cobb as a needle-mover AND as one who doesn't make sense cost-wise. That would corroborate this Haudricourt tweet Monday:

 

Tom

‏Verified account @Haudricourt

Mar 12

RHP Alex Cobb remains on free agent market but I do not expect #Brewers to be in on him unless price comes down.

 

- Regardless of what that tweet represents, the lack of one specific end result -- Cobb signing in MIL -- doesn't mean the rumored interest was made up or fans' wishful thinking.

 

- Until we know otherwise, it's also possible that Cobb WANTS to come to MIL more than any other team -- I still can't see why anyone would want to be on a lesser Orioles team that's also not trending as upward as MIL is -- and his failure to sign anywhere else yet (and possibly the lack of "hot" rumors about other teams' interest in him since the Cubs signed Darvish) could indeed indicate that he's holding out hope that his & the Brewers' desired contract numbers might finally come close enough to make a deal happen. Maybe not, but still maybe....

 

For 35+ years I've always been passionately optimistic about the Brewers, so of course there's part of me still hoping Cobb will end up here. But I'm also realistic enough to know that Stearns' oft-repeated "we like who we have" may well be his mantra all this time simply because going with who they have could well have been his plan all along.

[TJseven7]

but i be very surprised to see these current 5 carry us into a wildcard spot.

 

Oh, I can guarantee that "these five" (Anderson, Davies, Chacin, Suter, Woodruff--or sub Miley in if you wish) will not "carry us into a wildcard spot." In fact, I'd even bet dollars to doughnuts that Stearns himself doesn't believe that, either. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole point of this rotation experiment.

 

But wait, you might say, didn't Stearns express confidence in this current group of starters? Sure did. Or, didn't Attanasio say late in the offseason that money was available to add a new piece? Yep (and more on that in a minute).

 

Others have noted this already, so I won't belabor the point too much, but our Brewers, as an organization, cannot get trapped into two fallacious modes of thought: 1) we must go tit for tat with the big-spending organizations on every single acquisition and 2) the way teams have been constructed in the past is the way they must always be constructed in saecula saeculorum and is The Only Right Way to Build a Champion ©. Many of the problems with this should be obvious, but in short:

 

1) We do not have the money to make the kind of mistakes the Cubs and Yankees can make and still field an above-average ball club. Guaranteed contracts and the difficulty we will always seem to have in luring people to spend much of their lives in Milwaukee mean we need to make all our dollars count as much as we can. Now, granted, I love Milwaukee as a town, although I've never really lived there, and sure, some people like Lorenzo Cain seem to like it a lot, too, but he seems more of an exception, not the rule. So we have to play a slightly different game. But, consider, the big-ticket FA route is still risky: if Darvish goes down, or Lester and Hendricks regress, all of which are serious possibilities, and the Cubs are in trouble, even if their offensive struggles last year were an aberration and the bullpen is improved (which, I will note, are still ifs and will have to be proven on the field this year).

 

2) Roster construction and deployment of pitching is changing. Relief aces are becoming more valuable all the time. In a sort of renaissance of the old fireman principle, people like Andrew Miller and his imitations (Josh Hader, anyone?) are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how teams are rethinking what it takes to build a successful pitching staff. It is about survival as much as it is about anything else. Your biggest threat to lose a game might not be in the 5/6 innings your starter happens to pitch, and it might not be in the 9th inning, either. If it comes after your starter leaves with two on and one out in the 5th inning, having multiple solid options to come into the game and take care of that situation is invaluable. Maybe that is a Hader who can go two and a third wipeout innings against the top-7 hitters of a squad like Chicago or New York. Maybe its a swingman like Guerra who can get you through an otherwise nightmare game without taxing the bullpen. And, in the biggest rethink of all, teams seem to be finally appreciating the fact that "those five" guys you start the season with are not the only ones you will ever hand the ball to at the start of ballgames, and those fill-in starts still count, too.

 

A few years ago, Fangraphs (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-how-many-starters-does-a-team-need-then/) estimated that on average, baseball teams have a 65% chance of two of their "preferred" starters will be hurt at the same time, and 32% chance of it happening to three of those starters at the same time. Most crucially, if a baseball team sees only average rates of attrition (6 DL stints for their starting staff throughout the year, totaling as many as 360 days), then that team will have it's preferred starters together for only 22% of the season. Even excluding year-long DL stints, that could still account for 32 starts made by starters 6-??. I don't have to tell you in a two-team wildcard scenario, those 32 games could more than make or break reaching the play-in game, or even winning a division.

 

So how do the Brewers look on that front? Baseball Prospectus Milwaukee (http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/03/12/the-rotation-is-good/) has a good rundown, but TL;DR--"While the Brewers’ overall rotation may have an 'average' outlook, once replacement rotations begin to appear in the 2018 MLB, the Milwaukee replacements will have a runs prevented advantage of at least 30 runs (assessed against other teams’ replacements)." That means our rotation is in position to save 30 runs above average just because of our fill-in starters when compared to the fill-in starters of most other clubs. Teams like the Cubs, Dodgers, National, and Yankees have invested a lot of resources in fielding great "top of the rotation" talent, and, sure, when all those pitchers take the field, advantage those teams. But they won't all take the field every 5th day, what's more, the Brewers know this, and have prepared enough above-average replacements to claw back the difference once attrition rears its ugly head. That is the plan for competing with the big wallets.

 

Finally, however, what about Attanasio's quote mentioned above? Maybe he was feeling good and was only telling an energetic crowd what they wanted to hear. Cynics might say its all a ploy by hucksters and cheapskates to sell more tickets and improve the bottom line without ever spending enough to field a real winner. That is possible, I suppose. Or, perhaps Attanasio and Stearns know something else: while what we might call the "defend against attrition" strategy is a great way to win games over a long season, it can all quickly go for nothing in a 5 or 7-game series during the playoffs. You don't have time to just play the averages when there might be no tomorrow. That is when you really need your aces. And having the prospect capital and financial wiggle room to go get a guy like that (and whatever Cobb is, I feel pretty confident in saying he isn't "TOR") when the season is nearing its second half is how you put an otherwise good team over the top for a championship run. That is how the Astros did it last year, and not trading for an Archer or signing a Cobb/Lynn/Darvish/Arrieta now means we can still do that when we absolutely need to and know our time is at hand.

 

So I say, forget about Cobb (although I wish him well), and let's realize we're looking at the bleeding edge of how to make a small-market club competitive. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe this all doesn't work. Round balls and round bats lead to some pretty random results, and all the planning in the world won't guarantee you a championship sometimes. But I am confident in saying that Stearns and Attanasio really do want to build a winner, and really do think this roster as constructed is the best way available to them to do it. I can't wait to see what happens.

 

It is obvious that stearns has focused on adding depth to this roster in every way concievable. From the claim, drop, AAA stash attempts to the slew of arms we've added on the cheap, to pushing guys with options into lay away in the minors. People talk about our ST record... and I point to 2 years of depth building done on an elite level by stearns.

 

Here's my problem with everything you posted. Defending against attrition is fantastic and also mission accomplished for this year. Defending against attrition is a great way to keep injuries from causing you to use players that drag you like an anchor to the bottom. Last year you saw stearns building this... but this year the teams brimming with it.

 

But preventing attrition from dragging you to the bottom is half the issue. You also need enough pieces to anchor your numbers. I've pointed to a +1.1 run diff threshhold for 90 wins for a couple weeks. Thats 5 runs and a 3.9 era team wide. Attrition sunk us last year with a slew of arms averaging terrible numbers. The top was anderson nelson... knebel hader... and stabalizing forces like davies hughes. We added a stabalizing piece in chacin and albers. We are down a numbers anchor in Nelson. Thats a big problem.

 

So that brings us to the question. Do you copy the astros and wait for the right time to add Verlander or do you add a cobb now? My problem with waiting is that we don't have 3 guys at the top who average sub 3.6 era combined. That would allow 4-5 to combine for 4.6 era while keeping a staff era at 4.0. Bullpen south of 3.65 would drag that team era to 3.9... perfect. Is cobb a risk, yes so is the guy you add going foward. Is cobb expensive? Likely less expensive than any guy you are trading for unless you blitz the farm which is simply a different way of being expensive.

 

You add cobb, woodruff guerra can go down. Miley suter yo can man 5 and 2 spots in the 8 man pen to keep depth. Wilkerson is down too. Getting the 4th option on Guerra allows you to add cobb with ZERO depth loss. It also costs you 1 4th round pick, not a bundle of prospects. It also allows you to fast track FPeralta into the pen, long relief is valuable. It also allows you to keep woodruff Burnes to replace 4/5 in the future without costing you money like chacin. It also allows you to trade chacin and 1 of anderson/nelson/cobb/davies (if nelson rebounds) as costs start to increase in arby to help restock the farm and keep 4/5 starter costs low and increase option holding depth in the farm.

 

Cobb in this market could be a very proactive move. Not just win now, but setting up a chain of domonos that fall in the next offseason that could aid in keeping cost down.

 

They are actively building towards defending attrition. That's great. But a 45/3 on cobb doesn't prevent that. Having 3 guys in anderson cobb davies who can combine for a 3.6 era sets that model up for success. Doesn't spend a huge chunk of cap, or take on unnecessary risk or cost prospect capitol. Costs will rise on all our pitchers but it can be offset in part by moving on from chacin to woodruff and moving 1 of Davies Nelson Anderson as their prices start to rise.

 

As is, we have depth to prevent attrition from killing us... but only if that attrition isn't Anderson. If he regresses beyond 3.2 era, or if he misses time, or if Davies Chacin can't hold 4.0 era and health we are dead in the water. Cobb would dramatically alter that. This builds great, but its got one fingernail holding on the backside of a razors edge. Any bump in the for our top 3 and depth won't keep the team afloat.

[Brewer Fever]

Maybe they just don't like Cobb all that much, my goodness. Their opinion could well be that the cheap in-house options might give similar results at a fraction the cost. Laser focus on Cobb is falling into the mindset that everything must be fixed now.

[TJseven7]

Davies arby 1

Nelson arby 2

Knebel arby 2

Anderson from 4 to 6 mil

 

Teams not going to get any cheaper going foward so unless nelson comes back 100% and woodruff burnes hit the ground running fixing everything isnt coming without cost. Window of nelson davies anderson shrinks and next years options are also old and expensive.

[brewmann04]

There is something to this whole Situation that makes you wonder. Is it money or terms of a deal. What input does Matt Arnold have on this inside stuff.

[HarveysWBs]

TJ--I've been doing some reading around here for a couple months before I became active, and have enjoyed reading your posts. I think your perspective on ERA targets is really enlightening, and do highlight the risks of the Brewers' plan in light of Nelson's injury. I think the biggest potential pitfall for the club is just what you describe: that Nelson's absence and potential ineffectiveness upon return will wipe out any potential gains made by improved performance by the back end/fill-in starters, even after strategic and technical improvements by the analytics and coaching departments for Miley, Chacin, et al. For the plan to work, they need Nelson to break back close to last year's level and Anderson to, if not necessarily be his peak self from last year, but settle into a near plateau. I agree that if those two things don't break right, we probably fail, but every plan has its weakness.

 

Brewmann's post about what else could be going on is instructive, I think. Matt Arnold was head of pro personnel for the Rays very recently, and according to reports in the Journal Sentinel (http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/from-behind-the-scenes-matt-arnold-swinging-for-greatness-b99721241z1-378532515.html), sees eye to eye with Stearns to the point where he is considered "more of a partner than a subordinate." If anyone is in a position to know what Cobb could be, you'd think it is Arnold and a reclamation artist like Derek Johnson, and if there seems to be no solid indication that the Brewers at any point have seriously pursued Cobb this offseason (Twitter rabbit holes to the obvious, and regrettable, contrary), then that probably says all we need to know about how the front office views him.

 

As others have said, it seems that we need to take them at their word, in the sense that they truly believe that the options they have in-house are equal or better than what Cobb is or even could be. What is more, they're all far cheaper, don't leave the organization's hands tied, and in the case of the prospects, are considerably younger and more controllable.

 

Maybe they're all wrong and this rotation will blow up and drag the whole team down this year. I will readily concede that that is a very real possibility (and, really, what do I know? My baseball CV is that I quit playing baseball in 7th grade, have been a beer-league softball player for the last six years, and a crummy fantasy manager for twice as long as that). What I do know is that if their plan fails in 2018, they will have lost at most a year of their contention window, which they have publicly stated is expected to be at least 4-5 years. By signing Cobb/Arietta/Darvish to a longer deal, and if that blows up in a Suppan/Garza-esque way, they will have seriously hampered their ability to change course and improve going forward. I generally think these front office people are in the best position to know if, how, and at what price all these players can help them meet their goals, and if they felt that these options were not good bets even on historically team-friendly terms, then I can live with that. As I said originally, we have to be a bit more careful with our dollars than our competition does, so if we're going to spend them, I hope we spend it on players our brain trust really likes. When they have pulled the trigger, they have been right quite a bit more often than wrong, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[brewcrewdue80]

Davies arby 1

Nelson arby 2

Knebel arby 2

Anderson from 4 to 6 mil

 

Teams not going to get any cheaper going foward so unless nelson comes back 100% and woodruff burnes hit the ground running fixing everything isnt coming without cost. Window of nelson davies anderson shrinks and next years options are also old and expensive.

 

Nelson missing 1/3rd the season or more and performance risk I don't think his Arby raise will be all too much. Not over 7.5mil.

Anderson's 2mil raise is offset by Sogard right there. Or Chacin's 2mil drop from this season.

 

Cain's increasing salary is negated by Braun's decreasing salary. Combined it's 34, 34, 33, and 32 if Braun's option picked up.

 

Kneble is the only concerning Arb raise imo over the next 2 seasons. Travis Shaw comes in to play 2020 when a lot of these 1 and 2 year contracts are gone.(prospect Pre-Arb depth) Santana would be a concern, but he's on the trade market. I'm not expecting him to stay on this team for that to happen.

 

As to the Houston comparison and comment on getting Verlander, Houston won 101 games last season. Acquired Verlander at 80-53 record September 1st morning.

 

Full season Cobb doesn't make this team 100-win projection. He may give us a better chance of achieving 90 wins but honestly, that's pushing us for 1st wildcard behind the 100win abilities of Washington, LA Dodgers, and Cubs.

 

 

A poster not to long ago, said(paraphasing) that Maybe Stearns is building this team not on the premise to go for it and win this season. Which is exactly what I want him doing. I didn't want to blow the minors up with an Archer trade. Nelson is an unknown contributor moving forward. Maybe that's why you got Chacin for 2 years. Replace Nelson's innings now. Good Nelson he's actually more attractive to trade next offseason owed under 7mil. Especially if he has a productive season. Bad Nelson and you have the depth to absorb that heading in to 2019 with the minors SPs that much closer to pitching every 5 days.

 

Maybe Stearns changed his direction when he acquired Yelich and immediately signed Cain that he was going to be patient with the SPs: Woodruff, Hader, Burnes, and down the line Ponce, Peralta, etc. The Pitching would depth would reduce the payroll as you fill them in and move on from the starters you have today. Say Nelson is #3 quality and you don't want to extend him so with him going year to year he's traded next offseason. Moves like that. Tampa Bay's SPs filling their depth for a decade.

He's a little backed in to a corner currently with the OF situation, but I'm sure it will solve itself in due time. Injuries(our team or their's) and fixing the crunch during that time.

 

Monty, you posted going with 2 of Miley, Guerra, Suter, and Woodruff? that we are planning on winning more games 12-10.

 

I mean, that's a bit odd for your typical posts, but it is a seeming narrative to those that have been pushing for Big 3 of 4 SP signing. As if not only will going 4IP and giving up 4-6runs, but as if the bullpen is going to just implode and give up 5-6 more.

 

This year's bullpen is far better than last year's. But it's like they are ignored when guys like Taylor Williams and Freddy Peralta, even Cody Ponce/Adrian Houser are on the cusp to join the duo studs of Hader/Kneble who are an Elite tandem at this stage already.

 

Then the added improvement in offense. Milw avg'd 4.5runs according to BRef which was the lowest of the top 12 MLB records last season. I'd fully expect this team to be more around top 12 in the 5.0 range moving forward with Yelich and Cain added.

 

For Pitching references: Top 12 had 2 under 4.0 runs Cleveland and LA Dodgers. Every other team was 4.1-4.9 (Milw at 4.3)

 

No Garza, No Peralta, No Torres, Feliz, Milone, Espino, Blazek, and Wang inflated ERAs. (Drake?) That's something around 310-365IP or 35-40 games worth removed of terrible pitching.

 

So in the end even if we take out that bad and add the poor projections put on this pitching, what are we? 4.4RA vs 4.3 last year? We're staring at an offense scoring 5.0 runs per game.

 

The Cubs avg 5.1-4.3 and won 92 games last year. Colorado 5.1-4.7 won 87 games. We can head in where we stand and be a Wild Card team with depth to change as needed if a push is desired. As well as Money to work with that comes in to question adding another 15million multiple year'd contract.

[TJseven7]

TJ--I've been doing some reading around here for a couple months before I became active, and have enjoyed reading your posts. I think your perspective on ERA targets is really enlightening, and do highlight the risks of the Brewers' plan in light of Nelson's injury. I think the biggest potential pitfall for the club is just what you describe: that Nelson's absence and potential ineffectiveness upon return will wipe out any potential gains made by improved performance by the back end/fill-in starters, even after strategic and technical improvements by the analytics and coaching departments for Miley, Chacin, et al. For the plan to work, they need Nelson to break back close to last year's level and Anderson to, if not necessarily be his peak self from last year, but settle into a near plateau. I agree that if those two things don't break right, we probably fail, but every plan has its weakness.

 

First, thanks for reading it. Thought I was spewing information into a void lol.

 

As is we have that weakness. I don't see it as necessary. I think in another thread I had it projected out that to match last years 4.1 starter era we need anderson at 3.2 davies chacin at 4.0 and 4-5 at 4.7. Shaving 1 run from the entire staff puts us on that 3.9 era pace where magic starts to happen. 3.8 team era. That's cobb in 1 shot. 3.7 cobb and if that very same redemption guru gets that split change back 3.7 is the floor for him. I trust that guy so I want him fixing cobb. Fixing miley is a 4.4... fixing cobb is a 3.2... big difference. We have tons of depth that could better 4.7, maybe, but do you want to trust it? I want to not trust it and if the 5 choice can do it then the staff starts to get special as a whole.

 

The what if on nelson, and anderson for that matter, is a huge question that can tank the staff era unless 4-5 pull off some serious era stabalization. If cobb can be had at 48/3 we have a payroll near 110? But as the poster above points out. We shave cap on yo 2 mil, miley 2.5, sogard 2.5, vogt 3, chacin 6.5 (its 8.5 this year). That opens up 18.5 mil thats replaced by kids. BathencourtBandyNottingham, dubon, woodruff, burnes, williamshouserperalta. After that its 16 mil cheaper to hold our salary at 110 due to arby.

 

But then in 2019 comes the choice or the allowance. Nelson anderson cobb davies... keep them all and go for blood? For 1 year? Trade 1 out and keep 3 who can carry a 3.6 era. Let woodruff burnes attack the 4.7 need at the 4-5 spot as they grow up? If 1 of those 4 bomb we are alive. Caps not crazy either. Now we have no choice. We hope.

 

I just hate walking out into this year short. Its beautifully set up. Finish it. Its also not essentially an aim at 90 wins. Anderson 3.2 cobb 3.7 davies chacin 4.0 fifth 4.7. Has this team around 3.8 team era. If the pens at knebel hader 2.5, albers 3.0, logan jeffress barnes randoms and longs 4.0... you sit at 3.5 pen era. 3.8 is very strong. Offensive numbers last year rivaled teams in the 4.9 range. We added cain yelich and lost nadda. You get a couple more positive surprises and your pushing north of 1.1 run diff and the best record in the league was a +1.35 team. Cle was incredible at like +1.65 but lad and houston were much more sane.

 

As is seems soo close to: If things bounce right we have a WC team and 90 wins. If it bounces wrong low 80s. But you add 1 more piece to this staff without gutting the farm and if things bounce right 100 isn't out of the question. If it bounces wrong a WC is not dead. A renewed cobb or repeat anderson or an april less davies and the 5 starter weaving 4.0 magic (suter?). A repeat shaw santana and villar or arcia step up and 5 runs could be 5.1 and the 3.8 era is 3.7. Thats big boy numbers.

 

Its really really close. I just want them to finish. Maybe they see cobb totally different. Maybe he wants a 1 year prove it and I wouldn't want that. But this team is a 3.7 arm at a reasonable price from opening the window. That can't be bought with the farm without forcing us to pay depth, which sends us closer to arby hell. That 1 addition puts DJ magic with striking distance of special and could leave us in the position of TOO MANY QUALITY ARMS (the brewers, I know!) as soon as 2019. ABC and C without a 6 year deal to a 31 year old arm or blitzing the farm is a rare situation.

 

What he's doing is brilliant regardless. Teams set up for attrition as you point out and that was as impressive of a project as any growth this teams shown since he got here. But i think theres blood in the water, and if cobb lands elsewhere for a deal around 48/3 then I think the sharks asleep and I'd whine and hope they have more up their sleeve than I think. (Wont hope cobbs less than I see but if that happens I'll own it and shut up about the lack of killer instinct.)

[TJseven7]

Just for an as is to hit the mark. Assume 5 runs 3.8 era is that mark.

 

Anderson 2.8... holds the era he posted for the last 203ip

Davies 3.6... has a year with no april yips

Chacin 3.8... dj magic

4-5 4.7

 

Or

 

Anderson 3.2... acceptible regression.

Davies 3.6... april yips go away

Chacin 4.0

4-5 4.4 era

 

Or

 

Anderson 3.2... acceptible regression

Chacin 3.9... minor magic

Davies 3.9... status quo

4-5 4.3... pure magic.

 

That shaves 1 run. That's crazy. Right?

[coolhandluke121]

Interesting point about Matt Arnold working for the Rays recently and having some insight into Cobb's value. I trust this front office implicitly if they don't believe he and the other SP's on the market were worth the price.

 

It's not that people are wrong about probably needing more pitching. Davies is not likely to be that good again. Wasn't it 5 or 6 road starts in a row with 5+ ip's and no er's last year, joining Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens as the only pitchers to EVER have a streak like that? Anderson is likely to regress, what with his super lucky flyball/hr ratio last year and the fact that much of his increased velocity was just a matter of how they measured it. Nelson's spot could be a huge void, Chacin is probably just serviceable at best, and everyone else could struggle due to not enough experience or being in severe decline.

 

What you may be wrong about if you're still clamoring for a guy like Cobb, or you're mad that they didn't get Arrieta or even Darvish, is whether the upgrade is worth the price. Just don't get mad at Stearns if the rotation struggles this year until you've fully considered what kind of value Philly and Chicago got for their money. Stearns was right to want meaningful upgrades at a reasonable price. There is a fairly good chance that Cobb, Arrieta, or Darvish would have made them quite a bit better this year, but they'd still be far behind the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals, and there's a good chance within 2 years they'd regret signing a guy like that. It happens all the time. And there's a non-negligible chance some of those guys aren't even that much better than Suter or Woodruff, used properly.

[TJseven7]

Interesting point about Matt Arnold working for the Rays recently and having some insight into Cobb's value. I trust this front office implicitly if they don't believe he and the other SP's on the market were worth the price.

 

It's not that people are wrong about probably needing more pitching. Davies is not likely to be that good again. Wasn't it 5 or 6 road starts in a row with 5+ ip's and no er's last year, joining Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens as the only pitchers to EVER have a streak like that? Anderson is likely to regress, what with his super lucky flyball/hr ratio last year and the fact that much of his increased velocity was just a matter of how they measured it. Nelson's spot could be a huge void, Chacin is probably just serviceable at best, and everyone else could struggle due to not enough experience or being in severe decline.

 

What you may be wrong about if you're still clamoring for a guy like Cobb, or you're mad that they didn't get Arrieta or even Darvish, is whether the upgrade is worth the price. Just don't get mad at Stearns if the rotation struggles this year until you've fully considered what kind of value Philly and Chicago got for their money. Stearns was right to want meaningful upgrades at a reasonable price. There is a fairly good chance that Cobb, Arrieta, or Darvish would have made them quite a bit better this year, but they'd still be far behind the Cubs, Dodgers, and Nationals, and there's a good chance within 2 years they'd regret signing a guy like that. It happens all the time. And there's a non-negligible chance some of those guys aren't even that much better than Suter or Woodruff, used properly.

 

Don't disagree. I've seen 3 of the big 4 land a deal and I've thought all of them were bad in one way or another. Darvish, good aav but too long and almost would assure us of a 2022 rebuild. Lynn 1 years not worth a 4th. Arrieta, scary gross. I'll shut up on Cobb if he lands for a deal I deem bad. So far that's a strong 3 for 3. We will see what 4 brings.

[A Swing and A Drive]

Maybe they just don't like Cobb all that much, my goodness. Their opinion could well be that the cheap in-house options might give similar results at a fraction the cost. Laser focus on Cobb is falling into the mindset that everything must be fixed now.

 

I think the reason that this thread is approaching 100 pages long is because a "not-to-be-named" rumor troll had many Brewer fans around here excited about Cobb to the point that, in their minds, he was already penciled into the 2018 rotation.

 

I think many believed this would make our entire 2018 rotation better and had already rationalized that Cobb was a #2 starter since he was going to be a Brewer (as opposed to a #3-#4 starter that he likely is), which added to their anticipation of his signing.

 

I don't think there is a MLB Baseball Expert alive that did NOT think Cobb would be one of our top 5 starting pitching options for 2018 and beyond so I think the Brewerfan Nation has set ourselves up for possible let down if Cobb signs elsewhere.

 

Time for some optimism...

Brent Suter for NL CY YOUNG 2018!

[TJseven7]

Maybe some of us looked through a boatload of numbers before any of them signed and decide this was his pony. Just saying.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Brent Suter for NL CY YOUNG 2018!

 

Well, I know one poster around here who will agree with that

[topper09er]

Wasn't it 5 or 6 road starts in a row with 5+ ip's and no er's last year, joining Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens as the only pitchers to EVER have a streak like that?

 

I had to check, there have been tons of these streaks in the dead ball era, but since 1920 the only 2 such streaks (road game, 5+ IP, 0 ER) of 5 or more games are:

Zach Davies (5 starts) Jul 19 2017 - Aug 26 2017

Rogers Clemens (6 starts) Sep 24 2004- Jun 17 2005

[Mr Southpaw]

Brent Suter for NL CY YOUNG 2018!

 

Well, I know one poster around here who will agree with that

 

I will gone Clancey and Swing, go Suter go!

[Jopal78]

I suppose fundamentally the question is: is the current collection of talent good enough to compete in the NL. I think the answer to that question is maybe.

 

In today's baseball, if you have a .500 record, more likely than not you are in the race for a playoff spot. Does the Brewers collection of talent scream .500 baseball, yes it does.

 

Are there any elite talents currently in the Brewers farm system that will help push the major league team into one of the three or four most talented teams in the NL... that I'm not so sure off. Time will tell.

 

But with playing .500 baseball, you wind up picking 20th in the draft and while there are no sure things in the draft, more everyday players are found in the upper half of the first round than the lower half. So with .500 baseball the farm system is not likely going to get stocked with elite prospects picking near the bottom of each round.

 

(Now to bring this back to Cobb) If the team is going to be around .500, and as a consequence likely will not have a draft position where they have the ability to add elite talent to the system in either 2018 or 2019, why not field the absolute best team you can especially when you can add major league talent to the rotation without giving up players already in the pipe line.

[82brewcrew82]

Brent Suter for NL CY YOUNG 2018!

 

Well, I know one poster around here who will agree with that

 

I will gone Clancey and Swing, go Suter go!

[Brewer Fever]

Maybe they just don't like Cobb all that much, my goodness. Their opinion could well be that the cheap in-house options might give similar results at a fraction the cost. Laser focus on Cobb is falling into the mindset that everything must be fixed now.

 

I think the reason that this thread is approaching 100 pages long is because a "not-to-be-named" rumor troll had many Brewer fans around here excited about Cobb to the point that, in their minds, he was already penciled into the 2018 rotation.

 

I think many believed this would make our entire 2018 rotation better and had already rationalized that Cobb was a #2 starter since he was going to be a Brewer (as opposed to a #3-#4 starter that he likely is), which added to their anticipation of his signing.

 

I firmly believe you are exactly right. Once people believed Cobb was our target, they convinced themselves that he was the final piece needed to put a complete roster together in 2018. The reality appears to be that no one on the current pitching market was deemed worth paying the price for, be it dollars or prospects.

 

Instead of "it makes sense we're after Cobb, Arnold is very familiar with him", it very well might be "Arnold is very familiar with Cobb and doesn't see that much difference from what we have in house".

 

In a video on this site, Stearns said they've been pursuing Yelich for YEARS. And Cain just became available in free agency this year. Instead of of looking at their closely-timed acquisitions as meaning this was a go for it year, it appears as though the Brewers are acquiring key pieces as they come available at a price the team deems appropriate. Having those two acquired on the same day combined with the unnamed poster's comments gave a false impression of what was really going on. I readily admit to making the same assumption at first.

 

I have no doubt they will continue to make home run additions when a player they truly see as a difference maker comes available and the price is reasonable. I even think they're willing to overpay in those instances. I don't believe they're going to spend significant assets (dollars or prospects) on small or even medium upgrades.

[MrTPlush]

They are going for it, to some extent. Lorenzo Cain was almost instantly signed after we got Yelich. That isn't just some kind of coincidence. Lorenzo Cain wasn't getting signed without Yelich.

[Brewer Fever]

I also still believe in the Rule 5 roster crunch theory. I think the Brewers will package together another 3, 4 or even 5 prospects to acquire a core piece sometime in the next 8 months. I think a top of rotation pitcher is the most likely target but would no longer be surprised to see them jump at the chance to add just about anyone if they feel the player is difference maker.