Lyles to Texas, 2 Years $16mil

[wntrtxn21]

A sleeper out there is Ivan Nova who was 7-5 with a 3.72 ERA the 2nd half for the White Sox, including a 7 game stretch in July and August where he allowed a total of 5 earned runs over 7 starts. He also allowed just one earned run in two starts against the Cubs.

 

Look at Nova's last 7 games. 28 IPs - 46 hits - 21 ERs - 9 BBs... You can't cherry pick a few games w/o looking at the befores and afters. Overall: 187 IPs - 225 hits - 30 HRs - 4.72 ERA - 4.98 FIP. He was making $9.2M... IMO he wouldn't be on Stearns' radar for any reason.

[82brewcrew82]

It’s a huge risk for the rangers. Stearns has a price and wouldn’t go over it. He is going to get another starter or 2, let’s just relax. He was great here but if he signed with us and returned back to how he pitched with the pirates everyone would be criticizing Stearns.

 

We thought it was a huge mistake last year when they went cheap on the rotation, and we were right. Losing Lyles like this is embarrassing. Its becoming clear that Attanasio has slashed the budget.

This is just a horrible take. I'd be embarrassed if they'd signed him to the deal the Ranters did. Lyles just isn't that good unless you start cherry picking small sample sizes. Making the playoffs two years running with seemingly patchwork rotations is a mistake? I'm not sure you and I have the same interpretation of the word mistake. Plenty of teams that would seem to have better rotations have failed to win world series the past couple of seasons. Some of them, GASP!, have even failed to make the playoffs altogether. Lastly, I am absolutely positive that there are more moves to come and the only mistake here is making declarative statements about payroll when you know absolutely nothing about their plans.

 

Bottom line is that DS is, thankfully, better than you (or me for that matter) at this whole GM thing. I think I'll hang with him.

[82brewcrew82]

To be fair, the team is 50 years old and in the last half of that existence you can count the number of homegrown quality starting pitchers to make a substantial number of starts for the Brewers on your fingers:

 

Sheets, Gallardo, Fiers, Nelson and Woodruff.

 

Certainly other small market teams like the Twins have spent money on free agent starters and had success doing so. That’s not Stearns’ game, I get that and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt after back to back appearances in the post season. Yet, it’s legitimate to question why the team isn’t trying to improve their pitching (which was their weakness last year) via free agency, especially in light of the fact that they won’t be able to have an army of fresh arms coming out of the bullpen this September

Regardless of whether past regimes have had success developing pitching or not is really no baring on whether this regime will. I'd argue this regime is already probably better at identifying and developing pitching than any in recent memory (recent being relative of course). I've not seen any small market team consistently spend big on starting pitching and have that be a sustainable method for success. You can ask whatever question you want but we all know why DS doesn't spend on starting pitching, he simply doesn't see the value. You can agree or disagree but to ask why is a strange question. Benefit of the doubt, sure, why not? He seems pretty good at this whold GM thing but hey, I'm sure you're plan is good too.

[BrewBalls]

I was on board with resigning Lyles for $5-6MM per over 2 years. So I’m perfectly fine with Stearns not matching the Rangers offer. As for needing 3 stud starters besides this year’s WS, how many times does one or both teams boast three top line starters? Also the 2019 Astros, 2010 Phillies and 2019 Dodgers all come to mind as teams who possessed elite starting pitching who didn’t win championships.

 

Stearns clearly values pitchers who can consistently get outs and limit runs which provide his potent offense to our score any team on any given day. Because of this, I’d add guys like Julio Terehan, Rick Porcello, Tanner Roark, Josh Lindblom and even Homer Bailey to go along with the previously mentioned guys like Keuchel, Walker, Gausman, Wood and Gio as pitchers who can provide quality innings to a playoff contender next seasons

[Brewcrewin07]

I mean, essentially with what's left in FA you'll be throwing darts and hoping for a "Chacin" year from one of them. So really what's the point then?? Might as well just roll with the garbage(except Woody) that you have. Why spend $$ on essentially the same Pitchers?? It's so depressing that the Crew will seemingly never have 2-3 stud arms in their rotation at one time. I get that it's expensive, but if we are all honest, the ONLY way the brewers as a franchise will ever have a "feared" rotation is to buy arms...they won't home grow them as we have seen. And they seem to refuse to buy them.

 

Sure, you can put together a rotation of "potential" type arms that may have a good year(or two) if everything goes right , and if it works out you look great for that year or two, but when they start to be the Pitchers they actually are again and it blows up...then you don't look so good. The lack of TOR arms is the #1 reason that the Brewers haven't gotten to where we all want them to be.

 

Please note, I am in no way shape or form saying they should have re signed Lyles because he's in the same category as all the others in hoping you can squeeze a good year ir two out of them before they become who they usually are again. I mean you would have thought that now with the rules changing and The Brewers no longer having the luxury of burning through Pen arms late in the season to carry them to the finish line, that they maybe would have realized that if there was ever a time to spend big on a TOR arm that can go deep into a game, now would be it. I guess not. They will always just have "band aids on gaping wounds" type of Pitchers I guess.

 

Did not see you a single time in the Narvaez trade thread but I figured you would show up on this one within 30 minutes of the original post. You do not fail to disappoint.

 

Anyway, part of the goal of Stearns and the reason he was hired is to build a sustainable winning model in Milwaukee. As such, knowing how bad these big names usually work out in the end, they're not a team that will likely ever invest in a top dollar FA arm. If you're expecting that, you're probably rooting for the wrong team. Your obsession with big names is just not something that would ever work for this franchise for more than a year or two.

 

The answer for them long-term is to develop their own, and though they've struggled to do that, they may have found one in Brandon Woodruff. You can't just say "they won't home grow them" just because they haven't in the best. They can, and they need to. Don't forget about Corbin Burnes. 2019 was a lost year for him, but he still has the arm talent to bounce back in a big way.

 

Lauer will definitely be in the rotation. The fact that they let Anderson go tells me they do have a plan. And there still are guys that could potentially impact the rotation in 2020 that could be reasonable targets -- perhaps Kuechel, Rich Hill, maybe even Ryu depending on how his market ends up.

 

 

I thought the Narvaez trade was great for the record...that being said, I would still rather have Grandal. Narvaez seems to have loads of potential, and seems to be on the right trajectory, but hasn't proven it as long as Grandal has, so there HAS to be a little bit of "what if" with him. I hope it works great. But again, Stearns seems to be far more aggressive in acquiring bats(Grandal, Moose etc), then he ever is Pitching. It's his philosophy I guess, but that doesn't mean we all need to agree with it. To me, a "lock down" starting staff will cover more hitting warts, then vice versa. It would also prevent the Brewers from having to run bullpen arms into the ground every year. I thought with the rules changing this year in regards to the 3 batter minimum, as well as much shorter post season rosters, that this might be the year the Brewers invest big in a starting pitcher.The way they have survived in the past(utilizing the bullpen ad nauseum), isn't really an option any more, so the seemingly best strategy to counter that would be to spend big on a guy that can go deep into games consistently(like Woody). If you had two of those guys(like add Strasburg), how much different would the staff look, how much more effective would the bull pen be all year consistently(because of not being used as much) and how much more of a chance would they give themselves late in the year when it's time to make a playoff push??

[3and2Fastball]

 

The answer for them long-term is to develop their own, and though they've struggled to do that, they may have found one in Brandon Woodruff. You can't just say "they won't home grow them" just because they haven't in the best. They can, and they need to. Don't forget about Corbin Burnes. 2019 was a lost year for him

 

To be fair, the team is 50 years old and in the last half of that existence you can count the number of homegrown quality starting pitchers to make a substantial number of starts for the Brewers on your fingers:

 

Sheets, Gallardo, Fiers, Nelson and Woodruff.

 

Teddy Higuera

Moose Haas had some good seasons, arguably better than Fiers

Jim Slaton was solid

 

I get your point though

 

Edited to say I just noticed the “in the last half of that existence” portion of your post....

[wallus]

This is going to be a long off season if we are upset about not giving Jordan Lyles 8 million a year.

[TURBO]

agreed. I'd have been inclined to give him 8 million for one season, but not two.

[BrewBalls]

To be fair, the team is 50 years old and in the last half of that existence you can count the number of homegrown quality starting pitchers to make a substantial number of starts for the Brewers on your fingers:

 

Sheets, Gallardo, Fiers, Nelson and Woodruff.

 

Certainly other small market teams like the Twins have spent money on free agent starters and had success doing so. That’s not Stearns’ game, I get that and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt after back to back appearances in the post season. Yet, it’s legitimate to question why the team isn’t trying to improve their pitching (which was their weakness last year) via free agency, especially in light of the fact that they won’t be able to have an army of fresh arms coming out of the bullpen this September

Regardless of whether past regimes have had success developing pitching or not is really no baring on whether this regime will. I'd argue this regime is already probably better at identifying and developing pitching than any in recent memory (recent being relative of course). I've not seen any small market team consistently spend big on starting pitching and have that be a sustainable method for success. You can ask whatever question you want but we all know why DS doesn't spend on starting pitching, he simply doesn't see the value. You can agree or disagree but to ask why is a strange question. Benefit of the doubt, sure, why not? He seems pretty good at this whold GM thing but hey, I'm sure you're plan is good too.

Based on a couple of his first moves at GM (Claiming Junior Guerra off waivers and trading Lind for Peralta +) shows he is a good evaluator of pitching potential. So I too will give Stearns the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not signing certain pitchers based on his future projections of these players.

[JimH5]

I can't invest emotional energy in the Brewers getting or not getting Jordan Lyles. True, they seemed to unlock something in him and get good work from him, but I can't imagine that he would be the difference maker in making it deep into the postseason.

[reillymcshane]

Brewers reportedly talked to Lyles -- but nothing materialized.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/12/white-sox-blue-jays-brewers-twins-among-runners-up-for-jordan-lyles.html

[3and2Fastball]

When you watched Peralta and especially Burnes pitch in the 2018 postseason, there was no reason to think that they wouldn’t take the next step in 2019, similar to the way Woodruff did...

 

I still think Burnes is an excellent “bounce back” candidate.

 

And of course Stearns has a plan. And a backup plan. And a backup to the backup plan. etc

[xisxisxis]

Based on a couple of his first moves at GM (Claiming Junior Guerra off waivers and trading Lind for Peralta +) shows he is a good evaluator of pitching potential. So I too will give Stearns the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not signing certain pitchers based on his future projections of these players.

GMs don't do everything, especially rank low-level prospects in a team in a different league 2000 miles away. They rely on scouts and talent evaluators on their team to assist when making moves. I would bet $1000 that Stearns didn't even know Freddy Peralta's name at the time he was discussing options with Seattle. That doesn't mean I don't respect the job Stearns does, but blindly assigning all success to him is just plain wrong. And the guys who were advising him on prospects during the Lind negotiations probably were fired when the Brewers cleaned house earlier this year on the scouting side. So that didn't save their jobs.

 

As others have said, it was easy for Stearns to walk away from what the Rangers were offering if he wasn't willing to give the same money to Chase Anderson. This offseason is going to be different as the free agent market is weak in the mid-level talent and loaded with meh talent. Teams are aggressively going after the mid-level to low-level talent as there aren't a lot of options and soon we'll be looking at very bad options across the board. As things are going the odds of a Hader trade are going up.

 

edit: Stearns may have heard of Peralta while with the Astros in his capacity there, but that might only change my bet to $500.

[BrewBalls]

I thought the Narvaez trade was great for the record...that being said, I would still rather have Grandal. Narvaez seems to have loads of potential, and seems to be on the right trajectory, but hasn't proven it as long as Grandal has, so there HAS to be a little bit of "what if" with him. I hope it works great. But again, Stearns seems to be far more aggressive in acquiring bats(Grandal, Moose etc), then he ever is Pitching. It's his philosophy I guess, but that doesn't mean we all need to agree with it. To me, a "lock down" starting staff will cover more hitting warts, then vice versa. It would also prevent the Brewers from having to run bullpen arms into the ground every year. I thought with the rules changing this year in regards to the 3 batter minimum, as well as much shorter post season rosters, that this might be the year the Brewers invest big in a starting pitcher.The way they have survived in the past(utilizing the bullpen ad nauseum), isn't really an option any more, so the seemingly best strategy to counter that would be to spend big on a guy that can go deep into games consistently(like Woody). If you had two of those guys(like add Strasburg), how much different would the staff look, how much more effective would the bull pen be all year consistently(because of not being used as much) and how much more of a chance would they give themselves late in the year when it's time to make a playoff push??

I think this method of using your bullpen to pitch the remaining 3-4 innings regularly is the trend not the exception. Stearns and Counsell might have even revolutionized how bullpens are utilized more effectively by having guys like Hader, Pomeranz, Suter, Guerra, Woodruff, Burnes and Peralta pitching multiple high leverage innings whenever they determine this is necessary to stay in a game. If you have 2-3 guys in your pen capable of going 2-3 innings per outing it keeps your bullpen rested while allowing the reliever to continue getting outs when hitting on his pitches.

 

I recently heard an interview with Seth McClung who discussed how much more taxing being a reliever was than a starter because you could easily be throwing 5-6 days in a row while only appearing in only a couple games due to having to warm up in the pen just to sit back down when the call doesn’t come. So the more multi-inning pitchers you can have in your bullpen the less you will likely need to warm up. Previously you would keep one “swingman” who was basically your 6th best starter in the pen to come in early and be the bridge to your back end of the bullpen when a starter struggles early. The statistics show the majority of starters struggle getting through a lineup the 3rd time so why not pull your starter when this happens to improve your odds of getting outs?

 

So based on this reasoning and the fact you can no longer bring in someone like a Loogyto face a single batter, I’m more inclined to see the league follow the Brewers lead instead of trying to load up their rotation with several of the few players who are capable of pitching 6-7 quality innings every outing and based on how well players like Pomeranz and Lyles are getting paid this offseason I think this is the way GMs will go too.

[SRB]

Based on a couple of his first moves at GM (Claiming Junior Guerra off waivers and trading Lind for Peralta +) shows he is a good evaluator of pitching potential. So I too will give Stearns the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not signing certain pitchers based on his future projections of these players.

GMs don't do everything, especially rank low-level prospects in a team in a different league 2000 miles away. They rely on scouts and talent evaluators on their team to assist when making moves. I would bet $1000 that Stearns didn't even know Freddy Peralta's name at the time he was discussing options with Seattle. That doesn't mean I don't respect the job Stearns does, but blindly assigning all success to him is just plain wrong. And the guys who were advising him on prospects during the Lind negotiations probably were fired when the Brewers cleaned house earlier this year on the scouting side. So that didn't save their jobs.

 

As others have said, it was easy for Stearns to walk away from what the Rangers were offering if he wasn't willing to give the same money to Chase Anderson. This offseason is going to be different as the free agent market is weak in the mid-level talent and loaded with meh talent. Teams are aggressively going after the mid-level to low-level talent as there aren't a lot of options and soon we'll be looking at very bad options across the board. As things are going the odds of a Hader trade are going up.

 

edit: Stearns may have heard of Peralta while with the Astros in his capacity there, but that might only change my bet to $500.

 

I'm not sure that's true. GMs do not work singlehandedly obviously, but ultimately they are the ones interpreting the scouting reports they get and making the decisions.

[MrTPlush]

When you watched Peralta and especially Burnes pitch in the 2018 postseason, there was no reason to think that they wouldn’t take the next step in 2019, similar to the way Woodruff did...

 

I still think Burnes is an excellent “bounce back” candidate.

 

And of course Stearns has a plan. And a backup plan. And a backup to the backup plan. etc

 

There was a lot of reason to think that, especially with Peralta. Glance at his stats for 2018 he had a 4.40 ERA as a starter, his H/9 was crazy low, and walked a ton of batters. He was also absolutely terrible in the second half of the season. Add in the fact people questioned his ability to be a starter anyway with his pitches it wasn’t even slightly shocking he ended up being useless as a starter in 2019.

 

Corbin Burnes had a nice 2018, but entirely as a relief pitch. That is way different than starting.

[BrewBalls]

Based on a couple of his first moves at GM (Claiming Junior Guerra off waivers and trading Lind for Peralta +) shows he is a good evaluator of pitching potential. So I too will give Stearns the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not signing certain pitchers based on his future projections of these players.

GMs don't do everything, especially rank low-level prospects in a team in a different league 2000 miles away. They rely on scouts and talent evaluators on their team to assist when making moves. I would bet $1000 that Stearns didn't even know Freddy Peralta's name at the time he was discussing options with Seattle. That doesn't mean I don't respect the job Stearns does, but blindly assigning all success to him is just plain wrong. And the guys who were advising him on prospects during the Lind negotiations probably were fired when the Brewers cleaned house earlier this year on the scouting side. So that didn't save their jobs.

 

As others have said, it was easy for Stearns to walk away from what the Rangers were offering if he wasn't willing to give the same money to Chase Anderson. This offseason is going to be different as the free agent market is weak in the mid-level talent and loaded with meh talent. Teams are aggressively going after the mid-level to low-level talent as there aren't a lot of options and soon we'll be looking at very bad options across the board. As things are going the odds of a Hader trade are going up.

 

edit: Stearns may have heard of Peralta while with the Astros in his capacity there, but that might only change my bet to $500.

I would tend to agree with you that it’s very possible Stearns had never heard of Freddie Peralta prior to Seattle calling about Lind. But I would be willing to wager Stearns asked his analytics and scouting personnel to provide him with pitchers in the Seattle system who have low walk and high strikeout rates which was something the trio of young pitchers he received for Lind all had in common. After seeing this connection, I have noticed Stearns tends to acquire type of prospects regardless of this on the field results (i.e. ERA, WHIP, etc.) along with pitchers who have live arms with at least one plus pitch but usually has struggled with control up until that point of their careers.

 

This to me indicates he believes there are specific analytical stats which can help predict which types of pitchers are more likely to break out or have success in the majors. So IMO by asking for his staff to identify these types of players when looking for trade options he does deserve some

credit for these lower prospect acquisitions.

[monty57]

I'm surprised to see anyone saying that Jordan Lyles signing elsewhere is proof that we're not going after good starting pitching. Jordan Lyles has a history of not being a good starting pitcher. He happened to pitch well in a short stint with the Brewers, but any MLB player can be good for a short period. When Stearns spends money (he will), I'd like it to be on someone who is likely to sustain success, not someone who will generally be bad, but may have a stretch where he pitches well. I hope the best for Lyles, but he's a back-of-the-rotation arm who we shouldn't be spending $8M/year on.

[long ball]

While I was very impressed with what Lyles did for the brewers in 2019 and I thought there was a decent chance he'd be back, I didn't see him getting basically the Chacin deal from 2 years ago.

 

At this price or cheaper, there are plenty of other starters so there.

 

Pursue specific skills, not specific players is my motto.

[Never Outhustled]

It’s a huge risk for the rangers. Stearns has a price and wouldn’t go over it. He is going to get another starter or 2, let’s just relax. He was great here but if he signed with us and returned back to how he pitched with the pirates everyone would be criticizing Stearns.

 

We thought it was a huge mistake last year when they went cheap on the rotation, and we were right. Losing Lyles like this is embarrassing. Its becoming clear that Attanasio has slashed the budget.

 

The Brewers are always going to be a value based organization that doesn't overpay. That's the way David Stearns operates. I sort of thought that was pretty obvious by now.

 

I would have done it personally, but not paying $16 million guaranteed to Jordan Lyles is FAR from embarrassing. That is absolutely the top of the market for a guy like Lyles with his track record. The fact that Lyles, Pomeranz and Moose have signed for over what most predictors said they would says a lot about the Brewers' talent evaluation. And it gives me hope that they will be able to continue to acquire guys who are undervalued or misused by other teams.

 

Sorry, I forgot that if we don't penny pinch on starting pitchers, we can't make value based signings like the 2 year deal for the immortal Matt Albers. What an obvious and tremendous value the was.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

 

Sorry, I forgot that if we don't penny pinch on starting pitchers, we can't make value based signings like the 2 year deal for the immortal Matt Albers. What an obvious and tremendous value the was.

 

For $5 million over two years, he was fine. Provided some value, and there were stretches in both 2018 and 2019 where he was the best reliever on the team. So your attempted cherry-pick doesn't work here.

[mtrebs]

When you watched Peralta and especially Burnes pitch in the 2018 postseason, there was no reason to think that they wouldn’t take the next step in 2019, similar to the way Woodruff did...

 

I still think Burnes is an excellent “bounce back” candidate.

 

And of course Stearns has a plan. And a backup plan. And a backup to the backup plan. etc

 

In general I'm quite pleased Stearns as a GM, but he didn't have viable backup plans when two of the three young starters failed miserably. There was no one decent to plug in to their spots in the rotation until we traded for Lyles.

[adambr2]

With the way Albers pitched in 2017 in Washington, taking a shot on him for 2/5 made total sense. He started out fantastically in 2018 for the first half, got hurt, and unfortunately was never really the same for us after.

 

Sheesh. Not every single value based signing will work out just the way we hope it will. But we criticize those moves and ignore the terrible ones that he didn't make that people wanted.

[Never Outhustled]

 

Sorry, I forgot that if we don't penny pinch on starting pitchers, we can't make value based signings like the 2 year deal for the immortal Matt Albers. What an obvious and tremendous value the was.

 

For $5 million over two years, he was fine. Provided some value, and there were stretches in both 2018 and 2019 where he was the best reliever on the team. So your attempted cherry-pick doesn't work here.

 

He was below replacement level, which means he literally provided negative value. Saying he was good for stretches is cherry picking. He had terrible seasons both years with the team.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

When you watched Peralta and especially Burnes pitch in the 2018 postseason, there was no reason to think that they wouldn’t take the next step in 2019, similar to the way Woodruff did...

 

I still think Burnes is an excellent “bounce back” candidate.

 

And of course Stearns has a plan. And a backup plan. And a backup to the backup plan. etc

 

In general I'm quite pleased Stearns as a GM, but he didn't have viable backup plans when two of the three young starters failed miserably. There was no one decent to plug in to their spots in the rotation until we traded for Lyles.

 

That's not entirely true. Gio was signed early on, was plugged into one of those spots, and performed quite admirably.

 

They also started the year with Chase Anderson in the bullpen, as a viable alternative should the young starters struggle. What they didn't have a backup plan for was Chacin pitching horribly.