2018 Brewers Discussion - Yelich Signing on Page 45

[Kerb Hohl]

I have no issues with tanking. It's not telling the guys not to try, it's bringing in a bunch of younger guys to take a look at and not making moves for wins.

Not making moves for wins IS the definition of not trying.

I've got no issues with a team that is projected to win 70 games making moves for 3 years down the road instead of this year.

I wouldn't even have problems with the Brewers (probably slotted for 80 next year) doing the same. But they won't.

That is A LOT different than telling guys on the field not to give a ****, which I understand may somewhat happen if you are a bit negligent with your roster, but there is definitely an edge to building for the future and tanking in the process.

[sdn40]

I have no issues with tanking. It's not telling the guys not to try, it's bringing in a bunch of younger guys to take a look at and not making moves for wins.

Not making moves for wins IS the definition of not trying.

I've got no issues with a team that is projected to win 70 games making moves for 3 years down the road instead of this year.

I wouldn't even have problems with the Brewers (probably slotted for 80 next year) doing the same. But they won't.

That is A LOT different than telling guys on the field not to give a ****, which I understand may somewhat happen if you are a bit negligent with your roster, but there is definitely an edge to building for the future and tanking in the process.

Projections are guesses.
I get it - some teams are definitely better than us and we weren't gonna win a World Series this year, but we were PROJECTED to win 60 games. We won 86. That's why you try. The MLB draft is a crapshoot - whether drafting in the top 10 or the bottom 10. Take a look at the number 1 overall picks the last 10 years. No way is it worth tanking for those odds. Hedging your bets on those odds is lunacy. I trust Stearns to use all avenues to bring in talent, including the ones that are much more reliable than the draft, and no tanking is necessary in the process.

[Kerb Hohl]

Not making moves for wins IS the definition of not trying.

I've got no issues with a team that is projected to win 70 games making moves for 3 years down the road instead of this year.

I wouldn't even have problems with the Brewers (probably slotted for 80 next year) doing the same. But they won't.

That is A LOT different than telling guys on the field not to give a ****, which I understand may somewhat happen if you are a bit negligent with your roster, but there is definitely an edge to building for the future and tanking in the process.

Projections are guesses.
I get it - some teams are definitely better than us and we weren't gonna win a World Series this year, but we were PROJECTED to win 60 games. We won 86. That's why you try. The MLB draft is a crapshoot - whether drafting in the top 10 or the bottom 10. I trust Stearns to use all avenues to bring in talent that are even more reliable than the draft, and no tanking is necessary in the process.

This is why I don't think we should tank as much as say the Bucks should (MLB draft is a bit more of a crapshoot, but elite players still are more likely to be grabbed in the top 5 or 10), but I totally understand if twirly or somebody 2 years ago said to tank 100%. I was on board with it then. I disagree they should do it now and I more strongly disagree that Mark would ever allow it...but if you want to win it all, it is probably the smarter thing to do in 2015 and maybe now, but I think we've got good enough management to get into the playoffs and have a good enough organization the next few years to remain competitive enough to win it all.

[El Duderino]

Lol, there are literally only like 5 or 6 guys they'll be using a lot next year that are past their prime on both those lists combined. And some of those are only "theoretically" past their prime, having had their best year by far at 30 or shortly thereafter and therefore being legit candidates for a late prime, which is not all that uncommon. Despite the average prime year being 27 or 28, there are plenty of guys who deviate from that and peak later. And the average decline shortly after 27 or 28 isn't that steep.

I don't even disagree with you in principle, but if you can't enjoy a year like the one they just had, there's no reason to watch. You're only hoping to have more years like that in the future, but when having a good year now doesn't interfere with your ability to have those future good years, you should try to enjoy it. If it means they sign a bunch of mediocre players and thus cost themselves a chance to add free agents a few years from now, then by all means complain about that. But if they do that, fault them for that. Don't be mad that they had a good year. They were right in the division race all the way up until the Cubs series ffs.

And the way you seemed mad about getting Walker and Swarzak in the thick of a division race, while giving up basically nothing, makes it hard to take you seriously even when there is a lot of merit to your larger premise. You were a bigger fan of tanking than you were of the Brewers this year.

The team has the lowest payroll in baseball, so plenty of flexibility there and Garza coming off the books.

Nearly all of their best players are pre-arb and quality prospects from AAA will start coming up next year, then guys from AA and lower will later make their way up, helping both with future payroll flexibility and roster flexibility to potentially make trades when needed of productive big league guys to make room for guys coming up from the minors.

This is the best overall shape the organization has been in a long time between having a sharp GM, controllable talent on the big league roster, and a deep minor league system. I look so forward to what Stearns and the team can do over the next five years and beyond.

My only real bummer about this season besides blowing a Wild Card berth because of so many late soul crushing losses was the injury to Nelson. We finally develop a starter like Nelson and he screws up his shoulder sliding on the bases of all things.

[sdn40]

The team has the lowest payroll in baseball, so plenty of flexibility there and Garza coming off the books.

Nearly all of their best players are pre-arb and quality prospects from AAA will start coming up next year, then guys from AA and lower will later make their way up, helping both with future payroll flexibility and roster flexibility to potentially make trades when needed of productive big league guys to make room for guys coming up from the minors.

This is the best overall shape the organization has been in a long time between having a sharp GM, controllable talent on the big league roster, and a deep minor league system. I look so forward to what Stearns and the team can do over the next five years and beyond.

My only real bummer about this season besides blowing a Wild Card berth because of so many late soul crushing losses was the injury to Nelson. We finally develop a starter like Nelson and he screws up his shoulder sliding on the bases of all things.

And the mix of guys is really nice IMO. Some fans think we can tank and tank and develop and then just call up 25 guys all at once and off we go to the World Series. Just like we've seen with the Bucks, you have to have glue guys and guys with experience at all levels of their career, just as well as your young superstars. I think we have some really good pieces in that regard. Pieces come in all shapes and forms - not just superstars - and trading off any and all guys that have value every year is frustrating thinking IMO. I'm crazy enough to think Broxton could be a viable piece on a winning team.

[wichmae]

Not making moves for wins IS the definition of not trying.

I've got no issues with a team that is projected to win 70 games making moves for 3 years down the road instead of this year.

I wouldn't even have problems with the Brewers (probably slotted for 80 next year) doing the same. But they won't.

That is A LOT different than telling guys on the field not to give a ****, which I understand may somewhat happen if you are a bit negligent with your roster, but there is definitely an edge to building for the future and tanking in the process.

Projections are guesses.
I get it - some teams are definitely better than us and we weren't gonna win a World Series this year, but we were PROJECTED to win 60 games. We won 86. That's why you try. The MLB draft is a crapshoot - whether drafting in the top 10 or the bottom 10. Take a look at the number 1 overall picks the last 10 years. No way is it worth tanking for those odds. Hedging your bets on those odds is lunacy. I trust Stearns to use all avenues to bring in talent, including the ones that are much more reliable than the draft, and no tanking is necessary in the process.

You cant really compare the last 10 years of #1 picks because the entire draft format changed two seasons (drafts) ago with the bonus pool system. In todays baseball age more than ever is is imperative to have the ability to pay as much as you can with having the largest as possible pool resources to compensate the elite talent. The MLB draft is by far from this crapshoot youre implying and its basically been evidenced over the last 5 or so years by having drafted and home grown talent on your rosters. Pleskoff has been doing team by team breakdowns on how each player was acquired for each playoff team. I agree at this point tanking isnt going to happen but what CHI and SD are doing is putting their team in a significantly higher probability for future success because they arent chasing useless wins. The Brewers were projected to win 74 by fangraphs at beginning of season and I believe 73 by Vegas. SO Im not sure where you got 60 from. This upcoming FA class is extremely weak and while we are in a position to be financially flexible so is just about everyone else. Including the big guns. The NYY for example have over 100 mil coming off their books. So yes we need to use all avenues to improve the roster but not at the expense of future flexibility. The worst thing this team could do is sign two big multi year FA deals to mediocre players which in turn makes the team hamstrung.

[coolhandluke121]

Yeah, I was totally on board with Twirly for years there, but I take exception to saying this year was terrible because now they're not going to tank. I'm the same guy who wanted to trade everyone in 2012 and again in 2014, and I wanted to trade Villar, Braun, and Guerra for literally anything they could get. I'm for trading vets before they decline and their salaries go up, but I didn't think those teams were as good as this one and it's not so important when guys are making peanuts. Those teams didn't really earn the right to "run it back"; this team clearly has. I also don't get how you can imply that the 3 months Thames was awful are somehow more accurate than the months he was really good. Same for Shaw's half-season splits and Villar's last 2 years. At some point, if you're fishing for reasons every single player on the team will regress, shouldn't you be willing to entertain an alternative explanation for why they had so many good players this year, namely the fact that they have good scouting? Here's a likely breakdown by overall production:

Nelson - major regression, no doubt
Anderson - likely regression, but his velocity was way up this year so you can't just assume this year was a total fluke
Davies - probably about the same overall, very good for most of the last 2 years except the first half of this year
Garza/Woodruff ---> just Woodruff - likely to be better; Garza got very lucky at times but was generally awful
Guerra/Peralta/Suter ---> just Suter - Suter won't be as good, but Peralta and Guerra were so bad that a full year of Suter with regression could average out to about the same overall production from the 5th spot

Knebel - probably a little worse, but he has stuff that plays out of the pen and he's not even in his prime age yet
Hader - probably a little worse, but will pitch all year and add more WAR as a result
Hughes - regression, but probably serviceable
Barnes - improvement, good FIP, could be the next Turnbox/Axford/Thornburg/Jeffress/Knebel surprise as he has similar stuff
Williams - probably better than Torres or Drake by virtue of youth and velocity if nothing else

So that's why you gotta figure one solid starter and a couple good relievers could help the staff maintain its production or even get better. They used some godawful, wretched starters and relievers this year. Just getting slightly above 0 WAR guys instead of them could make up for losing Nelson.

Thames/Braun/Aguilar - Braun might be a plus defender at 1b (wasn't throwing his biggest issue at 3b?); Thames and Aguilar would play a little less and be available to ph more; Thames was this level of prospect so he can sustain high 800's OPS against rhps.
Villar/Sogard/Perez - they got only ~3 WAR here even with Walker; Sogard's defense and a little bounceback from Villar cover that easily, even if/when Sogard's bat goes cold; Perez's bat is more of an asset as a platoon 2b/3b
Arcia/Sogard - Arcia is a former borderline elite prospect and should obviously improve; Sogard's lhb will come in a handy a few times a month
Shaw/Perez - Shaw should regress, but he was once a good prospect and maybe he just took a little longer to put it together. He's good.
Pina/Vogt - Pina regresses, but Vogt is better than Bandy/Susac.
Braun/Brinson/Phillips/Santana - Braun's health is too much of a wild card, but at least we know they have the option of using someone else for defense; Brinson is a really good prospect, hard to imagine him not being better than Broxton while Phillips is much better than Hernan/Kirk/Franklin not to mention being their first legit lhb outfielder in a few years; Santana probably regresses a little but he's another guy whose pedigree would suggest this is close to sustainable

[coolhandluke121]

This upcoming FA class is extremely weak and while we are in a position to be financially flexible so is just about everyone else. Including the big guns. The NYY for example have over 100 mil coming off their books. So yes we need to use all avenues to improve the roster but not at the expense of future flexibility. The worst thing this team could do is sign two big multi year FA deals to mediocre players which in turn makes the team hamstrung.

Yep. To the extent that people are disagreeing with some of the free agent names being suggested here, I agree with this (and with twirly) completely. I just can't agree with saying they had a bad year or wanting them to tank in their current situation. If this was the NBA, sure, but smart teams like this can actually compete for titles in baseball even without superstars. I'm not saying I think they will, but they've earned the right to try. I really just want them to stick to 1-2 year deals (preferably 1, to save flexibility for the much better free agent class in the following offseason).

[Kerb Hohl]

So yes we need to use all avenues to improve the roster but not at the expense of future flexibility. The worst thing this team could do is sign two big multi year FA deals to mediocre players which in turn makes the team hamstrung.

Agree with basically your entire post, but this last point brings up a tough question.

We have some $ to spend, but when to spend?

I think most agree that for the most part, we won't get a Yu Darvish this offseason or a Machado next offseason. I'd like a puncher's chance, but we probably won't.

So when is it? Maybe the solution is always just signing shorter-term vets, but it does limit you at times from getting guys that could be legitimate difference-makers, even if they're a bit older and "overpaid."

2021 and 2022 free agents are Shaw, Anderson, Braun, Thames, Villar, Guerra, Nelson, Knebel, Davies, and a few others that probably don't merit being listed. My guess is that maybe one of those guys would be worth keeping at that point. Santana and Davies are the only guys that still may have prime years at that point, but they are guys that we think kinda have their limitations.

Ideally, maybe "flexibility" is to pay for a key reliever or a shorter-contract vet in 2020 or 2021 or something, but when is the flexibility most useful, I guess I'm asking.

We could sign Cobb for 4 years right now and a few shorter-term relievers and not have that affect Arcia, Brinson, Phillips, Hader, Woodruff, or any other free agency. And we can probably keep one or two of our choosing of Davies or an older Shaw if we so choose, still.

I'm not suggesting we do that, but there is a fairly long window here of time to spend. Maybe it's better suited in 2020 but you do run the risk of signing a longer-term vet or two and starting to eat into the free agency years of the guys we may really care about.

[wichmae]

The other end of the salary spectrum would be some sort of trade taking on salary. Maybe using Santana or another OF to take back a guy on a large multi year deal already signed.

[sdn40]

You cant really compare the last 10 years of #1 picks because the entire draft format changed two seasons (drafts) ago with the bonus pool system. In todays baseball age more than ever is is imperative to have the ability to pay as much as you can with having the largest as possible pool resources to compensate the elite talent. The MLB draft is by far from this crapshoot youre implying and its basically been evidenced over the last 5 or so years by having drafted and home grown talent on your rosters. Pleskoff has been doing team by team breakdowns on how each player was acquired for each playoff team. I agree at this point tanking isnt going to happen but what CHI and SD are doing is putting their team in a significantly higher probability for future success because they arent chasing useless wins. The Brewers were projected to win 74 by fangraphs at beginning of season and I believe 73 by Vegas. SO Im not sure where you got 60 from. This upcoming FA class is extremely weak and while we are in a position to be financially flexible so is just about everyone else. Including the big guns. The NYY for example have over 100 mil coming off their books. So yes we need to use all avenues to improve the roster but not at the expense of future flexibility. The worst thing this team could do is sign two big multi year FA deals to mediocre players which in turn makes the team hamstrung.

I freely admit to not knowing the ins and outs of the complex drafting rules, FA rules, player control rules etc so I will certainly defer to anyone like yourself who seems to be much more knowledgeable in that regard. I'm an old fart who knows the NFL rules and the MLB rules make my brain hurt. The only exception I would take away from your informative post would be your last sentence, which could be construed as the all or nothing argument which I hate. If you can find value in a player - you buy - if you find value in selling a player - sell. People are obsessed with the declaration of being a buyer or seller. Basically, put me down in the corner of trusting Stearns to continue doing exactly what he has been doing. Whether it be a big expensive signing, grabbing another guy off the scrap heap, or standing pat - he has certainly earned my trust at this point.

[Kerb Hohl]

The other end of the salary spectrum would be some sort of trade taking on salary. Maybe using Santana or another OF to take back a guy on a large multi year deal already signed.

Definitely a consideration, though when you look around the league, I'm not sure if many options will present themselves.

We'd probably be talking about pitching, but you'd be in the same box that you're in with free agency. If the Rangers are rebuilding, maybe Cole Hamels and his 1-2 years remaining are a slight overpay, but they won't just give him away. They'll want good prospects just like the Verlander situation played out.

Then you're stuck looking to the next tier of guys that are a bit overpaid that somebody may take Santana for - and it has to be on a team that is currently trying to win since Santana won't be under team control forever...and then you realize that a lot of those guys end up being in the same class as a Lance Lynn or Alex Cobb anyways, so why not try to sign one of them?

Happ for a year? Guys like that are an option, but again, those teams will probably want good prospects and I'd probably rather just sign CC to a high $ 1-year deal.

Maybe if the Royals want to shed some $ to try to bring back all of their core guys, they'd give us Kennedy or Hammel for minimal in return (and both of those guys struggled mightily this past season).

The Giants are so absolutely boxed into this group that they probably will just stick with Cueto, Samardzija , etc. and they again won't be just giving those guys away. They've got the market to just sit on those contracts while they rebuild if they want to.

[coolhandluke121]

They basically have $25m going to Braun and Thames, about 7 arbitration guys who made a combined ~8m last year, and a bunch of pre-arbitration guys. After winning 86 games, I'm just throwing money at the very best stopgap free agents this year and hoping they bite, then throwing piles of money at Machado/Keuchel or even Harper/Kershaw next year, when even the lower-tier "consolation prize" fa's are better than much of this year's group.

You could easily justify giving $40m or more in total to Sabathia, Avila, Neshek, and Swarzak on 1-year deals, and I think you could make competitive offers without adding any years. Regardless of the likely low WAR per $1,000,000 ratio, it would fit the team's situation. Or if Arrieta doesn't get the deal he wants, give him most of that $40m on a 1-year deal to weaken the Cubs, tempt him to be the highest-paid pitcher in baseball for a year, and give him another year to get a Greinke-type deal. Lots of teams are saving money for next year and will strike out, so it would be a good year to be a free agent again. A similar approach could work for Wade Davis.

[Outlander]

The MLB is still a major crapshoot and there is little reason to tank just for the draft. The Brewers rebuild will ultimately succeed or fail because of trades they made for prospects after everybody could somewhat see what these guys could do. While there will be draft picks that end up helping the big league club there will be a large assortment of higher and lower drafted players and the high draft pick of Corey Ray isn't looking real good right now. A case could be made that just as much money and resources should be spent internationally but when they do spend big they end up with Gilbert Lara. In the future Stearns will have to continue to trade guys high to sustain success but it is not as easy to trade a Thornburg or Will Smith type player when expectations or high much less a higher profile guy like Lucroy/Gomez. Just a brief summary of young players that are on the team now or are expected to have a role within the next year or so:

Orlando Arcia - Signed as a 16 year old by the Brewers
Domingo Santana - Signed as 16 year old by the Phillies, acquired by Brewers in trade
Freddy Peralta - Signed as a 17 year old with Mariners, acquired by Brewers in trade
Josh Hader - Picked in 19th round, acquired by Brewers in trade
Zach Davies - Picked in 26th round, acquired by Brewers in trade
Brandon Woodruff - 11th round pick by Brewers
Corey Knebel - Supplemental pick after 1st round by Tigers, acquired by Brewers in trade
Lewis Brinson - Picked in 1st round, acquired by Brewers in trade
Brett Phillips - Picked in 6th round, acquired by Brewers in trade
Corbin Burnes - 4th round pick by Brewers

[LUKE23]

I mean, you also have to take into account that we still have a good amount of young bats coming through the minors. I know that a few had down years this year, but Carolina was also brutal on left handed hitters across the board. But we have:

OF: Santana (25), Phillips (23), Brinson (23) and then are still waiting on guys like Ray, Clark, Harrison, Lutz.
IF: Arcia and Shaw are going to lock down the left side and are 23 and 27, respectively. We have guys like Dubon, Hiura, and Diaz at 2B, Gatewood at 1B. Villar is only 26 and cheap, no harm in keeping him as well.

Pitching, we are still waiting on Burnes. Maybe Hader becomes a starter. Woodruff looks good. Davies is 24. Nelson is 28. Anderson is 29. Peralta should be up soon.

The notion that this team is any way past it's prime is pretty nuts. Of our long-term offensive pieces (lets say three years from now locked in guys), Shaw is probably the oldest, and he's 27. Villar/Walker are not the long-term answers at 2B, and Thames is not going to be our starter at 1B. Catcher is still up for grabs too. But we are either locked in with good young players or have high ceiling bats at OF, 3B, SS, and 2B. We are in a great position.

Lets look at this season:

Brewers were 7th youngest in terms of age weighted AB: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2017.shtml

Brewers were 13th youngest in term of age weighted IP: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2017.shtml

We are definitely going to need to hit on guys like Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff, Bickford, Ponce, Ortiz, Supak, Houser, etc., but it's not like there is no talent there.

[Kerb Hohl]

I mean, you also have to take into account that we still have a good amount of young bats coming through the minors. I know that a few had down years this year, but Carolina was also brutal on left handed hitters across the board. But we have:

OF: Santana (25), Phillips (23), Brinson (23) and then are still waiting on guys like Ray, Clark, Harrison, Lutz.
IF: Arcia and Shaw are going to lock down the left side and are 23 and 27, respectively. We have guys like Dubon, Hiura, and Diaz at 2B, Gatewood at 1B. Villar is only 26 and cheap, no harm in keeping him as well.

Pitching, we are still waiting on Burnes. Maybe Hader becomes a starter. Woodruff looks good. Davies is 24. Nelson is 28. Anderson is 29. Peralta should be up soon.

The notion that this team is any way past it's prime is pretty nuts. Of our long-term offensive pieces (lets say three years from now locked in guys), Shaw is probably the oldest, and he's 27. Villar/Walker are not the long-term answers at 2B, and Thames is not going to be our starter at 1B. Catcher is still up for grabs too. But we are either locked in with good young players or have high ceiling bats at OF, 3B, SS, and 2B. We are in a great position.

Lets look at this season:

Brewers were 7th youngest in terms of age weighted AB: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2017.shtml

Brewers were 13th youngest in term of age weighted IP: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2017.shtml

We are definitely going to need to hit on guys like Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff, Bickford, Ponce, Ortiz, Supak, Houser, etc., but it's not like there is no talent there.

IMO, the upshot of all of this is that we will have a steady stream of prime-age, "good" players. It's not like Brinson or Arcia could not become elite or that Santana couldn't keep improving. However, we don't have any Carlos Correa or Kris Bryant type youth players (when they were very early in their careers).

We can still win that way. Just need to keep the farm system in tact. Probably just let guys like Shaw and Anderson walk at age 32. Keep bringing in the younger talent to take over, trade older players if the situation allows for it, and spend on free agents to fill the holes.

It'll be more Cardinals/Pirates/Royals than it will be Astros/Cubs/Indians. The latter teams are loaded with elite players. The Royals spent some of their "next 5 years" capital to try to win it all so it's understandable with them and the Pirates got unlucky for a few years with the division/WC matchups, but the point is that the earlier mentioned teams had a glut of "good" prospects and generally kept plugging them in.

[Kerb Hohl]

They basically have $25m going to Braun and Thames, about 7 arbitration guys who made a combined ~8m last year, and a bunch of pre-arbitration guys. After winning 86 games, I'm just throwing money at the very best stopgap free agents this year and hoping they bite, then throwing piles of money at Machado/Keuchel or even Harper/Kershaw next year, when even the lower-tier "consolation prize" fa's are better than much of this year's group.

You could easily justify giving $40m or more in total to Sabathia, Avila, Neshek, and Swarzak on 1-year deals, and I think you could make competitive offers without adding any years. Regardless of the likely low WAR per $1,000,000 ratio, it would fit the team's situation. Or if Arrieta doesn't get the deal he wants, give him most of that $40m on a 1-year deal to weaken the Cubs, tempt him to be the highest-paid pitcher in baseball for a year, and give him another year to get a Greinke-type deal. Lots of teams are saving money for next year and will strike out, so it would be a good year to be a free agent again. A similar approach could work for Wade Davis.

This brings up a good point of the year/AAV idea that the Brewers could try to exploit. The Diamondbacks took this risk with Greinke.

Your point about Arrieta and offering him one year at a giant salary...I'd definitely look into things like that. If not, also try offering guys like Arrieta/Darvish very high-priced 4-5 year deals to try to avoid the 7 they're looking for. Offer 4/$150 or 5/$175 with a player opt-out after 2 years instead of going up to 7/$210. They may not take it, but it's worth trying. The D-Backs took this leap with Greinke and it's paid off. They knew he wasn't the perennial Cy Young anymore (just like we know that with Darvish/Arrieta), but they are as close to elite as you can get. Greinke ended up being an excellent pitcher and even if he begins to flame out over his final 3 years, you got an elite season or two in the contention window. I know that Darvish would never come to Milwaukee, but the idea remains.

[LUKE23]

C: Unknown
1B: Gatewood (21)
2B: Hiura (20)
SS: Arcia (23)
3B: Shaw (27)
OF: Phillips (23)
OF: Brinson (23)
OF: Santana (25)

Theoretical lineup three years from now with the players current ages. I could see Santana being moved (think Broxton is moved this summer), but even with all those players we aren't factoring in guys like Diaz, Erceg, Clark, Ray, Harrison, Lutz, Harrison, Stokes, Dubon, etc. I agree, we are lacking the blue chip stud guys (maybe Brinson is one), but I feel like we have good players up and down the lineup, and good depth to work trades. We also still have high ceiling toolsy players (Erceg, Diaz, Gatewood, Harrison) that haven't fully blown up yet, which his still a possibility. I think we're in a good spot especially factoring in control/salary.

[coolhandluke121]

Yeah, in general I agree with the premise of getting really good free agents instead of guys like Suppan, Garza, and Lohse, who may not produce as much WAR over the life of their contracts as much cheaper internal options in their prime like Fiers, Davies, Nelson, or Anderson. Make sure you're getting an obvious, significant upgrade. Obviously you have to choose guys like that very carefully, too. Who's going to age well? Who takes extremely good care of their body and conditioning? What's their injury history? Are they competitive enough by nature to stay productive well into their 30's? For pitchers, is their form conducive to staying healthy?

Honestly, Arrieta and Darvish both probably check most of those boxes, though I don't trust Arrieta to age as well. Machado for 2019 is my dream free agent though, mainly because of age but also because moving Shaw to 1b could give the Brewers an elite defensive infield without compromising bats.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, in general I agree with the premise of getting really good free agents instead of guys like Suppan, Garza, and Lohse, who may not produce as much WAR over the life of their contracts as much cheaper internal options in their prime like Fiers, Davies, Nelson, or Anderson. Make sure you're getting an obvious, significant upgrade. Obviously you have to choose guys like that very carefully, too. Who's going to age well? Who takes extremely good care of their body and conditioning? What's their injury history? Are they competitive enough by nature to stay productive well into their 30's? For pitchers, is their form conducive to staying healthy?

Honestly, Arrieta and Darvish both probably check most of those boxes, though I don't trust Arrieta to age as well. Machado for 2019 is my dream free agent though, mainly because of age but also because moving Shaw to 1b could give the Brewers an elite defensive infield without compromising bats.

I'd love to add one of those guys like Machado, but it feels like even a longer shot just because the Yankees and other teams have been saving up for this specific offseason (2019). Somebody's going to give him, Harper, and if Kershaw hits the market a Pujols or Stanton-esque deal. Harper may get $400 million over 10 years. The Brewers may be best off overbidding for the guys on the next tier and praying that they play up to that 2nd-tier status like Greinke has.