2018 Brewers Discussion - Yelich Signing on Page 45

[LUKE23]

I mean, the Brewers did their best to have this be a rebuilding year. They went in with the lowest payroll in baseball and gave time to a lot of young players. If they had spent money already on outside FA to try to compete, it would be a different story. Really though, I think we have enough bats either up now, or that will develop to have a very good offense. The key is to hit on a high-end pitcher. Maybe Hader goes into the rotation and flourishes, maybe Burnes is a top end guy, who knows. I agree the likelihood of landing that type of guy is better higher in the draft, but what can you do? Most of our players played better than we thought they would. That should be a good thing for our future.

One thing you can't really argue, that given salary and team control, the Brewers are set up VERY WELL financially to make outside moves. Not saying I want to go hog wild in FA, just saying, the fact they have all their guys under control will allow them the flexibility.

[wichmae]

There isn't one blueprint to winning a WS. If there was every team would follow it. I'll take my chances with a great season that was one of the most entertaining I've had since the Pat Listach team than rolling the dice to tank for the #1 pick and slot value.

Creativity helps breed success, not black and white thinking.

*edit* So is the thinking that the only way to win is through the draft? I'm not buying that.

I never said that. I said your best chance to land a type A talent is at the top of the draft. Especially now the way that pools work.

[Iheartfootball]

There isn't one blueprint to winning a WS. If there was every team would follow it. I'll take my chances with a great season that was one of the most entertaining I've had since the Pat Listach team than rolling the dice to tank for the #1 pick and slot value.

Creativity helps breed success, not black and white thinking.

*edit* So is the thinking that the only way to win is through the draft? I'm not buying that.

I never said that. I said your best chance to land a type A talent is at the top of the draft. Especially now the way that pools work.

I never said you did? I agree with your assessments on the state of the organization in large part. I agree that the way the draft works now, yes, having a higher pick give you a better chance at drafting. I also think that great scouting departments and creative use of slot pool dollars can overcome that.

[WeekapaugGroove]

I agree the top of the draft give you the best shot at blue chip talent that's obvious. And I would have been bummed if the Brewers would have made some crazy short sited deal where they traded real prospects for rentals. But they didn't. I enjoyed the year and I think sometimes it's just important to enjoy the ride to contention as it is to contend. I think in general sports fans have become a little too championship obsessed and don't enjoy anything else. And since only one team wins it each year this a tough way to go about consuming sports.

[LUKE23]

Right. We were able to win mid 80's while maintaining the farm system and still have a ton of payroll flexibility moving forward.

[trwi7]

But what is our farm system right now? It's like top 10ish with the best prospects being high risk relative to other top prospects.

[bizarro]

But what is our farm system right now? It's like top 10ish with the best prospects being high risk relative to other top prospects.

I think we can realistically say:

The Farm system is suprisingly deep on good arms (though obviously lacking in sheer number 1 upside) and littered with unknowns but 'potentially good to very good' in the bat department. I think it's very intriguing that 2 of our more intriguig prospects were just picked - Hiura and Lutz. But, also the regressions of Diaz, Ray, and (to a much lesser extent) Erceg took some of the polish off. The rise of gatewood and Harrison this past season was quite a pleasant surprise. We don't have the Bryant, Harper, et als but we do have solid depth across the board.

[El Duderino]

I never said you did? I agree with your assessments on the state of the organization in large part. I agree that the way the draft works now, yes, having a higher pick give you a better chance at drafting. I also think that great scouting departments and creative use of slot pool dollars can overcome that.

And we need to hit with some of these teenagers the team signs on the international market. They did with Arcia, but overall the Brewers need to be more productive in this area. Some of the best players in the game come from signings in Latin America, but many are only 16-17 years old when signed, which can make projections tougher.

With rule changes that no longer have the international market mainly set to benefit teams with the highest revenues, this market for talent is more open for everyone and slots can be traded for which i like.

Hopefully whoever the Brewers have mainly in charge of scouting Latin America, along with Stearns evaluate talent well down there because this is an important avenue which the team could land building blocks for the future.

[coolhandluke121]

But what is our farm system right now? It's like top 10ish with the best prospects being high risk relative to other top prospects.

Basically a lot like the big league club - full of depth and solid players that put them in the top 20-25%, but not much higher. Which is no worse than having elite talent but not having enough depth. Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, and Gallardo were nice, but they made a lot of money and made it harder to add depth. And it was harder to add depth in the draft because they were winning a little too much. The same exact problem with being mediocre applies there, and make no mistake - they were generally mediocre as hell in the Braun/Fielder era. If either of those guys had a bad year or if they couldn't find a pitcher like Greinke or Sabathia, they were lucky to be over .500. I'd rather have mediocrity at a low payroll than suffer that atrocious stars-and-scrubs model of team-building again. (I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but there are downsides to top-heavy rosters as well.)

You get the same bang for your buck, and arguably more, with depth, platoons, and versatility. And by "buck" I mean all team-building currency like draft picks and roster flexibility, not just dollars - if it was just dollars, it would hardly even be debatable. Also, when you have so many good-not-great players, chances are a few guys will have a great season each year - you just don't know which ones. It works in your favor because you rarely even have to pay guys like that much over 8 figures. Look at Gomez and Lucroy in their 2 best seasons; they were better than Braun and Fielder. The same dynamic is playing out in the Brewers' system. One year, Arcia and Phillips are top 50-ish guys. Then Erceg, Diaz, Burnes, and Hader have great years. Next year it might be Harrison, Hiura, and Diplan. And at the MLB level, it was Shaw, Anderson, Santana, and Knebel this year, but it could be Woodruff, Davies, Arcia, and Braun next year. I'm fine with that. Downright excited about it, actually.

[coolhandluke121]

Switching back to free agent discussions, and tangentially related to this discussion, I recently thought of another really good reason to stick to 1-year deals.

Basically, you have to try to improve in free agency after winning 86 games and being able to bring nearly everyone back (most of them still in their primes) for less than $50m, right? I mean, you can disagree with that, but you won't really get anyone on your side. Anyway, that being said, I recognize that there's a pretty good chance that this is more of an 75-80 win roster that had a fluke year, so there's a good chance they regress even if they sign free agents. It sucks to be mediocre, but if you stick to 1-year deals, you're only buying 1 year of mediocrity, which is an acceptable price to pay for a legit chance to improve on 86 wins. But if you sign multiyear deals like Walker and Lynn, which is not only a bigger commitment but also brings better players, you may be locking yourself into 3 years of mediocrity or more, and those players may already be kind of hard to trade by this time next year because of age and salary. That would suck. I'd rather preserve the option of having a midseason firesale and tanking for a year and a half in case they regress hard. Realistically, guys like Brinson, Phillips, Hader, Woodruff, and even Arcia are 2-4 years from hitting their primes, so I don't want to over-commit to veterans who will be burdens by then.

Sabathia
Alex Avila
Neshek
Swarzak

Those are still my guys, and I'm throwing a combined $40-45m their way on 1-year deals because I can.

[coolhandluke121]

Not to mention keeping roster spots open for young guys in 2019 and beyond.

[wichmae]

Switching back to free agent discussions, and tangentially related to this discussion, I recently thought of another really good reason to stick to 1-year deals.

Basically, you have to try to improve in free agency after winning 86 games and being able to bring everyone back (most of them still in their primes) for less than $50m, right? I mean, you can disagree with that, but you won't really get anyone on your side. Anyway, that being said, I recognize that there's a pretty good chance that this is more of an 75-80 win roster that had a fluke year, so there's a good chance they regress even if they sign free agents. It sucks to be mediocre, but if you stick to 1-year deals, you're only buying 1 year of mediocrity, which is an acceptable price to pay for a legit chance to improve on 86 wins. But if you sign multiyear deals like Walker, which is not only a bigger commitment but also brings better players, you may be locking yourself into 3 years of mediocrity or more, and those players may already be kind of hard to trade by this time next year. That would suck. I'd rather save the option of having a midseason firesale and tanking for a year and a half in case they regress hard. Realistically, guys like Brinson, Phillips, Hader, Woodruff, and even Arcia are 2-4 years from hitting their primes, so I don't want to over-commit in one direction or another.

Sabathia
Alex Avila
Neshek
Swarzak

Those are still my guys, and I'm throwing a combined $40-45m their way on 1-year deals because I can.

Yeah I think theres room for two very under the radar RP adds. Its by far the deepest available position in the FA market. Reed, Neshek, Swarzak, Shaw, Joe Smith, Kintzler, Nicasio, Watson, Tommy Hunter, or Jake McGee. I still maintain we should look at reclamation guys too. Cahill, Pineda, Chatwood, or Henderson Alvarez. I know you guys arent on the innings eater types but Jaime Garcia or Cashner on short term deals wont hurt us a ton. Personally I think with the massive money trouble Miami I try and trade for Dee Gordon and either Tazawa or Zeigler. Both relievers had tough hears but are bounce back guys. Gordon would fit nice a top the lineup. Im also guessing it wouldnt cost us a ton. Something like Trent Clark, Coulter, and Daniel Brown might get that done.

[wichmae]

At the end of the day though I think we are going to have a bit of a 40 man crunch too. Hughes, Sogard, Garza, and Swarzak are our only FA's. Dubon, Freddy Peralta, and possibly Marcos Diplan (to avoid another Miguel Diaz scenario) all absolutely need to be protected.

[coolhandluke121]

I see no need to keep Jeffress, Torres, or Berry on the 40. Webb is probably borderline. How does the timing work - can you keep guys on the 40 until you've replaced them, or do you have to have an open spot to sign free agents? For example, if I prefer Avila, can I keep Vogt until Avila signs, or would I have to risk losing Vogt and then striking out on Avila? And assuming Nelson is on the 60-day DL, can his spot be used indefinitely?

I have room for all the fa's I mentioned plus Diplan, Peralta, Dubon, Houser, Williams, and Nottinghman on my 40, but I could be missing something about how the 40 and the rule 5 draft interact with free agency.

Anderson
Davies
Woodruff
Suter
???
Guerra
Wilkerson
Jungmann
F. Peralta
-------
Knebel
Hader
Barnes
Hughes
Drake
???
???
Williams
Wang
Webb
Houser
Diplan
Lopez
------
Thames
Aguilar
Villar
Arcia
Shaw
Perez
Pina
??? (Vogt or Avila)
??? (many will want Walker, I'd prefer Sogard all things considered)
Dubon
Susac
Bandy
Nottingham
------
Braun
Brinson
Santana
Phillips
Broxton (does he have options left?)

That leaves one spot for Nelson when he's back, but you could use that spot on a free agent and just bail on Wilkerson or Webb when Nelson is ready.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Currious to see what they think of dubon. He'll obviously be protected on the 40 man but it will be interesting to see if they would give him a shot to compete with villar for the 2nd base job or do they keep him down and not burn any service time. Its questionable if he will ever hit well enough to be a regular but his glove and speed are good tools.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

[coolhandluke121]

Currious to see what they think of dubon. He'll obviously be protected on the 40 man but it will be interesting to see if they would give him a shot to compete with villar for the 2nd base job or do they keep him down and not burn any service time. Its questionable if he will ever hit well enough to be a regular but his glove and speed are good tools.

Sogard insurance. Probably not much good but I don't want Perez as the only backup middle infielder.

[El Duderino]

Currious to see what they think of dubon. He'll obviously be protected on the 40 man but it will be interesting to see if they would give him a shot to compete with villar for the 2nd base job or do they keep him down and not burn any service time. Its questionable if he will ever hit well enough to be a regular but his glove and speed are good tools.

Sogard insurance. Probably not much good but I don't want Perez as the only backup middle infielder.

When it comes to Perez, if none of Santana/Braun/Brinson/Phillips are traded, but Broxton is dealt as i expect, i don't want Counsell wasting playing time for Brinson and/or Phillips by playing Perez in the outfield anymore than a few random games here and there to keep Perez sharp in case either of Brinson/Phillips got hurt.

Assuming Brinson/Phillips start the year with the big league club and stay on the roster all season long, there should be roughly 220-230 starts for them to share so long as Broxton is traded, but Counsell could rob playing time from those two if he uses Perez in the outfield to often.

[El Duderino]

Personally I think with the massive money trouble Miami I try and trade for Dee Gordon and either Tazawa or Zeigler. Both relievers had tough hears but are bounce back guys. Gordon would fit nice a top the lineup. Im also guessing it wouldnt cost us a ton. Something like Trent Clark, Coulter, and Daniel Brown might get that done.

Not a fan of Gordon. I just hate guys like him who treat walks like they come with a case of herpes. If his batting average doesn't land over .300 or so, his OBP will be poor in the leadoff spot and he provides no power to help offset a poor OBP.

[wichmae]

I see no need to keep Jeffress, Torres, or Berry on the 40. Webb is probably borderline. How does the timing work - can you keep guys on the 40 until you've replaced them, or do you have to have an open spot to sign free agents? For example, if I prefer Avila, can I keep Vogt until Avila signs, or would I have to risk losing Vogt and then striking out on Avila? And assuming Nelson is on the 60-day DL, can his spot be used indefinitely?

Players technically cant be on the DL during the offseason which begins after the WS. SO yes you kind of have a little flexibility with your Avila scenario. YOu can basically treat it like an in season move. Once you sign a guy say in your case Avila we would just have to DFA Vogt then.

There will be a massive flurry of moves after the WS on basically every roster in MLB. Its how we got Kirk, Andy WIlkins, Josmil Pinto and so on.

[coolhandluke121]

Something like Trent Clark, Coulter, and Daniel Brown might get that done.

Not a fan of Gordon. I just hate guys like him who treat walks like they come with a case of herpes. If his batting average doesn't land over .300 or so, his OBP will be poor in the leadoff spot and he provides no power to help offset a poor OBP.

Depends on the price but I tend to agree. I remember when a lot of Brewers fans wanted to sign Jose Reyes and how perfectly he would theoretically have fit in the lineup. Same goes for Dee Gordon now, but some of the same risks are there too, namely the risk that he's never a good player again.