LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  [ 49 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Lance Lynn

Author Message
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#21

Posted: October 26, 2017, 4:18 PM Post
Posts: 1114
If we go 5/100 for a starter we better be right. Pass on Lynn. I would take a swing at Arrietta.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#22

Posted: October 26, 2017, 4:43 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2485
Location: California
KCBrewerfan34 said:
If we go 5/100 for a starter we better be right. Pass on Lynn. I would take a swing at Arrietta.

If the Brewers are dead set on spending significant money on a pitcher, Arrieta would be my choice as well. Not my ideal choice but I like him more than the other options out there.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#23

Posted: October 26, 2017, 5:07 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4739
Location: Phoenix, AZ
I don't want to see the Brewers going after anyone who is going to have a pick attached to them. It would be better to just trade for someone like Samardzija or Cueto than sign someone like Lynn and lose that pick.

Signing someone like Lynn is just not worth it to lose a pick over.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#24

Posted: October 26, 2017, 7:36 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2060
I do not have well researched reasoning for this, but my gut feeling is that Lance Lynn would be a landmine for the Brewers.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#25

Posted: October 26, 2017, 9:41 PM Post
Posts: 6413
Location: Kenosha, WI
jerichoholicninja said:
Have we learned nothing from our past free agent pitcher signings?


Kinda my thought. Not that I will judge someone on that past, but still.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#26

Posted: October 26, 2017, 10:31 PM Post
Posts: 1270
brewcrewdue80 said:
It's gotta be a Cardinal thing with the hate.



Not at all. Unload the wallet on Yu Darvish/Jake Arrieta or focus on controllable talent / our minors. Quit dancing around what we need and go after it or don't bother at all.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#27

Posted: October 27, 2017, 12:22 AM Post
Posts: 3650
jerichoholicninja said:
Have we learned nothing from our past free agent pitcher signings?


I understand that idea, Lynn doesn't have any of the bad numbers of seasons or extreme IP as those others. Doesn't have an injury riddled past. All he's done was be 14.9BWar in 5 seasons of Starting. A consistent 3WAR guy with Full season start ability. Unlike the past free agent signs.

superfly said:
brewcrewdue80 said:
It's gotta be a Cardinal thing with the hate.



Not at all. Unload the wallet on Yu Darvish/Jake Arrieta or focus on controllable talent / our minors. Quit dancing around what we need and go after it or don't bother at all.


Probably right, more of a I started a thread and suggestion hate. Because I can't seriously sit here reading all hate and not one or more supporting the idea. Two stats stick out on the worry side, his Fip and HR Rate, something that not Once, was a worry at any point in his career. Boom, terrible idea to sign him. Even Briggs shying away at a FA who immediately helps the team.

So Sign Darvish, and go for it. Stats on Darvish compared to Lynn were pretty close. Worried on Lynn's HR rate, Darvish was at 1.3/9 too and career is 1/9 Darvish had as always a high K/9, but that was down this year. Lower bb rate. And that is the difference. the k/bb ratio and rates per 9. Here's the difference in Lynn's favor. Darvish has seen multiple DL stints. 1 year over 200IP.

Wow. I mean, final stat.
Career
1PA through order: .257/.321/.440-.723
2PA through order: .249/.328/.392-.720
3PA through order: .222/.310/.339-.649
4PA through order: .200/.294/.217-.511!

How often do you see that?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#28

Posted: October 27, 2017, 7:59 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 152
If Doug Melvin were still the GM, I'm sure Lance Lynn would be one of his top targets. He screams Suppan/Lohse/Garza/Looper. I'm hoping that Sterns has something different up his sleeve.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#29

Posted: October 27, 2017, 8:19 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1327
I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse.

All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something?

I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#30

Posted: October 27, 2017, 9:56 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 152
bill hAll Star said:
I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse.

All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something?

I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.


Well, there's also the opportunity to use some of the team's extensive minor league depth to improve the ML rotation with a younger controllable piece who doesn't break the bank. I think that is a better option than going out and spending just for the sake of spending. I think overpaying for Lance Lynn falls into that category. Granted he could come in and be good, but there's just not much of a track record there.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#31

Posted: October 27, 2017, 10:03 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6506
bill hAll Star said:
I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse.

All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something?

I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.


I don't disagree with this but does Lynn push us over the top to be a legitimate contender? The answer is no for me and is therefore not worth the money or risk.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#32

Posted: October 27, 2017, 10:14 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1327
Joey Meyer Bombs said:
bill hAll Star said:
I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse.

All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something?

I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.


Well, there's also the opportunity to use some of the team's extensive minor league depth to improve the ML rotation with a younger controllable piece who doesn't break the bank. I think that is a better option than going out and spending just for the sake of spending. I think overpaying for Lance Lynn falls into that category. Granted he could come in and be good, but there's just not much of a track record there.


We do have a bit of depth right now, but take a look back at our pitching depth 2007-2016. Were there always 5 or more "good" pitchers in our system or on the roster?

The answer is no.

The Brewers don't get to hang a banner for winning 85 games with a $55 million dollar payroll. So you knowingly overpay a pitcher. Sure, the risk you're taking is 2 years later when maybe you need it more, you're overpaying Jeff Suppan to be a fringe #5 starter...but you could also just never get to use that extra $ if you don't decide to spend it at some point.

Matt Garza did not impede the Brewers from signing anyone. They signed him at the back end of a window of trying to compete and failed. He basically was a rotting contract for 2 years while the Brewers had a tiny payroll and weren't playoff competitors. The only complaint you could have is that they stuck with him late in the year because he had a big contract instead of going to Woodruff.

Of course, that money could be used elsewhere if you're more shrewd with your money...but...where would you use it?


Last edited by bill hAll Star on October 27, 2017, 10:18 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#33

Posted: October 27, 2017, 10:16 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1327
jerichoholicninja said:
bill hAll Star said:
I was not really a fan of any of Suppan/Lohse/Garza as a known, good pitcher when they signed. I knew Suppan was trash before he came in. Lohse and Garza seemed like decent value at the time but we had to give up a pick for Lohse.

All of that said, what did we lose out on? Did we lose out on the opportunity to sign David Price or something?

I'm not saying these are zero risk/zero penalty signings, but at some point you need to open the coffers and have Mark spend his extra $ on a roster. The choices for pitching are to take a franchise-changing risk like a $200 million pitcher or to overpay 2nd/3rd tier guys and hope for the best. Option 3 of signing shorter deals may be best but it's also risky and it's hard to find many guys in that category.


I don't disagree with this but does Lynn push us over the top to be a legitimate contender? The answer is no for me and is therefore not worth the money or risk.


I agree, but I guess one could argue that Lynn's second year, where you're hoping he's still good, he may be a pretty helpful piece with more of the young guys up and playing their best.

The best strategy may be to wait one more season to spend on long-term contracts, but that does mean spending some money one year further back into years where we may need some $ in the 2021/2022 timeframe.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#34

Posted: October 27, 2017, 10:29 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6073
We are getting in that territory of spending money just to spend it again. I don’t want another overpaid 5th starter (who wouldn’t even be that if his salary didn’t force you to) on the roster next season, three years from now, or ever again. Let’s learn from the mistakes of the past for cripes sake. Spend on some guy for one season and hope for the best? Fine. But to lock up a guy into this 30’s for a decent amount of money just doesn’t make sense anymore. They don’t get to use the drugs to keep them healthy and effective anymore.

“There's a fine line between being confident and cocky, or overconfident. This is an extremely humbling game. But if you don't believe in yourself, no one else is going to believe in you.”


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#35

Posted: October 27, 2017, 10:53 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1327
Brew4U said:
We are getting in that territory of spending money just to spend it again. I don’t want another overpaid 5th starter (who wouldn’t even be that if his salary didn’t force you to) on the roster next season, three years from now, or ever again. Let’s learn from the mistakes of the past for cripes sake. Spend on some guy for one season and hope for the best? Fine. But to lock up a guy into this 30’s for a decent amount of money just doesn’t make sense anymore. They don’t get to use the drugs to keep them healthy and effective anymore.


We're still in a position where we can and should take the long view for the team. I would not suggest that we have to spend big to win right now. Getting Lance Lynn probably isn't taking the Brewers to a World Series (he does improve playoff odds, which does give us a chance, though).

That said, the pitchers I trust going into next year are Anderson and Davies. I think Woodruff is good but there's probably an innings limit and some concerns with him. Ditto on Hader.

Suter still scares me but he's for sure in the mix of starter/long relief that we should have and I wouldn't be surprised if he had a good season. Guerra could factor in.

We could trade Broxton for a pitcher, but otherwise, the list of pitchers that might be available for 1-2 years is a bit scary. Trevor Cahill? Jason Vargas? Jeff Locke?

The point is that there just aren't many vets that are available for short-term deals that have a likelihood of actually paying off, either. Sure, I'm all in favor of taking a risk on a guy from that list that Stearns sees something in.

I guess my point is that it's nearly a guarantee that even with good farm system management, we're going to have 4-5 holes on the 25 man roster in a given year. How do we address that without going to free agency?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#36

Posted: October 27, 2017, 11:25 AM Post
Posts: 513
Location: Madison, WI
Anybody have problems with giving Lynn a 2 year, 38 million dollar deal? I don't think that would be a bad contract offer from the Brewer's end. But when it gets to four or five guaranteed seasons then I am out. Considering he is coming off of a down year after missing the previous season, maybe the best scenario for both sides would be to have a two year guaranteed deal with a couple mutual option seasons tacked on the end. Lynn returns to 2013-2015 form and he can walk away after the 2019 season. If he has another injury or is pitching poorly then the team can walk away after the 2019 season. If the big offers don't come that would seem pretty good (I do think at least one team will step up and get to at least 3 years, 50 million). Something like:
2018 = 18 million
2019 = 18 million
2020 = 20 million (mutual option, Lynn can opt out or the Brewers can buyout the last two years for 2 million)
2021 = 20 million (mutual option, Lynn can opt out or the Brewers can void the last year of deal)

Personally, I'm still for trolling the bottom of the market and seeing if I could find something cheaper. But I wouldn't be a bit upset if the Brewers did something like I outlined above. The last two years are concerning, but in the three previous season's Lynn pitched an average of 193 innings per season with a 3.25 ERA, 3.35 FIP, 1.31 WHIP and 115+ ERA. If he hits those numbers again then the 19 million per season is a bargain price.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#37

Posted: October 27, 2017, 11:29 AM Post
Posts: 1225
What is the word on Alex Cobb? He just turned 30. Had TJ in 2016. He pitched 179 innings this year. Pitched in AL East. Park factor for Tampa? Seems to me to be someone I would be looking at for my first choice. But maybe it is assumed he will have a bidding war?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Lance Lynn
#38

Posted: October 27, 2017, 11:32 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 6506
JosephC said:
Anybody have problems with giving Lynn a 2 year, 38 million dollar deal?


Yes, Lance Lynn. Unless someone gives him a 1 year $100M contract he will be getting more years and dollars than that.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#39

Posted: October 27, 2017, 11:46 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1327
Yeah, as I was saying a few pages back...the most beneficial thing for both parties may be to offer Lynn or Cobb a frontloaded deal with an opt-out after 2 years if they were interested.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Lance Lynn
#40

Posted: October 27, 2017, 12:03 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5333
brewcrewdue80 said:
Two stats stick out on the worry side, his Fip and HR Rate, something that not Once, was a worry at any point in his career. Boom, terrible idea to sign him. Even Briggs shying away at a FA who immediately helps the team.


The biggest "stat" I care about is age. He's not old now, but will probably get a 4-5 year deal, putting him into the territory that most MLB pitchers can't pitch anymore.

Darvish and Arrieta are two years older than Lynn, so I'd run farther and faster away from them... especially at the price tag they'll demand. I'm so convinced those contracts will end badly that I'm hoping the Cubs will sign one or both of them.

Per JosephC's post, I would love to sign Lynn to a two-year deal with two option years (team or mutual, not player options). We get his relatively safe age 31 and 32 seasons, and can get rid of him if he starts to fade into his 30's.

We have money to spend and are going to increase payroll this year, so I wouldn't even hate a three-year deal for Lynn although that's as far as I'd go. I just get really scared with any player, regardless of the player and regardless of what poster suggested it, when they get multi-year deals into their mid-30's. Very few players continue playing at a high level (or even an average level) when they're in their mid-30's.

As Bill Hall Star said, it is tough to find decent free agents under the age of 30. That's why most of our long-termers should come from our farm. I have no problem signing them to extensions and filling in the holes with short-term deals to 30-something role players, potentially saving some money for when we do find that 28-year old FA who makes sense to sign to a 4-5 year deal.

Theoretically, I'd love it if all of our players could be "value" guys (pre-arby, arby, and early extensions). That will probably never be the case, but we should try to get as many as possible. We should generally try to avoid anything that looks like we will have year(s) where we are overpaying for production. You can't remain competitive when you have guys you are overpaying and your competitors can spend twice as much as you.

"The most successful (people) know that performance over the long haul is what counts. If you can seize the day, great. But never forget that there are days yet to come."

~Bill Walsh


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  [ 49 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test