LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  [ 71 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Alex Cobb

Author Message
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#41

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:16 AM Post
Posts: 1340
bill hAll Star said:
I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.



The difference however is IF you give 20 million/year to Cobb, then you HAVE to spend more money elsewhere on multiple players or the move makes absolutely zero sense. You can't sign a mid rotation guy and then be done. With Archer we give up prospects but we don't need to blow our budget in order for it to work.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Alex Cobb
#42

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:28 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2571
Location: California
homer said:
There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

This is a good point.

Stearns' style to date would be to target controllable, pre-breakout players via trade. Signing a FA like Arietta, Darvish, Cobb, Lynn all fly in the face of what Stearns MO has been to date (granted the Brewers were in "rebuild" mode and not looking for FA). In regard to Archer, I would say that also isn't Stearns MO. Looking at a few trades in particular, Shaw, Villar and Anderson, I think Stearns is looking for SP in a similar vein. Archer has already "broken out" which doesn't make me think he is Stearns target at this point. All of this leads me to believe a trade target would be more a Sean Manaea-type if he is searching for SP via trade. Chacin seems to fit the Anderson profile, late 20s who could still bloom.

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#43

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:38 AM Post
Posts: 440
Dylan Bundy. Has been solid but there's more there.

Woulda said Taijan Walker a year ago.


Last edited by TJseven7 on January 03, 2018, 10:45 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#44

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:41 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1473
superfly said:
bill hAll Star said:
I’d rather spend $20 million/year (it will end up being less $ than $20) on Cobb for 4 years than give up a king’s ransom of prospects for 4 years of Archer.



The difference however is IF you give 20 million/year to Cobb, then you HAVE to spend more money elsewhere on multiple players or the move makes absolutely zero sense. You can't sign a mid rotation guy and then be done. With Archer we give up prospects but we don't need to blow our budget in order for it to work.


I think the exact opposite. If you trade prospects for Archer, it's time to try to win a World Series. You've turned the clock on and the countdown timer is at 4 years (maybe less). Time to start dealing more prospects for other players and spending money. Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in.

If you sign Cobb, you still have the entire future in front of you but still can win with Cobb.

On top of all of that, keeping said prospects when not trading for Archer means you have more cheap players to fill holes in your organization. Not necessarily this year, but definitely beyond. So you save a lot of money in 2020 for instance on the players other than Cobb.


Last edited by bill hAll Star on January 03, 2018, 10:43 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#45

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:42 AM Post
Posts: 2428
Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?

Seems like a good thread starter to me...

For a talented young starter that was in the process of breaking out with the Mets before running into hamstring issues, what about Robert Gsellman? My guess would be that he's unavailable and the Mets would be more inclined to listen to offers for some of their more established starting pitching.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#46

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:43 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 219
Warning Track Power said:
homer said:
There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

This is a good point.

Stearns' style to date would be to target controllable, pre-breakout players via trade. Signing a FA like Arietta, Darvish, Cobb, Lynn all fly in the face of what Stearns MO has been to date (granted the Brewers were in "rebuild" mode and not looking for FA). In regard to Archer, I would say that also isn't Stearns MO. Looking at a few trades in particular, Shaw, Villar and Anderson, I think Stearns is looking for SP in a similar vein. Archer has already "broken out" which doesn't make me think he is Stearns target at this point. All of this leads me to believe a trade target would be more a Sean Manaea-type if he is searching for SP via trade. Chacin seems to fit the Anderson profile, late 20s who could still bloom.

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?


A few names come to mind that may be "buy low" types with breakout potential:

1. Dylan Bundy
2. Matt Harvey
3. Jake Odorizzi


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#47

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:53 AM Post
Posts: 440
Im a big Lance Mccullers fan too. Not sure if he can ever get his innings up as high as you'd want but he's not near his upside.

Eduardo Rodriguez seems to fit as well.


Last edited by TJseven7 on January 03, 2018, 10:57 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#48

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:55 AM Post
Posts: 266
I believe we should stay away from Cobb. And Archer. And Arrieta. And Darvish. And any other available "TOR" starter. I just don't think those deals are worth it. In free agency it's about the money and the years; you go into such a deal essentially knowing that the latter part of the deal will be underwater, and just praying that it's not by too much. Trading for a starter will mean giving up one or more of the advanced pitching prospects, which just creates a hole down the line and removes a usually underrated strength; pitching depth.

To me, a TOR starter is not something you acquire, it's something you develop. Either through your own farm system, or through acquiring advanced prospects or through acquring a #3-#4 with upside and getting lucky. Either way, you don't pay for the finished product as it's just too expensive in relation to what you're actually getting. I'd rather sign the Chacins of this world and use the $10m or so saved to strengthen elsewhere, can even get creative and turn it into acquiring pitching prospects indirectly. With this strategy there's obviously the risk of ending up without that TOR pitcher (Which tbf is a risk even when directly signing or trading for one too), but while you obviously want one, you don't strictly needone. Fill a rotation with 5 #3s and you'll get far. And secondly, if you're not stuck with any albatrosses you can always go out and add that TOR arm once you're truly a contender.

Now I'm obviously not opposed to signing or acquiring a TOR arm at the right price, I just don't see them ever being available like that. So I'd rather try to find the next Chase Anderson or Zach Davies trade instead, improving the rotation from the bottom up while seeing what Burnes or Ortiz or Peralta can do. If it turns out none of them are the (or an) answer, then we might want to splash big. It also hinges on the position players, plenty of unproven guys who can either be stars (Or useful starters) or regress. That also decides when money should be spent on pitching.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#49

Posted: January 03, 2018, 10:57 AM Post
Posts: 2428
Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in.

Marcum was acquired before the trade for Greinke...and the Brewers' downfall following those trades was not being able to draft well enough to replenish the prospect talent given up that offseason.

There are smart ways for the Brewers to acquire talent both via free agency and via trade - since not every prospect currently in the Brewers' system (not even close) will contribute in Milwaukee, when their value is highest they should be dealt to help the big league club. It's a GM's role to evaluate when the time is right to move on from those players and get maximum value in return. Hoarding prospects is great, but eventually you run out of room and roster space for them all - and the ones that don't force themselves into MLB with their performance dramatically lose value to the parent organization if they are held a bit too long.

If there are Matt LaPorta's currently in the system who could headline a deal for impact MLB talent instead of being held and exposed at the MLB level, I'm all for trading them when their value is highest. Obviously a GM needs to limit losing prospects that develop into solid MLB players, but part of improving depth of a small market team's farm is being able to draw from it during trades and having confidence in the front office's ability to identify amateur talent to replenish it.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#50

Posted: January 03, 2018, 11:06 AM Post
Posts: 3709
The concern on the draft pick? It's not like the Lohse debacle and #17. It's now the 3rd pick and stated elsewhere, that's going to fall around the 73rd pick after the 2nd round. Historically that is pick doesn't produce anyone worthwhile and if so to the tune of a 2-3WAR Career. I'd expect Cobb will accomplish that career on average yearly with 170+IP in a season. I mean what is that going to be slot value in the draft? 700k? (looked it up was 791k last season)

I do like someone's mention on Cobb being more an unknown to the NL over picking up Lynn who's known well in the Central.

We've gotten that 4/60mil contract previously if it's 4/68mil, I'd say that doable. Pay up say 20 and 19mil the first two years, and he's a 15 and 14mil cost those final two years which wouldn't hit the payroll as hard when our guys hit arb.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#51

Posted: January 03, 2018, 11:12 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1473
Fear The Chorizo said:
Once we got Greinke, it was time to get Marcum as well. Had to go all in.

Marcum was acquired before the trade for Greinke...and the Brewers' downfall following those trades was not being able to draft well enough to replenish the prospect talent given up that offseason.

There are smart ways for the Brewers to acquire talent both via free agency and via trade - since not every prospect currently in the Brewers' system (not even close) will contribute in Milwaukee, when their value is highest they should be dealt to help the big league club. It's a GM's role to evaluate when the time is right to move on from those players and get maximum value in return. Hoarding prospects is great, but eventually you run out of room and roster space for them all - and the ones that don't force themselves into MLB with their performance dramatically lose value to the parent organization if they are held a bit too long.

If there are Matt LaPorta's currently in the system who could headline a deal for impact MLB talent instead of being held and exposed at the MLB level, I'm all for trading them when their value is highest. Obviously a GM needs to limit losing prospects that develop into solid MLB players, but part of improving depth of a small market team's farm is being able to draw from it during trades and having confidence in the front office's ability to identify amateur talent to replenish it.


It's hard to "draft well enough" to replenish trading away several prospects. The Cubs are going to feel the pain soon and they're a well-run organization. Sure, good organizations can do it, but it's not something that can be banked on.

I'm not saying I'd never trade prospects for a stud player. I was fine with 2008 and 2011.

That said, it's not called "hoarding prospects." It's called "organizational depth." You bring up LaPorta as a bust, but we also gave away Brantley, Odorizzi, Escobar, and Cain.

We had Gomez to play CF which was fine, but when Gomez got hurt we played:
Elian Herrera and Logan Schafer

We played Khris Davis (not at his hitting peak yet) and a regressing Aoki in the OF instead of having Brantley.

We signed Kyle Lohse and Matt Garza to fill the Odorizzi void.

We eventually got Segura (yes, for Greinke, that whole trade worked out fine down the road) and debates can be had about why he struggled for 2 years, but during what could have been Escobar's tenure we played Yuni Betancourt, Alex Gonzalez, and some bad seasons of Segura.

Lawrie ended up being nothing special, but we did blow $40 million on Aramis Ramirez, who was fine for a good deal of his tenure, but that money could've been allocated elsewhere. Lawrie's defense may have almost equaled that production.

We ended up starting Mark Reynolds and Lyle Overbay in an otherwise competitive season. Sure, none of those guys we traded away were 1B candidates, but it's possible that we don't have to pay for Lohse if we have Odorizzi and therefore we can overpay a 1B.

Point being: We had no organzational depth. A lot of the other guys we thought we had at the positions (Taylor Green, Gamel, Schafer, Heckathorn, Wily Peralta, etc.) that didn't pan out.

Again, I was fine with the 2008 and 2011 trades, and we got something back for Greinke down the line and turned into Anderson/Diaz, but the point is that organizational depth is heavily taken for granted here.

I understand that some people wouldn't have spent money on Garza and Lohse, but if we trade for Archer and maybe others, we'll start getting to the point where we have to spend to fill the holes and we will have to keep patching different holes with lesser and lesser free agents/prospects.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#52

Posted: January 03, 2018, 11:30 AM Post
Posts: 2428
I agree with all of the examples you provided - but you more or less made my point. We didn't have organizational depth and were in a more precarious position to be trading most of the quality prospects we had at the time, because there was nothing behind those players squeezing them between upper minor league levels and MLB. There were years of failed drafts that caused quality depth to suffer in the minor leagues - and frankly the Brewer development system was probably just as big of a culprit as poor drafting.

I'm not saying we're at the point where if no trades are made that we'll lose 5-7 valuable prospects via rule V next offseason because our system is oozing quality depth, but knowing when we're approaching that point and getting the most value via trade is critical to sustaining the strides DS and company have made to the entire organization (minors + MLB club) in a short time. There's a separate thread in the minor league forum talking about the top 25 under 20 Brewer prospects to watch - while much of it is still projection, I'd argue 4-5 years ago we could barely come up with 25 prospects of any age in the Brewer system worth following.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#53

Posted: January 03, 2018, 11:32 AM Post
Posts: 6010
Lathund said:
To me, a TOR starter is not something you acquire, it's something you develop. Either through your own farm system, or through acquiring advanced prospects or through acquring a #3-#4 with upside and getting lucky.


I agree, but I would add the option of renting a TOR starter. When the time is right, I would have no problem with them pulling the trigger on a Sabathia/Greinke type trade again. In fact, that's why it's so important to keep the farm system as strong as possible. That way you have the pieces to make a deal like that AND still have enough talent left in the system afterwards.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#54

Posted: January 03, 2018, 11:54 AM Post
Posts: 1035
Location: New Berlin, WI
FVBrewerFan said:
Lathund said:
To me, a TOR starter is not something you acquire, it's something you develop. Either through your own farm system, or through acquiring advanced prospects or through acquring a #3-#4 with upside and getting lucky.


I agree, but I would add the option of renting a TOR starter. When the time is right, I would have no problem with them pulling the trigger on a Sabathia/Greinke type trade again. In fact, that's why it's so important to keep the farm system as strong as possible. That way you have the pieces to make a deal like that AND still have enough talent left in the system afterwards.


Right, there's a time and a place for it. I don't think we are quite ready to do something like that, plus we have a number of pitchers that warrant clearing rotation space for in the near future(Burnes/Woodruff/Hader...MAYBE Ortiz/Peralta...NOT Jungmann/Wilkerson/Suter/Guerra/etc). Based on the way this team is being built, I think the arm or two that puts us over the edge in the right year will more likely be a relief arm than a SP.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#55

Posted: January 03, 2018, 12:05 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 349
I just feel like it might be a year early to dip our toes in FA waters. I would much rather see what we have in the minors and give them another year to develop. If we are still in the midst of a playoff race in July, then I would have no problem selling off pieces to make a run, and at that point we would have a better idea who might/might not be future pieces and (hopefully) the pieces would increase their value during the year.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#56

Posted: January 03, 2018, 12:24 PM Post
Posts: 1808
Warning Track Power said:
mlloyd10 said:
How much you giving Lucroy?

MAX: 2 years $20 million

Hopefully could get him for 2 years $14-$15ish as that would be better than his highest one year of $5.25 million and double his career earnings of ~$16 million.


They inexplicably kept 5 catchers on their 40 man. You don't do that if your plan is to sign one in FA.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#57

Posted: January 03, 2018, 12:27 PM Post
Posts: 1808
Warning Track Power said:
homer said:
There's a lot of risk with both guys. I just don't see Stearns making this kind of move right now for either pitcher. A trade for Cobb BEFORE last year seems more his style.

This is a good point.

Stearns' style to date would be to target controllable, pre-breakout players via trade. Signing a FA like Arietta, Darvish, Cobb, Lynn all fly in the face of what Stearns MO has been to date (granted the Brewers were in "rebuild" mode and not looking for FA). In regard to Archer, I would say that also isn't Stearns MO. Looking at a few trades in particular, Shaw, Villar and Anderson, I think Stearns is looking for SP in a similar vein. Archer has already "broken out" which doesn't make me think he is Stearns target at this point. All of this leads me to believe a trade target would be more a Sean Manaea-type if he is searching for SP via trade. Chacin seems to fit the Anderson profile, late 20s who could still bloom.

Who else is a Sean Manaea type player that the Brewers could be targeting via trade?


Yo, JC, and Logan are not young or up and coming. Clearly he is going after older guys to fill roles this year.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#58

Posted: January 03, 2018, 12:46 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1473
Boomer5 said:
Warning Track Power said:
mlloyd10 said:
How much you giving Lucroy?

MAX: 2 years $20 million

Hopefully could get him for 2 years $14-$15ish as that would be better than his highest one year of $5.25 million and double his career earnings of ~$16 million.


They inexplicably kept 5 catchers on their 40 man. You don't do that if your plan is to sign one in FA.


There were reasons to protect all of them (2 of them acquired in trade with "potential" and Vogt was an undervalued scrap-heap pickup). If they signed Lucroy they can dump Vogt's non-guaranteed deal and probably cut Bandy since he's got 1 year left on the 40, max. Problem solved.

Susac probably could be on the chopping block as well, but as long as they've got some space they can try to turn an asset they traded for into something.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Alex Cobb
#59

Posted: January 04, 2018, 7:03 AM Post
Posts: 10914
KeithStone53151 said:
Warning Track Power said:
Back on topic about Cobb, I just don't know what to expect from him. Does a rotation of Anderson-Cobb-Davies-Chacin-Woodruff/Suter/Nelson make you a playoff contender? If it doesn't, spending $15-$20 million on him doesn't make a ton of sense and the Brewers would be better served to continue to explore the trade market or continuing to develop their internal candidates. After going through all of the possible SP additions via trade or FA, I guess the real question becomes who moves the needle to the Brewers toward a playoff rotation?


The Cobb route wouldn't be a wise route to go. This decision would a Melvin standard operating procedure type move. Lohse, Suppan, Garza...we know how these deals go. Cobb in addition to being even more expensive than those 3 guys carries more injury risk. No thanks. By the time his ask got down to a range that would in my opinion work for the Brewers, he'd already be signed with the Cubs or someone else.


Cobb has a lot less mileage on him than Garza, Lohse and Suppan. Lohse was 34 when he was signed. Suppan had a career ERA well over 4 and was 32. Garza had shown signs of decline. Cobb has a career 3.50 ERA, all in the AL East.

Relative to total team revenue, paying Cobb say $17 million per year is not any more than they paid those guys. Plus, they'd still have all their young arms who'd be able to fill his spot if he does get hurt. There's no such thing as a no risk move.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Alex Cobb
#60

Posted: January 05, 2018, 11:21 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2571
Location: California
http://www.bleachernation.com/2018/01/05/report-cubs-original-offer-to-alex-cobb-was-three-years-and-42-million/

According to this, the Cubs offer for Cobb was 3 years $42 million. If this is what it would take now, while not loving it, I think I would be comfortable with the Brewers offering this. I wouldn't be happy or sad either way if he accepted or rejected it.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  [ 71 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dmiles23, Warning Track Power and 12 guests

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