LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next  [ 225 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Neil Walker

Author Message
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#21

Posted: January 10, 2018, 8:55 AM Post
Posts: 2414
I really hope they don't go with an eight man rotation, would much rather have Perez/Aguilar as options vs another pitcher. They have a number of guys including Suter, Wang, Webb, Wilkerson, Williams, Houser, Lopez and even Barnes if need be to rotate between Milwaukee and the minors as the 7th bullpen guy.

I think if Walker is re-signed I think Villar is the one to go because Perez is a better utility guy and a solid player at 2B, 3B and corner outfield. They obviously can't go long term with Sogar/Perez as SS but they are okay to fill in.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#22

Posted: January 10, 2018, 1:53 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5532
KCBrewerfan34 said:
I like Walker but is he really worth that much more than Villar/Sogard?? The more I think about it the more I would pass on Walker, unless you're spending $22 million (give or take) to just spend it.


Just for sake of a reference point, I used 1970 as a starting date, and in compiling the 326 qualified second basemen since then, Walker is #45 in aggregate WAR for his career at 21.1 (per Fangraphs). Being the 45th highest WAR at a position in a 47 year time-frame won't put him in the Hall of Fame, but it puts him far ahead of guys like Villar and Sogard.

My only concern with signing Walker, assuming we get a fair price, is that he's 32 years old. He should be fine for a 2-year deal, but once a player gets into his mid-30s he could hit a cliff at any time. Hence my concern over a three or four year deal.

Additionally, I think that the Brewers are hurt by the number of high strikeout guys they have on their roster, and believe that is why they have been prone to "streakiness" in the recent past. We need to start getting some different approaches into the lineup. Guys like Perez and Villar do not help in that regard. I think that's why Sogard was re-signed, but Walker is just a lot better (and more consistent) than Sogard.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#23

Posted: January 10, 2018, 9:35 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 3978
monty57 said:

I've always liked the idea of Walker on a 2-year deal. I've just never liked adding the third year. I'll take an All Star talent at 2nd base regardless of it's effect on the bench, as we are a much better team with Walker than without him.

Looking around the league, Walker may want 3-4 years at 10 million plus per year, but i see the odds being slim at best that he finds a team who meets those desires.

I'm really curious to see if Villar can bounce back from his nightmare season, so i'm fine with standing pat at second base, but if Stearns can wait out Walker and get a deal for two years, i'd be fine with that also.

There are going to be many free agents who went into this offseason with really lofty dollar amounts floating in their heads, but at some point will have to accept a reality that the market for their services simply isn't what they hoped for.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#24

Posted: January 11, 2018, 9:15 AM Post
Posts: 11176
danzig6767 said:
monty57 said:

I've always liked the idea of Walker on a 2-year deal. I've just never liked adding the third year. I'll take an All Star talent at 2nd base regardless of it's effect on the bench, as we are a much better team with Walker than without him.

Looking around the league, Walker may want 3-4 years at 10 million plus per year, but i see the odds being slim at best that he finds a team who meets those desires.

I'm really curious to see if Villar can bounce back from his nightmare season, so i'm fine with standing pat at second base, but if Stearns can wait out Walker and get a deal for two years, i'd be fine with that also.

There are going to be many free agents who went into this offseason with really lofty dollar amounts floating in their heads, but at some point will have to accept a reality that the market for their services simply isn't what they hoped for.


What makes you think "standing pat" means Villar gets his job back? He was behind both Sogard and Perez at the end of 2017 and both those guys are still on the roster. If the fall back plan was to simply return Villar to a starter role, then why is the first offseason move to bring back Sogard for $2.4 million? Just because Villar is still on the roster, doesn't mean he's in the plans for 2018. Scooter was still around last year until near the end of spring training. He still let Scooter go even though his 2016 wasn't as bad as Villar's 2017 because Scooter was never in the plans for 2017. It's likely the same fate awaits Villar unless they can convince some team out there to deal for him. Right now there's zero demand.


Last edited by JohnBriggs12 on January 11, 2018, 9:24 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Online  Re: Neil Walker
#25

Posted: January 11, 2018, 9:24 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1580
JohnBriggs12 said:
danzig6767 said:
monty57 said:

I've always liked the idea of Walker on a 2-year deal. I've just never liked adding the third year. I'll take an All Star talent at 2nd base regardless of it's effect on the bench, as we are a much better team with Walker than without him.

Looking around the league, Walker may want 3-4 years at 10 million plus per year, but i see the odds being slim at best that he finds a team who meets those desires.

I'm really curious to see if Villar can bounce back from his nightmare season, so i'm fine with standing pat at second base, but if Stearns can wait out Walker and get a deal for two years, i'd be fine with that also.

There are going to be many free agents who went into this offseason with really lofty dollar amounts floating in their heads, but at some point will have to accept a reality that the market for their services simply isn't what they hoped for.


What makes you think "standing pat" means Villar gets his job back? He was behind both Sogard and Perez at the end of 2017 and both those guys are still on the roster. Add in Walker and he was 4th string.


In this case, "standing pat" means that Villar is given the opportunity to prove that he is the 2016 version and not the 2017 version. Because the 2016 version of Villar is infinitely better than anything Sogard or Perez, or Walker really, is going to provide. And I have a feeling you know that.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#26

Posted: January 11, 2018, 9:40 AM Post
Posts: 1642
Location: New Berlin, WI
JohnBriggs12 said:

What makes you think "standing pat" means Villar gets his job back? He was behind both Sogard and Perez at the end of 2017 and both those guys are still on the roster. If the fall back plan was to simply return Villar to a starter role, then why is the first offseason move to bring back Sogard for $2.4 million? Just because Villar is still on the roster, doesn't mean he's in the plans for 2018. Scooter was still around last year until near the end of spring training. He still let Scooter go even though his 2016 wasn't as bad as Villar's 2017 because Scooter was never in the plans for 2017. It's likely the same fate awaits Villar unless they can convince some team out there to deal for him. Right now there's zero demand.


I would tend to agree with you to some degree. Villar being on the roster currently does not mean he'll be on the roster at the start of ST. We also could go to camp with the plan for Perez/Sogard to compete for at bats in a platoon role there if Villar was traded and nobody else brought in. I think it's far more likely though that Villar remains on the roster to compete in ST for the starting gig, or we bring in Walker and then trade Villar for whatever we can get. I suspect Villar competing for the starting gig is the route we take.

In a playoff race in late August through September, giving a guy at bats to help fix mechanical issue and get back on track is not a real option. Whoever is putting up the best results at that given time should be starting, period. It's a far different dynamic after Villar has had an offseason to work on things and will have a full ST to earn the job.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#27

Posted: January 11, 2018, 9:51 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2833
Location: California
KeithStone53151 said:
JohnBriggs12 said:

What makes you think "standing pat" means Villar gets his job back? He was behind both Sogard and Perez at the end of 2017 and both those guys are still on the roster. If the fall back plan was to simply return Villar to a starter role, then why is the first offseason move to bring back Sogard for $2.4 million? Just because Villar is still on the roster, doesn't mean he's in the plans for 2018. Scooter was still around last year until near the end of spring training. He still let Scooter go even though his 2016 wasn't as bad as Villar's 2017 because Scooter was never in the plans for 2017. It's likely the same fate awaits Villar unless they can convince some team out there to deal for him. Right now there's zero demand.


I would tend to agree with you to some degree. Villar being on the roster currently does not mean he'll be on the roster at the start of ST. We also could go to camp with the plan for Perez/Sogard to compete for at bats in a platoon role there if Villar was traded and nobody else brought in. I think it's far more likely though that Villar remains on the roster to compete in ST for the starting gig, or we bring in Walker and then trade Villar for whatever we can get. I suspect Villar competing for the starting gig is the route we take.

In a playoff race in late August through September, giving a guy at bats to help fix mechanical issue and get back on track is not a real option. Whoever is putting up the best results at that given time should be starting, period. It's a far different dynamic after Villar has had an offseason to work on things and will have a full ST to earn the job.

Exactly. It's such an obvious reason as to why Sogard and Perez played more than Villar down the stretch that it really shouldn't have to be mentioned.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#28

Posted: January 11, 2018, 10:35 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5532
Joey Meyer Bombs said:
JohnBriggs12 said:
danzig6767 said:
Looking around the league, Walker may want 3-4 years at 10 million plus per year, but i see the odds being slim at best that he finds a team who meets those desires.

I'm really curious to see if Villar can bounce back from his nightmare season, so i'm fine with standing pat at second base, but if Stearns can wait out Walker and get a deal for two years, i'd be fine with that also.

There are going to be many free agents who went into this offseason with really lofty dollar amounts floating in their heads, but at some point will have to accept a reality that the market for their services simply isn't what they hoped for.


What makes you think "standing pat" means Villar gets his job back? He was behind both Sogard and Perez at the end of 2017 and both those guys are still on the roster. Add in Walker and he was 4th string.


In this case, "standing pat" means that Villar is given the opportunity to prove that he is the 2016 version and not the 2017 version. Because the 2016 version of Villar is infinitely better than anything Sogard or Perez, or Walker really, is going to provide. And I have a feeling you know that.


The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table. I also don't think there's any reason to put the "I have a feeling you know that" jibe in.

"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
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#29

Posted: January 11, 2018, 10:52 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2833
Location: California
monty57 said:
The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table.

Walker also brings something the current Brewers don't have a lot of and that is relatively limited Ks. The everyday lineup currently looked like this in 2017:

1. Villar: 132 Ks in 403 ABs (33%)
2. Thames: 169/463 (37%)
3. Braun: 76/380 (20%)
4. Shaw: 138/538 (25%)
5. Santana: 178/525 (34%)
6. Broxton: 175/414 (42%)
7. Pina: 79/330 (24%)
8. Arcia: 100/506 (19%)

Walker in his career has 754/3860 or 20% or 77/385 (20%) in 2017. Less Ks is necessary to get into this lineup to help prevent the streakiness. Walker-type hitters will help alleviate some of this.


 Top
 
Online  Re: Neil Walker
#30

Posted: January 11, 2018, 10:54 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1580
monty57 said:
The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table. I also don't think there's any reason to put the "I have a feeling you know that" jibe in.


But when you throw in the contract that will be needed to sign Walker, and the years of commitment that would likely overlap the readiness of Dubon, Diaz and Huera, it becomes a question of value. Also, if they sign Walker, they are pretty much giving up all hope for Villar, and bottoming-out his value.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#31

Posted: January 11, 2018, 11:59 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5532
Joey Meyer Bombs said:
monty57 said:
The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table. I also don't think there's any reason to put the "I have a feeling you know that" jibe in.


But when you throw in the contract that will be needed to sign Walker, and the years of commitment that would likely overlap the readiness of Dubon, Diaz and Huera, it becomes a question of value. Also, if they sign Walker, they are pretty much giving up all hope for Villar, and bottoming-out his value.


I'm only pushing for Walker if they can get him to agree to a 2-year deal. Part of that is his age, and part of it is the fact that we have some talented players in the low minors who should be pushing for MLB playing time in a couple of years. I would pass if he insists on a 3-4 year deal. If not Walker, then there is a good chance we'd look elsewhere to upgrade second base, such as a trade for Castro, which the panel on last night's MLB Network programming were thinking should happen. He has two years plus a club option remaining and reportedly wants out of Miami so he might not cost much in terms of prospects if we take on his salary. I think a 2-year talented "stopgap" would fit nicely to bridge the gap to the talented youngsters.

Villar's value right now is pretty much bottomed out. I think that as things currently stand (if we don't bring someone else in), there will be a fight for 2B among Villar, Sogard and Perez. Since Sogard was re-signed, and since he's the only one who doesn't strike out a lot (I agree with WTP's post above) I think he has the inside track for the majority of playing time. That would make Perez his platoon partner with Villar still fighting for playing time.

If Walker or someone else is brought in, I still think Sogard is safe as a utility guy, leaving Villar and Perez fighting for a spot on the roster. Since Perez would probably garner more in trade at this point, I'd look to trade him and keep Villar as the 2nd utility guy.

Either way, I think Villar is going to have to fight for playing time, and is going to have to show that he can play multiple positions to get more PAs. They relied on him last year and that bombed. They probably aren't just going to hand him the spot again. He will have to earn it back.

"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
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#32

Posted: January 11, 2018, 12:11 PM Post
Posts: 333
Warning Track Power said:
monty57 said:
The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table.

Walker also brings something the current Brewers don't have a lot of and that is relatively limited Ks. The everyday lineup currently looked like this in 2017:

1. Villar: 132 Ks in 403 ABs (33%)
2. Thames: 169/463 (37%)
3. Braun: 76/380 (20%)
4. Shaw: 138/538 (25%)
5. Santana: 178/525 (34%)
6. Broxton: 175/414 (42%)
7. Pina: 79/330 (24%)
8. Arcia: 100/506 (19%)

Walker in his career has 754/3860 or 20% or 77/385 (20%) in 2017. Less Ks is necessary to get into this lineup to help prevent the streakiness. Walker-type hitters will help alleviate some of this.


Doesn't change the overall point you're making, but FWIW K% is K/PA, not K/AB. For someone like Arcia your numbers aren't very far off (19% vs 18%), but for Eric Thames, who walks a lot, it's way off; 37% vs 30%.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#33

Posted: January 11, 2018, 12:20 PM Post
Posts: 1642
Location: New Berlin, WI
I think it's fair to say that just about everyone on this board would be happy to bring in Walker on a 2/22 type deal, myself included. A 2 year deal likely doesn't overlap Diaz/Hiura, and Dubon is more of a replacement for Perez than a 1st division regular at 2b. It's possible a 2 year deal overlaps the readiness of Hiura/Diaz by half a year or so, which isn't significant and can be managed by a variety of options. The group of people willing to sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal is significantly less, and as of now that's rumored to be his asking price.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#34

Posted: January 11, 2018, 12:20 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2833
Location: California
Lathund said:
Warning Track Power said:
monty57 said:
The 2016 version of Villar produced 3.1 WAR (per Fangraphs). I'll agree that's better than you could expect from Sogard or Perez, but Walker has done better than that twice in his career, and is expected to produce around 2.6 WAR next year. So, realistically the upside of Villar (which may or may not happen) is probably around what you would expect Walker to bring to the table.

Walker also brings something the current Brewers don't have a lot of and that is relatively limited Ks. The everyday lineup currently looked like this in 2017:

1. Villar: 132 Ks in 403 ABs (33%)
2. Thames: 169/463 (37%)
3. Braun: 76/380 (20%)
4. Shaw: 138/538 (25%)
5. Santana: 178/525 (34%)
6. Broxton: 175/414 (42%)
7. Pina: 79/330 (24%)
8. Arcia: 100/506 (19%)

Walker in his career has 754/3860 or 20% or 77/385 (20%) in 2017. Less Ks is necessary to get into this lineup to help prevent the streakiness. Walker-type hitters will help alleviate some of this.


Doesn't change the overall point you're making, but FWIW K% is K/PA, not K/AB. For someone like Arcia your numbers aren't very far off (19% vs 18%), but for Eric Thames, who walks a lot, it's way off; 37% vs 30%.

Lathund...Appreciate the help on the matter. Was trying to post quickly and didn't think it all the way through


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#35

Posted: January 11, 2018, 1:55 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 5532
KeithStone53151 said:
I think it's fair to say that just about everyone on this board would be happy to bring in Walker on a 2/22 type deal, myself included. A 2 year deal likely doesn't overlap Diaz/Hiura, and Dubon is more of a replacement for Perez than a 1st division regular at 2b. It's possible a 2 year deal overlaps the readiness of Hiura/Diaz by half a year or so, which isn't significant and can be managed by a variety of options. The group of people willing to sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal is significantly less, and as of now that's rumored to be his asking price.


Yep. My hope is that enough teams overspent to get relievers that the ripple effect will cause other markets (like 2B) to soften. The more time passes, the more likely it is that players will have to bring their asking price down.

I don't know how likely it is that we could get Walker on a 2-year deal, but I'd jump on it if we could. If not, then we have to decide if we're comfortable giving the position to three guys who are probably better served as utility guys, or if we should sign or trade for someone else.

"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
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#36

Posted: January 11, 2018, 3:56 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4329
Signing a good player to a reasonable contract should never, never, ever avoided because we have a prospect coming through the minors that we don't want to block.

The best case scenario leads you with two good options and trade bait. The worst case scenario is that you have someone to play the position and your prospect flamed out.

There are just too many ways that prospects flame out to count on them making the majors years from now.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#37

Posted: January 11, 2018, 4:43 PM Post
Posts: 1642
Location: New Berlin, WI
CheezWizHed said:
Signing a good player to a reasonable contract should never, never, ever avoided because we have a prospect coming through the minors that we don't want to block.

The best case scenario leads you with two good options and trade bait. The worst case scenario is that you have someone to play the position and your prospect flamed out.

There are just too many ways that prospects flame out to count on them making the majors years from now.


I disagree with this. A singular prospect shouldn't be the exclusive reason to not sign a FA, but it can certainly be a significant and even primary factor in these decisions. In the Walker case, we have decent options currently and multiple very good options coming through the system that will be blocked if he signs a 3+ year deal. Since we have the multiple very good options on a similar trajectory, the chances of having a good one at the MLB level in the expected timeframe increases significantly. Every free agent contract comes with inherent risk in general...just like prospects, but at high dollars that could be used elsewhere. There are factors like rule 5 to consider. And it isn't exactly easy to have a good player step aside for a prospect, managers are notorious for wanting to stick with their veteran players. So in the Walker case, the factors in play for not signing him to a 3+ year deal include opportunity cost, increased risk in player decline, AND blocking 2 high end prospects for potential 1.5 years. It's hard to know how much weight to apply to these factors, but all are significant.

I see your point, and often your point will hold true. But to say "never ever ever ever" I disagree with, as there are plenty of cases where it makes sense to not sign a guy to a reasonable deal. You can also look at the Cain situation, Phillips and Brinson are by no means established major leaguers and have options. Signing Cain blocks both those guys and quite a few other outfielders coming through the system. It's that many good prospects situation again...and in the case of Cain, the prospects are probably the primary factor for not bringing him in.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#38

Posted: January 15, 2018, 4:27 PM Post
Posts: 340
If Howie Kendrick is only getting 7million for 2 years, I think Walker, a somewhat similar player, will be looking at less than he wants.

I also wonder why the Brewers, who could offer more playing time than the Nats, wouldnt be all over him for like 2/8-10 and a starting gig.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#39

Posted: January 15, 2018, 5:52 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 839
Devinep said:
If Howie Kendrick is only getting 7million for 2 years, I think Walker, a somewhat similar player, will be looking at less than he wants.

I also wonder why the Brewers, who could offer more playing time than the Nats, wouldnt be all over him for like 2/8-10 and a starting gig.


Maybe because the Brewers think they have a good shot at Walker


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Neil Walker
#40

Posted: January 15, 2018, 6:48 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2625
KCBrewerfan34 said:
Pittsburgh Gazette reporting Brew interested in Harrison. He’s 30, will be 31. Under contract for 3 years.

FYI, I am going to move this post to start a new thread specific to Josh Harrison.


 Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next  [ 225 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jopal78!, MillerParkSouth, MrAllen 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