MLB 2017 Season

[wadesworld]

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

I can understand why (as GB Warrior said in the comment just above yours), many Brewers fans hope management doesn't trade prospects for a long-shot run at a title. But I don't really understand why many Brewers fans are hoping a team in the middle of a pennant race act as if it's in last place -- and dump good, productive major-leaguers in an effort to chase some hoped-for title next decade that might never materialize.

Because as Brewers fans we need to realize the Cubs are not nearly as bad as they are playing and the Brewers are not nearly as good as they are playing.  Guys like Eric Sogard are not going to keep looking like they're Dustin Pedroia out there.  When the chances of you making the Playoffs are below 10% (and I said that before I even looked on Fangraphs, which has the Brewers Playoff chances at 9.5%), and the chances of making a run in those Playoffs is even lower (in fact, under 1% at 0.7% to make it to the NLCS), you look to better a future that appears to be heading in the right direction.

I would never suggest a true tank in the sense of benching the best available players on your roster to try to lose as many games as possible because moving up in the MLB draft is a lot less meaningful than in basketball or football, and the only reason not to play your best players available would be if you're out of the Playoff race and you want to see what you have in some of the younger guys on your roster, but if you are reasonable and realize that you are at least 2 years out from truly contending, if you can get a good return for some of these guys who really can't possibly play any better than they are (Garra last year, Shaw, Thames, Sogard this year) you have to take a serious look at it.  Could those guys be part of a Playoff run 2 or 3 years down the road?  Sure, it's possible.  But it's far more likely that it's centered around Brinson, Phillips, and others still in the minors than it is guys who are currently playing at their absolute peak.  You don't just pull a Bulls/Jimmy Butler and shed those guys for the first deal you are offered, but if you shop them around and find some good young talent, you make the deal even if you are still in first.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I don't understand why the Brewers would trade Shaw. You have to hold onto some proven major league talent. Maybe Shaw is able to sustain this success, or at least something serviceable.  A 27 year old, left handed power hitting 3rd baseman falls into your lap and some people want to discard him and roll the dice on prospects who may amount to nothing.  You can't just perpetually be trading for prospects.

Knebel is young and controllable. I'm not a fan of dealing the one dependable bullpen arm they have when he is so young and cheap.

Thames, maybe trade because he's older. But the right deal must come along.

I'd trade Garza and maybe Guerra if the right deal came along.  Sogard if the right deal came along.  But any major deal would need AA and AAA prospects that will be up within 2 years, why I think trading Shaw doesn't make sense.  Just keep the proven major league player.

[GGGG]

Shaw isn't eligible to hit free agency until 2022.  Why would the Brewers trade him?

Of course anyone is tradeable, but the offer has to be pretty good for a guy largely in the Brewers control over the next few years. 

[MUBurrow]

Shaw isn't likely to be dealt because no other team will pay the premium it will take to pry away all of the years of control he has left, based on just a short amount of sustained success. When the Brewers traded for him in the offseason, he was a 27 year old who had hit 30 HR and about .250 in 200 games. So he had the power but an inconsistent bat. I think if someone wanted to pay for Shaw's 2017 pace and those years of control, Stearns should sell high and pull the trigger - but no GM will be willing to pay that price, and Shaw will play a serviceable 3B for the Brewers for at least another couple of years.

To echo Wades, I don't think there are Brewers fans that are jumping up and down to sell guys for nothing, but if you had teams willing to pay for the 2017 seasons AND the years of control left on guys like Shaw or Thames, I think the 2017 Brewers have to pull the trigger for the good of the 2019 Brewers.

[cheebs09]

True. Although, at some point, when you find diamonds in the rough, you need to keep them. Constantly trading for prospects is nice when you have a bunch of veterans that won't be around the next time you contend. However, I think the Brewers are getting into that window of contending within the next two seasons.

They are starting to bring up their prospects who may be full time players in the next year or two. Arica is already here having success. The guys having success are relatively young and controllable. Even Thames has 2 more years left that are team friendly.

I think as Stearns continues to accumulate middle IF and OF in the minors, the future trades will be those excess prospects for pitching. Also, I've been incredibly impressed by his ability to find cast-offs that turn into solid players.

[MU82]

Because as Brewers fans we need to realize the Cubs are not nearly as bad as they are playing and the Brewers are not nearly as good as they are playing.  Guys like Eric Sogard are not going to keep looking like they're Dustin Pedroia out there.  When the chances of you making the Playoffs are below 10% (and I said that before I even looked on Fangraphs, which has the Brewers Playoff chances at 9.5%), and the chances of making a run in those Playoffs is even lower (in fact, under 1% at 0.7% to make it to the NLCS), you look to better a future that appears to be heading in the right direction.

I would never suggest a true tank in the sense of benching the best available players on your roster to try to lose as many games as possible because moving up in the MLB draft is a lot less meaningful than in basketball or football, and the only reason not to play your best players available would be if you're out of the Playoff race and you want to see what you have in some of the younger guys on your roster, but if you are reasonable and realize that you are at least 2 years out from truly contending, if you can get a good return for some of these guys who really can't possibly play any better than they are (Garra last year, Shaw, Thames, Sogard this year) you have to take a serious look at it.  Could those guys be part of a Playoff run 2 or 3 years down the road?  Sure, it's possible.  But it's far more likely that it's centered around Brinson, Phillips, and others still in the minors than it is guys who are currently playing at their absolute peak.  You don't just pull a Bulls/Jimmy Butler and shed those guys for the first deal you are offered, but if you shop them around and find some good young talent, you make the deal even if you are still in first.

Well, you're doing a lot of hedging there, wades, and I don't blame you.

I'm not a Brewers fan, but I like to think that if I was I'd be enjoying this for what it is and wouldn't be so anxious to deal anybody who is productive for "prospects" that might or might not ever be productive.

The July 31 deadline is not very meaningful anymore, as many big deals have been swung in August. I'd certainly wait as long as possible to see if I really am in a race.

But that's just me, and maybe I'm "wrong."

[Jockey]

Shaw isn't likely to be dealt because no other team will pay the premium it will take to pry away all of the years of control he has left, based on just a short amount of sustained success. When the Brewers traded for him in the offseason, he was a 27 year old who had hit 30 HR and about .250 in 200 games. So he had the power but an inconsistent bat. I think if someone wanted to pay for Shaw's 2017 pace and those years of control, Stearns should sell high and pull the trigger - but no GM will be willing to pay that price, and Shaw will play a serviceable 3B for the Brewers for at least another couple of years.

To echo Wades, I don't think there are Brewers fans that are jumping up and down to sell guys for nothing, but if you had teams willing to pay for the 2017 seasons AND the years of control left on guys like Shaw or Thames, I think the 2017 Brewers have to pull the trigger for the good of the 2019 Brewers.

30 HR in 700 ABs in the 3rd worst park for HRs in all of MLB for left handed hitters is really quite an impressive power total.

[jficke13]

I'm trying to remember when exactly it became common for fans of a baseball team to sell off decent players and intentionally tank a season. Seriously. It's been a couple decades at least, it seems, but I don't remember when.

I remember when the White Sox did it in the '90s and most fans were outraged. So it's at least since then.

It's a weird thing. In basketball, a team that tanks is rewarded with a high draft pick who could start right away; plus, there is a salary cap. Same with football, although the cap is more strict - kind of like hockey. So it makes sense that a team in those sports can fix cap problems and position themselves for high draft picks who might have an impact the following season.

In baseball, there is no salary cap. No owner "needs" to dump salary. And draft picks, even the highest-rated ones, have a high rate of failure. Even the best ones usually take several years to reach the majors.

And yet Brewers fans seem to be rooting that their first-place team - a team ahead of the "Flubs" the fans purport to hate - go into the tank in June.

I'm not advocating for tanking, but rather having a realistic evaluation of what's happened so far this season, what's likely to happen over the course of a full 162, and understanding the realities of playing in Milwaukee and not LA.

The Brewers are outperforming my expectations for the season. I hoped they'd play about .500, and it's fun that they're a few games over. They're a few up in the division based almost entirely on a shocking underperformance by the Cubs. The NL West is otherworldly good, so no WC is in play, it's division or bust.

Then there's the question: Is it good to be the Kohl-era Bucks, always mediocre enough to avoid ever getting good? Or is it better to get into position to actually make a run at a title rather than a 1st round exit from the playoffs? In the NBA, that requires a tank job. In MLB, when you've already got a fairly deep farm system, that means selling high on some assets, hopefully offloading bad salary (Garza/Braun), and giving young guys a shot and seeing how close they are to fulfilling on their promise while keeping the farm stocked with prospects that hopefully develop together. Especially since this was supposed to be year two of a multi-year rebuild, do you blow up your plan just because you're inexplicably "in contention" on June 26?

Besides, the Brewers are leaning on a lot of young pieces they probably never planned to lean on and are *still* in 1st place. If the young guys who probably were planned on being in the minors this year are doing enough, then maybe a couple strategic sales wouldn't turn the season into a tank job anyway.

[MerrittsMustache]

You can look at the Brewers' season in two ways:

1) They're in contention in late June!

2) They're a .500 team who's in contention because the most talented team in the division is massively underachieving.

Speaking as a non-Brewers fan, I'd be expecting them to make a few tweaks at the deadline but nothing major. The Brewers have a long-term plan and just being involved in the pennant race will be good for their young players even if it doesn't result in a division title. The 2015 Cubs are a good example to follow. They were viewed as being "ahead of schedule" and were leading the division at the deadline, albeit by a significant margin. The only moves they made were acquiring Dan Haren and Tommy Hunter for scraps and Fernando Rodney and Austin Jackson for PTBNL. Compare that with the 2016 Cubs who were "ready" and thus went all in on a deal for Aroldis Chapman.

[Jockey]

You can look at the Brewers' season in two ways:

1) They're in contention in late June!

2) They're a .500 team who's in contention because the most talented team in the division is massively underachieving.

Speaking as a non-Brewers fan, I'd be expecting them to make a few tweaks at the deadline but nothing major. The Brewers have a long-term plan and just being involved in the pennant race will be good for their young players even if it doesn't result in a division title. The 2015 Cubs are a good example to follow. They were viewed as being "ahead of schedule" and were leading the division at the deadline, albeit by a significant margin. The only moves they made were acquiring Dan Haren and Tommy Hunter for scraps and Fernando Rodney and Austin Jackson for PTBNL. Compare that with the 2016 Cubs who were "ready" and thus went all in on a deal for Aroldis Chapman.

Very nice post. If the Brewers are still leading the division at the end of July, they may make a couple minor deals as the Cubs did in '15, but I certainly don't think they would blow things up to acquire a Sabathia-type player like they did the last time they made a big move to try and win it all. The only thing that might change is that they won't be looking to dump assets at the deadline as easily and, if they did deal someone, they would hold out for more.

Stearns will stay on course just as Theo did.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Not saying I don't agree but I'm always curious when I hear things like this. At what point are the Cubs no longer "underachieving" and the Brewers no longer "overachieving"? How deep into the season do you need to get before people stop thinking there will be "regression to the mean" and start thinking "this is just what these two teams are. We over or under estimated them at the beginning of the season."

To be clear, I agree that the Brewers have overachieved to this point and the Cubs have underachieved. I'm just curious how long needs to go by before that perception changes?

[jficke13]

Not saying I don't agree but I'm always curious when I hear things like this. At what point are the Cubs no longer "underachieving" and the Brewers no longer "overachieving"? How deep into the season do you need to get before people stop thinking there will be "regression to the mean" and start thinking "this is just what these two teams are. We over or under estimated them at the beginning of the season."

To be clear, I agree that the Brewers have overachieved to this point and the Cubs have underachieved. I'm just curious how long needs to go by before that perception changes?

That is a great question, and a hard one to ask. We're probably inching closer to that line. Everyone's individual responses probably reveals whether they are optimists or pessimists. Who needs inkblot tests right?

[DegenerateDish]

My thought is that line is August 1st. You are roughly 100 games in at that point, all star break is approx. three weeks in rear view mirror. A team can certainly get hot/cold after that, but 100 games is a good sample size to judge over/under achievement.

[Jockey]

That is a great question, and a hard one to ask. We're probably inching closer to that line. Everyone's individual responses probably reveals whether they are optimists or pessimists. Who needs inkblot tests right?

Well, let's give TAMU his props, then.

He asked it.

[MerrittsMustache]

The Cubs miss Dexter Fowler WAY more than anyone anticipated. He brought strong intangibles to the clubhouse and he was also a catalyst at the top of the order. His absence has been magnified by The Schwarber Lead-off Experiment being a total bust. The "You go, we go" saying had a lot of merit.

Fowler in wins (85 games): .310/.433/.494

Fowler in losses (40 games): .205/.299/.349

The Cubs were 80-38 in games he started and 23-20 in games he missed. Maybe they really are a .500 team this season.

2017 Cubs' lead-off hitters (75 games): .231/.322/.471

Zobrist has had a tough year with nagging injuries (he's currently on the DL), but I still think he's the team's best option to lead-off when he's healthy. Maddon obviously likes to play around with his line-up, but there was something to be said for having the same guy start off every game the last couple of seasons.

[buckchuckler]

The Cubs miss Dexter Fowler WAY more than anyone anticipated. He brought strong intangibles to the clubhouse and he was also a catalyst at the top of the order. His absence has been magnified by The Schwarber Lead-off Experiment being a total bust. The "You go, we go" saying had a lot of merit.

Fowler in wins (85 games): .310/.433/.494

Fowler in losses (40 games): .205/.299/.349

The Cubs were 80-38 in games he started and 23-20 in games he missed. Maybe they really are a .500 team this season.

2017 Cubs' lead-off hitters (75 games): .231/.322/.471

Zobrist has had a tough year with nagging injuries (he's currently on the DL), but I still think he's the team's best option to lead-off when he's healthy. Maddon obviously likes to play around with his line-up, but there was something to be said for having the same guy start off every game the last couple of seasons.

Who knows how it would have gone, but Fowler hasn't been very good yet this year.

[MU82]

Maddon obviously likes to play around with his line-up, but there was something to be said for having the same guy start off every game the last couple of seasons.

I am not saying Maddon is a bad manager ... in fact, history has shown him to be a very good one. He was the man in charge of cutting the balls off the goat, for crissakes. However ...

He is the ultimate tinkerer, and he does often come off as thinking he is the smartest guy in the room.

La Russa "suffered" from the same thing, and he also was a great manager who delivered championships. In other words, folks gotta take the little bit of bad with the lotta good with skippers like Maddon.

[🏀]

The more and more Theo talks about continuing the roster build towards the deadline, the more and more I believe he did not think winning the WS was possible this season.

[GGGG]

The more and more Theo talks about continuing the roster build towards the deadline, the more and more I believe he did not think winning the WS was possible this season.

When did he think it was not possible?  Before the season?  Of course it was...

Now?  Perhaps not.

[MerrittsMustache]

Montero DFA'd. That was quick.

[DegenerateDish]

Doubt the Cubs would do it for a variety of reasons, but Lackey is done, and should be outright released. Never seen a team go this long into a game against a pitcher with zero swing and misses. That's really hard to have happen to you as a pitcher.

[wadesworld]

Doubt the Cubs would do it for a variety of reasons, but Lackey is done, and should be outright released. Never seen a team go this long into a game against a pitcher with zero swing and misses. That's really hard to have happen to you as a pitcher.

Him and Bosio should give Thames a ring and ask him for some advice...

[JWags85]

Him and Bosio should give Thames a ring and ask him for some advice...

[Jockey]

Doubt the Cubs would do it for a variety of reasons, but Lackey is done, and should be outright released. Never seen a team go this long into a game against a pitcher with zero swing and misses. That's really hard to have happen to you as a pitcher.

Cubs are lucky they are in the Central.

As you said, Lackey is done. Arietta is not far behind and Hendricks has already had his career year.

Montgomery is the 2nd best starter they have. Only Lester can be counted on.

For the Cubs "dynasty" ( ) to continue, they need to sign two top starters in free agency after this season. I see no way right now that they can get past Washington or LA - if they make the playoffs, that is.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I think Hendricks will still be fine. He's only what, 26? He won't pitch like he did the second half of last season but he can be a solid rotation guy.