Greinke traded to Brewers (pg 2)

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it is impressive that the Brewers can put together the roster that they have managed to put together with the amount of payroll they have. Granted they basically sold the farm to get Marcum and Greinke, but they should be extremely competitive this year.

 

I can only hope that this trade doesn't cause Hendry to overreact and overpay for a pitcher. We know from personal anguish that even the best teams on paper aren't a lock to win over 162 games. I remember the Maddux signing and thinking that the Cubs were a lock for the playoffs with a rotation of Maddux, Wood, Prior, Z and Clements.

 

Rather than signing some old retread, I wouldn't mind seeing Cashner, J. Jackson, Archer, and maybe even McNutt getting a shot during Spring Training to win a spot in the rotation.

 

Funny how a competent GM can do something like that, eh?

 

Might want to rethink that one.

[davearm2]

For a supposedly significant trade, this seems like it's really not going to have a huge impact.

 

Greinke will be good, especially moving to the NL, but he probably won't ever regain his 2009 form. He'll be a 2/3 type starter for the Brewers.

 

The impact he'll have will be offset by the Betancourt piece (as mentioned), plus the opportunity cost presented by his $13M salary.

 

And the prospects the Brewers gave up seem good but not great. Probably none will develop into impact major leaguers.

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

[Guest]

The Brewers are where they're at because Jack Z did a tremendous job drafting for a 3-4 year time period. Their drafts haven't been as impressive since he left and the system is getting dangerously thin on talent. I agree with the mindset the Brewers have right now to go ahead and take their shot. Given their payroll, the talent they'll be losing to FA and the lack of high end prospects coming up soon, it'll be a while before they have another chance this good.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

Is the Brewers bullpen very good or are they relying heavily on Axford to repeat his success?

[UK1679666180]

Every team has to rely on their closer, MIL isn't any different Loe was solid not spectacular and Braddock fills the role of the 7th inning despite being better suited as a situational lefty on better staffs. I like Mark Rogers, always liked his arm and maybe he can fill a role like that as a minor league starter turned reliever. This is where the loss of Jeffers hurts, he reminds me of Tom Gordon with that curve. Overall, below avg. But not bad enough to keep them from being competitive.

[Deder]

I think you are really underrating Greinke by saying he is only worth 2 wins. The Brewers put a lot of replacement level innings in last year and Marcum and Greinke are almost certainly a 6 win upgrade over what they had if healthy and could easily be a 10+ win combo if both improve in the NL. Betancourt is actually a small upgrade over what they got from SS last year which is scary so he is a 1-2 loss with the glove.

 

It won't surprise me at all if they are a high 80 win team though they could easily have some injuries and end up a low to mid 80 win team too.

[Deder]

I think you are really underrating Greinke by saying he is only worth 2 wins. The Brewers put a lot of replacement level innings in last year and Marcum and Greinke are almost certainly a 6 win upgrade over what they had if healthy and could easily be a 10+ win combo if both improve in the NL. Betancourt is actually a small upgrade over what they got from SS last year which is scary so he is a 1-2 loss with the glove.

 

It won't surprise me at all if they are a high 80 win team though they could easily have some injuries and end up a low to mid 80 win team too.

[dew1679666265]

I think you are really underrating Greinke by saying he is only worth 2 wins. The Brewers put a lot of replacement level innings in last year and Marcum and Greinke are almost certainly a 6 win upgrade over what they had if healthy and could easily be a 10+ win combo if both improve in the NL. Betancourt is actually a small upgrade over what they got from SS last year which is scary so he is a 1-2 loss with the glove.

 

It won't surprise me at all if they are a high 80 win team though they could easily have some injuries and end up a low to mid 80 win team too.

 

I don't know who said he'd only be a 2-win pitcher, but the likelihood is that he'll match his 2008 and 2010 numbers and be about a 5-win pitcher for the Brewers, I'd guess. You're probably giving away a win or two by starting Betancourt over Escobar, though, which damages the overall impact Greinke's improvement provides.

 

As for Marcum, in a career year he was worth 3.5 WAR and previously has been no more than a 2 WAR player. I'd really doubt he'll provide 4 WAR for the Brewers. The likelihood is, the Brewers got about 6 wins better right now with the additions of Greinke/Marcum/Betancourt and hurt their future severely. If Cain has a big year for the Royals, going from him to Gomez will hurt as well, unless Gomez improves significantly.

[Deder]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

[davearm2]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

The quote you were responding to was focused on the Grienke trade specifically.

 

As outlined, you start with an estimate of Greinke's WAR, subtract a little for the switch to Betancourt at SS, and subtract a little more for the opportunity cost of Greinke's $13M salary.

 

5+ wins is on the WAY high side for this move alone. 10+ is just silly. There isn't a 10 win player in baseball (much less a pitcher), even before the downward adjustments.

 

Pegging it at a 2 win improvement is very reasonable.

 

Add a couple more for the Marcum move, but even then I personally don't see it vaulting the Brewers into the playoffs. It vaults them into the .500 range. This is a team that won 77 games last year.

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

The quote you were responding to was focused on the Grienke trade specifically.

 

As outlined, you start with an estimate of Greinke's WAR, subtract a little for the switch to Betancourt at SS, and subtract a little more for the opportunity cost of Greinke's $13M salary.

 

5+ wins is on the WAY high side for this move alone. 10+ is just silly. There isn't a 10 win player in baseball (much less a pitcher), even before the downward adjustments.

 

Pegging it at a 2 win improvement is very reasonable.

 

Add a couple more for the Marcum move, but even then I personally don't see it vaulting the Brewers into the playoffs. It vaults them into the .500 range. This is a team that won 77 games last year.

Going from Chris Narveson to Zach Greinke has to get you more than 2 wins.

[dew1679666265]

Going from Chris Narveson to Zach Greinke has to get you more than 2 wins.

 

Narveson had the second highest WAR of any starter the Brewers threw out there last year. Outside of Gallardo's 4.6 WAR, Narveson was the only Brewers starter to be worth more than one win (1.7 WAR). The Brewers would be much better off replacing Dave Bush or somebody like that instead of Narveson.

[illiniguy]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

The quote you were responding to was focused on the Grienke trade specifically.

 

As outlined, you start with an estimate of Greinke's WAR, subtract a little for the switch to Betancourt at SS, and subtract a little more for the opportunity cost of Greinke's $13M salary.

 

5+ wins is on the WAY high side for this move alone. 10+ is just silly. There isn't a 10 win player in baseball (much less a pitcher), even before the downward adjustments.

 

Pegging it at a 2 win improvement is very reasonable.

 

Add a couple more for the Marcum move, but even then I personally don't see it vaulting the Brewers into the playoffs. It vaults them into the .500 range. This is a team that won 77 games last year.

You really don't think Pujols gives the Cardinals more than 5 wins a year?

[dew1679666265]

You really don't think Pujols gives the Cardinals more than 5 wins a year?

 

He said there isn't a 10-win player, not a 5-win player. Pujols, on average, is an 8 WAR player.

[davearm2]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

The quote you were responding to was focused on the Grienke trade specifically.

 

As outlined, you start with an estimate of Greinke's WAR, subtract a little for the switch to Betancourt at SS, and subtract a little more for the opportunity cost of Greinke's $13M salary.

 

5+ wins is on the WAY high side for this move alone. 10+ is just silly. There isn't a 10 win player in baseball (much less a pitcher), even before the downward adjustments.

 

Pegging it at a 2 win improvement is very reasonable.

 

Add a couple more for the Marcum move, but even then I personally don't see it vaulting the Brewers into the playoffs. It vaults them into the .500 range. This is a team that won 77 games last year.

Going from Chris Narveson to Zach Greinke has to get you more than 2 wins.

Try reading my post again. Put whatever win number you want on the move from Narveson or whomever to Greinke. Then start subtracting.

 

Escobar is nothing special but Betancourt is worse. Subtract.

 

And IIRC the math is something like $5M = 1 win on the FA market, so paying Greinke $13M has an opportunity cost of over 2.5 wins. On a per-year basis we're talking the Dunn, Victor Martinez, Konerko class of players. Subtract.

 

When the dust settles, 2 wins sounds in the right neighborhood.

[illiniguy]

You really don't think Pujols gives the Cardinals more than 5 wins a year?

 

He said there isn't a 10-win player, not a 5-win player. Pujols, on average, is an 8 WAR player.

oh gotcha, misread.

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah I was responding to this...

 

I suspect the Brewers improved by a couple wins this year and next, but IMO it won't be enough to put them in the playoffs.

 

It is going to be much more than a couple of wins, most likely 5+ wins and plausibly 10+, the range of outcomes is pretty large.

The quote you were responding to was focused on the Grienke trade specifically.

 

As outlined, you start with an estimate of Greinke's WAR, subtract a little for the switch to Betancourt at SS, and subtract a little more for the opportunity cost of Greinke's $13M salary.

 

5+ wins is on the WAY high side for this move alone. 10+ is just silly. There isn't a 10 win player in baseball (much less a pitcher), even before the downward adjustments.

 

Pegging it at a 2 win improvement is very reasonable.

 

Add a couple more for the Marcum move, but even then I personally don't see it vaulting the Brewers into the playoffs. It vaults them into the .500 range. This is a team that won 77 games last year.

Going from Chris Narveson to Zach Greinke has to get you more than 2 wins.

Try reading my post again. Put whatever win number you want on the move from Narveson or whomever to Greinke. Then start subtracting.

 

Escobar is nothing special but Betancourt is worse. Subtract.

 

And IIRC the math is something like $5M = 1 win on the FA market, so paying Greinke $13M has an opportunity cost of over 2.5 wins. On a per-year basis we're talking the Dunn, Victor Martinez, Konerko class of players. Subtract.

 

When the dust settles, 2 wins sounds in the right neighborhood.

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

[davearm2]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

[Clem Fandango]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

 

Do you really think, in that highly unlikely situation, the Cubs would replace Dempster and Ramirez with $1M replacements, though?

[KingCubsFan]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

It's certainly possible if they make the right moves. What if Dempster gets replaced by Archer, who ends up being better? What if we replace Aramis with a cheap, young player who ends up being productive and plays through the entire season? There's simply too many variables to say "Oh, the money spent is even so the win improvement can only be marginal." It's not how much money you spend, it's how you spend the money.

[davearm2]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

 

Do you really think, in that highly unlikely situation, the Cubs would replace Dempster and Ramirez with $1M replacements, though?

The whole point of the exercise is to keep the money even.

[davearm2]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

It's certainly possible if they make the right moves. What if Dempster gets replaced by Archer, who ends up being better? What if we replace Aramis with a cheap, young player who ends up being productive and plays through the entire season? There's simply too many variables to say "Oh, the money spent is even so the win improvement can only be marginal." It's not how much money you spend, it's how you spend the money.

Well to bring this back on topic, the point remains that if you spend $13M on Greinke, then that's $13M less you have to allocate elsewhere.

 

Having that much less to spend necessarily offsets the wins Greinke provides.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

That's a little oversimplistic and doesn't account for a team's actual needs. Do you really believe the Cubs giving $25 million to Albert Pujols would only improve their team by 2-3 wins?

Sure, if you're keeping payroll roughly constant then 2-3 wins is probably the right ballpark, and probably a little high actually.

 

Just as a simple exercise:

Add Pujols ($25M)

Subtract Aramis Ramirez ($14M)

Add a replacement 3B for $1M

Subtract Ryan Dempster ($13M)

Add a replacement SP for $1M

What's the impact of those moves taken together? The money's even -- $27M out and $27M in.

 

You think the Cubs would improve by a lot more than 2-3 wins in this scenario? I don't.

 

Do you really think, in that highly unlikely situation, the Cubs would replace Dempster and Ramirez with $1M replacements, though?

The whole point of the exercise is to keep the money even.

Ah, I thought the point was to prolong a boring argument.

[dew1679666265]

It's certainly possible if they make the right moves. What if Dempster gets replaced by Archer, who ends up being better? What if we replace Aramis with a cheap, young player who ends up being productive and plays through the entire season? There's simply too many variables to say "Oh, the money spent is even so the win improvement can only be marginal." It's not how much money you spend, it's how you spend the money.

 

And the Brewers have just traded away 5 of their best prospects in two trades. Young, cheap production is going to be really hard to come by.

[KingCubsFan]

It's certainly possible if they make the right moves. What if Dempster gets replaced by Archer, who ends up being better? What if we replace Aramis with a cheap, young player who ends up being productive and plays through the entire season? There's simply too many variables to say "Oh, the money spent is even so the win improvement can only be marginal." It's not how much money you spend, it's how you spend the money.

 

And the Brewers have just traded away 5 of their best prospects in two trades. Young, cheap production is going to be really hard to come by.

I wasn't talking about the Brewers. And when their window is up in 2 years, the trade proceeds/draft picks from Fielder, Greinke, Marcum, Weekes and Braun can replenish that system very quickly.