Regular Season Rumors

[imb]

Villar had a batter bWAR and same fWAR as Schoop this year

 

You think Villar is a better player than Schoop?

I think they are similar, they get their value differently but are close. Especially if the comp is going to be Villar the 2B vs Schoop the SS.

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

 

You think Villar is a better player than Schoop?

I think they are similar, they get their value differently but are close. Especially if the comp is going to be Villar the 2B vs Schoop the SS.

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

[Cubswin11]

 

You think Villar is a better player than Schoop?

I think they are similar, they get their value differently but are close. Especially if the comp is going to be Villar the 2B vs Schoop the SS.

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

I prefer neither, they are both bad for different reasons. They gave up enough for Schoop they should've just gotten Machado or Escobar or a real MIF.

 

 

Villar is also a lot better vs LHP in his career than Schoop if they are going to do some weird platoon thing.

[imb]

I think they are similar, they get their value differently but are close. Especially if the comp is going to be Villar the 2B vs Schoop the SS.

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

[Cubswin11]

Also Schoop has one year of arbitration left and makes $8.5 million this year. Whatever he makes next year ($12-15 million??) isn't nothing for a lower payroll team like the Brewers. That's well over 10% of their payroll on him. Edited July 31, 2018 by Cubswin11

[Cubswin11]

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

It's almost like it's bad for a lot of reasons

[imb]

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

It's almost like it's bad for a lot of reasons

 

Or maybe, and I recognize this is hard to understand when you're still basking in that new middle-reliever glow, but maybe they just wanted to improve their team and it doesn't actually matter how efficiently they did it.

[Cubswin11]

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

It's almost like it's bad for a lot of reasons

 

Or maybe, and I recognize this is hard to understand when you're still basking in that new middle-reliever glow, but maybe they just wanted to improve their team and it doesn't actually matter how efficiently they did it.

I think I've made this clear, I really don't think they made their team any better

[imb]

It's almost like it's bad for a lot of reasons

 

Or maybe, and I recognize this is hard to understand when you're still basking in that new middle-reliever glow, but maybe they just wanted to improve their team and it doesn't actually matter how efficiently they did it.

I think I've made this clear, I really don't think they made their team any better

 

unfortunately you are wrong, but like i said luckily we have a 100 million or so head start on them so it's probably fine

[Aaron_Kennelly]

 

which IF do you prefer? Shaw/Arcia/VillarPerez or Moustakas/SchoopArcia/Shaw? Now put yourself in the mindset of a GM who knows the first one isn't good enough to win the division.

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

 

It's bad because it's bad.

[imb]

 

The one with Manny Machado in it.

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

 

It's bad because it's bad.

 

hell yeah the kind of in-depth horsefeathers i like

[Aaron_Kennelly]

 

this type of analysis is sooooooo bad. Whether or not they got Machado has 0 bearing on whether they improved or not, and people keep shifting back and forth between "actually it's bad because their defense got worse actually it's bad because it wasn't the most efficient use of their resources actually it's bad because ummmmmmmmm."

 

It's bad because it's bad.

 

hell yeah the kind of in-depth horsefeathers i like

 

I already gave the in-depth of why it's bad. They went from the 2015 Royals to the 2017 Cardinals.

[jersey cubs fan]

this argument is more boring than the cubs trades

[David]

lol the only time imb posts anything remotely serious in baseball discussions is when he wants to doom boner troll all over the place

[David]

if this were the cardinals you'd already have schoop MSPainted driving around with a case of bud by his side

[imb]

if this were the cardinals you'd already have schoop MSPainted driving around with a case of bud by his side

 

as much as i'd like for brewers players to start dying in car crashes it just hasn't happened yet.

[imb]

 

It's bad because it's bad.

 

hell yeah the kind of in-depth horsefeathers i like

 

I already gave the in-depth of why it's bad. They went from the 2015 Royals to the 2017 Cardinals.

 

this is so bleacher nationy that im surprised that goober hasn't posted it as a headline yet

[Transmogrified Tiger]

"They potentially got worse defensively at 2 IF spots" does not equal "they got worse as a team."

 

Villar: .304 wOBA this year, .313 career

Schoop: .306 wOBA this year, .320 career

 

Trading for Villar for Schoop and moving him to SS is an objective downgrade, not just inefficient.

 

Moustakas can hit better than the Brewers 2B, but Shaw is also high risk for being worse than expected at 2B, they gave up a nontrivial trade asset to make that happen, and there's also not a huge difference in Moustakas's bat and what you'd expect from an amalgamation of existing 2B options(never mind other trade targets).

 

This isn't reflexive hating of a rival here, I'm the guy who was high on the Gerrit Cole deal, for example. That also illustrates that I might be very wrong, it's happened many times. But to me, trading for not good players so you can make your team's one elite strength actively worse is just dumb.

[Cubswin11]

"They potentially got worse defensively at 2 IF spots" does not equal "they got worse as a team."

 

Villar: .304 wOBA this year, .313 career

Schoop: .306 wOBA this year, .320 career

 

Trading for Villar for Schoop and moving him to SS is an objective downgrade, not just inefficient.

 

Moustakas can hit better than the Brewers 2B, but Shaw is also high risk for being worse than expected at 2B, they gave up a nontrivial trade asset to make that happen, and there's also not a huge difference in Moustakas's bat and what you'd expect from an amalgamation of existing 2B options(never mind other trade targets).

 

This isn't reflexive hating of a rival here, I'm the guy who was high on the Gerrit Cole deal, for example. That also illustrates that I might be very wrong, it's happened many times. But to me, trading for not good players so you can make your team's one elite strength actively worse is just dumb.

What TT said

[bcl412]

I feel like the Brewers moves is something I would have done in MLB the show or something. I don’t know what any of that means aside from I’m bored at work and I decided to write some words

[Aaron_Kennelly]

 

hell yeah the kind of in-depth horsefeathers i like

 

I already gave the in-depth of why it's bad. They went from the 2015 Royals to the 2017 Cardinals.

 

this is so bleacher nationy that im surprised that goober hasn't posted it as a headline yet

 

I've got the article already written if Brett would like to post it.

 

"They went from the 2015 Royals to the 2017 Cardinals" - by Duke Silver.

 

[jersey cubs fan]

I've got the article already written if Brett would like to post it.

 

I thought we included non-compete language in your contract.

[ConstableRabbit]

"They potentially got worse defensively at 2 IF spots" does not equal "they got worse as a team."

 

Villar: .304 wOBA this year, .313 career

Schoop: .306 wOBA this year, .320 career

 

Trading for Villar for Schoop and moving him to SS is an objective downgrade, not just inefficient.

 

Moustakas can hit better than the Brewers 2B, but Shaw is also high risk for being worse than expected at 2B, they gave up a nontrivial trade asset to make that happen, and there's also not a huge difference in Moustakas's bat and what you'd expect from an amalgamation of existing 2B options(never mind other trade targets).

 

This isn't reflexive hating of a rival here, I'm the guy who was high on the Gerrit Cole deal, for example. That also illustrates that I might be very wrong, it's happened many times. But to me, trading for not good players so you can make your team's one elite strength actively worse is just dumb.

And, IF defense downgrades aren't insignificant for a team like Milwaukee. Their starters are in the bottom half of MLB in K% and they have the 8th worse hard contact rate. They need to convert balls in play into outs to keep this up.

[imb]

"They potentially got worse defensively at 2 IF spots" does not equal "they got worse as a team."

 

Villar: .304 wOBA this year, .313 career

Schoop: .306 wOBA this year, .320 career

 

Trading for Villar for Schoop and moving him to SS is an objective downgrade, not just inefficient.

 

Moustakas can hit better than the Brewers 2B, but Shaw is also high risk for being worse than expected at 2B, they gave up a nontrivial trade asset to make that happen, and there's also not a huge difference in Moustakas's bat and what you'd expect from an amalgamation of existing 2B options(never mind other trade targets).

 

This isn't reflexive hating of a rival here, I'm the guy who was high on the Gerrit Cole deal, for example. That also illustrates that I might be very wrong, it's happened many times. But to me, trading for not good players so you can make your team's one elite strength actively worse is just dumb.

And, IF defense downgrades aren't insignificant for a team like Milwaukee. Their starters are in the bottom half of MLB in K% and they have the 8th worse hard contact rate. They need to convert balls in play into outs to keep this up.

 

We should trade them kintzler

[ConstableRabbit]

 

Villar: .304 wOBA this year, .313 career

Schoop: .306 wOBA this year, .320 career

 

Trading for Villar for Schoop and moving him to SS is an objective downgrade, not just inefficient.

 

Moustakas can hit better than the Brewers 2B, but Shaw is also high risk for being worse than expected at 2B, they gave up a nontrivial trade asset to make that happen, and there's also not a huge difference in Moustakas's bat and what you'd expect from an amalgamation of existing 2B options(never mind other trade targets).

 

This isn't reflexive hating of a rival here, I'm the guy who was high on the Gerrit Cole deal, for example. That also illustrates that I might be very wrong, it's happened many times. But to me, trading for not good players so you can make your team's one elite strength actively worse is just dumb.

And, IF defense downgrades aren't insignificant for a team like Milwaukee. Their starters are in the bottom half of MLB in K% and they have the 8th worse hard contact rate. They need to convert balls in play into outs to keep this up.

 

We should trade them kintzler

I, too, am looking forward to your Front Page article complaining about our 6th best reliever.