Boston still seeking a trade partner

[BrewCrew8675309]

On 1/25/2026 at 1:07 AM, wallus said:

JW Williams is defintely not redundant if he can take the position of Monasterio or possibly Seigler as the utility guy on the roster. Chris Taylor and Ben Zobrist gave their teams a big advantage years ago and Jett may be that guy for the Crew.

And he can play outfield a lot better than Taylor or Zobrist...Garrett Mitchell is far from done deal success.

[Turning2]

13 hours ago, MNBrew said:

I'm not sure how you can assert that they've plateaued with a plan.  They're definitely at a strong high point.  Plateau implies knowns rather than assumptions on what hasn't happened yet.

Baddoo, Lockridge, & Perkins -- I agree, that's enough of those types -- don't need more.  We don't know that Jett's that same kind of player at the MLB level.  Perkins & Lockridge haven't been 17-HR guys.

Avans isnt in the Brewers organization anymore.  To me, Berroa's one of the first guys waived/DFA'd/etc. if we need to open space on the 40-man, which we don't yet.  If we hadn't been in a bind last year, I'm not sure Berroa would've ever made the 40-man.

MIL has done an admirable job countering the economic / competitive stacked deck they face. In lieu of the ability to spend obscene amounts of cash, they've tried to "old school" the margins.  Building with speed, defense, contact hitters, and small ball, they have achieved remarkably, consistent success. But not ultimate success. Moneyball metrics make for a great movie. It doesn't win championships for a small market team without them temporarily playing the $$$ game. 

Having made the playoffs consistently for so long, and making the NLCS a number of times, yet unable to clear that last hurdle - that is a plateau in my book. The "bites at the apple" approach may eventually pay off. Until then, it's a more of a "close but no cigar" approach. - and somewhat intentionally so. That's a "summer of entertainment" business model. It's been profitable for ownership and titillating for perpetually optimistic fans. It's hard to complain about the success. The model has worked for what it is built to do. 

 

[sveumrules]

2 hours ago, Turning2 said:

Having made the playoffs consistently for so long, and making the NLCS a number of times, yet unable to clear that last hurdle - that is a plateau in my book.

The Brewers recent competitive window has essentially been open for seven full seasons now from 2018 thru 2025 with their 677 wins over that stretch 5th in MLB.

Over the first seven seasons of the Dodgers run from 2013 to 2019 their 671 wins were the most in MLB, with a gap of 33 wins between them and CLE in second with 638 wins. They did not win the World Series during these seven seasons.

They finally broke through with a WS win during the weirdified Pandemic season of 2020, but would need three more full seasons (& signing a generational superstar to a barely legal contract) in order to win their first full season World Series in their eleventh try.

It took the most powerful organization in the game, with far more resources and built in advantages than the Brewers will ever dream of having, over a decade to win their first full season World Series. 

In that context it's hard for me to fault the Brewers for not winning one heading into Year Eight, coming off a franchise record in wins, with the best farm system in the game. Plateau? They're still just getting started.

[SeaBass]

1 hour ago, Turning2 said:

Having made the playoffs consistently for so long, and making the NLCS a number of times, yet unable to clear that last hurdle - that is a plateau in my book.

Two NLCS appearances with one of those being a 7 game closely contested series doesn't feel like enough data to claim a plateau to me. Two other playoff appearances fizzled out with cream of the crop All Star closers on the mound that blew late game, potential series clinching leads. So that's 4 playoff appearances, the other 3 included a sub .500 team in the shortened 2020 season that probably wouldn't have been a playoff team in a normal season and two sound first round defeats to teams that went on to appear in the World Series.

I don't necessarily disagree with those that have an opinion that they should spend some money to get over the hump but I'm not actually sure this would be the year to do that.

Also they've never really behaved that way. They've expanded their typical spending limits before and it didn't really pay off quite how they hoped, I think they're just committed to sticking to a plan at this point. There are just so many variables, your MVP candidate might hit a foul ball off his knee late in the season and be lost for the playoffs. Maybe one or two of your best guys goes cold at the plate for 4 or 5 games and you get swept.

It's difficult to predict and account for the small sample even when you throw a bit more money at the wall and hope. The Dodgers aren't just spending on one or two guys, they're buying 10+ of them. They had 13 players on their roster last season making 8 figure salaries, 7 of which were making $20M or more. The Brewers had 3 players with 8 figure salaries, Hoskins didn't make the playoff roster and Chourio made less money than all 13 of the Dodgers guys making 8 figures.

[Turning2]

24 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I don't necessarily disagree with those that have an opinion that they should spend some money to get over the hump but I'm not actually sure this would be the year to do that.

They may or may not even have the money to spend more. The uncertainty over tv revenue and the upcoming lockout also factors in. It's not my view that they need to spend crazy money. My view is that they have an abundance of prospect capital that they could afford to part with to attempt to clear the last hurdle. In the 70's my depression era raised mother, clung tightly to an overly preservative mindset influenced from that upbringing. When my parents finally splurged on new living room furniture, she was the type that would not remove the protective plastic from the end table lamps. That's how I feel the viewers are with their prospect capital. Yes, a small market needs a steady infusion of cheap prospects to not only remain competitive, but more importantly, financially viable. I just have to question at what point don't you question how many new end table lamps do you need in storage with the plastic on when you could trade a couple you might not need for a new TV counsel / entertainment center with a built-in stereo, state of the art record player that you do? 

[nate82]

I don’t believe the Red Sox are going to subtract from their MLB roster and then only get prospects back.  I don’t see the Brewers and Red Sox as good trading partners.  They just don’t lineup with each other even if the Brewers would have traded Peralta to the Red Sox.

The Red Sox didn’t have what the Brewers wanted.  Duran has more value than Peralta and the Brewers wouldn’t have given up a prospect to get that deal done.  The amount of control left in Duran wasn’t enough for the Brewers to do that.

I don’t see anyone on the Red Sox who fall into the criteria the Brewers are looking for to cash in on the prospect capital they have.  I don’t see many teams that have what the Brewers would want.  Look for a Yelich that is possibly available or an Adames.  I just don’t see that player right now that is available in a trade.

[Playing Catch]

On 1/29/2026 at 11:51 AM, Turning2 said:

My view is that they have an abundance of prospect capital that they could afford to part with to attempt to clear the last hurdle.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable opinion. However, the Brewers have undeniably become the "IT" team in all of baseball. I think that says an awful lot about how they are running things. So, it's just hard to get too upset about anything they are doing, even if I would do something differently.

I think when the organization decided to become the scouting and development standard for the league, (which was a long time ago now), the plan was always to start from the ground up, and build up the floor of talent at every level, every season, finally seeing it pay off with a team record win total last season. But with that, I think they've done an incredible job of building up a culture of winning. I think they plan to have the best team in October, not the best team on February 1st.

If they hold onto their prospects now, they'll have so much more scouting on their guys come the trade deadline. Keep them all now. Trade at the deadline if necessary.

 

[gregmag]

People say the same thing over and over: The Brewers have a regular season strategy. They need to spend more / trade prospects to win in the postseason . (The fact that the Brewers won a big playoff series last year, then lost in the NLCS to the one team neither they nor anyone else can outspend, seems to have made no dent in this claim.)

But can anyone present any evidence to support the relentless, numbingly repeated narrative that spending big and/or trading prospects will win the Brewers a World Series?

Have other small market teams won the World Series that way? Small-market teams don’t really win the World Series, which maybe should tell us something, but — well, the Royals did.  Did they win by spending and trading prospects?

When the Brewers have spent some money (Rhys Hoskins, Lorenzo Cain), has that had the desired effect?

When the Brewers have traded big prospects (e.g., for Zach Greinke), has that worked?  (Well, it worked for the Royals, but that’s the exact opposite of the relentless narrative, so never mind.)

Last year, the Brewers actually traded a bunch of prospects. Did those deals help them win the World Series? The Priester deal may yet help to get us there, but he was an unproven young guy himself.  Did Danny Jansen move the needle? Shelby Miller? Brandon Lockridge? And how are we feeling these days about the Reese Olsen deal?

Ah, but what about the deadline deals the Brewers didn’t make?  Certainly three of our top prospects could have netted Eugenio Suarez. Did his heroics win the World Series for the Mariners?

What about spending? If the Brewers had ponied up for guys they traded, would they have more likely won the World Series? Is there a good argument that Corbin Burnes was the missing piece last October? Josh Hader? Devin Williams? I can see a case for Adames, given how badly Ortiz cratered for us, even though Adames didn’t even help his own team reach the playoffs. But it had better be a damn good case, because having Adames in 2025 means he’s breaking your bank for four more years at the position where you have your most and best prospects.

Or is there someone else out there whom the Brewers could have signed to a big free agent contract who would have put them over the line?  I’ll give you Ohtani and Sosa, who of course would both be here if Mark A. weren’t such a cheapskate. But seriously, who?

I understand that it’s impossible to prove a hypothetical, but you should at least be able to support it. Is there any concrete information at all that gives the spend / trade prospects narrative any substance?

[wntrtxn21]

5 hours ago, gregmag said:

People say the same thing over and over: The Brewers have a regular season strategy. They need to spend more / trade prospects to win in the postseason . (The fact that the Brewers won a big playoff series last year, then lost in the NLCS to the one team neither they nor anyone else can outspend, seems to have made no dent in this claim.)

But can anyone present any evidence to support the relentless, numbingly repeated narrative that spending big and/or trading prospects will win the Brewers a World Series?

Have other small market teams won the World Series that way? Small-market teams don’t really win the World Series, which maybe should tell us something, but — well, the Royals did.  Did they win by spending and trading prospects?

When the Brewers have spent some money (Rhys Hoskins, Lorenzo Cain), has that had the desired effect?

When the Brewers have traded big prospects (e.g., for Zach Greinke), has that worked?  (Well, it worked for the Royals, but that’s the exact opposite of the relentless narrative, so never mind.)

Last year, the Brewers actually traded a bunch of prospects. Did those deals help them win the World Series? The Priester deal may yet help to get us there, but he was an unproven young guy himself.  Did Danny Jansen move the needle? Shelby Miller? Brandon Lockridge? And how are we feeling these days about the Reese Olsen deal?

Ah, but what about the deadline deals the Brewers didn’t make?  Certainly three of our top prospects could have netted Eugenio Suarez. Did his heroics win the World Series for the Mariners?

What about spending? If the Brewers had ponied up for guys they traded, would they have more likely won the World Series? Is there a good argument that Corbin Burnes was the missing piece last October? Josh Hader? Devin Williams? I can see a case for Adames, given how badly Ortiz cratered for us, even though Adames didn’t even help his own team reach the playoffs. But it had better be a damn good case, because having Adames in 2025 means he’s breaking your bank for four more years at the position where you have your most and best prospects.

Or is there someone else out there whom the Brewers could have signed to a big free agent contract who would have put them over the line?  I’ll give you Ohtani and Sosa, who of course would both be here if Mark A. weren’t such a cheapskate. But seriously, who?

I understand that it’s impossible to prove a hypothetical, but you should at least be able to support it. Is there any concrete information at all that gives the spend / trade prospects narrative any substance?

KC increased their payroll by over $40M in 2015 to win the W.S... I have no idea what that would be in today's dollars, but they definitely spent some big time money (for those times). 

[mudbutt]

9 minutes ago, wntrtxn21 said:

KC increased their payroll by over $40M in 2015 to win the W.S... I have no idea what that would be in today's dollars, but they definitely spent some big time money (for those times). 

Not really they just had homegrown talent that progressed to arbitration so they went from rock bottom payrolls to a normal small market competitive payroll similar to the Brewers when they won in 2015. And their big free agent signing Gil Meche did not turn out well for them.

[Jopal78]

21 hours ago, gregmag said:

People say the same thing over and over: The Brewers have a regular season strategy. They need to spend more / trade prospects to win in the postseason . (The fact that the Brewers won a big playoff series last year, then lost in the NLCS to the one team neither they nor anyone else can outspend, seems to have made no dent in this claim.)

But can anyone present any evidence to support the relentless, numbingly repeated narrative that spending big and/or trading prospects will win the Brewers a World Series?

Have other small market teams won the World Series that way? Small-market teams don’t really win the World Series, which maybe should tell us something, but — well, the Royals did.  Did they win by spending and trading prospects?

When the Brewers have spent some money (Rhys Hoskins, Lorenzo Cain), has that had the desired effect?

When the Brewers have traded big prospects (e.g., for Zach Greinke), has that worked?  (Well, it worked for the Royals, but that’s the exact opposite of the relentless narrative, so never mind.)

Last year, the Brewers actually traded a bunch of prospects. Did those deals help them win the World Series? The Priester deal may yet help to get us there, but he was an unproven young guy himself.  Did Danny Jansen move the needle? Shelby Miller? Brandon Lockridge? And how are we feeling these days about the Reese Olsen deal?

Ah, but what about the deadline deals the Brewers didn’t make?  Certainly three of our top prospects could have netted Eugenio Suarez. Did his heroics win the World Series for the Mariners?

What about spending? If the Brewers had ponied up for guys they traded, would they have more likely won the World Series? Is there a good argument that Corbin Burnes was the missing piece last October? Josh Hader? Devin Williams? I can see a case for Adames, given how badly Ortiz cratered for us, even though Adames didn’t even help his own team reach the playoffs. But it had better be a damn good case, because having Adames in 2025 means he’s breaking your bank for four more years at the position where you have your most and best prospects.

Or is there someone else out there whom the Brewers could have signed to a big free agent contract who would have put them over the line?  I’ll give you Ohtani and Sosa, who of course would both be here if Mark A. weren’t such a cheapskate. But seriously, who?

I understand that it’s impossible to prove a hypothetical, but you should at least be able to support it. Is there any concrete information at all that gives the spend / trade prospects narrative any substance?

They play for money. So as a general concept if a team wants to add talent they have to pay for it with cash, or the future potential from minor league players. 
 

With 162 games season and 7 game playoff series it is rare for a team to make the World Series and win as a fluke. Most often it’s the team with the most talent/depth. 
 

Being in the worst market, the Brewers are a bit more conservative than most because the value  of being competitive year in and year out is more than “going for broke” to win it all then spending several seasons as a second division team rebuilding.
 

They just  had the best record in baseball last season yet it was not even one of the 10 best seasons attendance wise. If fan interest is stagnant/warning when they’re a top team in the league, imagine what would happen if there was sustained losing for several years? 

[cragi]

i dont think its fair to say they plateaued, either. frustrating they cant get over the big market hump in the playoffs, but I dont think they've ever been in the position of having both the best record in the leage AND the undisputed #1 minor league system at the same time. That is very rare territory for any team. The major league talent is improving while at the same time, the minor talent is improving. If they cash their chips in now, a lot can go wrong and they sacrifice their future for one swing at this. On the current path, they will get a lot more kicks at the can. When they feel confident they are on par with the dodgers halfway through the season and healthy, then may want to take a bigger shot. But they are in position to win for many years right now.