Mason Miller

[JoeyWiemerTruther]

If that is the cost for Miller I agree, no. Like I said Padres will need to be blown away by an offer though. If you can do that deal with those 5 except swap Pena for Jeferson Quero I’d do it. I’d prefer not to include Adamczewski or Fischer either but recognize it would likely be worth it to do so for Miller. Fischer I think is peaking as a prospect with his insane numbers but the Ks are very concerning long term. Would rather deal him than Adamczewski.

[umphrey]

That's a crazy package and I would be a no as well but it feels a lot more doable when you remember he is a FA in 2030 and we could have him for 2-3 years and get 50%-75% of that back when we trade him again. So I'm not that far from a yes but I just don't like trading safe infield prospects for a RP who could lose 2 years to injury at any moment. 

[baseball101]

2 hours ago, wallus said:

Hard F no, too much.

I’m to the point I don’t want to make any trades. I love our philosophy and watching meaningful baseball every year is fantastic. Trading for Mason Miller who will pitch 2-3 times per week just doesn’t move the needle against the Dodgers.

[wallus]

3 minutes ago, baseball101 said:

I’m to the point I don’t want to make any trades. I love our philosophy and watching meaningful baseball every year is fantastic. Trading for Mason Miller who will pitch 2-3 times per week just doesn’t move the needle against the Dodgers.

Miller is great, don't get me wrong. I just see some of the packages suggested and would use those resources on someone else. I actually don't hate our bullpen as it is now.

[TURBO]

3 hours ago, JoeyWiemerTruther said:

Would you do this?

 

 

That is beyond Gross, that is crazy, absolutely batsh*t crazy,

I'm laughing on the phone right in the Padres face if that is what they want from us,

I'm fine with Jett, Crow and Koenig, replace Letson with Gasser, but I am a solid NO WAY if that deal must include Pena.

Don't forget, we are on the hook for that Miller salary the next three seasons too.  Way to much to pay for a closer, we do fine in house with our closers.  I just can't see giving up Pena in a deal for a relief pitcher, then on top of that, paying his contract for that long.

I'm a NO on this deal, straight up no frickin' way!

[MilwaukeeBeers]

Is the delta between Miller and a good but not elite reliever enough to justify giving up a 55 OFP prosect with room to grow? I am not a fan of that idea though I love his game. 

[TURBO]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

LOL no.  A reliever even one as good as Miller is not worth trading that many prospects.

Not THOSE prospects (Pena).

Pena needs to be off the table for any relief pitcher.  Once they ask for him, conversation over if that is what they require to get a deal done.

[Klantz27]

Frelick ashby quero dinges take it or leave it lmao 

[brewmann04]

Take Peña off the  list we don’t have the best track record with relievers 

[rickh150]

I'm more with the thinking of Only Pena,, Henderson, and Williams

For the best reliever in baseball? 

And he has three more years of control?

I do that because of this year to help our pen.

I do that because Henderson is usually hurt after a 4 game stretch.

I do this because of the ridiculous talent glut we have in our infield already.  

And we could trade Miller in a year or two anyways...ha.  Would be a great trade...like getting Fingers.

[narwhalattack]

1 hour ago, rickh150 said:

I'm more with the thinking of Only Pena,, Henderson, and Williams

For the best reliever in baseball? 

And he has three more years of control?

I do that because of this year to help our pen.

I do that because Henderson is usually hurt after a 4 game stretch.

I do this because of the ridiculous talent glut we have in our infield already.  

And we could trade Miller in a year or two anyways...ha.  Would be a great trade...like getting Fingers.

One thing to be wary of is that relievers in general are a very fickle bunch- they are unhittable one season and may be washed the next. Hell, we’ve seen first-hand how volatile relievers can be seeing how we’ve had a long list of relievers who fell apart suddenly after having dominant seasons (Axford, Knebel, Thornburg, Jim Henderson, Hoffman, Turnbow, Williams, Payamps). I’m not saying we shouldn’t trade for relievers at all, but we should be very careful about overpaying for them.

Letting go of Jett Williams makes sense- he hasn’t exactly dominated in AAA and I’m not sure where he belongs on the major league team considering we have more talent set to come up in the near future. Peña I’m more reluctant on given that he is one of our best prospects. Henderson I’m on the fence about- he has been getting hurt pretty often, but is also a quality starter when he’s healthy. I can see why our FO may be hesitant in dealing him, but I can also see our FO wanting to sell high on him too. That being said- if Henderson’s gone, who’s stepping up in the rotation?

[BrewerFan]

On 7/24/2026 at 1:58 AM, narwhalattack said:

One thing to be wary of is that relievers in general are a very fickle bunch- they are unhittable one season and may be washed the next. Hell, we’ve seen first-hand how volatile relievers can be seeing how we’ve had a long list of relievers who fell apart suddenly after having dominant seasons (Axford, Knebel, Thornburg, Jim Henderson, Hoffman, Turnbow, Williams, Payamps). I’m not saying we shouldn’t trade for relievers at all, but we should be very careful about overpaying for them.

Letting go of Jett Williams makes sense- he hasn’t exactly dominated in AAA and I’m not sure where he belongs on the major league team considering we have more talent set to come up in the near future. Peña I’m more reluctant on given that he is one of our best prospects. Henderson I’m on the fence about- he has been getting hurt pretty often, but is also a quality starter when he’s healthy. I can see why our FO may be hesitant in dealing him, but I can also see our FO wanting to sell high on him too. That being said- if Henderson’s gone, who’s stepping up in the rotation?

That's a cliche, but I don't think that's true. 

Closers like Miller don't really have that type of volatility. He's a GREAT reliever. He's got more work to do before you put him in that class of greats, but injury is the risk there, not relieversr being volatile. 

And look at the names of the guys you listed. None of those guys even approach Mason Miller. The one who does is Hader(I'd say Miller is more dominant) and you left him off. But Turnbow, Payamps, Jim Henderson? These are guys you can't trust. Knebel I liked, if he stays healthy, I think the Brewers had something there, but whatever. Not a Mason Miller type.

 

I'm not trading Pena because I think Pena could be a guy who gets MVP votes at 2B, who hits .300+, steals 50 bases and transitions as seamlessly as possible from Turang to the next star, NOT because I'm worried about Miller being volatile. 

[narwhalattack]

19 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

That's a cliche, but I don't think that's true. 

Closers like Miller don't really have that type of volatility. He's a GREAT reliever. He's got more work to do before you put him in that class of greats, but injury is the risk there, not relieversr being volatile. 

And look at the names of the guys you listed. None of those guys even approach Mason Miller. The one who does is Hader(I'd say Miller is more dominant) and you left him off. But Turnbow, Payamps, Jim Henderson? These are guys you can't trust. Knebel I liked, if he stays healthy, I think the Brewers had something there, but whatever. Not a Mason Miller type.

 

I'm not trading Pena because I think Pena could be a guy who gets MVP votes at 2B, who hits .300+, steals 50 bases and transitions as seamlessly as possible from Turang to the next star, NOT because I'm worried about Miller being volatile. 

The history of baseball is littered with guys who people thought were going to be great but didn't pan out for one reason or another. Unless you have perfect clairvoyance (if you do, I'm not sure why you're not out there making a ton of profit with it), you can never be 100% certain how a player's career will pan out. It's easy to say that we shouldn't have trusted guys like Turnbow, Henderson, etc. because we have the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I'm sure there were plenty of people back then who at least wouldn't have guessed that things would fall apart so suddenly for them.

That being said, I'm not saying that we should only offer a bag of balls for the guy- the Padres have the right to expect at least a solid return for him. But I think it is unwise to just readily hand someone like Pena for him. 

[BrewerFan]

23 minutes ago, narwhalattack said:

The history of baseball is littered with guys who people thought were going to be great but didn't pan out for one reason or another. Unless you have perfect clairvoyance (if you do, I'm not sure why you're not out there making a ton of profit with it), you can never be 100% certain how a player's career will pan out. It's easy to say that we shouldn't have trusted guys like Turnbow, Henderson, etc. because we have the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I'm sure there were plenty of people back then who at least wouldn't have guessed that things would fall apart so suddenly for them.

That being said, I'm not saying that we should only offer a bag of balls for the guy- the Padres have the right to expect at least a solid return for him. But I think it is unwise to just readily hand someone like Pena for him. 

Yeah, I never said I had "perfect clairvoyance," or was "100% certain how a players career will pan out," I stated the elite relievers, NOT Jim Henderson, a 29-year-old rookie(who threw 95, not 105) I believe we got from Indy Ball or Turnbow who was DFA'ed because he was walking over 5 per 9 in AAA and had an ERA over 5, or Axelrod or Payamps(really? Payamps?)... but ELITE relievers, they really not a fickle bunch. They're generally dominant year in and year out. 

I didn't have a strong opinion of any of them... other than Knebel. I thought he'd continue to have success and I believe he would have if not fore the shoulder surgery. 
But yeah, Jim Henderson or Joel Payamps, Turnbow, NONE of them were surprising when they flamed out(did any of them even make it to the league at the age Miller is now?).

Trevor Hoffman had 600 saves and was 42-years-old and at the end of a dominant career as one of the greatest and most consistent closers of all-time.

I notice you left out Hader(again). That's the guy I'd put into a conversation with Miller, a guy with an 80 grade Fastball and a 70 grade slider and a 4 pitch mix... that he doesn't even need. 

But, once again, I THOUGHT this is the conversation we were having;
 

On 7/24/2026 at 1:58 AM, narwhalattack said:

One thing to be wary of is that relievers in general are a very fickle bunch- they are unhittable one season and may be washed the next.

 

NOW it's you have to be 100% sure how a players career will turn out and you're saying these castaway closers we had who had a great year or two for us(save for Williams)... you didn't know any better how they would do moving forward from when they were pitching well than you do with... MASON MILLER?

If that's the argument, what the point of any of these conversations?

If you're looking for 100% certainty, you're not going to find it in Baseball. I am 100% certain Mason Miller is a better closer than any of the journeyman you named who the Brewers found in their late 20s or the 42-year-old Trevor Hoffman. 

And I don't even care to trade for Miller. I didn't take a position other than you can't just wave your hand and dismiss it as 'well, relievers are fickle, who knows if he'll be good one year to another.' 

Pretty much everyone. That's why they gave up a top 5 prospect for him last year. Again, injury, that's a huge risk.

I'd put... betting on baseball like Clause as a bigger risk to Miller being effective next year than I would him just being "fickle." 

 

The "Fickle" relievers are the ones who lack command and/or overpowering stuff. 

They're exactly Jim Henderson or Derrick Turnbow types. 

[narwhalattack]

19 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Yeah, I never said I had "perfect clairvoyance," or was "100% certain how a players career will pan out," I stated the elite relievers, NOT Jim Henderson, a 29-year-old rookie(who threw 95, not 105) I believe we got from Indy Ball or Turnbow who was DFA'ed because he was walking over 5 per 9 in AAA and had an ERA over 5, or Axelrod or Payamps(really? Payamps?)... but ELITE relievers, they really not a fickle bunch. They're generally dominant year in and year out. 

I notice you left out Hader(again).

But, once again, I THOUGHT this is the conversation we were having;
 

NOW it's you have to be 100% sure how a players career will turn out and you're saying these castaway closers we had who had a great year or two for us(save for Williams)... you didn't know any better how they would do moving forward from when they were elite than you do with... MASON MILLER?

If that's the argument, what matters? Why keep Made? Trade him for a rental. I mean, you don't know with 100% certainty how his career will go and apparently making informed, educated projections gives way to the cliche that relievers are "are a very fickle bunch- they are unhittable one season and may be washed the next."

 

What I don't get is why you'd even be reluctant to trade Pena? You don't know with 100% clairvoyance how good he'll be, so... throw out his scouting reports and performance and just... I guess wing it?

 

 

And to be perfectly clear, I'm not even advocating trading for Miller. I'm arguing that it's silly and cliche to say pitchers like him are fickle when he's walking 17 per 9 and are good one year and "washed" the next. 

How are you so certain that Miller will maintain his elite performance? By what metric can you be so ardent that he is and will continue to be infallible? It's true that we don't know what we'll get out of anyone, including Pena. But you're the one fired up about how Miller continuing to be elite is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. 

[jay87shot]

I would be all for Miller but wouldnt really deal any big-time upside prospects my offer would be like Jett, Sal, Dinges, and a pitching prospect or two. I think the Pads likely get better upside offers.

[rickh150]

49 minutes ago, narwhalattack said:

How are you so certain that Miller will maintain his elite performance? By what metric can you be so ardent that he is and will continue to be infallible? It's true that we don't know what we'll get out of anyone, including Pena. But you're the one fired up about how Miller continuing to be elite is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. 

Overall, these are the deals to get excited about!  A close down closer? This year!

I wouldn't do the deal if just one of these were true....

- if he wasn't in the top 5 relievers in the game. He might be #1. He could slip and still be top 20.

-Miller only had a year or two left. The 3 years after this one has me sold.

- we weren't loaded at infield talent for the next 8-10 years. Don't trade just to trade, but this is depth at its deepest....maybe deeper here than we have been anywhere at any time! 

- Pena was hitting well at higher levels. That is still a question mark....maybe not a big one but still.  I remember when our can't miss catcher prospect a couple years ago was a top 100 prospect. Then he got hurt and there was slippage....nah, Pena is still a low level prospect with at least some doubt. 

 

[brewmann04]

I guess the brewers could also trade milller before his deal is up

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, narwhalattack said:

How are you so certain that Miller will maintain his elite performance? By what metric can you be so ardent that he is and will continue to be infallible? It's true that we don't know what we'll get out of anyone, including Pena. But you're the one fired up about how Miller continuing to be elite is as certain as the sun rising in the morning. 

No, you're right, his chances of continuing to be dominant are exactly the same as Jim Henderson, the 29 year old indy league pitcher. 

Ya just NEVER know, right! LOL... I'm out...

[Jopal78]

On 7/23/2026 at 8:37 PM, MilwaukeeBeers said:

Is the delta between Miller and a good but not elite reliever enough to justify giving up a 55 OFP prosect with room to grow? I am not a fan of that idea though I love his game. 

Miller has 76 career saves and has blown just 7 save opportunities in his career. In 202 career innings, Miller has allowed 54 earned runs. 

Megill was an All-Star last year and blew 6 saves that season. Even omitting his poor career numbers before Milwaukee, Megill has pitched 167 innings with the Brewers, and has allowed 54 earned runs.

That is the delta you mention and it’s significant. What it’s reasonably worth in a trade, who knows? 
 

It is certainly a strategy to ease the SP’s burden knowing that Ashby,  Uribe, Megill,  and Miller are out in the pen.