gregmag
-
Posts
2,122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by gregmag
-
I don’t hate what the Pirates have done, but it seems a lot closer to making moves for the sake of making moves than it does to making any kind of meaningful statement. Could they be better next year? Sure. I would kind of hope so. Any team that bad should by all rights get at least somewhat better. But at this moment, I can’t see any reason to think the division overall will be better next year.
-
This is very reasonable and well stated. Here’s the counterpoint: We know the FO aren’t idiots. If they aren’t idiots, then we should fairly presume that they have some reason for any given move beyond what an idiot might do. So if someone’s reason for criticizing a move depends on things like surface stats that any idiot could cite, I think it’s fair to ask what else the critic has to say. To put the point another way, I think when you criticize a move, it’s always worth thinking seriously about what the *best* reason is that the team might have made the move. I find that technique, when I remember to do it, ups my critical game. (I think some people in this thread have done that.)
-
Well, you’re not discounting Pena, but then you are. First you literally discount him by saying he’s in the “20 to 70 range” of MLB prospects, which is kind of like saying that the Brewers were one of the top three or so teams in the NL Central last year. Then you say Pena would be a reach for Buxton. Then you say not wanting to trade Pena for Buxton amounts to “prospect hugging,” which BTW is every bit as mature and nuanced as just calling you a Twins homer and being done with it. Buxton’s a walking (on his good days) MASH unit who, at 31, just topped 400 PAs for the first time since he was 23. Players tend to decline, and to get hurt more not less, in their 30s. Anyone who isn’t predicting substantial decline for Buxton next year, and pricing his trade value accordingly, is delusional. That said, he’s a good fit, he’s pretty cheap, and the Brewers have outfield depth to backstop his inevitable two-month injury. I’d offer Adams or Wilken, Hall, Lockridge to fill Buxton’s roster spot, and somebody like Jose Anderson or Griffin Tobias.
-
I want to combine your two excellent points. One great thing about younger players is that they tend to improve, while older players tend to decline. When you’re looking at WAR lost and gained, you also have to think about aging curves for the returning players. The Brewers are much better off for having so many WAR come from guys under age 27, as opposed to a team like the Phillies with a bunch of aging stars.
-
A key minor character in the fifth, final season of Stranger Things, the initial chunk of which dropped today, is named Derek Turnbow. Even with the misspelling, that can’t possibly be a coincidence. It gets better: the character seems to be about nine years old, and the season takes place in 1987. Our Derrick was born in January 1978. I need to know the backstory here. (I went to college with one of the main creative people on ST. It says a lot about what he was like in college that I’m a huge fan of the show, and this is the first time I’ve ever wished I had kept in touch with him.)
-
I think the Brewers likely trade Peralta now, and not at all because of the money. They have Priester, Mis, Patrick, Henderson, and Gasser as very likely rotation guys, with Myers, Ashby, and Hall as possibilities. They’re going to have to rely on that group after 2026. Now they have a veteran anchor for the group. The question is what’s more valuable: 2026 Freddy or the prospects you can get for him plus the development of whichever young guy takes his place. I don’t think that’s a slam dunk, but I bet someone will offer enough to make trading him worth it.
-
Wow. It might be worth acknowledging that this take on Crow is an outlier. Also, the article makes it seem like it’s rare or eccentric to put guys on the 40-man who likely wont help right away, which just isn’t true.
- 8 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- coleman crow
- brandon woodruff
- (and 2 more)
-
Yeah, this argument only holds water if the Brewers would have actually benefited by making challenges they didn’t make. But nothing in the article offers any basis for believing they would have. The cost of an unsuccessful challenge is losing your challenge. If you opt not to challenge a low-leverage, 50-50 call early in the game, you’re opting to preserve the challenge in case you need it for a higher-leverage spot later. Is that a good tradeoff? I don’t know, because the margins in either direction are tiny.
-
If the big issue here is a 40-man crunch, the first outfield move has to be dumping Berroa.
-
Thorough and thoughtful article, but what’s the evidence that Durbin will likely continue to burn out? Why shouldn’t we instead assume that he just hit a rookie wall?
- 10 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- caleb durbin
- enrique hernandez
- (and 6 more)
-
Misc. Offseason Updates - AFL, Winter Leagues
gregmag replied to Spencer Michaelis's topic in Brewers Minor League Talk
When I looked at the Brewers’ roster and needs, my best thought was “package some pitching for a MLB-ready lf prospect with power.” Right now Josh looks like he could be only a year away from fitting that bill. -
Lathund, just to clarify: Thomas, like Miller and Montgomery, is on the 60-day DL. Would Thomas take one of those open spots when he’s activated, or is he already taking up one of the 40 slots? Same question for Mitchell. I think your whole rundown makes good sense. I would have to think Lockridge makes Berroa expendable even by the reasoning that caused the Brewers to pick up Berroa.
-
What is your basis for all this insinuation?
-
Gasser is still shaking off rust. If we look past recency bias, he’s pretty clearly a better pitcher than Hall at this stage in both guys’ development. I’m sure the Brewers have been carefully watching Gasser in throwing sessions. Their roster decisions have worked out so far, which doesn’t mean this one will, but I’m inclined to think they’re doing it based on meaningful information that they trust.
-
I was thinking about this too with Miz. In a small but important way, that was a player development moment. People often say player development goes out the window in high-leverage games, most obviously the playoffs. But a team like the Brewers always has to be thinking about what’s next. I’m not saying you put Miz in there if you don’t believe it’s a viable strategy for winning the game. But when Murphy put him in, I’m sure part of the calculation was the benefit of testing him in a tough situation and increasing his confidence. If that sounds rash, remember that player development isn’t just about the medium- or long-range future. It’s also about the short-range future. When you have a lot of young players, you’re watching them develop in real time. If Miz is just a little bit better-developed player in, say, game two of the LCS than he was the day before yesterday, that could be huge very quickly.
-
Please don’t say people are “just guessing” when you don’t understand or (much more likely) simply refuse to credit the perfectly valid information they’re referring to. It’s incredibly condescending. Two years of age is massively important in projecting young players’ value. This isn’t new information or especially hard to demonstrate. I remember Bill James wrote something about it in his 1987 Baseball Abstract. IIRC he both did a study of rookies by age and explained the importance of aging curves — basically, a 21 year old has more time to improve before physical decline starts to set in than a 23 year old does and thus is likely to have a higher peak. Before you ask — no, I haven’t run the studies myself. Do you really refuse to believe anyone who claims expertise or labor beyond your own? Like, for example, people who develop formulas to improve over the analytic and predictive value of counting stats?
-
I’m sure Hoskins is unhappy. You expect that from a competitor. But I’d be unhappy if Murphy was putting veteran respect over optimizing the roster.
-
The premise of this article is circular. The regular season is the regular season. The playoffs are the playoffs. The World Series is the World Series. All true. The rest is down to preferences, not the immutable truths the author is imagining. Would I trade one World Series win for turning five to ten years of contention into five to ten years of being the Pirates? No. I’d rather spend more days happy about the team I’m watching. If you want that tradeoff — as if there are any guarantees — I’m sure we could have shipped out Made, Pena, and Miz for the deadline guys the Padres and Mariners got. The argument that the playoffs are little or no more meaningfully random than the regular season is utterly unconvincing. N = 5 or N = 3 vs. N = 162. It’s pretty straightforward. If the Brewers wash out in the playoffs again, people will keep saying the same refrain they’ve been saying. It’s too bad, but that’s people for you. If the Brewers make the World Series, at least some of those people will credit the team/org for “finally figuring out how to win.” You can, of course, choose to take that reasoning seriously if you want. I’ve had some great baseball summers lately. I’m looking forward to more.
-
Keep Your Playoff Tickets Off Secondary Markets!
gregmag replied to rickh150's topic in Milwaukee Brewers Talk
You don’t have to berate other posters repeatedly. The only thing you seem to care about is what you have the right to do, and saying “silly post” repeatedly is another thing you sure have a right to do. You could also make the choice to try to participate in a friendly way in a community – you’ll probably think it’s silly of me to presume on your almighty autonomy by making that suggestion. -
I was just about to post this. Tears, plus laughter out loud for the “expensive TVs” line.
-
Gantner had 4.3 bWAR in his career year, 1983. He never had another season above 2.6 bWAR, and he only topped 2 bWAR four other times. Fernando Vina wasn’t even a poor man’s Jim Gantner, with a top Brewers bWAR of 3.1 and nothing else over 1.7. Peaked at 3.2 with St. Louis in 2000. Ronnie Belliard? Top two Brewers seasons of 3.5 and 2.4. Had his best year with Cleveland at 4.5 in 2005. Weeks, unlike the other three, actually put up two 3-WAR seasons as a Brewer: 3.6 and 3.0. Turang, in just three seasons, already has two — 4.7 last year, 5.5 this year — that beat any season any of those four guys ever put up. He has already clearly eclipsed all of them, unless you want to argue that standing around for 17 years taking up space on mostly bad teams amounts to something other than mediocrity. Molitor had the only Brewers 2b career better than Turang’s, barely — 12.1 bWAR to 11.7, both in three seasons. I don’t know what to do about 1990, when Molitor put up 3.2 bWAR in 103 games, just 60 at 2b. Turang won’t be Paul Molitor, but if he has one or two more good years, he’ll be a greater Brewers 2b than Paul Molitor was. (Shout out to Don Money — 5.1 bWAR in his only year as a primary 2b, 1977.)
-
Looking back at preseason predictions, it really is amazing not only how many prognosticators underrated the Brewers but how many underrated the NL Central. I really can’t see any argument that ours wasn’t the second best division in baseball this year, after the AL East.
-
Jansen eventually held up his end in the opportunities he got — credit to him. But looking at what Haase did before the trade and what Jansen did after, I can’t for the life of me see any meaningful difference in impact.
-
Well, i’m already planning to go to the Friday and Saturday games. Seems like I’ll need to get to Sunday now.
-
That sounds right for our odds against the Phillies. But unlike in the division, other teams are close to the Phillies in the “best record in MLB” race. If the Reds and Cardinals were a game behind the Cubs (like the Tigers and Blue Jays are with the Phillies), our division odds would be lower, because there would be more plausible scenarios in which someone else could catch us. (Of course, best record in the NL matters more than best record in MLB overall, because having a better record than any AL team only matters if we get to the World Series, and then only if the AL team with a better record is the one that gets there.) As I write all that, my 70% does sound very low. So if we are at, say, 93% with the Phillies, and then maybe 96% with the tigers and Blue Jays, and let’s throw in 97% with the Dodgers because Projection systems always love the Dodgers, what does that shake out to overall . . . maybe high 80s?
