liveforoctober

I wasn't trying to be smart with my question, it's a legitimate thinking exercise. None of us know anything but there are some decent assumptions to work off of IMHO. The teams looking to acquire Peralta were already limited, right? Very unlikely a rebuilding team is going to trade for one year of Peralta. They are looking to offload their own vets for youth. So the teams we are trying to trade with are teams hoping to contend in 2026. Of those teams, the only way you are going to pry away a starting caliber player from them is if they have a MLB ready player to backfill that spot because why would a contending team purposely create a hole? (I assume there is a bit more flexibility in that 2nd part because the big spending teams can buy a replacement if one is created, etc - but the premise is still pretty solid IMO.) So the question remains, if we wanted a starting caliber player at a position of need (I'm assuming we are talking CF, SS, SP?, 3B?) ... which contending team had a guy available to us that 1) was an obvious upgrade to our current situation and worth losing Peralta over and/or 2) had a capable fill in on their own roster to make our target expandable? I say this all to more or less say "I wish we had gotten a plug n play guy at a position of need" is a good thought but looking at the landscape of our trade market ... I think the options available to us that fit that formula were vastly limited? Maybe even non-existent? Which is why I asked, if there are guys out there that this board hasn't collectively identified (of which there were few) ... I'd be interested to hear it to consider. In my mind, which is often very wrong, we were trading Peralta and getting some kind of prospect haul back in return - because those were the assets that were available to us for him.

What was the position of need you were hoping for and who was the player you were targeting that is obviously better than the guy we currently have in place & therefore worthy of losing Peralta?

I just have two thoughts on this. I'm partially agreeing with you... 1) It has been mentioned multiple times by others and it would not surprise me if the Brewers move fully into a super piggybacked rotation. It worked so well with Priester last year and every one of our current starters has a hint of a reason to be 'protected' (injury past, moderate workload limits, etc). So if Arnold announced he wanted a pool of 8-10 guys on the MLB roster who can start games and go multiple innings it wouldn't shock me at all. Trading assets to get a 4th lefty in the pen (Hall, Ashby, Zerpa, Koenig) probably isn't a coincidence either. We have great piggyback pen options right now. 2) Last year I wasn't overly concerned with pitching depth to start the year with Freddy, Cortes, Civale, Quintana, etc ... and we had to call up Elvin Rodriguez to spot start our 4th game of the season. Tyler Alexander started our 8th game of the year. We had to trade considerable assets for Quinn Priester (thankful we did!) by the 2nd week of April in part because we needed a starter. All that to say the season comes at you fast. The more starters the merrier. We have so many young guys, another vet voice in their ear all season long might be a great thing. Heck, sign Quintana and put him on the 60day DL immediately just so he can be in the dugout with us. Activate him if you need him.

So if we are using/believe in BTV's current numbers, Duran is worth approx. 41.9 and Peralta is 26. The closest 1 person add on to the deal to balance it is Luis Pena (15.1). So Peralta and Pena for Duran. If you want to puzzle together a set.. it would look something like Peralta (26), Fischer (9.1) and Payne (5.9) Or Peralta (26), Dinges (7.3), Burke (3.5), and Meccage (4.2). Those are the waters you would be swimming in to get Duran.

*edited* I don't need to pile on. Welcome back man.

How many balls do these great giant shortstops dive and get to with their amazing reach that our physically impaired guys corral routinely because their quickness/agility got them to the spot on time? Ozzie didn't seem to mind being under 6 feet. Vizquel didn't seem to care. Didn't bother Luis Aparicio much. Jimmy Rollins never could get over it, etc etc

Just seems a fool's errand to get upset over a hypothetical. If the Red Sox confirm they offered us "X proven bat player" for Peralta and we turned it down ... Now you have substance to stew over. I'll take back my stance if someone is just wishing we could have gotten a MLB proven bat.. but if someone is upset with WHO we got back position wise, without evidence of alternatives it is wasted energy IMO.

Quintana turns 37 on Saturday and with the lockout looming I just can't fathom him getting anything beyond a 1yr deal. He was still worth 1+ WAR for us last year and with our philosophy of not letting our starters see a lineup a 3rd time ... he was good to give us 5+ IP when he threw. I'm very open to exploring other options and if someone wants to throw $8mil at Jose then have at it. But if he can be brought back for that same $4-$5mil range - there are worse options. I know his end is coming ... but if he has 100 innings left in him I'm ok being the recipients of them. There are worse things than all of our young starters spending another year talking to and learning from Jose Quintana.

Which ones were offered to us for Freddy that we turned down for Williams, et?

This is true if Peralta finishes next year top 5 in the Cy Young again and we get no improvement from any of our 32 big league arms under the age of 26. Or... A full season of Patrick, Miz, Henderson, Ashby, Gasser, etc all combine to replace him in the aggregate and we no longer have to give OF at bats to Daz Cameron and Drew Avans, etc and POSSIBLY upgraded Ortiz so our short term is stabilized while our long term is healthier. Both things could be true. Is it really more fun living with the first mindset when you don't know which one is going to be true?

Sproat sits 95-98. Hits 100. Colin Rea might not be the best comp?

Only 40 man rosters are locked if I'm not mistaken. Minor leagues should play.

Watching Devin Williams close games for Freddy Peralta in New York is going to be trippy.

Plenty of people will have a personal connection with Peralta because of his story and tenure. We could have gotten back Skenes and De la Cruz in a 3 team deal for him and some would still be sad. Nature of connecting with a team and its guys over time I think. Trading Contreras will be the same regardless of return. In a few years same with Turang and Sal.

If I was Harrison Bader's agent I would be on the phone with Arnold right now saying "Hey, I heard you have an extra $8 million lying around now?"

Respectfully, if the Brewers were worried about what was best for the Brewers THIS year... we would not be trading Peralta.

17 HRs last year. Forgive me.

He is listed 5'7 175lb and his name is Jett. I can't imagine he hits the ball far. *edit* 17 HRs last year. I apologize.

I interpreted this as we keep him this year, next year gets locked out, then he is a FA going into the 2028 season (his age 32) season ... and with added revenue sharing we could possibly afford to give him a deal then.

He would be looking for a long term commitment. Would we want to sign Freddy Peralta to a 5yr deal into his late 30s?

Does a potential lockout play into this at all? If we get locked out next year and free agency freezes.. Freddy can't sign with anyone so we wouldn't get a draft pick for him until potentially the 2028 draft then? If that return this year can be great and we get guys into our system now vs having to wait two/three full seasons... I dunno, just pondering.

They are revealing it daily. I think tonight will be 41-60 if I'm not mistaken. Turang was #62!

Nice courtesy move by them to put Turang one slot ahead of Freddy so we don't have to say we traded one of our 3 best players this year ;)

Would you have given up Pratt, Ebel, + for Cabrera? Not disagreeing with you, but that's the relative comp.

I had the same read on him. I guess my "let's wait and see' stance now is that him being the head coach and calling shots for the ~youngest of an organization's prospects (caretaker) might vary drastically from taking orders from Murphy? I could be very wrong about that.