NievesNoNO

There would need to be a prospect coming back. The money alone doesn't make sense for a team supposedly trying to win now. You'd just DFA Kemp. Seems like somebody just randomly spewing garbage.

Would anybody do a Santana for Odorizzi and Colome? I don't really like either but just thought I'd toss it out there. Would Tampa do that? I'm still trying to figure out if there's actually a team with a OF need.

Corbin for me.

Yes, in some regards I think many of us are. I think he has the upside of Michael Fulmer or as some have said, Jimmy Nelson.

Yes, you could keep 4 starting OFs but it's just not good roster construction for this group, imo. You can slice up the ABs any way you want really but to me it's still a waste of a resource. If they had no holes in their WS contending roster then sure I'd think it was an ok consideration. However, there are plenty of spots that could be upgraded with a potential Santana trade. I'm not saying trade him for an unfair return but I think the goal still has to be to trade him. There's really no proof Braun can play an adequate 1B. He was terrible at 3B; he's just not good on the IF. At least he can use his speed in the OF. Moving him to 1B, will undoubtedly decrease his defensive value even more.

180-200 IP, 3.5 ERA, K/9 around 9.

Well that sucks. Doesn't really seem like an overpay either. I think the others should fall in line fairly quickly now. Not really sure I want the Brewers in on any of Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb. I never really expected Darvish but the price turned out to be reasonable. He was the only real difference maker, imo.

I wouldn't give up on Darvish just because he'd rather play in another market. It could be at the end of the day they end up with the best offer and he's forced to choose among mid-market offers. If he'd end up choosing Milwaukee, I wouldn't be concerned about a club house issue based on market. Club house issues are usually about personalites and/or losing

So you'd prefer the teams with the most resources to continue to have a significant advantage and end up with all the best players? The "great" teams that get created by a cap/floor are almost always going to be larger market teams due to them having a significant advantage. I do think there could be more done with revenue sharing, but I don't like the idea of forcing teams to spend on somebody. I don't like the NFL or NBA models where the floor is so close to the cap it creates all sorts of ridiculous transactions and paying average players ridiculous amounts of money because they had to spend on somebody. I DO think there's a compromise somewhere. I could see a floor and cap system working with a larger spread between them and some other modifications. I guess my point is restricting things and trying to make things equal doesn't always have the results that people might be looking for. Baseball is just such a different animal with the international players and minor league systems that there's so much to consider.

I used to be a, "we need a salary cap" person. I'm likely in the extreme minority, but I actually like the system as it is. I don't like all the average teams that a cap and floor creates. I think it DOES create a more level playing field but I'd argue that that doesn't necessarily make for a better game. There have been quite a few teams over the years that have essentially tried to compete in that way and done so unsuccessfully. I think you can't just impose a salary cap without a floor and you can't just increase revenue sharing without a salary floor. The mid market and smaller market teams have started to figure out that spending 80-100 million to win a few extra games doesn't make baseball or financial sense, especially when the team down the road just spent 30 million for the same end result. My suggestion would be to start arbitration years a year sooner and for MLB to take a good look at team locations and ownership. The Marlins have been under horrible ownership and haven't drawn an adequate number of fans for years. Why was that allowed to continue? Front offices and owners are starting to realize that 7-8 years mega deals don't typically end well. Why pay for players injured/crappy seasons and not only take up payroll but also a roster spot? I have a strong feeling most GMs and owners would be willing to hand out shorter term deals worth more AAV. To me that seems like a fair compromise. Baseball just isn't the same as other sports with the need for feeder minor league systems and what seem like an increased development period. If you start allowing FA after 4-5 seasons, I think franchises will really start keeping players in the minors longer than necessary. I'm not sure what all the answers are but, it's such a expansive system\game that it will definitely take a multi-tiered approach to come up with something workable for everyone.

Probably what's been holding up the FA market Saw the TR app pop up on my phone and got excited for a second

I won't argue with the game changer part. Verlander was acquired at the deadline and while he was great after the trade, prior to that he wasn't all that good (last year). I think there will be opportunities at the deadline this year as well if the Brewers are in position. Houston also won based on a tremendous lineup and impressive roster depth. The Royals also recently won a WS without what most would consider an ace. I think Salazar or Nelson could be the pitcher that could put together a dominant stretch in that scenario.

Well, he also just posted that according to his source, the team isn't expected to make a big free agent pitching acquisition. That would fall in stark contrast to a bunch of other sources, so we'll see. But if they are looking to firm up the rotation via trade for one or two starters, the farm system is going to take a serious hit. Yeah, no FA signing would be a contrast to about every other report. What if Broxton was traded for Corbin and Santana for Salazar in straight up deals? Would that move the needle for people? Just taking a couple of well discussed proposals already but that would keep the payroll still flexible and keep remaining prospects. Salazar Anderson Corbin Davies Chacin With Nelson returning at some point and Woodfuff in case of an injury or ineffectiveness. If we can't land Darvish, which if we're being honest was/is probably like a 2% chance, then I like Corbin as much as Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb.

I would rather they overpay Darvish with money than overpay for Archer with players. I understand they're interested in both. Obviously it depends on what the cost is for Archer but he does have tremendous value and would assuredly cost a haul. By most accounts the Brewers are intending to pay another FA pitcher either way. When they're locked into Braun, Cain, and whoever that pitcher is it will be a necessity to have internal options to fill roster holes as I would guess the payroll will be up against the wall. The Rays have really no motivation to move Archer. They will expect an overpay to get him at this point, imo. If it's an option, I'd love to explore Salazar for Santana instead even if they end up not getting perceived full value for Santana.

I like Archer quite a bit as well but Woodruff and Burnes would be off the table for me.

I'm not sure about being backed into a corner however I sure do agree that no matter how the Brewers spin it they have an OF roster crunch right now. The 4 starters they have are not platoon players. If they are then you're not maximizing value. They might claim "positive roster flexibility" but I'm of the opinion that the way they are situated right now is less flexible. I'm sure there's quite a few teams that would give solid value for Domingo; they just might need to accept prospects instead of MLB roster guys. I think they still can get even value, but I'd even be inclined to take less than even value if it was a trade to improve the current roster. Sometimes you don't have to "win" the trade and this is a situation that falls under that category for me.

No matter what the Brewers are saying about their OF situation and Braun potentially playing 1B, there really is a roster crunch now in the OF. They have 4 guys that should be playing every day if healthy. Santana could just as easily improve as regress. Also, if we are super concerned about Santana's OF defense then Braun at 1B should be equally concerning. Santana to Cleveland makes soo much sense. It's not necessarily a trade I'd be looking to "win". Obviously you want to get fair value but they also need to use their roster spots as resources to improve. I like position/roster flexibility as much as the next person but it's a waste of resource to have 4 starting outfielders if one of them could get an upgrade somewhere else. I'm not saying that's what's available or offered but I'd be willing to take the slightly shorter end of the deal at this point to improve the team.

I'd agree; at most it's a last resort. If they are really looking to compete then moving a guy who has proven he's an inadequate defender on the left side of the infield to the opposite side where he's never played and expect positive results seems crazy to me. Maaayyyybee if they didn't already have any 1B option but the Thames/Aguilar platoon is pretty solid.

Does anybody know if the 40 man roster transaction of releasing Wang and adding Cain needed to be complete prior to any other transactions being made? Just curious in general if that's the way things work. Well also, I'm a bit impatient as I feel like there must have been a Santana trade worked prior to signing Cain. I also agree that they won't have a problem getting fair value for Santana if that's indeed the way they go

I have to believe Santana is already half way out the door with a couple different options close. So, I don't think there is anything to this report other than speculation that Braun could play 1st. I don't think there's any way they add two starting OFs without the intention of moving a starter.

I also like it for both sides. Yes, the Brewers gave up a lot but they're getting an all-star level player entering his prime with some upside yet on a really good contract for the next 5 seasons. That kind of situation doesn't present itself very often. Who knows, maybe when all is said and done the Marlins end up on the better end. It's a bit like selling your Bitcoin for gold. Five years from now Yelich will still be worth gold. Not sure on the guys they gave away but I think typically the edge goes to the team trading FOR the star player (no I don't have examples to back that up). I'm happy about it and it looks like there are some more dominoes to fall. Looking forward to see what's next.

I agree. Trades are always exciting but the combination of things that is being suggested seem somewhat unlikely. Yelich is great, so I also wouldn't mind if they traded for him, but it's possible Brinson takes off in his first full year and provides as much value. Does anybody have a scouting report Brinson's defense. I've heard it's good but what level of good are we talking? Enough for it to carry enough value by itself if he struggles on offense? I'm not going to fault the decision makers if they try to pull of some combination of moves to win now and in the short term future, but personally I'd run Santana in RF again and give Brinson the CF job and let him run with it. Trade one of Broxton of Phillips.

Brinson, Phillips, Diaz, and somebody in the 20-30 range for Yelich Trade Santana to Cleveland for Salazar Sign Cain It seems pretty far fetched to be able to accomplish all that, though if done in order those moves could stand on their own.

I agree to an extent. The reality is that the Marlins would be foolish not to float the Brewers offer out there and see if somebody will top it. The Brewers on the other hand, should give a time line. I don't think it has to be a lengthy time line though, they need to proceed with the off-season. Somebody had mentioned "age of immediate information" or something like that in this thread or the other one. I agree with that as well. I can't imagine that these GMs need to wait for a half-detailed report from anybody to know who's offering what for who. These guys know what the offers are in fairly short order, most likely coming straight from the source not from some reporter or "insider" "leaking" info. I would give up something substantial for Yelich, preferably from their glut of OF depth. I could see Brinson and Phillips along with maybe one arm, though if they'd do it for position players only that'd be my preference.

The Brewers could offer up an entire OF to the Marlins if they wanted. I could see giving both Brinson and Philips +. Maybe sign Cain in addition and keep Broxton around as a 4th OF. Then trade Santana (as has already been suggested by many) to Cleveland for Salazar. That would seem like a whole lot of moving parts but this is the time for being unreasonable. I think it would make for a different dynamic at the top of the line up with some decent consistency and balance. Yelich Cain Braun Thames/Aguilar Shaw Villar Arcia Pina I'm starting to come around to the idea of giving up some of these position prospects to get some value for the MLB roster. Sometimes I forget that they will actually have more drafts in the coming seasons. There's so much smoke coming from the rumor mill with this team over the last few days that I think something significant is pretty inevitable at this point. From Tom Haudricourt's twitter feed: "With #Brewers On Deck coming up on Sunday, never discount the joy that owner Mark Attanasio gets by stepping to the microphone and telling the team's fans they have done something big. Or, perhaps, some things big."