bill hAll Star

No offense, as everyone has an opinion and yours is warranted...but you've only got 15 years to play if you're Braun. Other guys may only have 1, 2, 5, a shorter window of years to play. If you're not going to win in Milwaukee, why not go and win somewhere else? As an athlete, that's what I'd want. I can always come back to Milwaukee and sign autographs later.

Add this one to the somewhat crazy takes: http://chowderandchampions.com/2016/05/30/investigating-ryan-braun-to-red-sox/ Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself by downgrading Owens/Swihart due to uninspiring MLB starts, but I feel like the Brewers would ask for younger prospects. The value of Swihart and Owens have taken a hit, though both are very young so maybe this isn't a terrible return. I don't think Hernandez or Travis project to star players at all, maybe MLB caliber, though. This was the part I enjoyed, though: The "advanced metrics" of 0 errors and a 1.000 fielding % at positions that are very hard to get errors outside of trying to throw somebody out.

This came up a few pages ago, but what is the point of adding Wily Peralta in a trade? His value is probably just complete dead weight, but this isn't the NBA..you don't need to "shed" his contract at this stage. If he stinks the rest of the year, you just non-tender him and he costs you $0 beyond this year. As it currently stands, he is negative value, so I don't see a reason to trade him. Let him have another month or two to try to figure it out or you just cut ties after the season...or deal him for a similar "lost" prospect. Next, I know I just said I'd consider taking on Sandoval on another thread, but I don't see the idea of taking on Rusney. I realize it's for Boston's salary relief, but I feel like we should be getting more added to the pot (yes, I know that Moncada is possibly the #1 prospect right now). With Sandoval, you might have the 5% chance that he gets in shape and gets you some value. With Rusney, you're just writing out a $50 million check. He's done, he's old (for a prospect), and I doubt he ever does much at the major league level. Long story short, there is no reason to add Peralta to a trade and I'd want more than the package you list from Boston if we are giving up 2 All Star players on good contracts and taking on $50 million in 99.9% dead money in Rusney.

I don't think this situation will come up, but I'd consider those deals assuming the other team is offering another good or great prospect. The downside is you're possibly paying $60-80 million for an extra prospect (or 2) so maybe not. However, Attanasio probably would be OK with those guys in the context of basically being half of the team's $50 million payroll next year. I'm not even worried about payroll in 2018 or probably 2019. Extensions will kick in in 2019 or 2020 for someone like Hader if we buy out some arbitration years, for instance. We can hand out a free agent deal if we'd like to go that route. All of that said, I'd say Texas and Boston in this example just sitting on the contracts and not offering more. They have the money...might as well see if Sandoval or Fielder turn it around and keep their extra prospects.

So now we're calling a week vs. the Angels and Reds pitching staffs enough to consider Hernan Perez a "terrific" player?

This seems to be the case. At the very least, they get a new renovation every ~30 years. Seems weird because Globe Life and Miller both feel pretty "modern," but I'd say the realistic modern feel would go away in 35-40 years...but of course everything moves faster so they'll try to make it a 30 year lifespan. Realistically, these things should be fine for 60-70 years but we all know how well that argument would go over with the teams. Sidenote: I've been to most of these mid-90s stadiums...Progressive/Jacobs feels so old. I felt like Camden and GlobeLife hold up a little bit better.

While I'm more on the side of a bit less of the publicly funded stadiums, let's take the "but it's a beautiful stadium...we didn't do this in my day" context and recency-bias out: The article states that they have a lease at GlobeLife through 2023 (7 years from now). Let's assume they announce this today, it takes 2-3 years to argue over/design/plan and then 3 years from groundbreaking. So let's assume that they basically play it out until 2022 or so and buy out the final year of GlobeLife. That means GlobeLife would have been used for about 28-29 years by the Rangers. Other "flawed" stadiums that were replaced by the new wave of parks since the mid-90s: Riverfront/Cinergy (cookie-cutter): 32 years Three Rivers (cookie-cutter): 30 years Metrodome (old-school dome): 27 years Fulton-County Stadium (cookie-cutter): 32 years Astrodome (old-school dome): 34 years Kingdome (old-school dome): 24 years Veterans Stadium (cookie-cutter): 32 years I'd say GlobeLife is a bit poorly designed by being a fully outdoor stadium for a team that plays in a summer sauna. They probably could give it 5 more years if they want to...but we're in a new era where things will move a little bit faster.

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I love reading things from many of the posters here but when I've seen these lengthy posts on "organization building" and winning championships from some of the long time posters here, they just assume that lightning is capable of striking on both the hitting and pitching fronts. When has that ever been the case in the big money era of baseball for a small market? Before you say Kansas City, please show me all the home grown pitching talent they had starting last year and the year before. In 2011, one long time poster here said he hated that season because of how that team was constructed to make a run at it in one year and one year only. For a small market team, objectively speaking, has there been another way in this era??? In 5-10 years, we'll look back on the Pirates as an example of "home grown pitching and position players" and anyone who knows baseball will see that they did this (but it will be somewhat shielded by the fact that they had minimal postseason success). Cole, Taillon, Glasnow will all probably be good pitchers for an extended period of time coupled with McCutchen, Walker, Polanco, Marte, Alvarez (somewhat valuable for a while) in this period. Unfortunately, I honestly don't know if they'll ever see much more than a playoff series or two beyond today with the Cubs and Cards in this division for the next 3-4 years, at which point, their window may finally be closing. Who knows, though, as they seem to have some smart management that can maybe prolong it. Add the Cards as a team that has won with home-grown pitching and position players. I'd say the Rays and Giants as well, but both of those teams mostly just grew pitching and had Posey/Longoria and the rest of their "home grown" talent was generally defense-heavy...until now of course, where the Giants have gone to big $ FAs for pitching and have a solid core of Royals-caliber hitters/defense.

I don't disagree with this idea in some circumstances, but remember that the Brewers somewhat did this a decade ago and ended up with Jeff Suppan, Randy Wolf, Shaun Marcum, Kyle Lohse, and Matt Garza. They did trade for Sabathia but couldn't afford to keep him. The Cubs can afford Jon Lester and to overpay Lackey...maybe can even afford the historic contract that Arrieta will get. The Brewers barely can do any of this.

I had proposed this: Either early this year since both teams are cooked or after the season: Trout for the Yankees top 10 prospects. Maybe throw in PooHoles as a salary dump. Who says no? The Yankees farm system is only so-so, but it would replenish the Angels' from non-existent to so-so. The Yankees don't have a great roster but are shedding about $80 million this year and a few more contracts over the next few. They have an OK supporting cast that they could probably succeed with Trout and can make a few more signings over the next few years instead of being completely at ground zero like the Angels. Somebody else of course could top the Yankees offer given a better farm system, but I'm not sure if any of those teams will see a fit. Maybe Boston.

Torn UCL.

10%!? You are much too generous. You're right - I guess I was assuming we'd be scrapping the rebuild AND doing something like trading for a pitcher at the deadline or something stupid.

So you're willing to throw in the towel on the rebuild plan for a 10-20% shot at a 1-game playoff? The Cubs have already locked up the division.

I don't see the point in trading Peralta unless there is a team that basically admits as much that they see potential in him and are willing to give up another "damaged goods" or reasonable prospect for him. Peralta's value is at an all-time low right now so why does he even need to be a throw-in? He's not making any sort of salary that the Brewers cannot handle. Keep letting him stink it up and try to find the changeup or whatever pitch is necessary to get lefties (or anyone) out. If his salary or roster spot is still a nuisance going into next year and you feel like there is no chance to make him into a productive player, just DFA/non-tender him.

In terms of value - no thanks. You have to go back about 5 years to find a point where he was valuable in any form. If we're looking for someone in a few weeks/months to just eat some innings to hold the fort down for one more year while Lopez, et. al hang in the minors...sure. Though, I will say, there are many more intriguing players to do that with than Danks. I would prefer someone that flamed out but was once a stud or something to that tune. Might as well have upside if you're grabbing a guy just to soak up 80-100 innings later on this year.

Is Reed a gold glove caliber outfielder? Is there room for power? I understand that he's an excellent OBP guy with decent SB potential, but I don't really see what the excitement is all about just looking at the raw numbers. If not, he looks like somebody that maybe has a ceiling of Nori Aoki production (from the RH side of the plate)...does that sound about right?

My reason for Kirk is that if we're looking for an OF that has a shred of a chance of making a Steve Pearce-ian jump from being a AAAA guy to being a decent starter (Pearce is the best example off the top of my head and he's regressed), it is Kirk. The chances of him being a "decent" 3rd/4th OF are slim, but the number is greater than zero. Chances are, both of these guys are not great major leaguers and our 5th OF is somebody totally different 2 years from now and both of these guys have moved on. However, Kirk has a bigger frame and has hit somewhat well outside of Citi Field. Presley is the type of "you know exactly what you have" depth guy that should probably be waiting in AAA for a contending team. Here is what I like: Against RHP on the road (not at Citi Field) his career OPS is .794. I would expect something similar at Miller Park and would be a nice cheap platoon bat to either have off the bench for a few years or to get production out of and ship at the deadline.

I think it's just as likely that Villar is a valuable trade chip as it is for Rivera to be one. Villar is only a year older than Rivera. Villar's upside/ceiling is a solid offensive SS/versatile while decent defender. Rivera's upside is likely a below-average hitter* (see below) + versatile very good defensive player. How about this? Villar hits well and is flipped early. Rivera then takes over and can work his way into our long-term utility role or is also a trade chip. I think that absolute best-case, Rivera could be a really good player if he continues to develop his bat given that he has the frame. He is smoking the ball in Spring training so there is cause for optimism, but I'll believe it when I see it for a minors/majors season. If he does develop a solid bat, then he suddenly becomes a very valuable player.

I generally tend to ignore basically all stats for all players at Colorado Springs or at the very least subtract 20%-25% of a player's OPS or FIP/xFIP whatever you want to use.

I don't think minor league numbers should matter when both guys are 28 and 30yrs old having played at least 3yrs in the majors. Presley didn't hit "a little bit better" than Kirk in spring - he hit a lot better. He had better ABs; more consistent contact and a better approach. Has more BBs than Ks as opposed to Kirk having 4x as many Ks than BBs. Based on spring performance Presley easily is the choice. However, CF is the main spot that lacks a true defender (after Broxton) so I can easily see them keeping Kirk. At this point I don't care who they keep as long as Broxton/Flores get the majority of PT. Minor league numbers don't matter that greatly to me, but add it all up and Kirk has been (a little) better than Presley for several thousand plate appearances. They may also help explain that Kirk will be better once taken out of Citi Field, where he has a .733 career OPS. I think he's a better hitter. I just don't understand why some guy catching fire for 40 spring training ABs trumps every other factor. That's kind of silly. I will bet you that Presley would hit a ~.700 OPS for the Brewers over a season and Kirk would be .730 or maybe slightly better since he is a guy that can be platooned. To dhonks - I don't think anyone is arguing against Broxton. I think it's Santana/Broxton/Braun/Flores and the choice of Kirk/Presley with Liriano going to the DL for awhile.

Just your yearly reminder that Scooter has a career .297 OPS against LHP. .124/.147/.150 slash line. It can only go up from there and I know there's the "he's never gotten a fair shake" but I'd rather just let his numbers stay inflated for trade purposes.

I'd be really disappointed if they went with Presley over Kirk (if they go with a 5th OF). Kirk was a better minors hitter, is currently younger, has good RHP splits to play, has a bigger frame (power off the bench as they get older), and actually had a respectable OPS (.733) outside of Citi Field. All Presley has done is hit a little bit better for 40 spring ABs. There is some potential for a bench piece or a very low trade chip at the deadline if they can work with Kirk. Presley is a 100% AAAA guy you can get off of waivers later in the year.

Once things go south (and nobody gets hurt), if you're dying to get Davies up to log some MLB innings, you can just have him be the middle relief guy as well. There will be plenty of games where we're down 5-0 in the 3rd and you just let Davies go the final 6 to get his work in. If JohnBriggs' scenario of nobody wanting to trade for a vet at the deadline with $ due in 2017/maybe '18, it's pretty easy to handle. 1. Call everyone and offer Garza at face value. 2. Near deadline, if every single team in the league claims they don't want to risk the money, choose best prospect package and offer to pay most or all of the contract. If you were going to get stuck with him anyways, you might as well pay the $ to get the prospect in.

Carter wasn't much worse in his PCL-infused plate appearances either. I would not call Jesus Montero's career dead, but Carter has at least shown a pulse in the majors.

Not a Danny Santana fan. As you say, he had a nice BABIP year to boost his stock. He's more of the .650 guy you state than the 2014 borderline All-Star.