bill hAll Star

Oops on the Davies thing. Yes, I'm not expecting him to go back to 2012...but that's about as likely as it is for Cecchini or Middlebrooks to be missed on because we waited 2 months to give them their shot in the majors. No harm will really be done by seeing if Hill can or cannot reinvent himself or somehow learn to pull the ball again.

Hill isn't anything more than an afterthought and stopgap. He's not extremely far from being a very productive player a few years ago. If the likely scenario occurs that Hill is putting up a .640 OPS and Cecchini/Middlebrooks are ripping it up in Colorado Springs (and haven't been called up for injury) in early June, trade Hill to a contender that is looking for depth for a bag of baseballs and pay 90% of the salary or just DFA him. There will be plenty of time for Cecchini/Middlebrooks to get their chance to revitalize their careers as well.

Even if Hill has a pretty good first half of the season, we aren't going to get some highly thought of prospect at the deadline. This is just Counsell pretty much saying, for now at least, Hill is the favorite to start the season at thirdbase unless someone else steps up and takes the job away. I'm not going to care much either way this early in the process. Guys like Cecchini and/or Middlebrooks likely will get a chance at some point to show they deserve at bats. Sure, we may not be getting a top 100 prospect back for Hill, but just take a look at 2 of our players: Gerardo Parra - Obvious ace defender but posted a .677 OPS overall in 2014. Hit a hot streak - Kyle Davies, possible long-term, cheap #4/#5 starter comes in return. Aramis Ramirez - .757 OPS in 2014 with a massive swoon in the 2nd half. Old and not the best defender anymore. Started off 2015 slowly. Got hot for a little bit and we got a future, cheap bullpen flamethrower back in Barrios. Hill had an .882 OPS and won Silver Slugger at 2B in 2012 and had an .818 campaign going in 2013 before getting hurt. He's had 2 terrible years, which would jive with the idea that shorter power hitters (usually 2B) peak in their late 20s and drop off very quickly at 30. All of that said, if he can get back to form, who wouldn't give up at least a Davies or Barrios for an .800+ or even .750 2B (I'd assume that's where a contender would want him)? All GMs will know that he's been up-and-down in his career and is a candidate to drop right back to where he was, but given the way he'd have to be hitting, you'd have several teams bidding and at some point, somebody would offer a future MLB player.

The OF doesn't bother me right now. I get the "fan going to the game" argument, but in terms of other logjam issues, I don't think it'll be a problem. How long is Flores expected to be out? By the time he returns we may either have decided that Nieuwenhuis is not worth keeping around or any of the other guys (I'm looking at Braun) might be on the DL. Reed can wait a little bit longer, but he'll get his shot if we sour on Nieuwenhuis, maybe Liriano, or we have excess DL situations.

Defense is supposed to be the best skill Maldonado possesses. It is more about leading the pitching staff and I just don't think he is the guy for that. I have never been impressed how he calls a game. Also while his defense is decent it isn't anything special. Every once in a while he throws a laser to 2nd, but overall it is average to me. I think people think he is better than he really is because we watch Lucroy on a daily basis. No offense to Lucroy but his arm and throws leave a lot to be desired. Do you really know how well Maldonado calls a game? If not Maldy, there are 20 scrap-heap veteran leaders (some could even be brought out of retirement) to play good defense and call a good game.

^ This is exactly right. We have the luxury to experiment right now - try guys like Cecchini or Perez or whomever. Focus on getting the best players, let fate, time and circumstance sort things out. It doesn't mean you don't get a 3B, it just means you don't put positional priority at this time. That could change down the road, but for now, it's not essential. I'll sound like a broken record agreeing with this take again. If your 2018 starting lineup includes Arcia, Phillips, Santana, Clark, and some other prospect...that's 5 starters totaling about $3 million in salary. Throw in Lopez, Hader, and another young pitcher and your staff has 3 starters combining for $1.5-2 million. Long story short, you can make another Aramis Ramirez signing if you still don't have a 3B figured out then...or you can trade a prospect out of an overflow position for the Todd Frazier acquisition of that offseason.

If we are truly rebuilding, no sense for Hill to ever see the field. Scooter at least has value for the right team at the trade deadline. No matter what his limitations are, he can hit RHP. Hill can be the platoon mate at 3B and 2B. We only really have Middlebrooks as the LHP side of the platoon at 3B and there is no guarantee he plays in the majors (might also be in the outfield a bit, no?). Let Hill play 3B and especially 2B against LHP. Tout nice numbers from veteran to contending team at the deadline (yes, I know most teams can see through the numbers) and trade him for something...anything of value.

You're right...we haven't had any minor league depth issues in the past few years. When you've got Overbay/Yuni at 1B, why would you need anyone behind them?

"I could better my life by going back to college, but why try? There's a greater than zero chance I may not get a job out of college. I'll just stick with my fast food job (not that there's anything wrong with that)." Meh, that doesn't really apply here. The Brewers could make FA signings and try their way in that regard to get back to the playoffs and contend. It could be done. Will it? No probably never but to say that the only way to ever win is by a big rebuild is not correct either. Before they traded away all of their vets, the Brewers weren't too far away from their assumed budget of a little over $100 million. Ever since 2011, they've been inching closer and closer to flooding out their minors system and are paying for their previous vets pushing towards the top of their budget. They could have signed a few guys and had a chance to compete. Their problem is that they would have had to have had everything go right, no foreseeable minor league depth to help if there were injuries, and probably reside in the best division in baseball.

If I've given the best case scenario, you've just given the worst. Jake Arrietta could get hurt and the Cubs could go into a tailspin too. The difference between last year and this is if Jungmann is getting crushed, he'll be optioned out 6-7 starts in and replaced by Lopez or Pena, or Burgos or somebody (yes even Suter Clancy) who's likely showing something in the minors. Sooner or later they'll likely land on somebody who does the job. Last year when Lohse and Garza struggled, their contracts kept them in the rotation for almost the entire season. I didn't give each pitchers best case scenario either, just a relatively positive spin. Nelson's best case is he's a true ace. Peralta already has a 17 win season under his belt, his best could be as good or better. He's in his prime right now. Don't waster your breath, bill hAll Star feels as though every Brewer player is the worst so no matter what you say to him, he will tell you that the Brewers will suck. It isn't worth it. Not true. I have very rosy outlooks for plenty of players. Peralta: He's had a ~4.5 FIP his entire career and cannot get lefties out. Jungmann: Was not a great pitcher most of the way through the minors. A guy with MLB stuff, but his early dominance was "first time around the league" luck. He'll be a nice pitcher to have in the majors, though. Nelson: Good pitcher but probably slots closer to a #2. Davies: Should be a solid #5 through his career with a chance to be a nice #3 like Estrada or Fiers. Lopez: He'll be a good one...but probably not just yet. I don't know why I'm even getting in this argument, but just because you've heard about guys like Jungmann a bunch from BA and Rock, there is a general consensus around own teams' fans that their prospects are going to be really good. I'm giving a level-headed analysis of these players. I actually don't think it's a bad pitching staff if they all pitch to their norms. The problem is that injuries and the likes will happen and there are too many holes on the offense to keep the team afloat.

"I could better my life by going back to college, but why try? There's a greater than zero chance I may not get a job out of college. I'll just stick with my fast food job (not that there's anything wrong with that)."

You've just given every pitcher's best-case scenario, though. Out of those 5 pitchers (you probably have a decent #2 and a bunch of #4/#5 starters not counting the youngest guys), one of them is going to probably get crushed (Jungmann is my bet) and one is probably going to get hurt. I'm not nearly as high on Jungmann or Peralta. Anderson is what he is - he'll be decent for a few years.

The choice to me was to probably Hover +/- 3 games of .500 for 2016 and 2017 and then have a bleak outlook beyond that OR Be bad for 2016 and 2017 while maximizing our assets to have a bright outlook starting in 2018.

The thing that keeps coming back to me is that no matter how much energy and patience is put into a rebuild, the best that can ever be expected for this franchise that can't go after big money FA or hold on to it's stars beyond 6 years is to field a "a playoff plausible roster" I'm fine with a "playoff plausible roster" every year. That's reality for a franchise like the Brewers..

If he was just DFA'ed then I agree it would be for almost nothing and not for Segura.

Per Morosi. Segura? EDIT: Didn't see he was DFA'ed and also didn't realize that the Padres had signed Alexei Ramirez. Definitely not Segura or any meaningful player (I hope).

If I'm going to acquire him, he had better be a 3B. I'm not moving him to my 1B of the future and having a right-handed 1B that isn't an elite Goldschmidt or Abreu-esque hitter.

If the prospect we got back was significantly better, I'd make the deal. I'd take a top-rated prospect + Hill for a Sardinas or Yadiel Rivera type.

Veteran leaders and loyalty are nice, but they don't have to cost $100 million over 5 years. That said, I agree with most of the rest. If somebody offers me a prospect or two and it only costs the Brewers 1 year of Braun's contract sent back or something, I pull the trigger. If somebody just says "we'll take him and pay his contract" I think about it. As I stated in the other thread, 2016, 2017, and probably 2018 money don't matter to me. I'd probably just rather have the money freed going into 2018 or 2019 to overpay somebody else or to dump into rookie/arb buyout contracts, but you could have worse contracts. 2018 is probably the year where we get back towards a .500 record but aren't serious contenders yet. So now you're saying that you've signed a 35 year old guy to a 2-year, $36 million deal (with some of that deferred) after 2018 when it starts to matter again. That's not so bad. That might even be a slightly movable deal if he's still hitting fairly well but not well enough to break out of our logjam in the OF. We'll probably also have a DH spot by then.

Yeah, stick to the original idea. Take salary off another team's hands in exchange for a prospect. And we already know the Diamondbacks are a team willing to do that. Adding Garza into the equation will just negate getting a prospect, if not the deal. What prospect do we give up though to take on Hill's contact. What kind of prospect are we looking at giving up. They got a decent young bench bat out of that last deal with the Braves. I just don't know what I am willing to give up. The poster meant Hill + prospect to the Brewers and a bag of baseballs going back to Arizona. Adding Garza doesn't make sense. Now you've probably got Garza + prospect for Hill (Arizona still is likely not motivated to do this given their current state). I'm definitely not giving up a contract to rid myself of Garza's contract. Payroll will be plenty low the next 2-3 years. The only way I could see doing it is if by some miracle we're a WS contender in 2018 and Garza's option vests and he blows out his arm early in the season or something like that and we really need the space. Anyways, there is no reason to give up anything to get rid of Garza.

Garza may have a tiny bit more expected value, but I doubt that the D-Backs are willing to take on possibly $38 million dollars over 3 years to find out when only shedding Hill's $12. They will not throw in an extra prospect, and I think the idea is that Arizona just wants to shed $ as monty has said.

Unless Arizona really liked Garza's rebound chances, why would Arizona throw in a prospect to get Garza? Garza is due $12.5 million for 2, possibly 3 more years with his vesting option. Hill just has 1 $12 million year left. I'll sit back and wait for the jokes about Arizona's recent trades/moves as to why this could happen. To the original poster, I don't think they'd give up a prospect to dump Hill without Garza involved (yes, I know they did this with Arroyo) but I do like the general idea of absorbing players to bring in prospects...so I agree. Look for trades like this.

True, but also remember that Gomez was about to become a free agent, and the Brewers had a day to trade him or be content with a compensatory pick when he left. Lucroy is under contract for the next two years. Gomez had another year left on his contract after 2015. He's still with the Astros this year.

For me, I will not be watching a ton of minor league games, but I will monitor the numbers/development of many of those players. On the MLB roster, everyone has an intriguing 1-year story. I don't see any superstars or multiple-time All-Stars currently (not counting Luc/Braun being that in the past) in the young group, but many possible high-level starters or future role players. Can they bring back/keep their trade value (and then be traded)? Braun, Garza, Lucroy, Smith, Davis, Segura, Carter, Peralta Can we squeeze a good starter/role player out of them? Cecchini, Villar, Santana, Broxton, Walsh, Thornburg, Knebel, Jungmann, Davies The only players that don't fit into this bucket are Scooter and Nelson. Nelson could be a little bit more than a decent starter/role player, though I doubt he'll ever be an ace. Scooter is a known commodity that I feel for some reason will probably never get dealt. We'll probably be surprised by one player in our buy low category that turns into a really good player. We'll be on All-Star/Superstar watch once guys like Lopez, Arcia, Phillips, etc. start coming up late in the year, but more likely 2017 we'll start to see them actually flash some brilliance.

I really like Chapman. As you note, a Gold Glove type guy. He's got big, big power, but the hit tool is lacking (and I don't know if it is good enough to reach the majors). He's probably lucky if he hits .250. If he can improve his average just a bit at AA, he'll be nice prospect. I think Matt Dominguez with Chapman. Gold Glove Defense, big power, but just doesn't hit or walk enough to stick. I have no idea about Chapman's future - but Dominguez never had a good season at the plate at any point in his professional career. Chapman at least just had one.