bill hAll Star

We could have traded for DJ Peterson, the rumored player, recently ranked in the top 100 prospects and a 1st round pick as "buy low." Remember when we traded for the Orioles' #5 prospect and now he's probably never going to make it past AA? DJ Peterson, as a buy low candidate, had an OPS of around .600 last year. What if he doesn't recover his value that much? Now he's completely unranked and a finished product at age 24 or 25. The chances of an upper-level, ranked minors player staying ranked/hitting the majors is higher, of course. How much higher I think is being overrated. At least the caliber of prospect being offered for Lind, that is.

When the trade was made, Barrios was in AA/AAA at age 23, with a 1.35 WHIP and 5.5 K/9 that season out of the bullpen. Yeah, flamethrower, supposedly...but I don't know if the return was deemed all that great in the scheme of the Pirates system, was he? People had lower expectations of the return so they trumpeted an unheralded flamethrower. People had high expectations for Lind, so they don't like the box of unknowns as much. Do you really think none of these 18 year olds will be in AA/AAA at age 23, surpassing a 5.5 K/9 (and yes, I know that Barrios' potential is much better than this)?

I think what 502 is saying is that you really have no idea what GMs were offering. I think it's silly to rip these international prospects that are all ~18 years old because they're not on a top 30 list yet, but even if that is granted, the main point is that people are angry and believe that they knew a better offer was on the table. That's what he was getting at. The Peterson/Zunino rumors were out there among others, and those rumors have snowballed into the theory for many that they KNEW something like that was out there from several teams and that they also are of the opinion that that offer is clearly better than what he got. Again, the latter part of that (thinking that the package the Brewers got was inferior to the artificial offers) is annoying to me, but OK. It's the fact that people believe that they know something was better out there that is interesting. I've seen a few/talked to a few people thinking it was a crappy return and that Stearns should have waited longer, etc. You really have no idea. It is entirely possible that he messed up the timing and picked the wrong return, but I tend to believe that the offers out there were way lower than some believe...and when once criticizes, they seem to do so KNOWING that there was a better offer out there (in their mind).

I just don't see the guys acquired as high reward types. Which combined with their high risk makes it an underwhelming deal. We'll know a lot more next year though. Also don't knock average. An average first baseman might have done wonders in 2013 or 2014. No team fields 8 All Stars and an Ace every game. Arguably they wasted prime years of Grienke, Gomez, Lucroy, and Braun by not having enough average players. I think the issue is that if you acquire a near-ready/average player, it's not a terrible thing and I agree that it would have been helpful in 2013-2014, but the position gets stagnant while we get average players too early. There's the whole draft pick tanking thing where Peterson, for example, hurts. There's the idea that we don't try to go out and get another prospect because, "well, we've got Peterson there." Most importantly, I'm all for high risk/high reward for 2 reasons: 1. It's not as if we don't get 1 "average" player out of the package anyways and it's a wash, we just get the player in 2019, not 2017. 2. I want to shoot for all superstars like the Cubs. If you miss at a position, you're paying a bunch of superstars minimal money at the other positions, and you can go fill the hole by overpaying Ben Zobrist temporarily, an "above average" player, because your payroll is so low. Patch the ancillary holes later...now now. Now, if the Brewers were competitive, then yes, I'm patching holes with average players, ASAP. Instead, I know that out of all of these high risk/high reward players, some might just turn out to patch those holes anyways or I can just take my cost savings down the road and find my "average" player.

The Brewers could play Josh Donaldson at third next year and not come close to making the playoffs. That's not the point with this move. Cecchini was highly regarded in the very recent past and the Brewers gave up nothing to see if he just had a bad year last year. Maybe he does end up sucking and washing out in AAA. Doesn't matter. The Brewers are in the position to see if he can put it back together. If he does, great. If not, oh well. Did you not read my post? I'm ecstatic. Seriously, I'm discouraged that the franchise has fallen to the level where this type of signing has all of you so pumped. Only the dregs of baseball take discarded pieces like Cecchini on the hope that maybe what he did most recently was a mirage. He really wasn't very good in 2014 either unless you consider a .712 OPS at AAA good. The trend is your friend and he's trending in the wrong direction. By the way, I'd like to take Donaldson and test your theory, paired with Arcia on the left side of the infield. Speaking of Donaldson, his age 25 season in AAA (in the PCL, no less), he had a .783 OPS. Nothing that screams MVP, as that is a pedestrian OPS in AAA, and especially the PCL. Then, he went to the majors and put up .687 in half of a season. How did that Donaldson guy end up doing? The point is not that I expect Garin to turn into Donaldson - the point is, if you have the right front office and the right situation (nothing to lose, everything to gain, which we have right now)...you can buy low on 10-15 players. Maybe Cecchini flails in AAA and nobody remembers his name in a few years. However, a handful of our acquisitions are going to surprise and return to the potential they had and either be solid MLB players or maybe one will turn into a stud, All Star. And why not? We have absolutely nothing to lose. What the heck else would we do with these roster spots? Go and sign David Freese?

I wouldn't be mad at the Brewers if they got Hedges, but he currently cannot hit, and therefore I wouldn't mind taking somebody else from the Padres system. That said, Hedges is quite young...so there is that aspect that he has time to develop his bat.

I wouldn't close any doors (re: comment about Alvarez a few pages back). The Rays trotted out Carlos Pena forever when they had a lot of OBP guys. At this point, team cohesion isn't a huge deal yet. You want a bit of an identity to form, but for the next 2 years, I'm more concerned with throwing as many darts and seeing what sticks. If Alvarez blossoms, you can either trade him for someone you like, or you just deal with the fact that you got a stud for peanuts and he doesn't fit your exact mold. In 2018 I may start to get concerned about the "type" of guy we bring in to supplement the roster.

I'm thinking he'll play 3B here even with not playing it for a while, right?

You're mostly right about K-rate. I normally cross-check the stats, but I recall the seasons where Lind was so bad that he got sent down as high K seasons. 20% isn't wonderful, but it's not bad for Lind. Sorry about that. That said, he's had some low average seasons after his breakout in 2009. That's where he became slightly damaged goods. He might have hit .250 instead of Alvarez's .230-.240, but he dipped under .300 a few times with OBP. These are the struggles I'm comparing to Alvarez, even if they're slightly different. EDIT: Part of the problem was that they gave Lind too many plate appearances vs. LHP. They didn't platoon him yet. Alvarez had that problem as well while they tried to learn if he was not just a platoon hitter.

Did we not already see Alvarez's value? He was non-tendered and I'm sure the Pirates shopped him around before doing so. Granted a team trading for him would have to pay his arbitration price but there's not much need or value for a platoon DH. Just go with Rogers. If he sucks, higher draft pick. If he doesn't suck, he would bring in more than Alvarez would in a trade if we decide to go that route. Lind was acquired via a guy nearly non-tendered. Lind was once a lower average, higher K guy and has never been good at defense. Maybe we can bring a Lind-esque revival out of Alvarez. We're going to spend money somewhere for buy/flip candidates . If the price is right, this isn't a bad spot for it.

You could have Alvarez AND Rogers. Alvarez can play at 3B here and there (yes, I know he's terrible). It's not our money in this case. They'll spend a few bucks to not be an expansion team. They've clearly never bought into Rogers long-term. Maybe he is/will exceed expectations, but he's got 2-3 years to get plenty of ABs. No harm cycling Alvarez in there to see if you can buy low on him and sell higher. Rogers could even play some 3B and OF. If he's that good at hitting for more of an extended time, you can carve out a 2017 or 2018 starting 1B role for him.

If asked if I prefer to have 60 or 70 wins this season, I choose 60. The gains of Luc's improved bat in the lineup don't move the needle enough to matter. In fact, I'd say it negatively affects the future to win the 4-5 extra games with him in over Maldy.

Were the Cubs still lamenting their crappy 2013 record during the playoffs this year, or were they happy to have Kyle Hendricks as the #4 starter all season because they traded away Ryan Dempster in 2012?

You could also spin it that this is a move that the Astros, Cubs, and other rebuilding teams of recent years have done. Buy low, flip later. By all accounts, Scott Feldman was a trash #5 starter on a 1 year deal and he was turned into Jake Arrieta. There are plenty of power hitters picked up as buy-low players have extracted great value. Will Alvarez be one of these cases? I don't know. Even if he nets you another "Jason Rogers" in a trade, it's not the worst thing in the world. What is the advantage of playing Jason Rogers (by the way, he'll get some platoon ABs probably)? I agree that he has some potential, but he's likely a AAAA player. Give me an MLB guy at a (hopefully) discounted price that has some potential. See if you can milk said potential and trade it away, offer a QO, or sign long term if things really go right.

We just dealt away Adam Lind for 3 lottery tickets, and by all accounts, we probably had some "solid" offers like DJ Peterson, Zunino, or whoever offered that Stearns passed on. Here's something: Alvarez is not unlike Adam Lind. We could probably sign Alvarez cheap for 1 or 2 years. Maybe this time, Stearns can make everyone happy and grab Zunino or Peterson in a trade when Lind is hurt at the deadline. According to Fangraphs, Alvarez is every bit as good of a defender as Lind. He has similar splits/K issues that Lind had earlier in his career, but Alvarez possesses more raw power and also was "not terrible" early in his career at 3rd base. He's 28 and has earned about 6 WAR over his career. Lind has 8 at age 32. It's possible that Clark, and to an extent, Rogers have never gotten their full chance because MLB minds don't think they are MLB players. Rogers probably is the platoon-mate at 1B and will get a chance. We're not going to roll with a payroll of $40-45 million (about what our final payroll would be if we dealt Lucroy). We'll take some veteran risks here and there and maybe get to $55-60 million. I'm OK seeing if I can mold Alvarez into something better than what he is. Heck, if he has the Lind-esque fix and cuts the Ks and ups the average to .275, you can even offer him a qualifying offer if you weren't able to field a good offer at the deadline. If he's a dud, you pack up and move on to the next year or next stopgap before we have someone ready.

A caveat here that I'm not going to watch a ton of this Brewers team, given that I'm out of market and I think I'll finally cancel mlb.tv for a little while this year. I'd take a shot on Alvarez or anyone of that ilk. These next 2 years, if nobody is in place (even if somebody is) it's all about keeping the seat warm and seeing if we can coax a buy-low piece to the team or trade the player. Other than the argument that the development of the team is damaged by playing a crappy defensive player, let Alvarez play some 3B as well. I don't really care. If you can revamp any sort of value (maybe his LH splits become so good that an AL team will trade a piece for him, or his K rate goes down, or he magically improves on defense). I'm not strongly advocating for Alvarez, but sure, I'll take him. There is some form of upside and you can probably at the worst get a AAAA player in a trade for him at some point as a team has injuries halfway through next season.

It's a matter of opinion with Lucroy, but I don't see a need to have another catcher in the system. There will be 30+ high draft picks, trades, signings, etc. to get a catcher by 2019. Maybe we draft our catcher of the future as an advanced player high in the 2017 draft, or maybe he comes in a trade from Khris Davis in 2017. Maybe we're competitive in 2019 we deal 2 prospects for Travis D'arnaud. So many possibilities. In terms of the current veteran leadership he'd provide...I'd take the 2-3 stud prospects and just sign/trade for a veteran catcher. The Twins would probably give away Kurt Suzuki or I'm sure somebody like Ryan Hanigan is out there. I don't claim to know too much about leadership/defense/pitcher knowledge that a catcher can have, but we don't have to have a guy that is a very good hitter in this scenario to have a leader. It's very possible that Kurt Suzuki understands pitchers and works every bit as hard as Lucroy (for an example). There are lots of managers that somehow always like to keep Jeff Mathis around even though he can't hit. Well, he's a free agent. Maybe he's a guru with young pitchers? I'd start Jeff Mathis and take the prospects from the Lucroy trade.

Stearns is a bright guy when you hear him in interviews. He promises that everything is on the table with trades, meaning he is not purely an analytics guy. So, I hope you are right. I am a bit nervous with him. He is 30 years old, and smart. He knows he is smart. But there is also experience, which can trump pure intellect. I am a bit worried. This Lind deal seems to be based on analytics. I am not confident in Stearns trading major pieces like Will Smith, Peralta or Lucroy. Those are three guys I can sit around daydreaming about bringing back nice combined hauls that could help what this team looks like in 2017 or 2018. I am basing this on what we got for Gomie, and what Shelby Miller got and some other transactions. But I think Stearns is on a different path and it is freaking me out. You're projecting one situation on to another situation that hasn't happened yet. I can pretty much guarantee you that we'll get a good haul for Lucroy, and everyone can pin their hopes on the next young, great prospect hope or three that are ranked by Baseball America. Peralta probably doesn't fetch too much more than Lind and Smith will get a decent return. With those guys, he may go rogue, he may not. He traded a young unknown in Sneed for a once-top 100 prospect Jonathan Villar. Take it on a case-by-case basis.

What on earth does this have to do with our discussion about the next person to be traded? We said nothing about who they were being traded for...just who would be traded. I'm answering the point by saying that I'd like Stearns to re-set everything and calm down on the trades and not do it at all if he's following the Lind philosophy of trades. If he did that package for Lind as a one time-thing, fine. But, if he starts doing that with real assets like Will Smith, who someone mentioned above, that would be an awful move. So, I think I am on point. I'd argue Lucroy is more valuable than Gomez and Fiers put together, or more valuable than Shelby Miller. We need a GM that goes down those paths of trades. It is do-able based on recent other trades. If Stearns is going to over-rate metrics and going to look for diamonds in the rough buried in someone's system over real projectable physical attributes and talent, then I'd rather he sit tight and not move consequence. I am not comfortable right now with the 30 year old kid holding real assets in his hand. You're making a strange assumption. Do you really think Stearns will trade Lucroy for 10 unknown 16 year olds or something?

It's possible that Will Smith can be traded later, but why not trade him now? By 2018, when it's still no guarantee we'll be ready to compete, Smith will be on a 2 year, $~12 million dollar contract (total guess on arbitration). Given that Stearns seems to be going longer-term on this build, we're likely talking 2019...in which case, Smith is on a 1-year contract then. You could get a trade for Smith down the road in 2018 or so...or just enjoy the 1-year contract. Personally, I'd rather trade Smith for a prospect (or collection) right now that will have 6 years of control beginning in 2018/2019 and just use the cost savings to sign a FA reliever if we so choose in 2019 or 2020. Heck, you could even sign Will Smith back!

My disdain for this trade has nothing to do with winning. Milwaukee is the smallest market in all of baseball. Trading vets for years of controllable assets is the name of the game; and melvin was not great at it. the problem i have is when you trade that vet, or guy thats paid (vet is relative), the years of control you trade for must have equal VALUE. because there will come a point when you need to trade out of depth to add the piece you need, something that oakland (and wherever Epstein is) is always so good at. so you cant take value and turn it into nothing, this isnt houston, you cant afford it. if you had to trade these guys what would you get? and the answer is nothing. thats why the Gallardo trade was one of melvins best. the top player coming back was sardinas, who played the same position as our incumbent best prospect, but he had value, so you could trade him for a different piece. neither of these three offer that. Really? Gallardo for a guy with a ceiling of utility player now? You're calling that Melvin's best? I know nothing about these 3 prospects and fully know there is about a 10% chance at best of MLB success and I'd take this package of players over Luis Sardinas.

what do fans think would be a decent return for 1 year of K-Rod and Lind? GM's knew the brewers wanted to unload these 2 and didn't have to overpay for them. I am sure if there were better offers, Stearns would have taken it. If the brewers decide to trade lucroy or segura, we will get a better idea of Stearns. i thought the KRod trade was excellent because Detroit also took his whole salary, that trade was a homerun IMO... This one is like watching rickie weeks try to hit the slider away. Home run trade: When a team takes a mid-30s decent, mostly healthy, .5-1 WAR reliever due $7.5 million and could then be bought out for $2 million (or kept for $6) in 2017. For clarity, K-Rod was guaranteed $9.5 million. Rickie Weeks strikeout trade: When a team takes a mid-30s, decent, injury prone 1-1.5 WAR DH due $8 million for 3 lottery ticket prospects.

Sure, we don't know how things will turn out, but one has to wonder if Stearns was trying to be too clever. ^^This^^ GMs in football have been fired over good draft picks... because they take a guy in the first or second round, because they know hes first or second round quality, and thats great, but not when you could have gotten him in the 4th or 5th round. now in the 4th and 5th round there is no more 1st and 2nd round talent to take, because you sacrificed the value of the other picks already. They call it 'smartest guy in the room' syndrome. this move really feels like that. We don't really have the credentials on an internet message board to call somebody the "smartest man in the room." Someone will probably discount this due to some recent hiccups, but Ted Thompson was knocked for this forever. Many casual fans hated the Rodgers pick (we already had Favre) as well as Jennings (4th+ round talent!), Nick Collins (wait until later in the draft!), etc. Just let it play out. Even if these 3 flame out, there is no guarantee that the 1 middling prospect we likely could have gotten ranked as the O's #8 prospect or something (just an example) could have just as easily petered out in AAA.

I agree with your post, but people should stop posting the 3 WAR thing that you are responding to. Lind was once a 3 WAR guy, but with his poor defense/fact that he has to play DH/injury history factored in, he's been basically a 1.5 WAR guy every year of his career. According to Fangraphs, he hit 3 WAR once - in 2009.

I can't imagine this data is available, but what is the % of international MLB players that were at one point "unranked" in their respective farm systems at age 17, 18, or 19? I liken this to getting some 2-star recruits that started playing football late in HS or something. I am not claiming to have any clue as to whether or not they'll ever make the MLB, but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here. There's a strong chance that they trade for a guy ranked #7 in someone's system that has the ceiling of a AAAA player. We weren't getting Swanson or something like that for Lind.