Thurston Fluff

Why would anyone trade so much as a single used baseball for a guy who likely won't pitch a single inning, make $11 million, and be a free agent when he is healthy enough to pitch again? It's worse than trading for nothing from their perspective.

This seems more like a Blake Perkins move than a move for a starter. The only difference is Perkins had an option left. I seriously doubt they have him penciled in as the starter. He does provide some power off the bench I suppose. Question for someone who knows how arbitration works. If the Brewers cut bait before the season starts are they on the hook for his salary?

So? We have to operate like the money spent on him is a bonus if everything pans out, not something we rely on to fill a need.

I think they non-tender him and take their chances of resigning him later. If someone wants to overpay in a trade by the deadline today take it. Why take a chance of paying him a huge amount to rehab and him deciding to become a free agent instead of signing a team friendly extension?

That's a very large assumption. It could be as simple as him not thinking he could do it at a level that would actually help. If the manager really wanted him to do it he could have just put him in the lineup and said you have no choice.

He did refuse but context matters. The fact that he did so in Seattle is irrelevant as he had the entire off season and spring training knowing he had to learn a new position. The Brewer asked him to do it in the middle of the season. I think if he felt more comfortable on defense to begin with he might have tried. He dude struggled at the position he played his entire pro career. I can't imagine how bad he'd have looked playing an entirely new position on the fly in the middle of the season. Personally, I think it was kind of a "do you think you can do it?" sort of request and he said probably not.

I wanted them to hire from within so I'm happy. I think rewarding your guys with promotions is the antithesis of what the Cubs did and why the Brewers will be able to hire new talented people to the front office while the Cubs will have to pay through the nose to poach other team's talent. Treating your people right matters. Negotiating with a managing prospect behind your manager's back is not treating people right. Especially one who has a history with your club. Perhaps one of the market inefficiencies is in the front office more so than on the field at this point. Whether Murphy pans out or not is to be determined. The same could have been said about any hire. Honestly whether he pans out or not isn't as relevant as showing your employees they have a chance to progress here. If he fails we move on and every one still knows he got his shot.

I was using that as an example of how we can use a Burnes trade to shore up our current roster while adding to our future. Burnes getting us an elite first baseman plus a couple of elite prospects is not gonna happen. What can happen is we get a serviceable player at a position of need plus a high ceiling prospect or two. If we could manage to shore up a weak spot without using all the trade value Burnes has while doing so I'd consider it a good trade. My main point is it isn't a bad thing to add a veteran to the mix.

Trading Burnes doesn't have to be for all prospects. If for example we could get a league average first baseman plus a lower level high ceiling prospect or two would be beneficial as well. We'd get the immediate help we need at a position of need plus a boost for the future all at once.

There's more ways to win than having two top 10 pitchers. We have to get over what we no longer have and get on with figuring out how we can win with what we have. A top farm system combined with highly valuable trading pieces isn't exactly an empty cupboard.

Yea it couldn't possibly be good management that made those trades successful. It had to be sheer luck to get that one in a million successful trade. I mean what evidence do we have that makes anyone think Arnold might be able to swing a decent trade again?

They did so last time with less trade chips and fewer options in the minors. Granted Hader, Burnes and Woody were close but so are Chourio, Misiorowski, and Black. Then we have a good batch of second tier prospects like Gasser, Quero and Rodriguez. Combine that with who's already here and it's not hard to imagine them continuing without any rebuild let alone a two year one.

This is the most important part of a very well thought out post. It's why I'd prefer a signing from within for our next manager. The best way not to lose our good infrastructure is to make those who built it feel like their best path for their career is staying here. Matt Arnold is a great example. That's not something a team that secretly hires a new manager while the current one is still employed can offer. The Cubs appear to operate on the shiny new toy theory. They get the shiniest toy possible, when a shinier toy comes along they go after it. I can't deny it worked for them ten years ago but it didn't sustain long term success. If the goal is to continue to be competitive, organizational continuity is important. Losing a piece or two doesn't matter as much as making sure all the pieces feel wanted and welcome. The way the Brewers treated Counsell showed that. The way the Cubs treated Ross didn't. It doesn't take a genius to know which organization competent front office personnel looking to build and sustain a career would want to work for.

Gary and his Demons is hilarious.

In general yes, In the near future no.

It might be more believable if he'd have finished the challenge here before he left.

Money spent does not equal championships won either. A team that gets to the playoffs the most have the best chance of winning one over a team that doesn't. If that hasn't been demonstrated amply enough after this post season I don't know what to say. I have shown that both teams are about equal overall and the Brewers are far ahead of late in getting there. For you to say the Cubs have a better chance of winning a World Series in the near future while completely ignoring the last five years of actual production is ignoring all available evidence. Like for instance they've had more resources for the past five years and have failed to outperform the Brewers in four of them. The only time they didn't was in the covid year. Frankly I think you're just arguing to argue now.

If all it took was resources the Cubs would be a dynasty and wouldn't need to pay a record price to get someone capable to manage it. Since the Brewers were in the same division as the Cubs the Cubs went to the playoffs eight times to the Brewers seven. That doesn't sound like an exponentially better chance of winning the world series in the future to me. As for the next five years I'll take the team that actually got to the playoffs four of the last five years as opposed to the team that went once in that span. It doesn't take a delusional fan to think the team that actually gets there more often lately has at least as good a chance as one that made it once.

The Cubs weren't the ones selling themselves as helping fellow managers. Like I said, if the Cubs came to him someone who was truly doing this on principal would have said come to me when you have an opening. It was Counsell who negotiated for a job that wasn't open. I don't fault him for it. Just for playing it like he's doing it for the good of the managing profession. One would think managing a team that went to the playoffs in five of the past six years, has one of the better farm systems in the league and some of the best trade chips in baseball to revamp without rebuilding would be enough to think one of the best managers of all time could win here. If he really wants to be viewed as such, then maybe managing a team that has the odds stacked against it would be the place to prove it.

He had the right to go where ever he wanted and did so. I wouldn't have lost any respect for him if all he did was take a job for better pay and more resources. The thing that bothers me about him is the image he sold turned out to be pure bull. He marketed himself of the hometown boy then pulled the most non-hometown boy move possible. Worse still, he seemed to be playing the "I'm doing this to get better pay for all managers" card then back stabbed a fellow manager. It's not cool to talk to an organization behind the back of the person you're negotiating to take the job from. If the Cubs came to him and asked what it would take, a person working for the profession as a whole would have said "ask me when there's a job opening." That he did this as a tide raises all boats ideal only to sink a boat in the process is telling. That's where I lost respect for him. Good luck working for a owner willing to do what he did to his own manager as soon as a new shiny object came along. Good luck sitting in your cramped office in the bowels of the Earth and suffering through cold rainy Aprils. Good luck trying to win in an organization that's never been known to be run especially well. They have the money to spend but it seems to be their only asset. Meanwhile I'm interested to see who the new manager will be. Also interesting to see how many of our current staff will follow him the Chicago. I suspect none under contract will be allowed to. Final thought. Matt Erickson is my out of nowhere pick to be our next manager. Hometown boy with the organization since 2008 and worked his way up. If anyone knows how our team operates it's him.

I would have been fine with keeping Canha as a first base option but I'd prefer this to keeping him or paying him 2 million and not have him at all. Just noticed he doesn't need to be added to the 40 man roster either. That makes it even better.

Maybe it's just me but I see this as much about supplementing the bullpen as I do the rotation.

I don't think they're related. Both are capable back of the rotation starters and both can be multi-inning relievers. I don't think a team can have enough of those.

I don't have any idea what's in Woodruff's mind. I tmay very well be what you think or he may be more worried about losing $30 million than hoping to make $100 million. The point I was trying to make is, from the Brewers perspective, if there was a time to make a calculated risk for a three plus year deal on an injured player it's now. If Woodruff is worried enough about his future combined with the Brewers being able absorb the money if he can't come back, there may be a deal to be had for more than two years.

He may want a two year deal but it's not unreasonable to think he also might be worried about leaving $20 million or so on the table in search of more only to end up like Jimmy Nelson.