SoCalBrewfan

Both Pratt and Lara are having seasons that might look unimpressive, but they are both above average offensively in the Southern League. (The league slash line is .229/ .320/.339.) For plus defenders at two of the three most challenging positions on the diamond, that is already significant. Add to that the fact that both are 20 years old in AA and you've got something. It's easy to get spoiled by a few gaudy stat lines, but not every prospect is going to have a trajectory like Chourio. The fact that guys four or five years older and with lesser defensive value are outhitting them should not be held against them...it is to be expected.

As we ponder the 2025 trade deadline, it's perhaps worth looking back to see the impact of a past deadline, and the immediate rating of winners and losers. here's the article from last year on MLB.com: https://www.mlb.com/news/2024-mlb-trade-deadline-winners-ranked The biggest winners? The St Lous Cardinals, who acquired Fedde, Pham, and apparently also Shawn Alexander? "And all they had to give up was Tommy Edman..." You may recall that they missed the playoffs and that Edman was kind of good. The Dodgers were second, and obviously they had a pretty good run. Mariners, third. Arozarena and Turner. No playoffs. Mets, Orioles, Phillies, Royals fill out the list. Amusingly, here is another article showing increases and decreases in playoff probability for the few weeks after the trade deadline: https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-playoff-odds-changes-since-2024-all-star-break Of the big risers (including our own Brewers), only the Royals were on that trade deadline list. The three biggest declines were the Cardinals, Mariners, and Mets. Trade deadline winners list #1, #3, and #4. That's not to say that trade deadline acquisitions can't make a difference, or that fixing holes in season isn't important. There's a difference between a good process and good results. It's just that the instant analysis, both by fans and media professionals, is often just noise. Everyone needs articles with instant analysis because rabid fans will click and then argue more about what their team did or didn't do. Possibly there were Cardinals or Mariners fans puffing their chests because their team 'won' the trade deadline. Certainly there were Brewers fans disappointed that they didn't do enough in adding Montas and Mears. (Civale had been acquired earlier in July as well.) A little perspective is in order.

I feel like I've seen credible information that Jadher Arenaimo is Rule 5 eligible if not protected. He's far enough from the majors that maybe that's not an issue, but then a case could be made that he should be in AA already. I think he's really promising but he kind of gets lost in the shuffle between Pratt and then the Carolina kids. As I said in another place, possible deadline deals might well include the likes of Arenaimo and Cornielle because of the 40-man considerations, much as the Nick Mears deal included Yujanyer last year. Edit: I see this is technically the minor league FA thread, but a lot of the discussion has revolved around Rule 5.

Probably this won't happen, but what about setting up a short Contreras DL stint (maybe around the AS break) and letting Haase and Seigler handle the catching for a week or so? I don't know whether he has much experience with the pitchers or how his defense is rated, but it is kind of spicy to have a C/2B/3B guy on the bench. Zamora has had a year I didn't think he had in him, but it's mostly batting average as others have said. With elite defense that could maybe work out, but I feel like he's been more erratic than was anticipated when he was drafted...happy to be wrong. I assume they are mostly holding him as the break glass in case of Ortiz injury plan.

Gasser coming back strong from TJ would be really sweet, hard to imagine him having major league impact this season but there's at least some options if and when the next rotation tweaks are needed. I think he's still considered a ML rookie; with Mis, Henderson, Patrick, and Gasser, that is a bunch of rookie starters who have already had some ML success.

I think an analysis of who might be traded is fun and possible, but this seems a bit like throwing out a list of names without any clear set of criteria for inclusion. A trade including Wilken is going to be very different from one including Tyler Black. I mean, it's a little bit, I don't like this guy as much as someone else in the system, and a little bit, he's not doing well and I don't think we need him. In the first case, saying a player in the complex league hasn't had the immediate impact that unicorns Made and Pina have, well, that's 99.5% of players. The latter (guys who have lost their prospect gleam) isn't going to be of much value in the trade market; I really don't think you fleece GMs any more. (Maybe Buster Posey is stuck making deals using an old paper copy of Baseball America or something?) Someone who might be trading for Tyler Black knows he's seen his prospect luster fade, and will presumably not be paying top dollar for an asset on which the Brewers seem to place little value. Wilken and Burke should have some value if dealt, but the logic here seems incomplete. I don't think the Brewers have necessarily decided who their future corner IF are, but if they have it isn't based on media prospect lists. Including Wilken and Burke because, for example, Wilken is lower than Boeve or Adams on the MLB.com list (which was made before the season IIRC) just doesn't seem like the way the Brewers do business. They aren't afraid to move on from a draft pick (e.g., Binelas, Moore) but neither Burke nor Wilken fit that pattern. OK, maybe if there's a big deal coming one of those guys is dealt, but we can see from recent lineups that Wilken is the priority 3B over the other two, and that means a lot more than an old mlb.com list. (Also, saying Burke is like a Jeff Cirillo who hits left handed and can't play 3b?) When Jim / Mass does the Rule 5 list, that is an important starting point. The Brewers seem willing to trade anyone across the system, including recent draft choices, but a mini-trend is anticipating Rule 5 crunch and being proactive. The Nick Mears trade is a nice example, Yujanyer Herrera signed in 2019 and so was going to be Rule 5 eligible despite only reaching A+, so despite his success he was used in a deal. I don't think that was a matter of thinking he was not in future plans or worse than someone else, but rather a matter of balancing risk and roster spots. (Which, as has been litigated extensively, were at a premium at Rule 5 time.) In that sense Crow is very possibly on a list of tradable assets, though they've invested a bit in him in terms of trade and waiting out his injury. They have to protect him or risk losing him in Rule 5, and might have some tough choices to make. Others in that boat in AAA are EMJ and Seigler, maybe even Freddy Zamora if someone likes what they see. In AA you have Cornielle who seems like a sell-high candidate in the Justin Jarvis vein, maybe Ethan Murray or Yeager too. None of those are really high value assets I think but there is a history of the Brewers moving guys like this (see Cam Devanney). The fun / pain comes when you look at lower level players who will be rule 5 eligible and are playing well, in the vein of Herrera. There aren't that many, really, but Exhibit A is Jadher Arenaimo. We also have some guys with roster spots and options that might have some value, notably Myers but it's not impossible that a team might think that Hudson or Peguero could patch a bullpen hole for them. There have been a few roster cleanup moves in recent years, e.g., Urias or Alex Jackson, so maybe that's the move you see for Tyler Black. I think this might be a quieter deadline for the Brewers, honestly, but Arenaimo, Cornielle, Myers seem like names that might shake something loose in a medium profile deal if it comes to that. The painful question is who is the Reece Olsen who gets shipped out in exchange for a few bad relief innings?

Henderson used an option (in the sense of an option year, which is what leads to being 'out of options' ) after twenty days in the minor leagues on an optional assignment. Since he was assigned to Nashville to start the season after having been added to the 40 man roster, that is about April 20. Which is, to be clear, in the past. Sending him to the minors now doesn't change that, this was always going to be his first option year and he'll have two more. He can be sent to the minors five times in an option year. It should also be noted that Henderson only pitched 81 innings last year, and the Brewers are surely concerned about his workload this year. He's already thrown 51 between Nashville and Milwaukee. I haven't heard them give a limit for his innings this year, but there surely is one, and if they subscribe to the 40-50 inning increase theory, it might be in the 120-130 range. Given the short starts on short rest that seem to be the current norm, the recent return of Civale, and the coming addition of Woodruff, having Henderson in the majors makes some sense. I suppose ranting is fun, but it would be great if people could be factual. Particularly when you are calling the Brewers 'unserious' in the process.

If you are going to complain about comparing him to 2020 first rounders, I think the better complaint is that it's too early to do so effectively; a high school pick from 2020 is still about 22 or 23 and some of them, like, say, Soderstrom from the As, have only started to accumulate WAR. I think it's fair to say that many Brewer fans would take him over Mitchell. Plenty of the HS guys like Nick Yorke or Robert Hassell have seen their stars dim a bit, but still have time to turn things around. Even some college picks like Max Meyer or Kjerstad are just getting established in the majors, and seem like good bets to surpass Mitchell in the long run. (Though it's always sobering to see how quickly some of those picks looked bad, remember the Cubs and Ed Howard? or Asa Lacy fourth overall?)

The question for Henderson has been whether he can survive with a mostly FB/change mix since there have been mixed reviews of a third or fourth pitch, lately a slider IIRC. Also he's missed a bunch of time with injuries. Brewers juco mojo is real (see also Misiorowski, Ashby, CRod).

I remember the Adames trade and all of the negative responses, many of which focused on his .197 BA at the time of the deal. The many mentions of Priester's major league ERA to date have that same vibe to me. Even if that were the most relevant number (it isn't), there's a lot more to the story. Yeah, he got hammered in his innings in Pittsburgh as a rookie. He's a talented arm who has reached the major leagues but still has only 134 days of service time. He will benefit considerably from the Brewers defense hoovering up ground balls behind him. It's easy to dream on the Brewers doing their magic and changing his pitch usage as well. Did we give up too much? Nobody here really knows, though I admit I was taken aback at the cost. Controllable major league starters, even back-end ones, are costly. Buying in too early is the way Milwaukee needs to do this. If you wait to acquire someone who has already established themselves as an effective starter, you're looking at something really costly in terms of prospects or cash. There's definitely risk, but the upside here if Priester is even an average middle to back end rotation starter is huge. Yes I know folks dream on the draft choice and the 2023 triple signing bonus bank shot, but the Brewers have always taken a big picture view of assets rather than getting hung up on one particular anything. Plus he seems reasonably healthy? Now that I've said that, watch him tear his oblique, two fingers, and a shoulder in the next rotation turn... One does wonder at the timing though. I thought we were looking at Myers and Quintana back soonish, and more potential reinforcements in May. Is there some bad news lurking beyond what we already know?

Ashby seems like the most likely move, that or Woodruff depending on what his timeline is? The other injuries (Mears, Perkins) don't seem long term, and otherwise it's kind of tight roster wise. Who is the 40th man on the 40-man roster for a DFA at this point? Maybe one of the pitchers named Grant?

So there's a mean and a distribution. I'd pick a mean in the mid to high 80s. Then how reliable do you think that is? Something like 5-10 teams are off from predictions by 10+ games each year. (We are often one of those, 10+ above.) So, what, something like 30% change in the range 85 to 89, 20% chance 90 - 94, 20% 80 - 84. I don't think any number 82 to 92 would surprise me at all. Then maybe 10% 95+, similar chance of 72-79, and another 10% of total disaster, fire sale in the summer. But maybe that's too optimistic or narrow? Could make a case that our error bars are pretty big, since so much rests on return to health of key veterans, improvement of younger players. Woodruff comes back strong, Chourio is the guy we saw second half and in spring training, Yelich is old Yelich but healthy, someone like Dunn steps up on the infield, and we look pretty tough. I think we have a pretty high floor with good run prevention and depth, but it's not hard to imagine some key injuries and young guys stagnating and faltering either.

It was reported that Frelick was a bit banged up I thought, that might call for some additional depth in the OF to start the season. That and Turang's arm might be enough to make Collins' skillset particularly useful for the short term even if there are better fits to come.

This season they will again be threading the needle of evaluating talent at the big league level while still competing for the division. It's kind of crazy to watch, and sometimes blows up in their faces. They also have shown willingness to pivot quickly if that what is called for, see the Adames acquisition for example. Whoever starts the season in the infield and on the pitching staff might be less important than who ends the season there. I like Dunn and will root for him. He put up some really good defensive numbers last year, but he might well have a lot of pressure to succeed quickly given his track record and the other options we have.

Well this is fun. Love that this is a thing though IIRC there was a significant pitching injury last spring (was it Logan H?). So what's the starting infield? Start the older* batch so Wilken - Pratt - Areinamo - Burke then swap out to the even more youthful youth movement Adams - Made - Baez- Bitonti? Or pander to the fans and run out Bitonti - Pratt - Made - Burke to start? Three catchers (with Dinges maybe a candidate for DH or 1B?), nine infielders (and yet no room for Boeve, Black, or Adamczewski), and five outfielders. Somebody just plays the whole game on the grass? Logan H also a prominent omission, but maybe he and Black are omitted cuz they have a chance to break camp with the Crew? Either would be surprising but then Miz and especially Yoho are playing too. Does 40-man status affect eligibility? Also I follow this team's minors pretty closely and am not sure I've ever heard of Bryant or Hostetler. *Not very old at all, of course.

The National Park.

Eduardo Garcia is ever intriguing, as a former hyped international seven figure bonus baby who is still quite young and made a bit of noise in the winter leagues. The k/bb numbers in the low minors are not promising, but a fella can hope. With other promising infielders on the way, though, even a great season by Garcia might well just lead to him being used in a trade, as we saw with Barrios last year.

I wonder whether any statement like "PlayerX is the starting PositionY" is probably both premature and not consistent with the Brewers' recent MO. I'd guess that there will be a lot of moving around for a bit, but maybe that was Counsell's approach and less so Murphys? Last year only two Brewers played 140 games or more at a single position: Adames and Turang. Next was Ortiz with 134 at 3b, Contreras who caught 120 games, and (surprising me) Perkins with 119 games in CF. Contreras, Turang, Ortiz, Chourio will be out there every day, and are probably the strongest cases for having set positions, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a good bit of mix and match even with the middle IF as they evaluate Durbin, Dunn, Black, and the shortstop defense of Turang and Ortiz. The OF/1B/DH mix was always going to be a 'arrange five of these eight names based on health, matchups, etc, and if Chourio is not one of those names, maybe try again.' This year has to be both about trying to win the central but also getting a read on young talent. This is very true in the rotation, but also in the infield. Also those lights in the rear-view are from Mike Boeve and Cooper Pratt, who might change the calculus sooner than expected.

I remember this coming up in the draft thread, including the Ray comparison and the suggestions that it was not a good comparison. Here's what I said: I think what's most relevant is that both Crawford and Payne were young HS picks, wide receiver types, presumably meaning great speed, agility, and hands, but less time dedicated to baseball. What sets Payne apart from Ray and many other toolsy outfielders is extreme youth but more importantly his precocious swing decisions, which I believe was understood to be something Ray would have to work on. While there was an expectation that he could slap the ball and get on base, at the time of the draft I don't think anyone here foresaw the exit velocities he would achieve as a 17 year old in low A ball. Kudos to the scouts that did.

The key phrase: 'not as willing to sacrifice defense ... as the author is.' OK, that is like saying not as willing to sacrifice sunshine as a vampire, maybe, but the fact remains that the author is notorious for proposing defensive alignments that the Brewers would likely never adopt. It's kind of charming if that is your thing I guess, but I really don't think you can have a meaningful conversation about these infielders without considering defense. Is that really an 'or'? I think what you said and what I said are more compatible than not. Minor league playing time is a resource the team can employ to improve the future roster, including giving a player defensive reps and coaching at a position at which he might improve. That they are no longer choosing to do so here suggests that they do not feel that these are positions at which Black can reach an acceptable level of defense.

I'm not sure that you can really talk about the Brewers' choices on the infield without talking about defense. These guys are more than just stat lines, and the Brewers have shown that they are not as willing to sacrifice defense in order to get a bat in the lineup as the author is. At least at the MLB level, that is...they will invest minor league playing time in the hopes that defense will develop. The fact that they are no longer doing so with Black at 3B or even 2B has to be a tell. How many of the guys who played innings at 3B would the Brewers actually tolerate there in the majors? I do think that moving on from Rea signals that they are planning on filling the back end of the rotation from within, for what it's worth. There are plenty of candidates, so likely this will be similar to the approach to the outfield: let performance and health sort out the surplus.

This link: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-offseason-key-dates-free-agency-begins-awards-winter-meetings-hall-of-fame-spring-training-and-more/ suggests Nov 19 is the deadline this year.

IIRC they use a different filter than, say, the MLB rookie qualification. Days on roster (including IL) vs IP/PA has made for slightly different eligibility over the years. DL Hall was still on some lists this spring, for example, whereas he had graduated from others.

I am a bit surprised, but as I said a bit ago, Rea is probably more valuable in Milwaukee than he is for most teams. Herget was claimed by Mets today as well, so it does seem they are clearing spots on the 40-man roster. Likely this is for all the players that ended the season on the 60-day IL; I don't think Rule 5 decisions are needed for a while yet.

Pitching depth evaporates so fast, and it's important to remember that even the guys who pitched well this year are not guaranteed to do so again. Most pitchers have track records sprinkled with injuries and ineffectiveness, and while it's nice to dream on Woodruff, Ashby, and Hall, none of them are even close to sure things and it's unwise to plan as if they are. Heck, there's a decent chance the three of them together don't match Rea's 2024 innings total. (I hope they are all great, mind you.) Even Myers, as great as his year was, doesn't have the track record to assume he'll be that good going forward. Rea is pretty cost-effective for what he offers, namely a bunch of reliable league average innings; we were willing to pay $7M (including the mutual option) for Junis last year in the hopes that he would do that. Rea is also probably more valuable to us than to anyone else, our defense helps him and there's clearly some mutual comfort level. Not sure he'd have a lot of trade value. Civale has a better track record but is more expensive; he'd likely bring more in a trade. I hope they keep them both but it also wouldn't surprise me to see either go, particularly if the payroll is negatively affected by the TV contract.