Cool Hand Lucroy

Yikes, Pratt. That was a lazy miscue there. Needed that out.

It's possible teams evaluate prospects differently, isn't it? We're not talking about crude oil, where there's a price based on tons of daily transactions. People pay different prices because everyone has their own evaluation systems, their own scouts, and their own computer models.

Because they are right more than average. I bet they were wrong a lot. Because everyone is. The rates are just much higher on internet forums. The reality is, reputable publication miss all the time. Just like good hitters strike out all the time. This trade might be terrible! It would just be nice if the detractors would admit there's a reasonable chance it'll work out just fine.

This I completely get. Honestly? I don't think I would have done this deal. But I think the trade deadline is always a seller's market, and the Brewers are usually better sitting it out and dealing with the bad press. They never care about the press anyway. That said, I can see an argument for why May and Romero are valuable enough to warrant two very, very young OFers from a system chock full of them. Maybe the Brewers just think this is the highest those players will ever be valued. I guess we'll find out who's right by 2030.

That doesn't connect at all, though. Maybe the Brewers like May and Romero a lot more than Gausman. Maybe the Blue Jays valued what they got from the Cubs really highly. Maybe the Brewers are just not that high on Frias and Ragsdale. It's fine to THINK we gave up too much. But the certainty with which some folks have pronounced it is a big red flag that undercuts their take. I promise you, most big-league GMs are very fluent in uncertainty and very aware that the error bars around prospect evaluations are massive.

All very good points. The good argument against this trade is: "I think these guys have higher value, and the Brewers should have waited because, at the very least, they'd have been able to sell them for more at a later date." Or, "One of these guys is going to be in the top 3 Lara/Chourio/Payne/Adamczewski/Mitchell/Frelick/Lockridge/etc." Those arguments may end up being right on. Nobody has any idea what Frias and Ragsdale will do as big-leaguers. I'm not up in arms about this trade in any way. I think it seems reasonable. But I'll happily admit that I'm nervous we didn't get more for two really fun, young OFers. I'm just not sure how anyone can be so absolutely certain this is an overpay and compare it to crapping down one's leg or selling a luxury vehicle for cheap. All of that just feels like Internet forum venting. Which is fine. But then, like, don't pretend it's something else.

Nah, we'll just let the Porsche sit in the garage. The reality is, we have NO IDEA if this is "half price." The value of an asset is what you can get someone to pay for the asset. And we can index that to all kinds of different indicators, but I guarantee the Brewers weren't looking at a full price offer and decided to take the half price one. Maybe you think they should've been able to get more. Okay. Maybe you think they shouldn't have moved these guys at all. That's fine too. But let's not get all high and mighty with "value-based thinking" and then throw out a spurious argument by analogy. If the Brewers regret this trade, they'll do so in 2028 or 2029. Borrowing from theoretical future value is how these transactions work. The fact is, the Brewers valued these guys at Dustin May and JoJo Romero. They probably have a lot more information to base that on than we do, and the idea that they have other prospects they like more is probably part of the calculus. I would argue that your jump to call that line of thinking dumb is what's moving us away from "value-based thinking."

In the same way that 20-30 percent of American holidays are meant to sell greeting cards, the trade deadline is meant to sell column inches. The Brewers are always in damned either way position. Either they swing big and sell the prospects on a very uncertain bet, or they stand pat and get nationally (and locally) hammered for not doing something to get over the hump in October. It's a no-win situation. As others have said, 2/3 of our current OF is locked up on long-term MLB deals. Those guys is gonna play. Then, you've got two prospects ahead of them already in the system. Then, you've got 2 top 100 draft picks (okay, Jones was #102), and I haven't even counted Felick or Lockridge, both of whom the org seems to like. Plus, I think OFers are the easiest position to find and develop. Honestly, if May had one more year of control, I think people would be perfectly fine with this, which tells you how off-base the "worst trade ever" remarks are. It's probably a slight overpay. It stinks that it's to the Cardinals (though that org is a total and complete mess right now if you ask me). And yet, the Brewers got two needed arms and dealt of a position of great depth. This feels like a typical deadline deal to me. There's not a lot of value to be had in a sellers market. There's probably a 10 percent chance we really regret this, a 30 percent chance neither Frias or Ragsdale do anything at all, and a 60 percent chance it works out within range of even, probably with a wider swath of that giving the Cardinals a couple wins worth of future value. We overvalue our own prospects. You can look at it like we only got two rentals, or you can look at it like we got two MLB quality pitchers for two guys outside the organizational top 10. This is perfectly reasonable, if you ask me.

I think the core of this team is as promising as it's ever been and agree with a lot of this. Amazing that this run of baseball has been so good, and it still looks like the window is wide open and staying that way. Obviously, that's annoying to some folks. They are probably tired of hearing about a future that never seems to arrive. Maybe it won't. Baseball is weird. Honestly, I care more about having a fun March/April-September than I do any part of October, and it's not close (unless we're playing the Cubs or Cardinals). The one part of this I'd disagree with slightly is that 2027 doesn't feel lost at all to me. If I believed prediction markets had any value, I'd be all over the "will be baseball" next year bet. I think the odds of a full season are completely undervalued. The owners are going to win the PR war, and they are able to absorb the financial losses much easily than a whole lot of the union. Right or wrong (I'd lean toward the latter), it's going to be very, very hard for the union to hold any kind of anti-cap line. Add to that the fact that everyone knows the TV money is a sinking ship for most of the league, and I think you're going to see a deal. What do I know?

That AB shows the downside of Contreras. Up 2-0 against a team that's struggled to close out games, and he tries to hit a 3-run bomb with no one on base.

Kind of hard to believe how good this offense has been with Chourio, Yelich, and Contreras all having their struggles, often simultaneously.

Weird thing about Miz is that if you had shown me this kind of outing late last year, I would have been thrilled. He's been incredibly efficient (something he's done well throughout the season). If he can just pitch to contact a little bit, he becomes, basically, one of the best in baseball history (assuming health). He's done that today, but the risk is you give up the one big swing. Offense going to have to pick him up. They've been the issue today, even as Urena has been very good.

Tough offense day so far, some of it self-inflicted, but Hamilton and Turang both hit balls well that inning. Certainly could have been two extra-base hits.

Not too worried about the slight velocity decline from Miz. I imagine the heat has something to do with it, not to mention the idea that the team is being really careful. Almost wonder if today was approached with an eye toward throwing more breaking stuff and trying to back off on the full-energy fastballs. If Miz can get outs on secondary stuff, that's good. But he's got to throw the stuff to do it. Today seems as good a day as any to try.

A good way to put it, and certainly true on this roster. I'd assume he's going to have value somewhere, just not in the bench OF role for a team hoping to win the pennant.

This goes under the "I have no idea about all the contextual factors Matt Arnold has intimate knowledge of" category. Surprised/not surprised to see Yoho go. It was clear the org didn't think his stuff could play, even last year when he was tearing up the minors and the big-league pen needed arms. The changeup is good enough that I thought they'd give him some leash, but not so good I had a lot of hope for him to become a high-leverage reliever. Naylor isn't that far removed from being a 1.5 win player despite hitting poorly. He's only 26, will cost almost nothing in arb, and has 3 yrs of theoretical control after this one. Heuer seems like...a guy. Maybe he's a guy the Brewers can turn into something, though, I don't know. He's done more in his career so far than Yoho, so I guess there's that? So long to Blake Perkins, a guy I enjoyed having around. Best of luck to him. I hope he can get a little offense back and stick around the bigs. He's just not valuable enough to remain on a roster that's going to have a lot of OFs the Brewers have more investment in. Doubt this is the final move the Brewers make, but they obviously see some marginal benefit to increasing their catching depth and adding an arm with MLB experience. Doubt it moves the needle, but it's cheap. I know we get attached to guys like Yoho (myself included), but there's probably guys like that in every system in baseball.

I didn't either, but listened to the game in the background while reading and waiting out a rainy day. Not a lot of wind talk from Pat and Ron that I picked up, and the Yankees 2 runs were both solo homers. I'm sure it was a factor, but it didn't seem like a clear bad offensive day kind of environment. Start of a big stretch tonight. Given the deadline, 17 games in a row, two west coast trips, and a good bit of decent competition, we'll know a lot more by the next off day. If the Brewers close this stretch still up 5-7 games, you'd feel great about that, especially if they get some improving health and maybe add an arm or two. I'm also keeping an eye on Atlanta. In some ways, their scores matter more than the Cubs, given that, if they catch us, winning the division doesn't matter all that much.

I refuse to cheer for the Cardinals. But the Cubs did lose.

I know the teams we're playing here in this stretch aren't great, but, when the schedule came out, a lot of folks looked at it and saw 20 games in 21 games, plus two West Coast trips wrapped around a homestand. This was always going to be tough. I'd certainly expect the Cubs to gain a little bit of ground here, especially since their tough series (NYY and LAD) are both at home. No need to panic about that. This is a time when the day-by-day standings aren't as important as what they look like on Sept. 1.

I'm way more optimistic on Yelich than most of this board, I think. His 95 OPS+ is BY FAR the worst of his career, and it still makes him essentially a league average hitter. There might be a case for playing him less. Indeed, I think there is. But the idea that he's washed feels premature. Players dip from time to time, and he's only 35! I mean, I know that seems old in baseball terms, but in this era where elite athletes are having longer careers in much more demanding sports, writing off his final two contract years seems like a big mistake.

I will maintain, when this long stretch of excellent baseball is behind us (which hopefully won't happen for a long, long time), that the Brewers understood something about identity that a lot of stat people write off. I can remember something similar with Carlos Gomez. The Twins basically tried to make him a slap hitter. When he came to Milwaukee, they let him be himself, and it shook something loose, including his best two years in the big leagues, getting the guy MVP votes. That stuff happens regularly, but it happens with the Brewers more.

Maybe Joey O is just a 3B? I'm half-joking, and I've seen others make the point before, but his best production has been with him in that role. Probably just a coincidence. I think this was a well-managed game by Murph. Got the 5 from Henderson, went to the rested bullpen quick, and closed it out with a day off tomorrow.

I'm a limited replay purist, but the one sport where it's helped is tennis. That's probably the only one. Those matches are much smoother with the Hawkeye system, even though it certainly has its limitations and definitely impacts officiating jobs. Seems to me like, when you can use technology to easily to automate (offside calls, goal line situations), it has a better chance of being useful without limiting game flow.

I actually think soccer could learn a lot about replay from the NHL, namely: 1) Challenges are only allowed after goals. 2) If you lose the challenge, you give up a power play. Obviously, the second one is trickier in soccer (though it works well enough in LAX), but I certainly like the idea that VAR should be involved in a challenge capacity and not as an all-time default. The NHL largely preserves the flow of the game and the celebration of goals. That's a good thing. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing for a challenge system per se. I do think it would be an improvement, though. As someone who watches the Championship (2nd division English league) a lot, the lack of VAR there actually enhances the viewing experience. Sure, sometimes your team gets burned, but that's life. Goals are goals. Offside is reasonably adjudicated. It's just a better emotional experience. Given how inconsistent VAR officials are (it's literally a different person every game), I'd be absolutely fine with using the semi-automated offside and goaline technology and calling it a day, especially in club play. You want to bring in challenges for the World Cup or Champions League or Championship playoff, okay, maybe. But this tournament was very bad. I will say that VAR is MUCH less intrusive in the Prem, La Liga, and the UCL than it has been in the past, and I think a lot of it is down to officials just largely understanding that they are in an emergency, egregious oversight role.

Lots of great locations for major soccer tournaments upcoming. The women's World Cup will be in Brazil, and then you've got Euro 2028 in Ireland and the UK, World Cup 2030 in (mostly) Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, and the 2031 women's tournament back in North America. Combine that with the Olympics in LA in 2028 (plus the French Alps in 2030), and it'll be a good five years to be an international sports fan. Lots of local opportunities, plus some fun possible trips! I think this tournament proved what the NCAAT often does--the governing bodies are awful and corrupt and greedy beyond any sense of decency or morality, but at least the games always show up. Whether it was the Tartan army, Yamal's brother, or Cape Verde, there was enough transcendent joy to last the next four years. It may well be a 64-team tournament by then, but... I'll be curious to see how this impacts fan interests in the game here in the US. A rough proxy might be checking to see whether Peacock (the Prem), Paramount (Champions League), ESPN+ (La Liga and Bundesliga), or AppleTV (MLS), get any kind of subscription growth. I think club soccer has a little bit of room to grow, but it might be closer to its ceiling than people think. We'll see. In any case, I'm glad the best team won.