KeithStone53151

With the contracts some of these mega stars are getting with less than 1 year service time, I think the days of signing premium talents to contracts like what Albies got are more or less gone. We can certainly try. I mean, Peralta bit against the advice of his agent and that's already a W even if Peralta's arm falls off tomorrow. Based on Peralta/Ashby, I think it's safe to say the Brewers are having these discussions with players where they deem it appropriate/strategic. But there's high risk, and the player needs to be willing to accept the team friendly deal...some guys like Mookie Betts simply are willing to bet on themselves. But man I never thought Hiura would bust like he seemingly has to this point after that rookie year. Imagine if we had extended Hiura and signed him to like 7/70 and owed something like 55 million over the next 4+ years? Its tough building a competitive roster with half the resources of the big guys, we really can't ever miss on big contracts and have significant dead money on the books and still compete. As soon as that happens, we're back in the days of having Suppan/Wolf/Garza/etc eating 10% of the payroll with poor results.

Not to get too off topic. To those wanting to extend frelick/mitchell/chourio/etc, imagine if we had extended hiura to even a $70-80 million dollar extension before he hit the majors? That would have been very bad. Imagine if Ashby has a Thornburg-esque shoulder problem and is basically toast? It's not like all these deals work out as intended, there's a ton of risk in signing a guy to an extension before he's seen much time at MLB. A ton of reward as well obviously.

I think the Brewers front office has done an absolutely phenomenal job creating a pretty large window of competitiveness. That said, I think it closes with Burnes/Woodruff and retooling will be needed. It's not likely 32 year old Willy Adames is the guy we want as part of the next competitive window. For me, that's likely the case unless this combination of Peralta/Ashby/Turang/Mitchell/Weimer/Frelick/Chourio are the game changers we hope they are. I would like to see the Brewers gauge an extension for Adames based on how those guys do this year as a whole. If that young core can carry a competitive roster, then we might be able to be competitive right away and those first few years of Adames will be on a competitive roster. If not, there's no reason to shell out the $$ so Adames can get us from 68 to 72 wins. A couple small notes, the Brewers will be a lot of fun over the next few years if the position players pan out...we could be scoring a lot of runs and baserunning could be a lot of fun to watch. One argument in favor of Adames that I haven't seen, he's a big energy guy and that's great for a clubhouse. The jolt he gave the Brewers upon acquisition was huge, his energy was infectious all the way through the clubhouse and we started winning like crazy.

I think the return on Burnes would be surprisingly high. I can't think of any precedent of a cy young being traded with 1.5 years of team control, at least not recently. There is of course the Greinke trade, and in retrospect I'm not sure the Royals got enough in that trade. What I've noticed in recent years is teams will truly pay a premium for an elite talent. It is however similar with elite prospects, you don't really see those guys move unless it's for like Mookie Betts or Juan Soto. Burnes does fall in comparable territory for me. A big club could trade for him in order to quickly give him the big extension before he hits FA and keep him long term. Last year, Luis Castillo was traded with 1.5 years of team control. He's a very solid starting pitcher, but inarguably not as valuable as Burnes would be at the deadline assuming he performs to his standards and doesn't get hurt. The Reds for Castillo got currently the number 29 prospect in baseball, the number 44 prospect in baseball, and 2 mildly interesting throw-in types. That is the absolute floor of what we could get for Burnes. I think we would get one absolute elite prospect added to what was received for Burnes. So a prospect in the 5-15 overall range, a couple more between the 30-75 range, and a couple interesting players...probably more interesting than what the Reds received as those guys I don't think have much hope. That can of course get shifted around, if for example the Orioles went on a run and were willing to trade Gunnar Henderson...we might not get much else. I've seen a couple people note Painter/Rodriguez as the headliner, that makes a lot of sense based on the rankings.

That specifically can be tied to having Josh Hader for most of his tenure. Teams with the best bullpens/closers tend to win more close games. That has little to do with the manager.

That's certainly fair, I stand by it in that specific case but that's my opinion...hardly gospel. Not to digress too much, I pop into NSB every so often to read their takes(the best part is how optimistic they are that they'll sign every big free agent to a team friendly deal because everyone loves the cubs...or something) and I noticed you posted in there. I'm guessing you simply are part of that community as I can't imagine someone owning a brewers forum and being a cubs fan.

Question, how much do we think the AGM or GM is evaluating talent? I would think those positions are more involved in the evaluation system and are using analytics and recommendations to make decisions. It would make sense seeing a correlation in us bringing in better talent over the last several years than we had previously, coupled with the Rays success with talent while Arnold was there. And so far, he's done really well in trades. It still baffles me that a trade in which the Braves get the best players, the A's get the best prospects, yet somehow the Brewers get the best value piece. It's like we somehow inserted ourselves and swindled both teams(really we swindled the A's mostly). It will be interesting to see if he still holds up in big mlb caliber decisions in a few years, right now he could be significantly helped by structure largely set up by Stearns for all we know. Also let's hope Arnold turning his attention to the entire organization fully doesn't impact the pipeline quality we've seen over the last few years.

I'm not here to argue 55/45 decisions, like using x reliever instead of y reliever in a given inning. My arguments tend to be leaving a guy in too long or pulling a guy too soon as far as pitching. Sometimes those are 55/45, others are much more clear. One example that sticks in my head from last year is leaving Hader in about 3-4 batters too long against the Giants. He let Hader concede 6 runs including 3 home runs in a game we were up 3 at one point. We lost on a grand slam to Yaz, so up until Yaz we still had the lead. Hader had been struggling a bit recently, I'm pretty sure every manager in the game gets him out of there, except CC. I also largely blame CC for Hiura not getting more consistent atbats last year, and especially against RH pitching. It was completely baffling that CC kept using Hiura primarily against LH pitching and he'd pull Hiura and put in Tellez or Vogelbach or whoever against RH pitching. Most of the season, Hiura was one of the best hitters in baseball against RHP. It's wild to me that CC didn't see the trend. The trend, is actually that CC has started managing in an old school way. Having his 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, etc. The simple RH hitter vs LH pitcher formula wherever possible regardless of splits. In the Hader scenario I can imagine his thought process in the dugout "well it's still a save situation, must leave in closer". He's going backwards if anything.

I tend to be pretty critical of Counsell. It's quite easy to nitpick his decisions, especially in a monday morning qb sense. I kinda feel like there's some similarity between Counsell and McCarthy. I believe McCarthy did the stuff you don't see really well, but come game day he might literally be the worst coach in the NFL. Counsell isn't THAT bad on gameday, but I sense he does the stuff we don't see pretty well. I get a sense these guys are properly motivated to compete and win. There's a good team aspect to the club. He does a good job managing for longevity of the season, he tends to error on the side of under-using pitchers...especially relievers(he's the anti-Maddon). The biggest problem I have with Counsell's game day decisions is they seemingly have gotten worse, not better, as he's gained experience. I don't think he's a guy that's capable of making the best decisions in the biggest games, now or in the future. So I think the Brewers FO is sitting there in the same situation they were with McCarthy, above average manager but not the guy that's going to get you to the promised land. Do you keep rolling with that manager or try to improve? In the Brewers case, I think the probably will and should continue to roll with CC. We aren't wasting prime #12 years like the Packers were with McCarthy, and teams can certainly win in spite of mediocre management(Ned Yost).

I took a fair amount of issue with his comments and what he felt like he needed. I'm a big proponent of needing to put in the work. Talent only gets you so far, and as talented as he is...he'll fall behind in a hurry if he's not putting in the work. I believe that's part of what we've seen the last couple years. Every other big leaguer is talking about being in the best shape of their life, and Yelich is talking about getting mental clarity. Previous seasons when our guys have gotten covid and had to quarantine, every other brewer talked about the work they were doing...bullpen sessions...etc. Yelich talked about how he picked up a guitar for the first time. Yelich reeks of a guy who got the contract and is going to show up and punch the clock. I hope I'm wrong. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, maybe mental clarity truly is the answer. We'll have our answer in a few months.

Nice article. Burnes was never coming back regardless. The discount required is too extreme to even be a consideration. The biggest issues could be Burnes not being willing to pitch on short rest ever, which i frankly wouldn't blame him considering. That could be problematic in the playoffs and/or if we have injuries down the stretch and he's healthy/able.

I understand your point, but I still think the A's are dumb...or at minimum are making a very dumb trade. But as I said, I do see your point there are aspects they are certainly considering that many here are not.

I'm quite confident he did not like it. i actually was against that trade at the time, it wasn't the slam dunk this one is.

This might literally be the first trade the brewers have made that you've liked, at least publicly/on these forums.

I feel like the report must be wrong, no way did we really get Contreras plus for Ruiz.

This is always just informational, Ruiz with his tools can have a widely variable valuation depending on the club/scouting done on him. That said, I don't see a scenario where this is all we give up. There's just no way. If it is that's highway robbery.

The delay makes me think we might be giving up a non 40-man guy. Because usually the big name 40 man guys are named right away.

I wouldn't say this is accurate, but he did significantly improve his framing during his time here...

Oh man if that's the best player we trade I'm ecstatic. Though it might not be...

I'm a bit underwhelmed by this, but for different reasons than most. Simply looking at an ERA and having an opinion is far too simple. My biggest issue is with him being a 2 pitch guy and not really liking the look of his slider. It doesn't seem to have a nice, tight shape. FB/slider with not a huge gap in the velocity already makes him a RH specialist more or less, add to that his slider doesn't seem like enough of a plus pitch for a 2 pitch guy...i have concerns. All that said, he's clearly not a finished product and can get better. That leads to part 2. Coming from the Dodgers has good and bad to it. The good is, the Dodgers are the best development team in baseball and we can potentially learn from him what the Dodgers are doing. The bad is, the Dodgers are the best development team in baseball, we can't expect to take a Dodgers pitcher and turn him into something if the Dodgers couldn't. So, the hope would be that the Dodgers have him doing stuff over the offseason that transforms him into an effective bullpen arm. That's the big upside here. The other potential outcome is, we learn something about how the Dodgers are developing pitchers and offer him back sometime during spring training for a 5 figure loss. If our development team learns anything from the Dodgers, that's almost certainly worth 5 figures.

If i have time, I do this sort of thing. I go to the forums of other teams that we've been linked to in trade and get a vibe for what their fans think their players are worth. The first related offer I saw was Montas and Laureano for Chourio, Wiemer, Small, and Perez. The second offer(much more reasonable) Laureano for Kelly and Mendez. That poster got shouted down for not getting nearly enough. Another guy wants Wiemer or Frelick as the headliner. Another guy thinks it should start with Frelick and Small with complementary pieces added. Mostly it's pretty typical overvaluing your own players type stuff. The Kelly/Mendez offer was clearly light and clearly one I would love to pull the trigger on. Anything involving Chourio is absolutely laughable. I could see Frelick being a headliner for him, but I wouldn't expect another highly rated prospect to be included unless it's like Ray or someone who's highly rated but really shouldn't be.

If i have time, I do this sort of thing. I go to the forums of other teams that we've been linked to in trade and get a vibe for what their fans think their players are worth. The first related offer I saw was Montas and Laureano for Chourio, Wiemer, Small, and Perez. The second offer(much more reasonable) Laureano for Kelly and Mendez. That poster got shouted down for not getting nearly enough. Another guy wants Wiemer or Frelick as the headliner. Another guy thinks it should start with Frelick and Small with complementary pieces added. Mostly it's pretty typical overvaluing your own players type stuff. The Kelly/Mendez offer was clearly light and clearly one I would love to pull the trigger on. Anything involving Chourio is absolutely laughable. I could see Frelick being a headliner for him, but I wouldn't expect another highly rated prospect to be included unless it's like Ray or someone who's highly rated but really shouldn't be.

Yelich is a bad defender in LF, he'd be laughable in CF. McCutchen is below average but passable in CF in Miller Park, but in any decent sized outfield we don't really want him out there. San Diego, NYM, LAD, SF, St Louis...all bigger parks and our most likely matchups in a potential postseason series. So those away games you have to run Taylor. I think it's pretty darn important we add a CF to avoid that issue.

Yelich is a bad defender in LF, he'd be laughable in CF. McCutchen is below average but passable in CF in Miller Park, but in any decent sized outfield we don't really want him out there. San Diego, NYM, LAD, SF, St Louis...all bigger parks and our most likely matchups in a potential postseason series. So those away games you have to run Taylor. I think it's pretty darn important we add a CF to avoid that issue.

Bell I think would be one of a few moves that would definitely move the needle. Bell would take atbats against lefties from Tellez and righties from McCutchen. You could more or less use those 3 guys to cover the 2 spots and hide the greatest weaknesses of the 3. You'd also have a really nice PH option late in the game. I remember in the last couple days we had Caratini come up in a key PH spot, as much as I like Caratini...I'd rather see Bell or Tellez take that at bat. I don't think Bell would be excessively expensive. There are probably other 1b/dh options available so it's not like we're gonna send Joey Weimer to get the deal done. And if we don't get Bell, as I said there are other 1b/dh options so we'll be fine.