CheeseheadInQC

My guess: Yes: Brinson, Hader, Cordell, Phillips Maybe: Wang, Williams, Diaz

When I saw the title of this thread, the two things that popped into my mind were: 1. There's a good chance Candelaria gets moved for a reliever. 2. If Stearns likes him, would the Cubs be interested in Torres? As for signing the Cubs relievers, if the price is right, fine, especially if Torres gets dealt, but I'm not sure Wood as a starter is the answer. His K rate dropped significantly even out of the pen this season, and he struggled with right-handed hitters. Maybe some of that is usage based, but I'm not sure he's really an upgrade over the starters the Brewers already have.

I can understand the rationale, but I have a feeling the dearth of high-level catching in the free agent market might push his price north of where it would be worth it for the Brewers given that his stats seem to basically be Martin Maldonado with a platoon split.

I'm a little surprised by this, simply because he seemed to have the highest upside for next season of the guys in contention for the last one or two bench spots (Reed, Wren, Rivera, Pinto if they don't consider him a catcher).

I'd guess Gatewood gets bumped up to A+, especially after apparently looking good in instructs. Harrison has seemed to get injured every time he looked like he might be getting close to turning a corner, so I think they might keep him in Wisconsin to start the season just to try to build up a little momentum. Personally, though, I don't know that it's an "or" with Harrison and Clark. It wouldn't shock me if the opening day outfield for the Rattlers is entirely composed of returners (Harrison, Clark and Belonis). There's really no need to push them to free up outfield spots. Orimoloye and Zach Clark both seem likely to start in short season ball, and while Segovia's on base percentage is intriguing, I could see them giving him more time to try to develop at least doubles power.

I have a feeling, assuming he has other options, he only re-signs with the Brewers if he thinks he has a decent chance to make the big league club out of spring training. As of right now, if he doesn't, he'd be behind Brinson and likely Cordell (and possibly Phillips if he ends up in AAA) and fighting for the remaining AAA outfield at-bats with Reed and Wren. Obviously a lot can change, but there would likely be a clearer path to AAA playing time elsewhere than Milwaukee.

I know the stats won't support it, but I wouldn't be surprised if both Erceg and Gatewood start in Carolina next year (starting infield of Gatewood, Diaz, Rijo and Erceg), especially now that they are in a more neutral A+ environment. If he performs well in the spring, I could see them moving Gatewood up and hoping a promotion helps spark something like the midseason one did for Coulter last year. He can shift back to third later in the season if Erceg performs well enough to get moved up to Biloxi.

I completely missed that part with La Stella. I thought it was just a reaction to being sent down. He just seemed like the best fit when you look at the list of blocked guys with third base experience. It sounds like the Royals and Mets might give Cuthbert and Rivera shots at 2nd base. Greg Garcia is unlikely to be starting for the Cardinals, but I don't think their roster crunch is as bad as the Cubs', so they'll probably keep him for his value as a utility infielder. Marte or Cowart from the Angels?

I was using the road numbers to illustrate that Colorado Springs was in full effect. Given that he failed to really hit anywhere else, you could make a good case that his performance wasn't actually that much better than 2015, he just had the benefit of the thin air and what that does to the baseball half the time. The problem is, one of the big things that made him an interesting prospect was his walk rate and the on-base skills that led to. He needed to recapture that, and he actually slid further last season, hitting an all-time low on his walk rate. Of guys who've played third, he got out-performed at CS last year by Perez, Middlebrooks, Elmore and Orf. I can't see him surviving the offseason on the 40-man. He's out of options, and the sample size in spring training is likely too small for him to win a big league job. If he can get his walk rate back closer to where it was when he was in A and AA, he'll likely have a major league future, but he's almost certainly going to have to show that in the minor leagues first before he gets another shot.

Given that I have to think, after everything that happened, he won't be a Cub next year, might Tommy La Stella be a possibility? I guess I don't know enough about his defense to know if he'd be a liability at third, but the events of this year probably lowered his value and he seems to be somewhat useful with the bat even if he doesn't have your typical 3rd base power. Just looking at guys who played some third base this year but didn't have a starting spot waiting for them next season, and he was one of the names that caught my eye. He'd probably be cheaper trade-wise than Candelario.

Cecchini's road splits last year were .215/.287/.290, and he hasn't had that elite walk rate for a couple of years. I could see things clicking back into place for him at some point, but it would likely have to happen first in the minor leagues. Given his stats the last two years (his second and third go-arounds in AAA), I can't see him getting a big league shot to start next year from the Brewers or any other team. At this point I'd see Aaron Hill coming back as a stopgap as more likely. If the Brewers are set on shifting Villar to 2B, Perez is the only legitimate option currently in the Brewers system, and even then, I'm guessing Perez's replacement as the utility guy likely comes from outside the organization.

Although I still think they probably pick up a third baseman another way, the Brewers' lack of infield options in the upper level of the minor leagues is why Valbuena makes about as much sense as any possible free agent signing. Perez would still get plenty of at bats as the top backup at three infield positions (which seems to be the role the Brewers would prefer to have him in). Rivera's defense will keep him in the picture, but his stat line last year, including AAA, makes it tough for me to see him as a guy you're reserving Major League at bats for. I could see Cecchini coming back on a minor league deal because someone has to play third base at Colorado Springs, but he struggled to post a .700+ OPS in the thin air. Basically, so many pointed out in the other thread, Erceg is the most advanced likely third base prospect in the system right now, and he hasn't played above A ball.

I think this year's third baseman will probably be a Villar/Broxton/Liriano/Nieuwenhuis-type low-profile trade or waiver claim, but if they strike out there, on paper it seems as if Luis Valbuena would make about as much sense for the Brewers as any free agent this year if the price is right. That's an exceptionally low bar, though.

If there's a trade done with the Rays, it seems like a prospect-for-prospect type deal is most likely. AAA outfielder for AAA infielder? Cordell might be at about the same level prospect-wise, but given how much of an emphasis the Brewers seem to be placing on acquiring guys with above-average athleticism, I'm not sure Milwaukee does that deal.

$8 million seems high, but there are some advantages to Carter that could appeal to teams over some of the options available in free agency, at least offensively. Unlike some of the other first baseman around his level (Brandon Moss), his platoon splits aren't bad. Also, for as streaky as he is, he seems like a decent bet to pretty much replicate his full-season stats (one-year wonder Sean Rodriguez). Most of the other non-QO guys, except Pearce, seem to either be lost, done or, in Mike Napoli's case, to have turned into an older version of Chris Carter. I can see there being a market for Carter. Maybe not at $8 million, but I also don't think he'd be as shunned as some suggest.

I think there would be a trade market for Nieuwenhuis. Not a big one, but I think a return similar to the Aaron Hill deal could be had, or perhaps a blocked, out of options infielder with some remaining upside. If he were to be non-tendered, he'd be one of the top center fielders in the non-$5 million plus range on the free agent market. Someone in need of a backup center fielder would take him at the arbitration price.

If they are moving Villar to second, I think it is more likely next year's third baseman isn't currently with the organization. Perez works great in the utility role, and the Brewers don't really have anyone in the minors who looks like he is going to develop into a starting 2B/SS/3B before 2019 (the earliest I see any of Diaz, Erceg or even someone like Rijo if he breaks out making the big leagues).

While there's a lot to like about Joyce's bat if 2015 was an aberration, he's almost certainly going to be paid at least like a full platoon guy, and therein lies the problem. I can understand that you don't want to bottom out during a rebuild, but at some point you have to accomplish the goals of a rebuild regardless, and part of that is determining who is part of your long-term plans. With the number of outfield prospects that the Brewers have who are going to be pushing for MLB playing time pretty soon, next season is crucial to making a determination on Santana, and you can't do that if he is relegated to the right-handed half of a righty-lefty platoon. Also while this might mean a little less playing time for the backup center fielder, I think they'll have one on the roster regardless, whether it is Nieuwenhuis or possibly Wren. The one whose roster spot this would doom would be Liriano, although he's not a lock anyway.

1. Josh Hader 2. Lewis Brinson 3. Luis Ortiz 4. Corey Ray 5. Isan Diaz 6. Phil Bickford 7. Marcos Diplan 8. Trent Clark 9. Lucas Erceg 10. Brett Phillips 11. Brandon Woodruff 12. Freddy Peralta 13. Jacob Nottingham 14. Jorge Lopez 15. Gilbert Lara 16. Ryan Cordell 17. Kodi Medeiros 18. Cody Ponce 19. Monte Harrison 20. Nathan Kirby 21. Zack Brown 22. Corbin Burnes 23. Miguel Diaz 24. Demi Orimoyole 25. Mario Feliciano Next 10 26. Jacob Barnes 27. Clint Coulter 28. Devin Williams 29. Taylor Williams 30. Jake Gatewood 31. Trey Supak 32. Troy Stokes 33. Wei-Chung Wang 34. Brent Suter 35. Gabriel Garcia Comments: - I know I'm likely to again be the highest on Brown (and perhaps again the only one to list him in the top 25), but the combination of the compliments about his stuff during the draft writeups and the fact that I believe only Perrin had a better WHIP or K/BB ratio at Wisconsin this year has me intrigued. - This always makes me realize how little I know about how the non-top prospect pitchers project. Perrin's a good example. - If I'd have gone out to 50 I'd have tried to fit Desguin in. For a guy who doesn't have as much pitching experience, his Wisconsin stats are pretty impressive.

It wouldn't shock me if Nieuwenhuis gets dealt for an out-of-options infielder who takes Rivera's spot. He's just good enough as a fourth outfielder that I could see him being the bait in Stearns' search for this year's version of Villar or Broxton.

No one bats 1.000 and in order to hit on every one Stearns and Co. would have had to have been able to predict things that go beyond player performance, most notably Santana's injury. I've always looked at the Davis trade much more as clearing a space for Santana than as your standard deal off veterans for prospects rebuilding deal, and I think if Santana hadn't been part of the Gomez/Fiers trade that there is a good chance Davis is still a Brewer. Also, the very nature of trying to both improve a Major League roster and simultaneously rebuild, especially for a payroll-limited team, means some failure is inevitable because it demands risk, and lots of it. A number of the guys you're including as success stories likely wouldn't have been given everyday playing time on a team that was "going for it" (and after his initial failure, Broxton almost certainly would have been stuck in AAA for the rest of the year). And if I remember correctly, didn't you want to play it safe and bring in veterans to fill a couple of those spots? I'm opposed to pure tanking because it means you're purposefully avoiding adding talent at one of the levels of your organization, and adding talent is what's key. I am, however, in favor of risking being awful at some spots during a rebuild while giving upside guys a chance rather than settling for mediocre. My question is, after listing all of those types of moves that turned out in your initial post, are you?

-- If Gennett isn't back, I almost wonder if we see a couple of moves to pick up young risk/reward infielders, perhaps dangling some of the team's outfield depth (Nieuwenhuis?), hoping one turns into either a starting second or third baseman. -- I could see Wren being added if they trade Nieuwenhuis, but otherwise I'm guessing he and Orf are left off the 40-man. Orf just seems like the type of guy who isn't going to be added until he is needed on the big league roster, the offensive equivalent of Suter or Cravy. -- If they only trade one of the starting pitchers, I'm wondering if they move Jungmann to the bullpen.

I actually agree with you (notice I said two of the conditions were likely false). I was basically saying that I have no problem with a team bringing in a veteran during a rebuild if it doesn't cost much and the alternative is tossing out a low-upside AAAA guy. My guess is McCann will probably get dealt to a contender or a team that thinks it needs a veteran catcher for a young pitching staff for a nominal prospect but with the Yankees only having to pick up 1/3 or so of the contract.

I've never been a huge fan of pure tanking because I think it is all about collecting talent, and if you are truly tanking you are actively avoiding adding talent to one portion of your system (then again, I'm not sure too many examples of pure tanking have actually existed in the MLB, despite what the ESPN guys would have you believe). That being said, when you're rebuilding the decision-making calculus has to change, and a big way that it can is that you can risk being awful at a position in order to seek a long-term solution rather than seeking safety at a spot by way of settling for mediocrity. That's why I liked Stearns' island of misfit prospects approach to building a portion of the team's roster this season. He was willing to risk being bad in certain spots in order to give high-ceiling, low-floor guys a chance to succeed, and the team ended up perhaps winning a few more games because of it than if he had signed fringy veteran free agents to fill those spots. Sure some didn't turn out (Flores, Walsh), and a few never had a chance because of injury (Liriano, Nolin), but they hit on enough to call it a success. Basically, to my mind, McCann only makes sense if three things are true: 1) The Brewers don't have a problem with McCann's personality. 2) The team doesn't think either Pina or Susac can become a solid starting catcher. 3) The Yankees pay most of the salary without asking for much a prospect in return. If those things are true, I don't see how it would be any different than the Carter signing (yes, he's younger, but few really seem to consider him a big part of the team moving forward). I just highly doubt all three of those things are true. In fact I'd guess at least two of them aren't.

Weren't some of the aggressive placements this year because of imbalance in the A ball rosters, basically having not enough players who deserved to be in A+ while having too many who deserved to be at Wisconsin to fit on the roster? Were this not the case, guys such as Hanhold and Derby might have started at Wisconsin and Collymore and Cuas almost certainly would have. It looks like there could be the opposite problem next year, with some pitchers being held back because of there are only so many open rotation spots in A+. As for Ray, the placement was definitely aggressive, but after a slow start he seemed to adjust. His stats for August were pretty darned good. Is there really enough there to say that the A+ placement did a disservice to his development?