CheeseheadInQC

I know Perry has been mentioned, but two of the other names conspicuously absent from the lineups thus far (unless I missed them) are the two guys who were the primary catchers for the Timber Rattlers last year. If they are hurt, Pena being able to catch could help out BC.

I think Rivera has played well enough that he shouldn't be on the bench. If he truly has recaptured the power he showed early in his minor league career without reverting back to the strikeout rate he had then, he could be a legitimate part of the future. It's tough to find that out, though, with only sporadic playing time. Either he is the starting second baseman at AAA or the starting shortstop in Milwaukee. That being said, if he is the starting shortstop, I'd almost rather see Villar getting a significant number of starts at third. He hasn't been great in the spring, but neither has Hill, and more playing time will let the Brewers know what they have with him. Maybe split the shortstop/third base starts 75%/75%/50% with Rivera, Villar and Walsh and have Hill be Gennett's platoon-mate.

I'll try my hand at this 1. Orlando Arcia 2. Jorge Lopez 3. Brett Phillips 4. Josh Hader 5. Trent Clark 6. Cody Ponce 7. Jacob Nottingham 8. Monte Harrison 9. Devin Williams 10. Kodi Medeiros 11. Isan Diaz 12. Gilbert Lara 13. Zach Davies 14. Demi Orimoloye 15. Adrian Houser 16. Clint Coulter 17. Michael Reed 18. Tyrone Taylor 19. Marcos Diplan 20. Keon Broxton 21. Nathan Kirby 22. Jake Gatewood 23. Yadiel Rivera 24. Miguel Diaz 25. Freddy Peralta And for the extras ... 26. Bubba Derby 27. Brandon Woodruff 28. Taylor Williams 29. Javier Betancourt 30. Victor Roache 31. Ramon Flores 32. Rymer Liriano 33. David Goforth 34. Trey Supak 35. Wei-Chung Wang 36. Sean Nolin 37. Damien Magnifico 38. Angel Ventura 39. Yhonathan Barrios 40. Garin Cecchini 41. Jorge Ortega 42. Jacob Barnes 43. Tyrone Perry 44. Hobbs Johnson 45. Carlos Herrera 46. David Denson 47. Dustin Houle 48. Tyler Cravy 49. Colin Walsh 50. Malik Collymore

I don't begrudge Palm for not making the Badgers a lock until after the Minnesota game. I always kind of thought they needed to get to 20 wins to be completely safe if some conference tournament weirdness goes on, and ESPN's bubble watch still hadn't moved them over to the lock category yet either (even one projection elsewhere which predicted they'd end up on the 5 line still gave them a 2 percent chance of missing the tournament). The constant negative tone when discussing Wisconsin and the condescension toward anyone who dare question him really undercut his credibility, though, regarding the Badgers. Also, you can't in one sentence say Wisconsin's resume has no real historic precedence and then in the next sentence try to apply historic precedence to part of it to discredit their chances.

Maybe it is just that I'm not as optimistic about Middlebrooks as some seem to be, but I have no problem with this. Middlebrooks has some pop, but after the last few seasons, I'm not sure what the chances are that he hits enough to put it to use. And Cecchini is coming off a disastrous AAA season and likely trying to rediscover his previous batting style. That seems like something best done in the minor leagues. I'd be less surprised if he was the opening day third baseman in Biloxi than I would be if he was the opening day third baseman in Milwaukee. It's not that Hill has a future in Milwaukee. It's that I don't know that the other options do either.

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th? That doesn't mean that that is the goal. If you're tanking, you fill a roster with a bunch of easy to root for but completely maxed out AAAA guys. They won't surprise you. While there are undoubtedly a number of those on the NRI list, most of the acquisitions at the big league level are guys with the tools to be significant contributors but who haven't put it all together. Will more of them fail than succeed? Sure. Not caring what your record is frees you up to take chances on guys like that (take a look at Jake Arrieta, who was bad and getting worse before getting traded to Chicago). Upside isn't great for tanking because it could surprise you and lead to more wins, but it is great for organization building because if you hit on even 20 percent, your future is better off. Also, the term tanking has connotations that rebuilding doesn't. Most fans realize that teams occasionally have to do at least some measure of rebuilding. Tanking, however, implies something less honest, more shady. I don't think it is any coincidence that the term is gaining in its use right before the next collective bargaining agreement starts being hammered out. There are people pushing it with their own agendas, and their best interests don't necessarily line up with the Brewers'.

The difference is in the method. The Bucks would often sacrifice the future for a slightly better but not good enough present. If the Brewers improve while also building up their minor leagues, that's a victory. The draft pick might be slightly worse, but it also likely means that several guys with a lot of team control have stepped forward. Maybe Villar, Broxton or Liriano make a claim at being part of the future. Maybe Chase Anderson helps the rotation take a step forward. It's about acquiring value more than losses. If the Brewers succeed despite trading away the veterans, that won't be a failure, it will mean that they have acquired more value both for now and the future. The thing is, I'm pretty sure every trade made this offseason except the Lind deal has included someone who will start the season in AA or higher. While I don't see the point as being improving the big league club, I also don't think that making it worse was the point. Personally I think acquiring long-term value was the point. As for Davis, the corner outfield was a position of strength. Not everyone can play.

Although Zunino and Peterson might be interesting buy-low candidates, this doesn't feel like buying low. Zunino is apparently in the midst of a complete swing overhaul, so I don't know how changing coaching staffs would affect that, and it really has to be successful for him to have much value given his production last season. As for Peterson, unless there is some injury that I don't know about, few offense-first college first-rounders have had as bad of minor league seasons as Peterson had last year, and almost none of those end up succeeding. Even most of the power prospects who flame out at the big league level are good to great throughout their rise to the majors.

I'd probably guess AAA: Davies, Lopez, Hader, Cravy, Burgos AA: Houser, Ortega, Wang, Woodruff, Terry (if healthy) A+: Medeiros, Williams, Ponce, Ventura, Burkhalter A: Diplan, Peralta, Supak, Diaz, Hanhold, Harber, Drossner, Trent, Ortega Houser and Burkhalter are the toughest for me. With Houser, he wasn't really all that successful until after the trade. With the pitching depth they have, I think they are going to put him in the best possible position to carry the advances he made after the deal over into the new season. That place is probably Biloxi. Assuming he doesn't regress, I fully expect to see him in the AAA rotation by midseason, but I think he'll be Biloxi's opening day starter to begin.

I think you're going to be devastated when Perez isn't on the major league club. There was a reason for his removal from the 40 man. Going to take superb play, some other guys to horribly suck and a possible injury for him to be in the show again. Given that Perez was stated to be on the short list of potential backups to Villar at shortstop, I'd say he has a pretty good shot if another shortstop isn't acquired. He was much better than Elmore last season, so all it would really take is the Brewers deciding to keep Yadiel Rivera in the minor leagues to start the season. At this point it really looks like Rivera vs. Perez (pick one) and Hill vs. Walsh vs. Middlebrooks (pick two, with one starting at third) for the backup infield spots.

I have a feeling Garza will be in the rotation to start the season but won't be after the trade deadline next year. Either he'll look good enough where another team will agree to at least eat part of the contract or he'll look completely unsalvageable and get cut. As for the rotation, for now I'd guess Davies ends up at AAA, but who knows what deals are to come. Stearns has shown a willingness to do any kind of trade if he sees long term value in it, not just your standard veteran for minor leaguers moves. A guy like Jungmann could even end up dealt if the return is right.

The only sport that might really be affected is basketball. I don't think you see teams tanking in the NFL in the truest sense. A lot of times bad football teams are just bad, and not for lack of effort. In baseball, the draft picks are helpful, but the real prize is the value of the prospects acquired in trades. Making the draft more random isn't going to change the calculus of years of control for teams not built to win now, especially ones who can't spend Dodgers-style. Only in basketball do I think is tanking for draft picks is actually a thing.

Good memories, but basically I think this comes down to the fact that they've got one lefty on the 40 man. It makes sense to bring in a couple of NRI guys, especially given that there's a chance someone makes them an offer too good to pass up on Smith. Jimenez is probably the more likely one to make the team, but who knows.

If the revenue sharing is significant enough, I could see a salary floor being put into place (partially to maybe extract other concessions from the players and partially to avoid the arguments from the large market teams that the small market owners are simply pocketing the revenue sharing money as pure profit). That being said, the NBA has a salary floor, but that hasn't stopped the 76ers. There are plenty of ways to go through an uncompetitive rebuild even with the floor in place. You could front-load extensions for younger players. You could get prospects for taking on other teams' essentially dead money contracts. Or, if the system is the same as in the NBA, the amount you're under the floor could simply be distributed among the players at the end of the season. A salary floor could be a worthwhile trade off for a revenue sharing proposal that actually makes a difference, but I don't know if it would have the kind of impact you're hoping it would.

I'm not arguing that Blackmon won't be a better player than his splits indicate. I'm arguing that an extra 60-80 points or so of OPS above his road splits has already been worked into his value. If teams valued him at his splits a) no one would want him at the salary he'll be set for and b) the Rockies wouldn't trade him because he'd have no value. Let's put it this way, a .730 OPS Broxton probably has as much net trade value as an .800 Blackmon (deducting for what Blackmon would cost to get) and I think there is a better chance Broxton puts up a .730 OPS than Blackmon puts up an .800.

I don't disagree with you in a general sense. You take value wherever you can get it, whether a minor leaguer or a young big leaguer, and I have nothing against the Peralta trade you suggested in theory. With this specific trade, though, I don't know that Blackmon is who we should be targeting. While who knows the accuracy of some reports, there are said to be enough teams "in" on him that I doubt you are going to get him for the value of his road splits. He'll probably be valued as somewhere between a .730-.750 OPS guy, and he'll have to better that to hold his trade value when he's more expensive and a year closer to free agency. I'd rather give Broxton a chance to see what he is capable of. Whatever you thought of the Rogers trade, he's a Brewer now and wouldn't cost anything additional. He has a better chance of falling flat but also has a better chance of actually increasing his trade value. I know you're opposed to tanking, but when you are rebuilding a roster, sometimes you have to take calculated risks with young guys. I think it makes more sense to take a chance with Broxton this year and see what you have. But who knows, maybe I'm just more bullish on him than most.

I know that Smith isn't Ken Giles, but given the price tag for controllable quality relievers this offseason, I wonder how close in trade value Smith and Kepler would be.

Barring more trades, I'll say ... 1. Villar, 3B 2. Gennett, 2B 3. Lucroy, C 4. Braun, RF 5. Davis, LF 6. Carter, 1B 7. Broxton, CF 8. Segura, SS For the bench, Maldonado and Flores (once healthy) are likely, and I'm guessing Walsh sticks. That leaves two spots left. I'm guessing Nieuwenhuis, Peterson and possibly Young will duke it out for one of them (I'd guess Nieuwenhuis) and Perez and Middlebrooks battle it out for the other. As for Perez, I think the case goes something like this: Unless I'm forgetting someone, the Brewers currently have 19 position players on the 40-man. Between the starters and the first three bench spots, that leaves 8 players. I think they'll want Santana to get regular at bats, and because they seem to want an actual center fielder in center, that means AAA until a trade happens. I can't see them starting Arcia in the majors because there is no reason to rush him. Neither Rivera nor Reed lit the world on fire at AAA last year and could probably benefit from consistent playing time there. Carter doesn't have extreme enough platoon splits to justify keeping a second first baseman, so Wilkins it probably out. Cecchini had a sub-.600 OPS at triple-A last year. I liked picking him up as a bounce-back candidate, but after last year I'm guessing that bouncing back would have to begin as the starting third baseman for either Colorado Springs or Biloxi. That leaves Nieuwenhuis and Peterson, and I don't think they can justify keeping six outfielders, so one of them is likely gone. That still leaves a free spot on the bench for an infielder. The three non-roster infield invitees are Perez, Middlebrooks and Elmore. The case for Perez among those three? He is the youngest and the only one who was actually replacement level last season. Middlebrooks is the bigger name, but doesn't either guarantee him a spot.

You are reading way too much into these acquisitions. They happen every offseason, whether the Brewers are "going for it" or not. In the last two years, you've got Elian Herrera, Matt Pagnozzi, Irving Falu, Jeremy Hermida, Joe Thurston , Pete Orr, John Ely, Bryan Petersen, Shane Peterson and Chris Perez, among many others. Barring a rash of injuries, maybe one or two of them will see 100 at bats this year. None of these signings or waiver claims point to losing being the goal of the strategy the front office is employing rather than just a likely result. Even the Cubs, who you often site, did things that don't point to pure tanking. They signed bounce-back candidates, who were more likely to produce wins than your standard AAAA guy. They took the occasional chance on a former highly thought of prospect who hadn't put it all together (the two strategies combined to net them Jake Arrieta). Basically the way I see it, the rules likely are 1) Don't commit long-term money until your core is established and 2) Don't trade prospects to chase wins. Everything else is about chasing long-term value. If the record is awful, fine. If they somehow manage to go .500 or better, well that just means that either veterans have either upped their trade value or young players have established themselves as a part of the future.

Perhaps I didn't state my point as as clearly as I wanted to. Basically I'm saying there is a difference between not chasing wins and chasing losses. Getting worse is a likely outcome of trying to maximize long-term value under the former, especially for a small market team like the Brewers, but it is not the goal. I don't look at the trades being made and think the team has a goal of getting worse next year. I look at the trades being made and think the team doesn't view next year's record as a goal either positively or negatively. It will be what it will be, and they'll keep trying to build a long term talent base regardless.

I'm still not sure why you think they are actively chasing losses rather than simply trying to maximize assets based off the fast that a playoff run with this team is highly unlikely. The three trades thus far with guys who were controlled past next season all brought back players likely to be on the big league roster. Is it just the fact that the Lind trade featured no one likely to be above Wisconsin? Because who knows the other offers, and the Mariners' system is not exactly brimming with close-to-the-big-leagues talent. As for Nieuwenhuis, he's likely a slightly above replacement level insurance policy in case Broxton falls on his face. They seem to actually want a center fielder to be the everyday center fielder. As for the topic, I have a feeling they stand pat, namely because few trades happen that early. If Garza is pitching well and a contender has someone go down, sure. Otherwise, I think they wait for the regression to happen and then sell some time between the All-Star break and the deadline.

Kole's not really surprising. If you're a healthy college draft pick who can't get out of short-season ball after a year and a half, the writing is on the wall. None of them are that surprising by themselves, but I'm a little surprised Curtis, Cooper and Lieser all got cut now. I would have thought at least one would have made it through to spring training as a break glass in case of injury guy at BC. I wonder if that either means they are likely to push a couple of the college guys from last year's draft to BC or if it is bad news for some of last year's BC pitchers (welcome back to high-A Gainey, Seidenberger, Earls and Archer). And yah, the college picks from that draft (minus Sneed and Leal, and to some extent Woodruff) were pretty underwhelming last year. Even someone like Demuth, the fact that he didn't hit high-A after being a high-round senior sign has to be a bit disappointing.

Like you said, I could see several pitchers at each of the A ball levels moving up once everything is said and done (and free up spots for Peralta and a couple more of the college draftees from last year on the Timber Rattlers). That said, there are two I could see moving down a level. Burkhalter's a bit of a coin flip for me. He's young enough where I could see them having him start the year back in the Wisconsin rotation. The other is a tad more unlikely, but I wonder if they hold Houser back in AA. Cravy or Burgos could easily slot into the AAA rotation, and for as much success as he had after the trade, he had struggled before it, and I could see the Brewers wanting him to build upon the stronger finish with another month or two at AA, especially given the Colorado Springs factor.

Just tossing this out there, but who says no: Lucroy to the Cubs for Torres, Contreras, Cease and de la Cruz. Brewers pros: Upside. Four BA top 10 for the Cubs including Nos. 1 and 2, plus two higher upside pitchers. Plus, Contreras fills an organizational hole. Cons: Risk. Contreras is a bit of a one-year wonder and the rest likely would likely start the season in BC or Wisconsin. Cubs pros: Get Lucroy without giving up any of their young big leaguers, leaving them more guys who can contribute this year, or widening the scope of their possibilities for trading for another starter (a contender is more likely to deal a young starter for Baez or Soler because they can help immediately). Cons: Lot of top prospects and giving up two higher upside pitching prospects, even if they are a ways away, hurts given that might be one of their few organizational weaknesses.

Peterson's 2015 season raises some red flags, especially given that a significant part of his big previous season was at High Desert, which, correct me if I'm wrong, has a reputation for being almost as hitter-friendly as Colorado Springs. College first round position players, even the ones who end up disappointing in the big leagues, rarely have that kind of trouble in the minors. I was curious, so I looked up the 2002-2009 drafts. 23 first round college picks put up full-season OPSs below .700 before reaching the major leagues. Only two have put up more than 2 career WAR, and one of them (Cliff Pennington) is a middle infielder whose bat wouldn't fly at first base. The only other one to become a decent big leaguer was David Murphy. Total, the group averages less than 1 WAR and if you take out Pennington and Murphy, that number drops into the negatives. You can argue the three pitchers would have to beat the odds to contribute, but truthfully so would Peterson. Overall I'm kind of in the middle on the trade. I don't think the value is exceptional and I would have liked a little more established of a main piece, but I don't think it is some kind of travesty either. And to the notion I've seen a couple of places that getting these three bears little difference to signing a trio of DSL pitchers, with the success they've had so far before even coming to Milwaukee they'd already likely be in the top 10 percent of Latin American pitchers the Brewers have signed in the last decade. How many guys coming up through their DSL team have had seasons with the kind of peripherals that these guys did last year? I can come up with maybe four (Ortega, Ventura, Rizzo and Luna) although I might be forgetting one or two. Given the Brewers' track record, this is probably closer to them signing 30 Latin American pitchers and then a couple of years later picking out the best three.