paul253

I’d still like to see them make a run at Degrom or Syndergaard. Seeing starting pitchers going 2 innings during the playoffs because you don’t trust them to go through the lineup a second time makes me cringe a bit, as does using Josh Hader in the third inning. We have plenty of quantity in the rotation but not much quality. I’m really hesitant to move Hiura but man would it look good to have Degrom in the rotation.

It was good, but it wasn’t even the best sports logo in Milwaukee sports history.... https://goo.gl/images/soEVL5

Who are you going to throw out at second base then? Hernan Perez?

You can’t just throw out a bunch of names and ages and declare the rotation to be a strength. Davies has been horrible this year, even when he was healthy. Nelson is still a major unknown due to his significant shoulder injury. Hader, until were told otherwise, is a reliever. Peralta is a back end of the rotation starter. Burnes is an unknown as he’s never started a game before. I’m sorry but I’m not ready to proclaim the rotation a strength. Not even close in fact. It’s more of a major unknown than anything. This team needs a few things. A top of rotation starter. A new hitting coach. A guy that can get on base and play either catcher or Shortstop. I assume Schoop and Soria will be back because Soria can be a major asset and I really don’t see a better option at second base than Schoop. I really think they should consider hiring a manager with playoff experience as well. Counsell is fine but after back to back collapses I really question if he is the man for the job.

I’d take a flyer on Gray but I don’t want to give up Zack Brown. I’d be willing to move two lower level prospects or lower ceiling guys like Ponce or Diplan.

I had the same issue with Directv Now.

That’s whats we assumed when we signed Cain and traded for Yelich. We all assumed more moves would be coming and nothing did.

Yeah assuming we add those two we don’t really need much. Outfield will be set. First base. Third base. Second base. Maybe some insurance for Arcia. But the rotation is set. If you pick up the option on Soria the bullpen is mostly set. Nottingham and Pina splitting catching duties. Just basically need the guys you already have to hit better.

What does a realistic package look like for Schoop and Gausman? No way I include Hiura or Burnes. Since Gausman has so much control left perhaps Woodruff or Peralta is the headliner. Throw in Villar since we no longer need him. Two more prospects?

I’d absolutely take a shot on Gray but I wouldn’t give up Ortiz. I’d offer up Ponce and Supak.

Isn’t this the same “hindsight” argument we aren’t supposed to be using? At the time we had Cain, Yelich, Braun, Phillips, and Broxton as major league ready outfielders. We also had Thames who could play there. That’s 6 additional options. We didn’t “need” him. We had plenty of quality depth to replace him.

By this logic we can argue he took a risk not trading Aguilar and the risk paid off. However by your logic we can’t give him credit for it. If we can’t blame him for losing gambles then how can we praise him for winning gambles? See a bit hypocritical. Fair enough. Then I suspect we’ll never again complain about a first draft pick that doesn’t pan out. Or a free agent signing that turns out bad. Nobody ever has the right to complain about a move that doesn’t pan out. Is that what you’re saying? GMs are judged in hindsight all the time. If we can’t look at the results of their moves how else are we supposed to judge them? On whether the moves made sense at the time? I know it wasn’t Stearns but drafting Jungmann and Bradley made perfect sense at the time. So what, we can’t complain about that draft because we didn’t know they’d turn out as bad picks? Absolutely he wins big for not cutting Aguilar (not that cutting Aguilar was ever an option this is a straw man argument). But yes he should absolutely be given credit for hanging onto Aguilar. Well if he did that then we couldn’t assume that he was only offered absolute crap in return for Santana, which everyone who wants to defend him over this is doing. Everyone is just assuming Stearns was offered crap in return because surely he couldn’t ever possibly turn down a deal that would have worked out for us. I doubt he was offered a stud pitcher. But it was rumored he wa looking for major league pitching in return. I think it’s plausible that he was offered prospects but didn’t want prospects. Or he was offered other positions players. Or perhaps he was offered pitcher A but he wanted pitcher B. I think that’s more likely.

Look we can go on and on. But what we do know is this. Domingo Santana was not needed given the other offseason moves. David Stearns tried to trade him in the offseason but didn’t. Domingo Santana has had a terrible year, his trade value has tanked and now we need him even less. If you think Stearns handled this situation perfectly fine that is certainly your right. Personally I think he could have handled it better. I think he gambled that Santana would have another good year and his trade value would increase and I think he lost that gamble big time.

Given the year he had I find it highly unlikely nobody offered anything. It’s think it’s far more likely teams did offer something but it wasn’t what Stearns wanted. And yes, you could argue that if the return wasn’t what he wanted it made sense to hold onto him. But there is risk in that is there not? We risk him having a bad year or getting hurt and all of a sudden whatever value he had is gone, which is exactly what happened. Stearns gambled by hanging onto him and so far it looks like he lost. I’m not sure why we can’t call that a mistake. Is it possible that four years from now that it will turn out ok? Sure. But perhaps we can revisit that argument in four years because all we have to go on is what has happened so far.

You’re making a ton of assumptions here. First off you have no idea how hard Stearns was trying to trade him. He could have very well told teams “he’s available but only if the price is right”. That’s very different than actively trying to trade him. Also, you have no idea how much other teams liked him. Just because they didn’t pull the trigger on a trade for him doesn’t mean they didn’t like him. We didn’t pull the the trigger on a trade for Manny Machado. Does that mean we didn’t like him? Of course not. It means the asking price was too high, which very well could have been the case with Santana. I’m confused. You are the one telling us how free swinging and inconsistent a hitter he is. Not me. All I said is that IF he is the kind of player that YOU said he is then Stearns should have taken anything he could get for him. I never flat out said we should have taken anything we could get for him. I only said that would be the case IF he was as you said he is. I happpen to think a little more highly of him than you. But that doesn’t change the fact that DS missed an opportunity to trade him.

Fair enough. But you’d be very hard pressed to convince me his value will ever be any higher than it was last off-season. On top of the age thing and the less years of control thing, Santana is now basically the fifth outfielder at best on this team whereas last offseason he was more or less a starter. It’s going very hard to regain value when Cain Yelich Braun and Thames (not to mention Broxton and Phillips who are both on the major league roster now while he is still in AAA) are all getting at bats ahead of him. I obviously don’t know what was offered for him in the offseason but I think it’s a good bet that in the long run it will be viewed as a mistake not trading him when he wasn’t even really needed to begin with.

No, the premise of my argument is that the guy isn’t god and he has made mistakes too. We are allowed to criticize him for mistakes he made. You made it seem so obvious the Santana was some worthless player who had no track record and strikes out all the time. I simply said if that were true then we should have taken anything we should have gotten for him. For what it’s worth I think Santana was more valuable than you do but I also think Stearns was probably expecting too much for him.

That’s easy to say now. But I doubt people would have been calling him that last year when he was hitting close to .280 with an OBP over .370 and 30 home runs. Beside, if is really that bad of a player then Stearns should have taken anything he could have gotten for him shouldnt he have?

If the rumors of Stearns shopping Santana were true then you can only assume Stearns overvalued him. He was asking for too much in return, didn’t get it and hung onto Santana. We can never know for sure what if anything was offered for Santana so we can’t for sure he messed up by not trading him. But we do know for sure that Stearns held onto him and his value has since ranked. So IF there was a decent offer for Santana and Stearns said no, then it was a mistake. But it was one move. He has made several other very good moves for sure.

Let’s also not forget his inability to trade Santana. Santana’s value has tanked and next year we’ll have the problem we had last year. Yelich. Cain. Braun. Santana. Phillips. Broxton. Now add Thames because Aguilar has to be an every day player at first base.

He’s done a fine job since he’s been here. He’s made some good moves. He’s made some bad moves. The Yelich trade and Cain signings look really good but if he doesn’t improve the glaring holes elsewhere they’ll be wasted. Overall I wish the Brewers, and this started before him too, would be more aggressive with prospects. Having Burnes in the pen while Suter continues to start is a joke. And honestly he should have been more aggressive going after Familia given what Oakland ended up giving up for him. And seriously, why does Darnell Coles still have a job? This offseason this is what I’d like to see him do: 1) Sign a veteran middle infielder, preferably one who can play SS too 2) Sign a quality reliever 3) Give Hiura every chance to earn the 2B job 4) Trade one or both of Davies and Guerra for prospects to make room for Burnes Peralta and Woodruff. If we’re arent going to use those three prospects to obtain a TOR then they have to be given the opportunity to start. Ideally the rotation opens as Anderson, Nelson, Chacin Burnes and Peralta with Woodruff next up. 5) Find a new hitting coach.

I don’t view it that way. I view as they are being pulled either because they aren’t pitching well enough to stay in or they can’t be trusted to keep pitching well enough to stay in. If they are pitching well I doubt Counsell is going to pull them just because the bullpen is good. The best way to keep the bullpen pitching well is to keep them fresh.

They are ranked really low in quality starts though. In general they are mostly ok but There’s something to be said about going more than five innings. There is definitely room for improvement.

I’d say he’s still being developed as a starter too. As in Corbin Burnes. But that doesn’t change the fact that he too is in the bullpen right now while Brent Suter is getting shelled. “They” is the Brewers. Yes some of the decision makers are different but the thought process on this point seems to be the same.

I understand. But I disagree with this being needed to help their development. It doesn’t make sense to me. Also, as I said and others have added onto. He is in the bullpen at the expense of Brent Suter. Brent Suter whose ERA is now pushing 5. Can people not question the argument that putting Burnes in the bullpen as opposed to starting him in place of Suter is helping the team? And Brandon Woodruff too.. They also did it with Tyler Thornburg and Wily Peralta a few years ago. Those are five of the top pitching prospects they’ve had over the past decade.