Lathund

I think trading one of these guys for a rental is the absolutely least likely outcome. It's been 10 years with the Stearns/Arnold regime, and trading true top prospects for rentals is something they've never really done, and something that doesn't really line up with everything else they do. They have traded some pretty decent prospects (Who turned into solid major leaguers) for rentals in the past, like Dubon and Olson, and that might continue. But I think that's different from the Mades and Peñas of this world. Brewers can't sign star players, and trading for proven quality players long-term is rare (Yelich and Contreras are not the norm!), so for a proper WS run, they need to develop them. So players like Made and Peña who both have that star potential as well as a skillset that should make them useful players even if they don't hit their max potential, are guys you keep. So I'd expect those guys to either be with the major league team, or if they trade their top prospects it'll be like the Yelich trade, i.e long term. I think, though, that with such a strong farm and so many top prospects, they could be more aggressive with the prospects the tier below them, and particularly players who don't have the tools to be stars.

If Ortiz continues this way, I don't think Pratt is very far off. Had a cold start to the season, has been much better recently, and the underlying numbers (Whether it's basic plate discipline or xwOBA) would suggest that he's not overmatched even when looking at the full-season numbers. Not amazing, just above average, but still not overmatched. Ortiz has option, and Pratt is on the 40-man, so wouldn't take any roster shenanigans to get it done. I think it'll be a couple weeks still at the earliest (Unless injuries force thier hand), but Pratt is closer than people think. There's no service time clock to worry about, so the bar is lower than for most promotions. And the performance to beat doesn't exactly raise the bar further.

One is a LHH 1B from Toronto with a great eye at the plate, and so is the other.

One good illustration of how early it is, and how small sample sizes we're talking, is that Cooper Pratt raised his OPS by almost 100 points yesterday, albeit over a double header. And not with some outlier 4 HR games or anything. He's been an above average or better hitter at every level he's been at so far, while always young for his level. He has shown good plate discipline, he's walking a lot and not striking out, he's not overwhelmed even if the results aren't there yet in AAA He has traits that the team believe will translate to major league production. Those are all far better things to look at, as opposed to just raw stats. Just looking at the surface stats, and regressing the BABIP and HR/FB rates would've told anyone that he wasn't truly a 35 wRC+ type player. Just hoping he really heats up so he can be in the majors soon.

I've always been surprised with how low this board (And fans in general) have been on Pratt. Or well, not super surprised, since most fans will just do some very basic stat line scouting. But it was always clear that he was far higher regarded by prospect evaluators in general, and the Brewers in particular. So while many people viewed him as just surplus trade bait, at least I thought it obvious the Brewers vieweed him as their SS of the future, someone close to making their debut too. But I gotta say, I still didn't see this coming. Which isn't to say I don't like it; $6.25m AAV is great value for the team. With his defense and base running, he could end up with Orlando Arcia's bat and the deal would still be OK, albeit obviously not what anyone wanted. If he's a below average hitter (say 90 wRC+) it's good value. If he's anyhting more, it's a steal. I think there's disconnect between how fans think, and how front offices think, when it comes to valuing defense at key positions. Like the value of running a guy with above average or better defense out at C/SS/CF every day, not needing to platoon or a defensive sub, even if they are even close to average on offense. One way to illustrate this is Dansby Swanson. Look at the FA deal he got after reaching free agency with a career 94 wRC+. As a Cub he's averaged 4 WAR/year with a 101 wRC+.

Willson played 1B in the WBC, William didn't.

Record: 92-70 Playoffs: Yes, NLC winner. No team in the division will be truly bad, so the records will be fairly closely clustered together. MVP: Jake Bauers. It's more of a breakout than MVP, since I don't think he'll play enough. But he'll have the highest wRC+ on the team (min. 100 PA). Team Cy Young: Kyle Harrison. ROY: Brandon Sproat. Most Surprising Player: Joey Ortiz. Won't be surprising to me, but with how people have written him off, an above average offensive season alongside excellent defense will be a surprise to many. Most Disappointing Player: Luis Rengifo. He's OK as a stop gap, but I think his defense and general lack of production will mean a short side platoon/PH role only. My other candidate would be Yelich.

Will Alec Bohm be better than a Hamilton/Rengifo platoon, with likely help from Jett Williams at some later point? Likely so, in my opinion. Will he, with his impending free agency after the season, be enough of an improvement to warrant giving up a MLB-ready starter and a top 70 or so prospect with excellent SS defense, and paying $10m on top of it? Absolutely not!

I think the roster is pretty set. Black might be the first man up in case of a 1B/DH/OF injury, but very unlikely he starts on the ML roster. Bauers showed real progress in both results and underlying numbers last year, should absolutely see what he can do before moving on. If he struggles, Black is a logical choice to replace him. My dark horse would be Brandon Lockridge. The role held by Perkins is to take some of Mitchell's appearances against LHP, defensive replacement and to give rest days to the other OFs. If the Brewers think Lockridge has taken steps forward at the plate, he can fulfill all those roles. Both Perkins and Lockridge have options remaining, both make minimum salary, so not much between them. Perkins has the edge, but not by a lot. For all the things Brewers probably love about Perkins (The defense in particular, generally puts up competitive at bats etc), I don't think they're enamoured by his offensive profile. For someone with so little power, that's a pretty bad strikeout rate.

1 year of service is 172 days, and with off days, allstar break etc. the full season is something like 12-14 days longer than that usually. So someone with zero service time would only need to stay down ~2 weeks. Henderson has 75 days, Harrison 1 year and 102 days, Sproat has 22 days. So Sproat would have to be down little over a month, Henderson roughly half the season, and Harrison 4+ months. With the starter depth they have, Sproat is probably a likely candidate to not reach a full year this season. The other two might, or might not, but I don't think it's likely that they won't, and if it happens it's more of a case of unusually good injury luck and not something planned. I also probably could have typed that without the double negatives and made it a lot easier to follow.

Worth pointing out as well that throwing is just one part of catcher defense. Quero was generally viewed as being good allround. Blocking, framing, game calling. He'll be a good defensive catcher even if the arm never is as good as it was. And first year back is too early to judge, I think it'll be better this year. As for a comment above, I think it's fairly reasonable to expect more than 85 wRC+ too. Hopefully he can have a healthy start to the season, and a couple of months of AAA ball should give us all a better view of what he can do. Worth remembering he has only 250 PA in AAA, and those came after missing a full season, his age 21 season. ~1200 PA total isn't a whole lot either. Getting a good backup catcher doesn't really mean anything for Quero. If he really is too good for AAA he'll get a chance through injury or roster expansion. Or forcing a move. Having too many good catchers, when some of them have options, is never a problem.

Zerpa/Collins trade: B. This is only a D if you don't even try to look beyond the most surface level stats. There is some variance here for sure, which is why it's hard to give an A. But it's such an obvious upside play even looking at public metrics. Projections tend to be quite conservative, but even they believe a lot in him. But the real thing is the stuff. The Stuff+ model has his 2025 as tied 13th in baseball (min. 60 IP), tied with Uribe. Just having filthy pitches in and of itself won't always translate 1:1 to results, but it's not as if he is a total project either. Already showing average-ish results, some small tweaks could unlock a lot. You get Chris Hook some of the best raw stuff in all of Baseball, that upside is fine paying for. Collins will never sniff 122 wRC+ again. He'll be around a league average hitter limited to only corner OF, where he plays well. If Zerpa had more than 3 years, or was more of a starter (They talk about stretching him out, but I think that's just a backup plan, or to go multiple innings in relief), I'd give it an A. Peralta/Myers for Williams/Sproat: A-. You can't judge a trade like this by "Are we better right now than before the trade?" because the answer will always be no. If the opposite was true, the other team wouldn't have made the trade. But for a year of a very good starter (but not an ace) we got two MLB-ready top 100 prospects who will both contribute a lot in 2026. It's not at all unlikely they will produce more WAR than Freddy. I will drop the grade a tiny bit because of Myers. I don't think he's some amazing pitcher, and he'd be far down the depth chart. I just feel that even as back of the rotation type, 5 years of that should be worth a bit more. So basically I think the Brewers could perhaps have squeezed out a bit more value from the trade, but the overall return is very sound. Durbin+ for Harrison+: B+. I've written at length about it elsewhere. Long term (Assuming a normal level of injuries etc) Brewers win this easily. Durbin's skill set has a hard ceiling, which isn't far from what he did in 2025. Harrison has a ton of raw talent. Drohan's 2025 changes shows a really good pitcher underneath. Brewers have 6 prospects who can conceivably play 3B in the near future who have been rated in various top 100 lists, including a top 3 prospect in all of baseball. It's a no-brainer to sell high on a very useful but limited 3B. Again though, the short-term fit brings the grade down a bit. And it kinds feels like they could've given up less; but that presupposes that Boston straight up believes Durbin's surface numbers. Which I doubt; if we all can see the risk in Durbin's offensive profile, so can Craig Breslow. Red Sox put themselves in a mess with their infield situation and had to shore it up short term, which they did. They don't view Durbin as some long term foundational piece either I don't think. But he is very useful for now,. Free agency: C+. It's not a negative grade really, it's just a reflection of how little happened. Which is fine, there wasn't a lot that needed doing, and they didn't miss out on much that would've fit in what I presume is a tight budget. Sanchez is a perfectly croumulent pickup at a solid price point. I don't see the point of giving Baddoo a major league deal (Even if he has options). Some minor league contracts that look OK (McGuire, and one or two of the pitchers will pan out, they always do) but nothing to write home about. So fililng the vacant backup catcher spot and getting some OF depth and AAA shuttle pitching. It's.. fine.

Perhaps not super bold but.. - Brewers will lead the majors in ERA. Rotation and bullpen both. - Joey Ortiz will look much more like his 2024 form and will be a 3 WAR player. - A prospect not on the 40-man yet (Brock Wilken most likely. Possibly Fischer or Adams) will man 3B by some time midseason - Jake Bauers will be the Brewers best first baseman in 2026. - Anthony Seigler will have a higher wRC+ than Caleb Durbin in 2026. - Brewers will have multiple reliever of the year candidates, with at least two Brewers relievers getting points in the Cy Young voting. If I wanted to be really bold I'd say it's Angel Zerpa and Aaron Ashby. And one that I don't consider bold: Looking at the season as a whole, 3B won't be a major weakness. Might not be a strength either, but as we summarize the season, it won't be viewed as the reason we didn't beat the Dodgers in the NLCS.

Brewers had three catchers active towards the end of 2024 specifically so they wouldn't have to DFA Haase. Keeping him around both as backup at the time, but also enabling them to tender him a 2025 contract. Adding McGuire to the active roster now serves no purpose, assuming Sanchez and Contreras are healthy. Contreras will play more than most catchers, Sanchez is a solid backup and will get some DH time. If not adding McGuire makes him opt out, then so be it.

The issue is that it doesn't save innings for the rest of the staff, it adds to them. A traditional starter can throw 160-200 innings because they regularly have 4-5 days rest inbetween starts. Someone who pitches shorter stints with fewer days of rest will have their arm fall off if they cover 160+ innings in a season. So if you replace 2-3 starters with 2-3 pitchers who cover 3 innings at a time, the rest of the 'pen will have to cover more innings. So you'd have to have more of those 3 inning relievers there to compensate. Which also means you'd have less room for pitchers who can maximize their effort in shorter stints. You mentioned fixed rest as an old convention. But consider that in a game which over the last couple of decades has changed tremendously with the analytics revolution, that the basic concept of the rotation hasn't changed to the same degree. Nor has the other end of the pitching spectrum changed greatly either, i.e the use of 1-inning relievers. There was the trend with guys like Hader and Andrew Miller which seemed to portend change, but we went back to more traditional usage. Less about chasing saves, and teams have started using their closer more in tied games and such, but fundamentally it's still mostly 1-inning stints. Because whether they knew it at the time or not, some of the old ways turned out to be pretty good ways of doing things. Sabermetrics challenged old conventions with data and analysis; many didn't hold up to scrutiny, but some did. The usage of the traditional rotation and the traditional closer are good for very different reasons though. For starters I'm mostly of the opinion that it's physiological. Going out and pitching at max effort will result in lots of minor damage to muscles and ligaments and such, which causes inflammation, which weakens these structures while it's ongoing, increasing injury risk. So fundamentally you can handle that differently. You can wait out these processes, i.e keeping a longer amount of time between outings to allow for more healing. Or if you're going to pitch despite it (i.e more often), you have to limit the damage done each time. Which isn't to say that pitching exactly every 5th/6th day is the optimal way, and there will be plenty of individual variation. Just that the structure has remained somewhat similar despite all the new data for a reason, The usage of closers has remained similar to the traditional use, but by very analytical means. Basically using Hader like 2017-2019 Hader (i.e 2-3 inning stints) gives you a better chance of winning any game he pitches in, than if he went for mostly 1-inning stints. But the effect of having him in (1) fewer games, (2) in games where he wouldn't have been needed (i.e Brewers score 5 runs after Hader has pitched the 7th), and as a consequence, (3) more frequently not having him available when you need him, eventually cancels that out over the regular season. Postseason is different, and teams do use relievers very differently there. What I'm getting at is kind of the same thing as in my last post. That in terms of the average length of outing for your pitching staff, you want basically an inverted bell curve. As in you want to have your pitchers at around 5 innings per outing or 1 inning per outing, as opposed to 3 per outing. Now another aspect is also what pitchers you have at your disposal. If you somehow were to have Josh Hader and 12 clones of Josh Hader on your pitching staff, then simply having everyone go 2-3 innings all the time might be the way to go. Or if your entire pitching staff is guys who are really really bad third time through the order, but who also don't benefit much from going all out for one inning. But generally, you don't. So taking the relationship between how much rest you get inbetween starts and how many innings can be covered, as well as the benefits of being able to utilize matchups and high leverage etc, the traditional usage acutally makes sense. It gets the most innings out of your best pitchers (your starters), and it allows you to use your "closer" types as often as possible in the situations you want them in. It could see some more flexibility, sure. And I feel like the Brewers already do that a fair bit. I would argue that the benefits of a flexible pitching staff lies not in changing much in what your rotation does or what your closer and two setup men do, but in the usage of the pitchers inbetween those two groups.