Lathund

This is Chourio's age 22 season. When PCA finished his age 22 season, his was .228/.282/.370 (81 wRC+) for his career. Still 2.4 fWAR due to defense. Point being that a lot can happen in two years. Right now it's PCA, but I also don't buy that this hot streak is who he is as a hitter. And I also think there's more to come from Jackson.

I think that with his stuff, even marginally better command makes him a viable MLB player. The harder part to figure out might be the inconsistency, or how one mistake seemingly becomes a second, and a third. I think the best way to use him in AAA would still be to keep him reasonably stretched out, but coming in as a reliever, to see how he handles that routine.

It's hard to sell at the deadline for a contending team. The timing of the Hader trade didn't exactly play out very well, Or you might not get the opportunity to trade them due to injuries (to them, or other pitchers on the roster), or due to being in a tight division race and so on. So I feel like you have to decide in the offseason how set you are on trading them, how you'd feel if you didn't manage to. Any player you feel like you have to trade, do it in the offseason. Ones where you'd like to trade them, but would be OK either way, you could leave until midseason. For a non-contending team, it's not as clear cut.

After getting over the initial shock, my thoughts are mostly that I'm OK with including Ragsdale. I'm not buying that he's suddenly a power hitter, and I think the accompanying strikeout rate is more likely to stick than the power is. Still, he's a good prospect, but with Lara, Chourio and Mitchell already here, and Payne/Adamczewski in the system, it's the kind of good prospect that I get you have to include in trades. Not a fan of including Frias at all though. He is so far away from the majors that there is a lot of risk with him, but my philosophy is generally that the players with the big-time tools, you keep. It's the only way you can get your homegrown superstars. So I'd have prefered someone else in there, this feels like an overpay. At the same time though I can see the logic. We have other outfielders, and including Frias won't hurt us for several more years even if he does make it big (and he might never). Im glad it wasn't Josh Knoth; I feel it's vital that we keep our best pitching prospects around. So I'm in the camp of "I don't like it, but it's not the disaster I initially thought it was".

For two rentals??!?! Why???

Pitched full reliever workloads (between 62 and 69 appearances eahc year) from 2021-2024, made 31 starts (33 appearances total) last year. Getting hit with that line drive seems like the only absence he's had in the last 6 years. Hardly what I'd call injury prone. Every pitcher is an injury waiting to happen, but he doesn't strike me as any more injury prone than normal.

The decline on both sides of the ball in the last couple of seasons is why I'm perfectly fine just letting the contract run out after next season, and only re-sign in free agency if a reasonable short-term deal can be agreed to. So in other words, most likely not re-signing. We obviously don't know if this is the start of his decline, or something temporary, but I'd rather not risk signing a catcher for big money into his mid 30s with this trend.

I couldn't tell you about Brewers.tv, but for someone based outside the US with mlb.tv, the game is unavailable. And Peacock is US only, so couldn't pay to watch the game even if I wanted to.

The way I look at it, in the postseason Brewers could get far by improving relief pitching. The starting pitching is good, and shorter starts are less of an issue when your A bullpen can pitch basically every game. With Skubal gone, there also aren't really any starters who are a clear upgrade. And starters, especially with control remaining, are expensive. Adrian Morejon (If the Padres are selling) and Luke Weaver would be ideal IMO. There are other names out there, but those would be among the best relievers who might be available. Having a lead in the 5th and getting to close it out with Morejon, Weaver, Uribe, Megill sounds like a good plan to me. A rental reliever, even a very good one, won't require a true top prospect. Weaver has another year of control, but is paid near market rate so doesn't add a ton of value or cost. Adding another starter to help get the team to the postseason could also be a good idea, but I wouldn't shop at the very top of the market for that. A Freddy reunion if the price is right perhaps.

Obviously not an exact science, and would vary a lot between what source you go on. And what really matters is how the teams view these guys; presumably they liked these guys better than the consensus, and the guys in the alternative packages less. The Athletic (Keith Law): Hope 26th, Ryan 41st. He has Luis Peña 21st and Alexander Frias 69th. So those two + a better third piece. Pipeline: Hope 25th, Ryan 68th, Brady Smith 17th in Dodgers sytem. Brewers: Peña 18th, Lara 64th. Blake Burke is 17th, Ethan Dorchies is the closest pitcher at 19th. Fangraphs: Ryan 22nd, Hope 57th, Brady Smith 23rd in system with 40+ FV. Luis Peña is 26th, with Frias 43rd and Brady Ebel 63rd. Brewers lowest 40+ are Strosnider and Trey Ebel. 40+ Pitchers are Dubanewicz, Thompson, Wichrowski. Can't be bothered to check more sources at this time, but roughly speaking it would be Peña, whoever you think the Brewers 3rd best prospect is (Lara, Frias), and whoever you have as the Brewers 4th best pitching prospect after Hardin/Letson/Knoth.

That's a deal I could live with. I'd still prefer to go after more controllable players instead, or somewhat cheaper rentals, but it's the kind of deal that doesn't really hurt us in the short term. I like both Ragsdale and Fischer, but Brewers have other power-hitting corner IF (Made if he stays at 3B, Adams and Burke, and others further way), and both no immediate OF need (Lara and Chourio for the long term, Mitchell for the next few years) and other good OF prospects (Adamczewski, Payne, Frias etc).

People bring up that it's against the Brewers' historical MO to pay actual money to relievers, but I don't think his 2027 salary really is that big of an issue. For a few reasons, one is that it's just one year, and even if it's not what the Brewers do, 1 year $11m for Weaver is better value than most "big" reliever contracts that are signed every offseason. Another is that, barring serious injury, they could trade him again if need be. Third is that with Woodruff coming off the books (Plus I believe his buyout, and that of Hoskins and Quintana, counted towards this year) they do have room for it. And this is a fairly complete team without any major holes; their only FAs are Bauers (Vaughn + Adams/Burke/Fischer can replace), Woodruff and Sanchez (Quero/Wood or a cheap FA backup). So they don't need to spend much elsewhere either. Which means that they could do it. I know the reporting is that the Mets won't pay down salary, but I don't think that's true. At least not for 1 year like this. So a slightly better return could see any remaining salary issue go away. Weaver + Morejon would be a fantastic deadline. Henderson only going 4-5 innings really wouldn't be an issue if you can turn it over to Weaver, Uribe, Megill and Morejon every time in the postseason.

They are a smart and well run organization, who normally don't trade top prospects for rentals. But I think the circumstances are right for them to be willing to go bigger than usual. For one thing they have like 6 top 100 outfield prospects. They could keep the three they like the most, and still put together a trade package that not many teams could beat. They're also getting old. Freeman, Betts, Muncy, Teoscar, as well as some bench guys like Kiké and Rojas, will all be in their age 34 or older seasons next year. Some of the pitchers (Snell, Glasnow) are also getting on, and already injury prone. With how well run they are, and how much revenue the team brings in, they'll always be able to be competitive, but they probably have a better chance this year than next. And that's even if the CBA is agreed to on time, and doesn't particularly change the system against the Dodgers. So while I don't think they'll bid for the sake of driving up the price, I think they're willing to go higher than they have in the past.

What exactly is the point of that versatility though? We have an infield backup who can play 2B, 3B and SS, we have 4 outfielders who can play all three OF positions. You want a super versatile player on the bench for when you have lots of specialists, as that's the only way to make that plausible. But the Brewers don't. Martinez has played several different positions, but he doesn't play any of them well, and he's a worse hitter than anyone he'd be replacing. He would be behind Hamilton/Ortiz as the backup infielder, and he's much worse than Mitchell... so then just keep Mitchell? For a versatile player to add value they have to actually be good defenders or good hitters. Martinez and Castro are both poor defenders. Martinez has a career 79 wRC+ and an even worse .271 xwOBA. Castro is slightly better with a 95 wRC+ and an xwOBA to match, but he's also a far worse defender and baserunner. Depth and versatility are big parts of what Brewers do well, and what helps them win. But this is not the way to go about it. The team is just straight up worse with Castro instead of Ortiz and Martinez instead of Mitchell. And if the point is to get something else along with them.. well Brewers have dozens of fairly minor prospects who can get an arm in return. Doing things like this, or extending Hernan Perez for 6 years and $36m (or w/e it was) aren't what will improve the Brewers. Zigging when others zag, or thinking outside the box, are good things. But this is running in circles or forgetting what a box even is for. As for Rodden... sure. Infield depth in the minors, why not. But it's more a case of a throw-in on a trade you were doing anyway, and not someone to target. Lots of players like him out there.

Yeah, I always dread the Logan Webb starts, tends to be a miserable experience. At some point we will have some success against him, I just really hope it'll be today...

I think the Brewers will be more aggressive than usual, but I don't see it being Skubal or Miller. Neither move really fits with what their MO has always been. And I think they'll be aggressive but within their framework. If they're trading for a SD reliever, Morejon is probably a lot more likely. If they go for an actual quality starter, i.e someone who they count on as their #3 for the postseason and not just a arm-sparing regular season innings-eater, I think it'll be someone who is not a rental. Really though, what will decide what they do is where they get the best value. So it wouldn't surprise me if they instead go heavy on rental relievers, as you'll always pay a premium for starters.

Vaughn missed a decent chunk of the season due to injury, where Bauers played every day in his absence. There are also far more RHP than LHP, meaning that in any kind of hard or soft platoon, the LHH tends to get more playing time. Vaughn is also limited to 1B only (And a couple of innings at 3B after late pinch hits), whereas Bauers can play OF (even if he's not great there), giving Bauers more opportunities. The publicly available metrics suggest Bauers underlying numbers are a bit better, and I would assume (based on usage) that the Brewers' own metrics say the same. So combine these and I don't think it's very surprising.

There is a very real chance he is traded in the off season, but I don't see the point of making a trade now. Would just weaken the team, and it's not as if he's so valuable as to get something game-changing in return. On a more general note, I don't believe GMs think anywhere near as much in terms of "sell high" as fans seem to do. A good or bad month isn't going to radically change their opinion of a player, unless there is something underlying causing the good/bad spell. But really it just comes down to the fact that if one team can see that it's an unsustainable hot streak and try to "sell high", so can the other team and they won't pay that premium.

The various multi-inning pitchers on the 40-man (Stallings, Rodriguez, Crow, Gordon) will probably all rotate through the 26-man roster through the rest of the season, with spot starts or a few long relief appearances before next man comes up to do the same. All to keep the starter innings down, and to keep the prospective playoff bullpen fresh.

FG will have a complete Brewers update + article (Similar to the one they have up for the Braves already) this upcoming week. Don't know if the FV updates they did fully reflects that yet or not. Either way, should be interesting.

You can never have too much controllable starting pitching. Not overly keen on trading that away for a rental, just leaves another hole to be filled next year. Henderson in particular is someone whose loss will hurt us this year already. Sproat is a project, but I share the teams apparent belief that the potential merits patience, and ideally you'd not give up on the upside yet. So I'd rather hang on to him. Gasser or Crow I'd be more OK with, even if I like them too. If teams view Chad Patrick as a starter, I'd be OK with that too. Ideally though I'd prefer to trade using prospects further away from contributing. Makes sense to try to avoid trading away players who will contribute this year; obviously the net gain to our chances this year will be bigger if we manage to avoid that. But we're also looking to win next year, and the year after, so trading players right on the brink of the majors will also hurt us in the near future. I'm a prospect hugger, but if we have to give up legit prospects I'd rather it be someone with much more uncertainty. Even if they also have a lot of upside. So for rentals I'd try to make deals using some of the toolsy rookie and A-ball guys. Even if they turn out great, it won't affect the team for several more years. Naturally, would be hard to get a deal done without giving up MLB-ready talent to a team looking to contend in the near future, like the Tigers.

Probably some selective memory at work here, but whenever I see Hector Gomez with any transaction rumor, it ends up not happening. The reply to that is then usually that he's got good connections and sources as far as dominican players go, but hasn't been true in my experience. Brewers being interested in Peralta makes sense. They'd be buying fairly low, and they know what they're getting. But it's just not going to happen. The optics would just be so bad for the Mets to trade him back for less than what they gave up. He's getting traded, just won't be to the Brewers.

A different take on this are the various projection system top 100s. Here is the OOPSY one. 6 Brewers in the top 28 (Made, Lara, Pratt, Adams, Peña, Fischer). Williams and Payne make it 8 in the top 40. Juan Martinez at 47 might be the biggest surprise, followed by Brady Ebel at 53. So 10 in the top 53! Tyson Hardin makes a total of 11. Also out is the Baseball Prospectus midseason top 50, featuring Made and Peña, but also Andew Fischer.

Balk Rules 1) You can't just be up there and just doin' a balk like that. 1a. A balk is when you 1b. Okay well listen. A balk is when you balk the 1c. Let me start over 1c-a. The pitcher is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, batter, that prohibits the batter from doing, you know, just trying to hit the ball. You can't do that. 1c-b. Once the pitcher is in the stretch, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna tag you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that. 1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to pitch and then don't pitch, you have to still pitch. You cannot not pitch. Does that make any sense? 1c-b(2). You gotta be, throwing motion of the ball, and then, until you just throw it. 1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have the ball up here, like this, but then there's the balk you gotta think about. 1c-b(2)-b. Fairuza Balk hasn't been in any movies in forever. I hope she wasn't typecast as that racist lady in American History X. 1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, she was in The Waterboy too! That would be even worse. 1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic... 1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. A balk is when the pitcher makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the baseball and field of 2) Do not do a balk please. Should clear things up.

It's the right move. Stearns has made a lot of changes to many aspects of the organization, including player development in the minors, scouting, analytics (And more than that, building up and integrating that capacity) ,the coaching staff etc. Things that take time to evaluate. Completely changing course yet again would just delay everything further. All the while they'd still be paying Stearns. You also have to factor in what in the Mets struggles this year are about bad decisions Stearns made (And there are certainly those), but also about how even decisions that made sense at the time have turned out far worse than expected. Like was Bichette at 3B, a square peg in a round hole, the best way to spend that money? Probably not. But was there any reason to think that the 28 year old with a career 122 wRC+ prior to this year would be as bad as he has been? No. They signed some players with injury histories which is a risk, but have the position player injuries (Including to Soto and Lindor, their two big stars who don't have that kind of injury history) also been more than expected? Yes. Can go over all kinds of moves made or not made, but either way I think it's fair to say that while they aren't good, they are also not worst-team-in-baseball levels of bad. At the very least, put out this kind of message now, and give it at the very least to the offseason before even thinking about a change. If things countinue in the wrong direction, it might be that firing Stearns is the right move, it's just that it's premature to do it now.