Lathund

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.

I don't think this is a very good way of doing business. What if he suffers a serious injury, or there are obvious signs of decline, before the Brewers can trade him and they're stuck with that $100m? If you're not able or willing to live with the contract you're acquiring, don't acquire it. I don't think the Brewers operate like this, just like I don't believe the seemingly common narrative that they offered the QO to Woody believing/hoping he'd decline it. They wouldn't have offered it if accepting it would've impacted their plans. If you want a 3B just for this season, ideally get a rental. Or a versatile, cheaper, player if it's for multiple years. Now I presume that part of the reason you even thought of Chapman is that the rental 3B market isn't very attractive. But the way I see it, the move then isn't to try to fit a square peg into a round hole, even if the square peg is very productive any nice. It's to not play at all, or play a different game (i.e improve elsewhere).

My main issue with Paredes is one that was brought up earlier, which is about where he hits his HRs. The raw HR numbers do look appealing. Then look at his splits. Career .764 OPS. In Houston it's .822, in Tampa it's .864, and those account for about 36% of his PAs. And that's not a coincidence. As a HR hitter he is about as extreme as you can possibly get. There are pull hitters, then there are extreme pull hitters, and then there is Paredes. He has 102 career homers. ALL of them are to left, or left-center. He doesn't have much power at all, he can only hit one out when he pulls it. Houston, with the Crawford boxes, has one of the shortest LF in baseball. Tropicana Field also had a short porch. Which is why it was such a head scratcher when the Cubs acquired him. There might not be any other hitter in baseball whose value depends so much on a certain aspect of field dimensions as Paredes. So with that in mind, when looking to trade for him, it makes no sense to pay as if he was a .764 OPS type hitter. Only makes sense if it's at a discount. And why would the Astros do that? To them it's the opposite, he's worth more to them than to just about any other team, and should drive a hard bargain. It's just a very difficult deal to find common ground on.

I was a big believer in Tyler Black for years, and while I haven't given up completely it doesn't look good. Now that he's also not hitting in AAA, it's not even really a case of not getting the opportunity to prove himself. There just isn't reason enough to try him, absent injuries. I think if he had managed to stick at one of the more premium positions he tried (2B/3B/CF), or even if he excelled at the lesser ones (LF/1B) he'd have gotten more playing time. But it's hard to roster and find playing time for a 1B/LF/DH with subpar defense and whose game isn't based on power. I think as per the last poster, he could end up a fringe MLB player who will stick around in some fashion. Like, speaking of the Marlins, a Garrett Cooper perhaps; although he had a surprisingly decent 107 wRC+.

Of course that wasn't the entirety of the thread, but that did happen. I went back and read through it just to make sure, so it's not me making things up as you suggest. And FWIW, it wasn't your posts I was referring to.

Also speaking of the rule 5 draft, reminded me of the constant harping on about Shane Smith last year. First it was the same few posters bumping the thread over and over after each good start. Talking about what a terrible mistake it was by the front office, and ridiculing anyone who didn't agree. Then he started struggling in the second half, and then it was different posters bumping it after every bad start instead. It really got quite ridiculous, not protecting him was an "unforgivable mistake" and something Matt Arnold should get fired over. People who didn't agree that it was a terrible mistake were ridiculed, as if they couldn't see the objective truth, or that they were arguing in bad faith. Really brought out some of the worst posting (and posters) on here.

Probably is. But it's not as much of a certain thing as it might appear, depends on what they expect from him vs RHP. His success this year is almost entirely against LHP, and if they don't think he can get it done against righties, they might not want to pay $10-12m for a short-side platoon 1B only. But more than that I think it comes down to what else they have at 1B. If they feel like they have a better full-time option, Vaughn would be a good trade candidate, could get something pretty good for him. If they don't re-sign Bauers and they don't feel good about Black/Adams/Burke stepping in, then Vaughn on a one year deal even with mediocre results against RHP makes sense. Anyway back to the topic: Adams, Williams, and maybe a reliever or two, if they have some standout stuff/pitches. The likely lockout (I don't think it'll affect the season much, or at all, but definitely the offseason) with perhaps no rule 5 draft, probably means they'll lean towards not protecting many of the fringe guys.

Frias 6-6 with 2 doubles and a SB. 6 RBI but no run scored. I don't know if they do MiLB scorigamis, but that might be one.

Uniform numbers in Baseball, or most sports really, never really held much interest to me, but they absolutely do in football (soccer) for some reason. It's kinda funny how when playing OOTP or FHM (Hockey sim) I just randomize the numbers, not caring one iota. But a player having the "wrong" number in Football Manager (Where you set the numbers at the start of the season and can't change them) can ruin the whole season. Kind of. Got a whole system for the entire squad, and I even avoid certain formations because they'll have starters with the wrong number for their position. I guess there it has to do with numbers still being strongly associated with positions there, whereas they aren't at all to the same degree in other sports. I'm sure Asamoah Gyan is a lovely person, but I still have an irrational hatred for him, many years later, for wearing #3 as a striker. It's just wrong.

I really hope they don't send him down when Rengifo is back off the IL. It's very unlikely Pratt will hit worse than Rengifo did, given the high floor offered by the plate discipline and contact ability, but with the massive difference in defensive and baserunning value, he'll be an upgrade even if he's a decent bit worse at the plate. There are no service time considerations to take into account, so just let him play, and let him learn. Ortiz and Hamilton can platoon at 3B, and Ortiz can give Pratt/Turang some days off when needed. Hamilton/Ortiz consistently at 3B, and Hamilton NOT at SS are big defensive upgrades.

We can't know if surgery is the best option. The thing with nerve injuries (he has the version of TOS where a nerve is compressed, not the vascular kind) is that they take time to heal. So even if he didn't have any pressure remaining on that nerve, it still might not be functioning fully due to not having had enough time to heal. In which case surgery would do more harm than good. Fans are always quick to always go for the surgery in every case, but there is usually a reason for not taking that route, How good that reason is can vary, but it's safe to say the doctors involved know a lot more about the injury and treatment than random fans online. Maybe he'll end up needing the surgery, maybe not. Either way, which option is better is not something any one of us can know.

CC is still owed another $20m, and I imagine that Jed Hoyer's future is also closely tied to him. It was such a "prestige" signing, and they invested a lot (financial and otherwise) in it. Firing him now would be a condemnation of Hoyer's own strategy really, and you'd think the Cubs would be reluctant to have him find the next manager too. I think that if Greg goes, so does Hoyer. So it won't happen now. They really should move on from Hoyer in the offseason though; a midseason change there is tougher, with (probably) only internal candidates available. I remember being quite happy when they extended Hoyer. Not because he's terrible, but because I don't think he can make them a winning team. Doesn't really work in a big market way to use resources to win (Dombrowski style), and not in the analytical Rays/Brewers type way. Rather incorporates elements from both, but takes the worst of each, instead of (like the Dodgers) the best. Might luck into a good year or two, but that front office isn't going to create a consistent winner without some real changes.

Collapse? No. But they also aren't as good as their record. They have the run differential of a .500 team, their pitching is not good. They are where they are due to sequencing, record in 1-run games, and through the luck of barely having any injuries. Clearly they are better than what was expected before the season. Maybe they can sneak a wild card spot. But legit division contenders? No.

If the 8 yrs ~30m is even in the ballpark, it's hard to see how this could turn out badly. There is a chance, sure, that he'll not be a major leaguer at all. But it's pretty slim. Projection systems (Unclear exactly how up to date the projections are) for this year has two outliers; ZiPS (71 wRC+) and ATC (101 wRC+). OOPSY, The Bat and Steamer are between 82 and 91. (Keep in mind, this is just for this, age 21 season) With his defense and baserunning, even the low end of this isn't a terrible outcome. Of course, that would be disappointing, but you're weighing that risk against the possibility of a lot more. If he's a league average hitter, this is a steal. Kevin Kiermaier had a 95 wRC+, Lorenzo Cain and PCA are at 103 wRC+, JBJ 82 wRC+, Billy Hamilton (21st centurý edition) had a 66 wRC+. To give some context as far as glove-first CFs in that range of offensive output goes. And none of them put up the kind of offensive numbers in AAA that Lara did at that age. Only one close was JBJ, at 25, when he already had MLB experience.

I think they'll prioritize someone on the 40-man roster over it needing to be a LHP, so I would expect Easton McGee. This is based on Koenig needing more rehab appearances, if not, it'll be him, Though I gotta say I hadn't realized how well Rom had pitched, at least as far as ERA/FIP/xERA goes. I just think that with some likely promotions soon etc, they'll prioritize the 40-man spots over an "ideal" R/L bullpen setup.

Is it really a big name though? Compared to what? Like 7 letters? Come on! 3 syllables is good efficiency with such a short name, but even so, I don't see how you could call it a big name. He's no Simeon Woods Richardson.

Fischer is probably the biggest boom-bust guy there. I'd be OK with letting someone else take the risk that the contact issues don't improve as he goes up. The other one is Peña. With Pratt, Made, Ebel (and for a while longer Turang) around, it's one area where you can afford to trade someone. And Peña can get us someone really good in return. I would never do it for a rental, it'd have to be a long-term type of move. Like if he's the headliner in a Yelich type trade. Not that I know who would be the Yelich in this situation. I gotta say though, I'm generally very much a believer in holding onto them a good while longer. Especially the ones with some big, loud tools. Just like I'm OK with trading Fischer for the right return, it's still the case that other front offices will also be very well aware of the hit tool risk. And that'll be factored into the return, reducing what we get back. So with a prospect that has real risk, but also a high upside (In this case due to big time power), the best value play is really to stay the course. Or, to give an even more generic answer: Brewers should trust their evaluations. Trade prospects if you think you're getting more in return than what you value the prospect(s) at. Keep them otherwise.

He's not exactly "old" for his level, but you kind of expect an experienced college hitter do do well in A-ball. Striking out as much as he does at that level is a very real concern too. If he looks good at 3B and improves the contact issues even slightly, he'll be up there. If he's 1B/DH only and keeps whiffing, it'll be hard to climb the rankings no matter how he hits.

I get the appeal of Skubal, obviously. Brewers have one of the best rotations, and overall pitching staffs in MLB already, but slotting Skubal into the playoff rotation over one of Woodruff/Henderson/Priester still makes for a scary playoff rotation. Thing is though, it's just such a crazy amount to give up for half a season of anyone. The various proposals are similar to, or more than, what we gave up for 5 full seasons of Yelich (None of the prospects panned out, but IIRC Brinson was upwards of top 20-30, Harrison as high as 50s-60s, Diaz towards the bottom of top 100 lists. It was a quite hefty package at the time). I think the more reasonable package above, with Jett + Adamczewski + Gasser is going to be far too light, considering how many teams will be interested and driving the bidding. Maybe if the rotation was a huge weakness I'd be more inclined to do it, but I would rather use the prospect capital in separate trades for real weaknesses. My belief when it comes to trading is that the real value comes from either big trades for multiple years of really good players (like the Yelich move, or Crochet, or the original Sale trade etc), or from cheaper rentals. As a general trend that is, there will always be trades of other types where either side completely misjudges things. The long-term trades I like because the prospect cost isn't linear with the years of control (Partly for good reasons). You don't pay twice as much for the last full season as you do at the deadline for a rental, two years of team control isn't twice as much as one year. And in particular, 4-5 years isn't 4-5 as much as for 1 year. Simply because no trade would ever get made at that rate, and which is why so few of those trades happen. As for why the lesser rentals work, I see a few reasons. One is when you don't also need to pay for the QO return, if you're trading for someone who can't/won't be offered it. Another is that these players usually aren't stars who the selling team needs to be perceieved to get value for (to the extent front offices care about this). Instead their team's season is over, they just want *something*, and if it's a team that's not looking to rebuild, they might take a fringe surplus player or high-floor AAA guy. The value is just so much better. And just as a more general thing, I'd generally avoid bidding wars. Only the seller benefits from that. Skubal will fetch a king's ransom even under normal circumstances, where it might be worth it. But driving it up further, and it gets harder to justify.

I don't understand why they have Woodford on the roster, if not for occasions like this. He has fewer innings pitched than 1-inning guys like Megill, Uribe, Anderson. The point of a long reliever/mop-up guy is surely to eat innings. He and Chad Patrick are the most rested guys in the 'pen, and they look to combine for 1 inning tonight (only shown Anderson warming up so far; admittedly that could change).

I think Contreras is someone like Adames that they keep and offer the QO (If an extension isn't looking feasible). Gives you a year of Quero learning in the majors, more time for Dinges and others to get closer to the majors. More than Peralta, Burnes, Hader, Williams, I think Contreras is the kind of player where another year + comp pick outweighs the return of trading him a year early. Should still listen to offers in case some team gets really desperate, as always, but one year of Contreras at $14.5m has a lot of surplus value. In and of itself, but also for the Brewers in particular.

With Rengifo sitting last two days against RHP and seemingly out of favor, I'm really hoping this will be it and they were just waiting for the homestand to start. I saw little reason to wait a month ago, even less now. Whether it's Jett (Who didn't play Sunday, which could mean anything) or Pratt, either way it'll be an improvement. Decent chance Rengifo clears waivers too, tho he may well elect free agency in that case. EDIT: Though I would expect they'll wait a while still. EDIT #2: Rengifo not only still here, but in the starting lineup.

The MLBPA proposal also includes more revenue sharing (And a soft payroll floor), and I think that alone will go a long way towards more parity without needing a cap. Team payroll spending is highly correlated to team revenue, so more revenue sharing will see small market teams be able to spend more and take some money away from the Dodgers and Yankees and the likes and will even the playing field a lot. Finding a way to increase parity without a cap would be ideal IMO. Because the cap itself only benefits the owners. The rest of us may benefit from the side effects of the cap, but a cap isn't the only way to achieve that. There are a bunch of good ideas in the MLBPA proposal which adress these issues too.

I don't think a general rule to do or not to do something makes sense, it's always going to be on a case by case basis. But that being said, I think it's generally the right move to make the trade. One player, no matter how good, doesn't swing the likelyhood of a championship all that much. And if keeping them doesn't win you the WS, it'll most likely not have been worth it. Keeping them makes sense if there is a real chance of extending them, or if you truly look like the best team in baseball and you are a real WS favorite. That hasn't really been the case with any of the pitchers the Brewers have traded, so making the trades have generally made sense. Some trades have been better than others of course, but many of the players involved still have years left to turn things around. There is also the QO vs player debate; the prospects drafted from a QO (If you get one; injuries happen) are much more of a lottery. And having something, or multiple somethings/someones, after a star player is gone, matters. I see so many fans mock the "Bites of the apple" strategy, or claim it's not trying to win. I really disagree with that view, it's the only way to have a realistic chance of winning the WS. And that means being willing to constantly look more than one year ahead. Keep making moves that make you better 2-6 years from now, and you'll suddenly be much better 2-6 years from now. To bring it back to Peralta. Brewers have one of the best rotations in baseball so far this year. 3.19 ERA / 3.22 xERA / 3.33 FIP / 3.63 xFIP / 3.45 SIERA / 19% K-BB. / .206 BAA (Not including Miz showing tonight). All these numbers are, at worst, 4th in MLB, several of them lead the league. With the exception of career BAA (.203), Peralta rates worse than this for 2026 and for his career overall in all these categories. Which is not the same thing as saying he wouldn't make the team better right now, as him being here would replace some of the worse starts we've had. But it's also not really a position of huge need, and I think it's perfectly fine to give up a small edge short-term for a potential long-term gain. There are never any guarantees in this. Sproat might never get the stamina or command to be a great starter. But he has the ability to potentially be one, and as rough as it has looked at times, he isn't far off being a good starter. And you have to take these chances to find potentially great players. Because you can't sign them in free agency, and you can't trade for more than 1-2 years of them (usually anyway, and even then at great cost). If you play it safe and keep the known quantity, you might increase your WS chances for one year by a couple of percentage points. But you'll reduce it ever so slightly for years thereafter. And most of all, you remove the possibility of increasing that chance again. Or to quote Brad Pitt, "If we play like the Yankees in here, we'll lose to the Yankees out there". That is, if we use the traditional formula and conventional logic that most teams use, they will have $100-$200m extra (Or more, in the case of the Dodgers) to beat us with. The only way to even have a chance at truly being the better team, is to use a different strategy entirely.

Rengifo has that low BABIP for a reason though. The quality of contact isn't there, and he swings at so many pitches he shouldn't, resulting in terrible contact. He is getting unlucky to an extent, absolutely, but even if his true performance is more akin to his xwOBA, that's still only .287. He'd still be a below average hitter and a below replacement level player at that level. He offers nothing on defense or on the basepaths. And even his peak wasn't amazing; 111 wRC+ from 2022-2024 is perfectly cromulent and would be very useful on this team. But it's not the kind of track record that buys you extended patience. And there is no positive trend. Over the last two weeks his wRC+ is 29, while Hamilton and Ortiz are at 130+. He absolutely should not be in the lineup other than the odd rest day for those two. I hate being this negative about a player who is trying, and I didn't hate taking a chance on him to begin with. The only legit reason to keep him here is if they're waiting for Jett to clear Super 2 for sure, or if they think he or Pratt are truly not ready. But if so, keep him on the bench until they are. btw I know we're basically agreeing that his time on the active roster should be coming to an end, I just don't think it's realistic to expect a real upturn in performance. And that even the best case scenario, a return to his very peak form. is still just basically a league average player. I'd rather run with a prospect in that case.