Lathund

Andujar is a LF or a horrendously bad 3B. And he's a worse hitter than Yelich, Cutch, Urias, Brosseau and Peterson, i.e anyone we have playing in those positions. On top of that he's older, more expensive, and has a much worse injury history than Keston Hiura. A straight up swap for Hiura would make no sense whatsoever.

And the thing about a multi-positional excellent defender is that it's very easy to fit them onto the roster to give them the time and regular at bats to properly give them the chance to tap into their potential.

And the thing about a multi-positional excellent defender is that it's very easy to fit them onto the roster to give them the time and regular at bats to properly give them the chance to tap into their potential.

That player is significantly more valuable than 2 months of Josh Bell though. I mean even if the power never shows up at all and he's Alcides Escobar instead, I'd still take that every day with that defense. Or at the very least use him as part of a trade for something more long-term. What people tend to overlook with prospects is the impact of uncertainty. I mean I agree that Turang is extremely unlikely to top 4 WAR at his best even if we take the more optimistic end of the projections. But I also think he's highly likely to at least be Escobar or better. With Peterson a free agent and Wong with a team option that looks like it might get declined, even a SS/2B/CF utility man for minimum salary and with 3 option years remaining is useful. And I think he's almost certainly better than that. Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily lose much sleep over it either, it's more that I find it to be a short-sighted and unnecessary move. We're looking to compete over the next couple of years while we still have Burnes/Woodruff/Adames etc. So why trade away players who can contribute to that team (Even if it's peripherally) when you could trade players who, even if they pan out, will only do so in 2025 or beyond? I'd instead look to A-ball and below for the prospects we should trade this deadline.

That player is significantly more valuable than 2 months of Josh Bell though. I mean even if the power never shows up at all and he's Alcides Escobar instead, I'd still take that every day with that defense. Or at the very least use him as part of a trade for something more long-term. What people tend to overlook with prospects is the impact of uncertainty. I mean I agree that Turang is extremely unlikely to top 4 WAR at his best even if we take the more optimistic end of the projections. But I also think he's highly likely to at least be Escobar or better. With Peterson a free agent and Wong with a team option that looks like it might get declined, even a SS/2B/CF utility man for minimum salary and with 3 option years remaining is useful. And I think he's almost certainly better than that. Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily lose much sleep over it either, it's more that I find it to be a short-sighted and unnecessary move. We're looking to compete over the next couple of years while we still have Burnes/Woodruff/Adames etc. So why trade away players who can contribute to that team (Even if it's peripherally) when you could trade players who, even if they pan out, will only do so in 2025 or beyond? I'd instead look to A-ball and below for the prospects we should trade this deadline.

Yeah I would absolutely not do that for a rental like this. With the many arbitration eligible players on the roster, there will be very little payroll room unless Mark A is willing to allow a higher budget (Which he most likely will not). The prospects who are close to MLB ready will play a big part in allowing the Brewers to handle that. To be able to keep the big contributors around, they'd have to cut around the edges instead, and having prospects ready to step in is key to that even if the prospects aren't stars. So if it takes a better prospect to make the trade, I'd prefer it to be someone further away from the majors, even if their upside is greater. So say one of those toolsy prospects with upside to dream on, but questionable hit tools. Sometimes they find their way and become great players, but more often they're Lewis Brinson and Monte Harrison. And either way, they'll be in MLB only after Burnes, Woodruff etc. are all free agents anyway. So someone like Hedbert Perez could be a headliner. Now I'm a prospect hugger and not a huge Bell fan so I wouldn't like it overly much either, but it's the type of return that won't impact the Brewers for years, if it ever does.

Yeah I would absolutely not do that for a rental like this. With the many arbitration eligible players on the roster, there will be very little payroll room unless Mark A is willing to allow a higher budget (Which he most likely will not). The prospects who are close to MLB ready will play a big part in allowing the Brewers to handle that. To be able to keep the big contributors around, they'd have to cut around the edges instead, and having prospects ready to step in is key to that even if the prospects aren't stars. So if it takes a better prospect to make the trade, I'd prefer it to be someone further away from the majors, even if their upside is greater. So say one of those toolsy prospects with upside to dream on, but questionable hit tools. Sometimes they find their way and become great players, but more often they're Lewis Brinson and Monte Harrison. And either way, they'll be in MLB only after Burnes, Woodruff etc. are all free agents anyway. So someone like Hedbert Perez could be a headliner. Now I'm a prospect hugger and not a huge Bell fan so I wouldn't like it overly much either, but it's the type of return that won't impact the Brewers for years, if it ever does.

An extension is absolutely possible, it just won't be at a discount. Give him the biggest deal ever, make him the first $500m player, and you can extend him. If it's a team like the Dodgers, who have shown they can be competitive year in year out and have the resources to keep that up, I'm sure he'll be more willing too. Regardless of where on the "Possible" to "Likely" scale it is, the prospect of having 2½ years of exclusive negotiating rights with Soto *will* factor into the cost of acquiring him. So a team that would be looking to get just the 2½ years would still have to pay the extra cost of the possibility of the extension in order to be the highest bidder.

An extension is absolutely possible, it just won't be at a discount. Give him the biggest deal ever, make him the first $500m player, and you can extend him. If it's a team like the Dodgers, who have shown they can be competitive year in year out and have the resources to keep that up, I'm sure he'll be more willing too. Regardless of where on the "Possible" to "Likely" scale it is, the prospect of having 2½ years of exclusive negotiating rights with Soto *will* factor into the cost of acquiring him. So a team that would be looking to get just the 2½ years would still have to pay the extra cost of the possibility of the extension in order to be the highest bidder.

Great start to the second half. Also very happy to see Freddy Peralta, Jake Cousins, Luis Perdomo and Justin Topa all currently doing rehab assignments. Hard to know what we're getting in Topa given how little he has pitched in the last few years, but the other three should make the pitching staff a whole lot better and deeper.

As good as he has been this year, he is still a career 118 wRC+ hitter overall (114 wRC+ prior to this year). And when trying to predict what he'll do the rest of the year, I'll always put more weight on the 2800 PA sample than the 400 PA one. Not that pre-2022 Bell wouldn't also improve the offense, but it then becomes far more of a marginal improvement which ought to be reflected in the acquisition cost. In other words, a rental like him is someone I feel is a perfectly cromulent deadline addition, but not someone I'd give up a whole lot for. I certainly wouldn't give up any prospect who is likely to impact the major league ballclub in the next couple of years, nor any of the true top prospects who are further away either. So no to Frelick, Mitchell, Turang, Small, Chourio, Wiemer, Black, Quero, Feliciano and the likes. And I'd try to hold on to any of the better pitching prospects as the system seems position-player heavy. I'd probably look to trade from the toolsy but raw outfielders behind those mentioned. Guys like Gray Jr might not hold a ton of value on their own, but package a few of them together and it might be attractive especially to a team like the Nationals who are very much scouting/tools focused, and not as much about skills/data. Actually that last points was something I hadn't considered; Nats could be a good fit for a trade in the sense that the two teams are probably polar opposites (Based on the writing I've seen about the profile of different front offices anyway. Which seems solid, but who knows for sure...) in what types of prospects they value. Makes it more likely that a trade can be had that both teams will feel like they did well to get.

As good as he has been this year, he is still a career 118 wRC+ hitter overall (114 wRC+ prior to this year). And when trying to predict what he'll do the rest of the year, I'll always put more weight on the 2800 PA sample than the 400 PA one. Not that pre-2022 Bell wouldn't also improve the offense, but it then becomes far more of a marginal improvement which ought to be reflected in the acquisition cost. In other words, a rental like him is someone I feel is a perfectly cromulent deadline addition, but not someone I'd give up a whole lot for. I certainly wouldn't give up any prospect who is likely to impact the major league ballclub in the next couple of years, nor any of the true top prospects who are further away either. So no to Frelick, Mitchell, Turang, Small, Chourio, Wiemer, Black, Quero, Feliciano and the likes. And I'd try to hold on to any of the better pitching prospects as the system seems position-player heavy. I'd probably look to trade from the toolsy but raw outfielders behind those mentioned. Guys like Gray Jr might not hold a ton of value on their own, but package a few of them together and it might be attractive especially to a team like the Nationals who are very much scouting/tools focused, and not as much about skills/data. Actually that last points was something I hadn't considered; Nats could be a good fit for a trade in the sense that the two teams are probably polar opposites (Based on the writing I've seen about the profile of different front offices anyway. Which seems solid, but who knows for sure...) in what types of prospects they value. Makes it more likely that a trade can be had that both teams will feel like they did well to get.

The reason to think it might not be a good comp is that even since 2015-2016 it seems that the way teams value relievers has changed quite a bit. They also seem far more hesitant to trade top prospects for players with limited team control than they used to. But of course, it's hard to predict this kind of thing. It only takes one team that values things a bit differently, or who gets a bit desperate, or who has a roster crunch etc for the return to be on that level still.

Very similar to the Peralta extension in structure, and circumstances. I don't know how hard the escalators are to reach, if it's innings based or awards-based. But even if they're easy to trigger, Ashby doesn't even have to be very good to be worth $46m over 7 years. And the worst case scenario is $5 years, $20m. Hardly crippling, and again doesn't need to do a whole lot to be well worth that. Ashby, like any inexperienced pitcher, has some issues to sort out like consistency and limiting walks a bit more etc. But the potential is huge; that combination of a very high ground ball rate *and* a ton of strikeouts is extremely rare and, depending on where those numbers level out, perhaps even completely unique.

I think as long as they feel like Benintendi is passable enough in CF to play there maybe twice a week or so (Perhaps when the least fly-ball prone pitchers are on the mound) it'll be a good roster fit. Other days it'll be Yelich, Benintendi and Cutch rotating the LF/DH spots. Occasionally Renfroe too I suppose, but I like his defense in RF.

He was good as recently as 2020 and 2021. Worth taking a chance if they see something they believe they can fix.

When looking at Keston's overall solid production, and the low amount of playing time, people tend to draw the conclusion that he should play more. But I tend to think that the reason his overall numbers are good is *because* he doesn't play much. I strongly suspect that the decision on when to play him or not is matchup-based. And that it goes beyond just LHP or RHP. They play him vs starters they think he matches up well against, and not all righties or lefties are created equal. For instance, a RHP who primarily throws a 4-seamer and a 12-6 curveball from a high, over the top, arm slot, wouldn't usually have much in the way of platoon splits. Whereas a sinker/slider sidearmer would, like an Alex Claudio for example. Now I've not looked into which pitcher types he tends to start against. But I think that it's pretty obvious that there are pitches, and pitchers, who can exploit Keston's swing-and-miss tendencies more than others. I very, very much doubt that Counsell is either unable to look at vs RHP/LHP splits, or that he's picking out of stubbornness, or any of the other dumb takes I've seen on this. As for sending him down, that has been covered pretty well already. He is optioned, and can be recalled. Severino or Cutch can't be. Davis is the only CF on the roster. It's unfortunate for him, but a very logical decision. If they also didn't see favorable matchups for him, combined with the all-star break, it makes even more sense. But besides all that, and I say this as someone who thinks Keston has potential still, he is sporting the highest strikeout rate in MLB (100 PA min), has the lowest contact %, relies on the highest BABIP (70 points above his own career average), the highest HR/FB rate (36%, 13% above his already high career average). And this with a hard hit % that's only the 103rd highest. And this is WITH him being used selectively. Take some time to grasp just how extreme those numbers are. There are outliers, then there are extreme outliers, and then there is Keston Hiura. The outrage at optioning (Optioning, not releasing or trading) a player with those numbers is rather disproportionate. He'll be back soon enough, and with the all-star break and his sporadic usage he'll only have actually missed a handful of games.

Does he do that when there are runners on base too? I don't watch SD enough to know, but I suspect not.

In the last 5-6 years or so, Brewers have always done poorly just before the break. Being swept in that 5-game series (Well, 4 game series + makeup game) by the Pirates in 2018 being the most blatant example. However, they also tend to close the season out strongly; Craigtember is coming! It's a team built for winning as many games as possible out of the 162, not necessarily to maximize the chances of winning any individual game. Obviously there is a lot of overlap between those two concepts, but there is a difference. 2nd half will be a good one for the Brewers.

I agree, I don't think it's coincidence really, and probably is largely a product of what is available. With the international signings you're talking 16 year old (Or 14-15 when the deals are agreed in many cases) kids with very little experience and data to go on. And at that age, people are very far from fully formed physically, intellectually and emotionally. There just isn't such a concept as a "safe" pick, so might as well aim for high potential regardless. Whereas in the draft, there is. Relatively speaking anyway. For many college players there is almost as much data available (Both more traditional and tracking stuff like Statcast or the various slo-mo camera stuff) as there are for major leaguers. And depending on where they played, they will have played some pretty good opposition. So you are, in a sense, able to draft players who have essentially already proven themselves in A-ball. That will remove a *lot* of the error bars on the projections, the tradeoff of course being that it'll usually be on both ends of it.

I didn't follow the draft last night, but checked it out this morning. And once I saw that the Brewers didn't draft someone who was unathletic enough to only be able to play 1B/DH already at the age of 18-21, I knew exactly what this thread would look like. And I wasn't disappointed. Or I mean, I was disappointed, but I got what I expected. As for the draft itself, I don't follow College/HS baseball at all so hard to comment on the individual picks really. But I like that the Brewers are targetting hitters with good swing/take decisions (Tyler Black from last year is another great example), as that's both a skill that projects well and is less coachable or likely to grow significantly over time compared to something like HR power. As for the inevitable "Up the middle vs corner" debate every year: Most drafted players are SS/CF/C as that's where the best athletes end up on College and (especially) HS teams. So the 1B types are usually there because they aren't very good athletes, which limits their upside a ton, they're already 2-tool players without any versatility, and need those tools to translate fully to not be busts. Sometimes though, they're just such good hitters that those downsides don't matter. Thing is though, when someone is a "sure thing" like that, they end up 1st overall like Spencer Torkelson or 3rd like Andrew Vaughn to take a couple recent examples. They're a very different proposition from the 3B/1B/DH types available later on. It's like the logic is backwards; the best hitting positions on a MLB team tends to be the corner spots and DH. Therefore, some people want to draft corner guys to get better hitters. But that's not how it works. Sadly, there are a few poster like that, disagreeing with every move the team makes and pining for the Doug Melvin days. They'd take issue with Stearns if he said the sky was blue and water is wet. And, tellingly, their issue wouldn't even be that technically the sky isn't blue (It's purple, we just see it as blue) and water isn't wet (It makes other things wet), that's not surface level enough for them, but it'd be the need to reflexively disagree with everything. The last several years, with 4 straight playoff appearances, has been the most successful stretch for this team in almost 40 years (Or ever), and yet somehow that has come about despite every move Stearns makes being the wrong one and Counsell being genetically incapable of not starting every light-hitting utility player on his roster because they remind him of himself, and also his inability to view Keston Hiura's splits on baseball reference. I admire the tenacity of these posters, if not the lacking self-reflection, to be wrong for years and still persist in thinking you're absolutely right. And no, it doesn't mean you have to automatically love every single move the team makes, even the best front offices don't bat 1.000, far from it. But can we just discuss things from the perspective that Stearns and the rest of the front office aren't morons, that they have a reason for doing what they're doing, and data to back that up? That doesn't mean they'll make the right decision still, but more that trying to spot the logic behind, say, signing Wade Miley makes for a more productive debate than just citing his last-season poor ERA and calling Stearns a moron for not knowing that stat, or for not realising that a high ERA is bad. Which brings me to my last point. Which relates to the crapshoot nature of the draft, or even the randomness and uncertainty involved in decisions at the MLB level. And therefore, some humility. None of us know how any of the guys drafted beyond the first few picks (And not really them either, even if we can be more certain) will turn out, we all make guesses. Some qualified, some less so, but all of them uncertain. When dealing with such uncertainty, only a fool is certain. So I'd take any definitive statements on any draft picks future with a truckload of salt, same for the people making those statements.

I agree that Brewers are unlikely to exercise the team option on Wong, and that Turang will be up next year in some capacity. I think exactly which role he plays will depend a bit on what other moves are made. If somehow a great 2B becomes available for much below their true value, Brewers will go with that. But as the roster stands right now for next year (So no Wong, Peterson or Cutch) it makes sense that Turang is pencilled into the 2B position (He hasn't played 3B at all in the minors, while Urias looks good there. So the idea that Turang plays 3B and Urias 2B seems highly unlikely), while also seeing some time as the backup at SS and CF. But really, circumstances will dictate. "No plan survives contact with the regular MLB season" as the old saying goes. But he'll definitely be up sooner rather than later IMO. His league-average ish production in AAA is entirely down to a lack of power; batting average and OBP are good, he's not overwhelmed and striking out a ton. Combine that with good defense at 3 up the middle positions and good baserunning, and it's easy to justify a roster spot while waiting to see if the power will show up.

Andrew Benintendi is among the 10 (TEN!!) Royals players going on the restricted list for their trip to Toronto. One side effect of that is that it removes the entire AL East as potential trade destinations for him.

That's waaay more than I think any team would pay for any reliever, even if they had more contract years remaining than Hader does. That'd be the easiest yes of my life.

Prospect rankings aren't about the here and now, but about projecting how good someone will be at their best, usually several years from now. Using a month of minor league stats, especially stats that don't line up with the scouting side, would be a rather terrible way to make a prospect ranking.