Lathund

1. Aaron Ashby 2. Brice Turang 3. Garett Mitchell 4. Sal Frelick 5. Ethan Small 6. Jeferson Quero 7. Joey Wiemer 8. Tyler Black 9. Felix Valerio 10. Mario Feliciano 11. Freddy Zamora 12. Jackson Chourio 13. Max Lazar 14. Hedbert Perez 15. Eduardo Garcia 16. Hendry Mendez 17. Abner Uribe 18. Carlos Rodriguez (OF) 19. Zavier Warren 20. Dylan File 21. Joe Gray Jr 22. Jason Alexander 23. Corey Ray 24. Gabe Holt 25. Alec Bettinger 26. Korry Howell 27. Antoine Kelly

I think Holt is much better than he showed in his brief stint here in 2020, but at the same time another utility guy (Even if it's a good one) isn't what this team needs atm. Peterson, Brosseau, Reyes, Mathias are all guys who can fill that role. Roster spots are limited, any utility guy they add needs to have options remaining, or offer something to the roster they don't already have. Also, soon enough we could have Gabe Holt available to fill the Holt \o/ quota.

Eric Hosmer over the last 4 years: 99 wRC+, .323 OBP, 0.6 fWAR. He's a replacement level player at this point. He's straight up a downgrade from Tellez, who is also 5 years younger, and cheaper. The only reason to add Hosmer would be if the prospect(s) SD throw in to get someone to take him are good.

Veterans like Cutch, Cain, Yelich, Wong who are all by all accounts very professional and good teammates. Tyrone Taylor getting to play the outfield alongside those 3 couldn't be asking for a better situation to learn in. Willy Adames is in a class of his own, the man even makes Craig Counsell smile! Rowdy, Suter seem like a lot of fun too. I mean I don't think this is ever their primary concern with a signing, but certainly seems they take it into account. Probably part of the approach they take of always looking at how to win the most over 162 games, as opposed to the best team on paper. Reflects in pitcher usage, in roster construction with depth, positional flexibility etc. Makes sense that it'd also include getting personalities in there who can help the team in the rougher stretches of the season. As for Cutch; Brewers put up 91 wRC+ against LHP last year. Cutch put up 168 wRC+. That was second best in baseball (after Trea Turner. Min. 150 PA). Since Turner isn't available, they went and got the biggest possible upgrade out there for a major weakness of the offense. As for Castellanos, that home/away split is really worrying. And he'd get at least twice what Cutch is getting, and for 5-6 years. For a DH. That'd have been a terrible way to spend money with all the arbitration raises coming up.

A solid reliever with a lot of late-inning experience is good to have, and he was good for us last year. And considering that Ottavino got 1/$4m and Familia 1/$6m today, $2.5m with a team option is a steal.

Also just noticed that Clay Davenport published his a few weeks ago. That one is in a similar vein, with 94 wins for the Brewers and Cardinals below .500 http://claydavenport.com/projections/PROJHOME.shtml

The preliminary PECOTA projections are out. With the usual Lockout caveats, that rosters will change a lot etc. But still they are quite something. Brewers 97 Reds 81 Cardinals 77 Pirates 70 Cubs 68 I'm someone who believes the Brewers are the best team in the division, and that the Cardinals pitching needs a lot of help, but even I am not *that* high on them. But I like it.

The bolded parts are the main ideas I took away from this, because they contradict each other IMO. Unless I'm missing something, there are no bats that are demonstrably better than what they have that they are going to be able to go out and acquire for $9m AAV. That leaves you with a player like Rosario who you hope has found something in a relatively small sample that you can capitalize on, much like what Castellanos did a few years ago after his trade to Chicago. One thing I've liked about the Stearns regime is that they don't get locked in on an idea, but stay flexible. If there isn't a better bat to spend $9m on, and you don't think Rosario is worth $9m, then the best solution isn't to sign him to a multi-year deal despite that. Instead you spend the $9m where it gets you the most wins, even if it's not in the corner OF/DH power hitting role which seems like the most obvious need. And if you have to settle for something similar to what you already have, then at least make it a 1-year deal. Now if the team has scouted Rosario properly and genuinely believe (and not just "hope") he's somehow a better hitter, then by all means sign him. I just think he's someone people overrate because of Atlantas late-season form, without looking at the whole. But the key takeaway is that if you can't find one bat for $9m AAV who clearly makes you better, then don't spend $9m on one bat. Take your chances on a much cheaper bat, and spend the money where you get more value for it. Whether that be an elite defender, or a couple of relievers, or whatever it might be. Or free up more money and get someone better.

Rosario had a good 100 PA with Atlanta and then was part of their WS team, but we should look beyond the recency bias. His 98 wRC+ last year was within 1 point of both Jace Peterson and Lorenzo Cain for example. He is a 105 wRC+ career hitter, who plays average-ish defense in LF. That can still be a useful player, but probably not the best way to spend $9m AAV if that's all there is to spend. Brosseau provides the same level of offense (106 wRC+, albeit in a much smaller sample) while playing all over. Jace Peterson's offense has been similar to Rosario over the last two years (99 wRC+ vs 102) and he too plays all over. Tyrone Taylor covers all the OF spots. And then there's the question of whatever Keston Hiura can do this season. Reason I bring all these names up is that Brewers have a bunch of league average-ish hitters already for the bench/platoons, some with more versatility than Rosario, others with higher upside. All of them much cheaper. With the DH now confirmed, and the need for versatility largely covered, I'd say that if you're going to spend money on a bat get a bat who's clearly better than what you have.

I would rather keep Keston and put the ~$9m difference in salary between the two (Not to mention 3 year difference in team control) towards the best FA bat the team can afford.

During the last CBAs we've seen revenue soar, while salaries have increased at a much slower pace. The pandemic effects make it harder to evaluate, but salaries plateaued even before then. Players want to reverse this trend, owners want to maintain it. A deal could be reached if the owners just moved part of the way towards the distribution of revenue of even a decade ago, but they really have not budged at all so far in negotiations. There was the press release from the owners when they initiated the lockout that stated both that they were "forced" to do it, and also that they did it in the hope of kickstarting negotiations. Firstly, which of the two is it? Secondly, after the lockout started they didn't submit a counter-proposal for *six weeks*. Looking at the latest proposals compared to the earliest, the players have moved a lot. Owners barely at all. The owners latest stunt was to say they would counter the unions latest offer, then deciding not to do so and instead propose mediation as a PR move. Negotiations aren't deadlocked, the issue is that the owners could barely have been said to have negotiated so far. If both sides would have negotiated in good faith and made actual proposals and compromises and there still was a deadlock, mediaton makes sense. But that's not where we're at. Owners negotiated in bad faith ahead of the 2020 season, and they absolutely seem to be doing the same again. Their economic proposals include raises to the CBT and to minimum salaries that barely even covers inflation. A bonus pool for the best performing pre-arb players that amounts to ~$333k per team total. A higher minimum salary for 2nd and 3rd year pre-arb players is the only direct concession, and even then that's not very much; even if a team was to have 20 3rd year pre-arb players on the roster (Which is an extreme number. Brewers currently have 3) it'd be ~$2.5m per team. The owners proposal also removes the ability of teams to pay players above the minimum, so even less impactful than it first seems. Now keep in mind that this unwillingness to move at all comes despite the fact that players are willing to agree to expanded playoffs and give the owners rights to put badges on jerseys. These are both big sources of revenue, yet owners still won't make any concessions. As for the point earlier, that gets raised a lot, about fixed floors and caps; Part of why the PA are against it is because owners have refused to give the PA full access to their books. They are required to share certain (independently audited) figures with the PA, but that does not give the full picture. Particularly when it comes to things like ballpark developments like Wrigleyville, or for teams who own their own broadcast networks (or parts of it). The PA are wary of teams "hiding" income like that. Essentially any proposals for a fixed split is asking the players to agree to a share of a pie despite not knowing what pie it is or how big it is. Other proposals like the floor and (massively reduced) CBA proposal the MLB made has the downside of not scaling. It might increase spending slightly in 2022, but towards the end of the CBA period it's probably more likely to reduce it. And it would make the floor and (effective) cap a major point of contention in future CBAs, with owners demanding other concessions to raise it. There are very good reasons for the PA to oppose this kind of thing. Similarly, the various proposals from MLB about increasing player compensation are all also fixed, and in general try to restrict or entirely remove arbitration. They will result in the trend of owners pocketing a larger and larger share of revenues will continue. So with so much "both sides" stuff going around, it's worth keeping in mind that the owners can lift the lockout any time and start preseason (There are very good reasons for them not to, of course, and it would likely result in a strike instead. But both starting and ending the lockout is in the owners hands). And that one side has shown significant more willingness to negotiate, or even show up at the table, than the other. Some people have the idea that if salaries are limited, it will make baseball cheaper and more accessible to fans. Which is just naive beyond belief. Fans are already paying the current prices, so owners have no reason to reduce them. If payrolls go down, that money goes straight into the owners pockets. They might make some PR gestures like a price freeze for x years or larger discounts for students, elderly and military personell (Or whichever other moves that gives them good PR) that in reality would only be a small fraction of the money saved. I don't know about you all, but I would rather that the money I pay to watch baseball goes to the players who provide the enterainment, rather than into the pockets of Bob Nutting, Hal Steinbrenner, Arte Moreno, Joe Ricketts or even our own Mark Attanasio.

That's actually my question there! Figured KG would be a good source of insight into what Stearns is like. There have also been articles elsewhere with quotes from agents and players about Stearns. Where they both mention honest and straightfoward communication from him, and that both groups appreciate that a lot. I like this quote from an agent: "Stearns is tough, brilliant, fast. He’s honest. It’s hard to find people who are that smart and honest. If he wanted to use his powers for evil, he could.” The other Brewers/Astros related question I've gotten an answer from him about on is the Gomez/Fiers for Hader/Houser/Phillips/Santana trade, seeing as how Stearns was the AGM in Houston and then became the Brewers GM a few months after that trade. Didn't say anything specific about Stearns in his answer, other than that most people in the room (including KG) were in favor of the trade at the time.

Baseball Prospectus has released their farm system rankings, and have Brewers at #19. They also have 10 tiers within that top 30, and Brewers are highest ranked in Tier #8. Tier 7 for reference has the Reds, Dodgers, Cardinals and Braves. Worth noting that the BP guys have been really down on the Brewers system the last few years, so this is quite a shift. But a measure of how volatile these things can be, BP have the Dodgers at #17, while Keith Law has them at #1. As far as the Brewers go though, when you take all the various rankings together it seems like the consesus is pretty clear that the system has moved out of the "bad" or even "worst" category it would've been in for the last few years, and into the "below average" category. Many mentions of how much of the strength of the system is in A and Rookie ball, so if there aren't a lot of setbacks there I imagine the system would rise as those players move up. I also don't share the strong dislike many have for Keith Law, but I will say I trust the evaluations of most other prospect outlets more than his. I like that he's willing to stick his neck out, but sometimes it seems like he takes it a bit too far and sticks his neck out for the sake of sticking his neck out.

I think that with 100+ innings under their belt for all our starters in 2021, the immediate workload concerns after 2020 will mostly be gone, and I would expect to see a 5-man rotation for the most part. What I think they'll do though is to not skip the 5th starter after off days, and use a spot starter when there are long stretches with no off days, so that it will be a 5-man rotation but a high proportion of starts will be on 5 days rest. I expect we might also see them using the spot starter to perhaps skip (Or push forward) a turn in the rotation for someone when needed. So without any injuries (Never going to happen of course, but still) you'd expect starters 1-5 with 30 starts, and #6 with 12.

The Baseball Prospectus Brewers top 10 came out yesterday. A good sign is that for the first time in a couple of years they don't make a bunch of snarky comments on how bad the system is. As for the ranking itself; 1. Mitchell 2. Frelick 3. Ashby 4. Small 5. Wiemer 6. Black 7. H. Perez 8. Turang 9. Zamora 10. Quero 11. Warren 12. Garcia 13. Gray "On the rise" Chourio Valerio

Turang is one of the youngest players in AAA, has been promoted aggressively and been a league average hitter at every level so far. And that's as someone with very good defense and baserunning skills, playing a premier defensive position. He has very good ball/strike recognition which together with the rest of the game gives him a high floor. A good defensive LHH shortstop who gets on base at a high rate? That's valuable, even if his ceiling is probably more Brandon Crawford than it is Carlos Correa due to a lack of power (even if I think he'll develop at least a bit more than it is now). I read a lot of posts (Here and elsewhere) from fans who seem to put Turang lower and lower, whereas I just feel more and more that he's on the right track and someone likely to help this team. As for trades, I don't think we will see any trades from the top of the system at all. They have a lot of players in arbitration who will get expensive over the next few years, and I expect the team to take the route of trying to mostly keep those guys around until they're 1-2 years away from FA. That means that as they get more expensive, they need to fill other parts of the roster with cheaper players. That's where Turang, Mitchell, Ashby and Small fit in. Trading them for 1-2 years of an expensive player probably isn't the right move if we're near the limit of what ownership is willing to allow for payroll. I think the only way we see them trade their best prospects is if a Yelich-type trade comes around, with a player with 4+ years of team control. So someone like Bryan Reynolds. I think the last few years have shown us that what was said early on in Stearns tenure is correct; That this team will aim to be competitive every year, and not subscribe to a window theory. You can look at the Rays: Trading your established players for prospects makes you weaker now, but it makes you stronger overall, even if the benefit is 5 years down the line. Now if you consistently make those trades for five years however, then you'll get constant reinforcements, and the trades won't be weakening anymore. Now I don't propose quite the churn they have, nor spending as little as they do, but the basic framework of sustained success is there. So I'd expect that the trades we'll see will be more like the Hamilton/Binelas type; trading 15-25 ranked (Or lower) prospects for above-average players without big financial commitments. Not trading top prospects for the last (and expensive) 1-2 years of star players. But hey I've been wrong before, and didn't see the Yelich trade coming at all for example. Will be exciting to see how the team goes about things.

The best predictor of future results is past results, so projections are very useful. They help strip out the biases we all have. I think the best way to go about it is to use projections as the starting point, and then into that factor in the things that a projection can't; things like injuries affecting performance, swing changes etc. Also as far as team records go, it's worth keeping in mind that even if you were to project every single player perfectly, the team projections still wouldn't be perfect, due to things like playing time, injuries, different lineup philosophies or bullpen usage, mid-season trades and promotions, sequencing, schedules and probably more things besides.

.292/.424/.476 (.900 OPS/147 wRC+) in AAA this year, with more walks than strikeouts (18% BB, 16% K). Had some brief success in the majors too in 2018. Seems like a really good player to take a flyer on with a MiLB deal.

According to Manfred's statement on mlb.com the owners did offer a salary floor. I assume this also means that the owners requested a salary cap but I actually can't find anything that states what exactly the owners are requesting. That proposal included lowering the luxury tax treshold by $30m, to $180m. Allowing the owners to treat $180 as the new "cap". I wouldn't take the PR statements at face value either. Manfred blatantly lies when he says that the expiry of the CBA forced them into a "defensive" lockout. They chose to do it. Which is their right, but acting like they're doing it to protect the game or something is disingenuous. As for what the sides want: MLB revenues have gone up significantly, while wages have gone up less and even stagnated, so the overall share of revenue has tilted heavily in the owners favor. The owners want it to remain that way and to continue the trend. The players want to reverse it. Players also want players to not be significantly underpaid in their prime; So higher minimum salary, earlier arbitration, reduce service times manipulation via things like earlier FA (i.e based on service time OR a certain age, whichever comes first), disincentives towards tanking. As far the owners go, they want to not do those things, and want to expand the playoffs (i.e more playoff income, less incentive to spend money). Based on what Evan Drellich of the Athletic wrote, owners have taken a stance on not changing time to FA via service time, not introducing earlier arbitration and not changing revenue sharing. They declined to counter the unions last offer unless those things were off the table. Players seem to take a hardline approach on redistributing money to earlier in players careers in some way, and measures to counter the extreme tanking. As for what sides offer to give up the players seem willing to agree to expanded playoffs, but smaller (12 as opposed to 14 teams) and give the owners the right to put badges on jerseys; supposedly those two things are hundreds of millions worth. Owners seem to mainly be willing to just adjust existing systems; raise the CBT treshold somewhat, small increases to minimum salary, or allow older players earlier FA (What they don't want is more 26 year olds hitting FA). Personally I hope the players get most of what they want. They are both the labor and the product; I follow baseball to watch them play. So I'd rather my money goes to them, as opposed to the owners.

Which year the money is saved in doesn't really matter all that much, they can just structure any deal they make around that. Or take a loan. Before the trade they were committed to paying JBJ $17m more. Now they are paying Renfroe ~$7.5m (MLBTR estimate), and while he'd get a raise next year they have the option of non-tendering him. Money saved next year is relevant for any acquisition that isn't a 1-year deal only. Not that I necessarily expect a big bat to be signed. Just that this trade alone improved our offense while also saving money.

Yeah he'll probably be better than he was, I don't think he's quite that bad. But this wasn't just bad, it would've been one of the worst, or even the worst, hitting season of all time if he had qualified. And it'll be his age-32 season. It's not a given that he'll get back to his career numbers (.705 OPS) at all. And it's not something I'd want to wager $17m on.

I think Alex Binelas will be a good hitter, but perhaps ending up as a 1B/DH only. Hamilton was a fun player, but there's Turang, Zamora and Valerio as far as MI prospects go who I'd rate above him, and Hamilton was more of a high-floor low-ceiling type of guy. Giving up those guys hurt. But to get out of the JBJ deal we all knew we had to give up something. And in return we make our team in 2022 (And potentially 2023) better, while saving ~$10m ($17m owed to JBJ, $7.5m estimated arb. for Renfroe). RHH power was an area that needed improving. As for the negative of Taylor not being given a chance: He certainly will be. Yelich and Cain won't play every game, and with the likely introduction of the DH I'd expect Yelich and Renfroe takes a lot of those at bats freeing up an OF spot. And then there's injuries. Taylor will play plenty. Only ended up paying JBJ $6.5m in the end.

I thought Canha was a pretty good fit for the Brewers as well, RHH RF/1B who has been good the last several years. I also don't think the Brewers will trade for Olson. The only way they give up a significant prospect haul would be for a Yelich type deal; i.e 4+ years of team control. So someone like Bryan Reynolds. Another thing to consider with the rising arbitration costs mentioned before is that it makes upper minors prospects even more valuable to keep. Someone like Ashby who has shown MLB-level ability already and with 6 years of control remaining is too valuable to give up for a short-term 1B IMO. Having Ashby around makes it more palatable to trade one of the "big 4" pitchers as they get expensive, freeing up $10m to spend as well as getting a real good return.

Seems like a reasonable deal for a backup catcher. Hits lefties well, rough defense but Brewers have been good at improving that. If he sucks it's a ~$2m committment for one year, if he's good he will be arbitration eligible at the end of the year.

Well deserved. I was afraid that the voters were going to mess this up and give it to Scherzer. Delighted that Burnes won, and also happy that they gave Wheeler 2nd. I would've been OK with Wheeler winning, pitching so many more innnings with not much worse numbers is impressive. But Scherzer barely pitched more than Burnes, and Burnes underlying metrics crushed him.