Lathund

I'm higher on Pratt than most, and considering the offensive environment in the Southern League I don't consider his 2025 a disappointment at all. I absolutely think he could see playing time, and be useful, in 2026. Probably won't, but absolutely could. But the premise of this article is ridiculous. If we have a hole at SS and want to promote Pratt, promote him to play SS. He might be our best defender there. And even if Turang is better, it's not by much. Or rather, not by enough to have THREE players move positions. The reason you would switch things around is to accomodate someone who can't play the position you need to fill. But in this scenario Pratt is a very good SS, Turang is a platinum glove winner at 2B, and Durbin was very good at 3B. Just let them stay there. Doing this switcheroo is what you would do if you needed to improve on Joey's bat by promoting a 3B like Adams or Wilken (Or signed Suarez or something). *Then* it makes sense to move Durbin to 2B and Turang to SS. This article was unnecessary, at best. I get that not all articles can be hard-hitting analysis, but it should be more than this. This is more of a forum post in a thread discussing the 2026 Brewers infield.

Cubs are "active" because basically their entire bullpen and bench hit free agency. So all their signings so far is essentially getting them back to where they were. More generally though, "doing something" because another team is being active is perhaps the worst offseason strategy you can have.

Awful news. The way it's worded make me fear the worst, really hoping to be wrong on that count.

I do think it's an overreaction to the shoulder issue, but you're also far from alone in having it. It's a very widespread "truth" among the fanbase that Turang is unable to play SS because of it. Which I don't agree with. Which isn't me saying that he'll be absolutely amazing there, since I don't know either, just that brief soreness/fatigue there during spring training isn't proof of anything. Maybe he started working on a different set of throwing mechanics too hard, too early. Maybe the issues had nothing to do with the position switch, and would've happened either way; it's a common thing in spring training after all. The fact that they pivoted away from it also isn't proof; it's just practical. If your plan A and plan B are very close, then even a small, temporary, setback in plan A means it makes sense to go with plan B and have it ready for the season. Doesn't mean plan A never would've worked. Turang did play SS for years without any issues, so I don't have any doubts about his ability to physically handle it. Now I don't *want* to move him over either; I'm perfectly fine leaving him at 2B to give first Ortiz more time, and then Pratt/Made. But I don't think the fact that he's a really good 2B should make him unmovable. If they need a new SS and he's the best SS, he should play there. Regardless of how good he is at 2B. The other candidates for the position will also be better 2B than they are SS, it goes with the nature of the positions. I also don't necessarily think Pratt gets passed by, even if Made continues his meteoric rise. Pratt will begin the year in AAA, Made likely in AA, so he is still a level ahead. Pratt is also clearly the better SS at this time, so if it's an everyday SS they need, he's ahead. Made might become one in time, but right now most evaluators would agree he isn't. If he comes up first it's because his bat demands it, and I think he'd mostly play at other positions. I also think other considerations factor in more for Made, namely service time and everything related to it. The rules for service time for ROTY, the prospect promotion initiative, whether a Chourio-like extension is in play etc. They're probably more willing to "risk" starting Pratt's clock than Mades, if the decision had to be made at an inconveniently timed moment.

Monasterio had such a small sample size this season that there can be a lot of randomness in there. I prefer wRC+ to wOBA, but just to put it on the same scale Monasterio had a .328 wOBA vs .281 xwOBA, Ortiz had a .263 wOBA vs .273 xwOBA. Or in other words, based on the batted ball profile and walk/strikeout rates being the same going forward, you'd expect Monasterio to put up significantly lower offense numbers than he did, while you'd expect Ortiz to improve his somewhat. Still an edge to Monasterio in 2025, but will that hold true going forward? And is it enough to outweigh the defensive difference? I think Monasterio is a very good backup to have for all the infield spots, and I wouldn't mind if Murphy rotated his players a bit more to keep them fresh, which would give him more playing time to evaluate. But I think it would take a *lot* for Monasterio to win the job in camp. I still think that if they felt they had to move on from Ortiz and find a new SS starter internally it would be Brice Turang, since they have more guys who can play a passable 2B, including Monasterio. I also think Cooper Pratt is a lot closer than raw statline scouting would suggest.

The real troubling thing with Jones less the strikeout rate (Though that is real ugly), it's the whiff rate. Jones this past season had a Contact % of 58% in AA and 62% in AAA. To put that into perspective, between 2020 and 2025, only two hitters who received more than 500 PAs in MLB had a contact % below that; Keston Hiura and Joey Gallo. That's in the majors. To compare, Keston Hiura, while strugling big time in MLB, was crushing AAA and had contact percentages between 68 and 72% there. So it would get real ugly in the majors for Jones, at least to start with and quite likely always. Which is why I have zero interest in him as part of any trade return. Yes, the raw power is off the charts, and gives a very high ceiling if he can get even within striking range of a below average hit tool. But the chances of that are miniscule. A high ceiling is fine and all, there still needs to be a somewhat high probability of getting there. If we're looking for projects with athleticism but questionable hit tools, look among much younger players further from the majors. Not someone who is already on a 40-man roster with the clock ticking entering his age-25 season.

Mears was basically always going to be gone. His stuff declined, and the strikeouts went with them. That in itself might have been fatigue/injury related, but when you also run out of options (In a pen that needed optionable middle relievers) and enter arbitration.. you're gone. Based on those same things, he would not have had a lot of trade value. Collins then. I'm a little bit in two minds about this. On one hand, I think hardly anyone expects him to ever have that kind of season again. Can look at his Savant page and you'll see. Plate discipline is great, he doesn't chase. But he also got way better batted ball outcomes than he should have to go with it, and that isn't going to continue. But he would still be a pretty useful player even at around league average offense, so what gives? Well, mainly the roster fit. Chourio and Frelick are playing more or less every day. Yelich and Bauers will play some LF against RHP. The issue is that Collins is LF only, and the Brewers would rather have a CF-capable player or two to go witht he above four, And in Mitchell and Perkins they have a couple of elite defenders. So Collins might well be a 1-2 WAR type player still, even with some regression. But he was never going to be that here. You'd still think 5 years of that had more value though. But then it comes down to whether the value of the players involved is absolute or relative to the teams involved. What I mean by that is that the Brewers didn't need Collins, but he has value to others. Should the focus then be to get the most value still, or just get something you want for something you don't? I think this is a difference we see between Stearns and Arnold. Stearns seem to have sought value in literally everything. Arnold is obviously still value-focused, but I look at trades for players where the value clearly lies in what is there to unlock rather than the present, and see that those trades have been, seemingly, at a price that takes the potential into account. Successful example would be Priester, partially successful or delayed success would be Bauers or Mears, and unsuccessful would be Oliver Dunn. I don't think Stearns makes those trades unless the other team totally didn't see the value in them. Which is safer, but might miss out on guys too. Anyway, Zerpa. Of all pitchers with 50 IP, his Stuff+ was 20th with 117. Tied with Uribe and Tanner Scott for instance. The guys ahead are mostly high-end late-inning relievers (Hader, Munoz, Helsley, Duran, Miller, Morejon, R. Rodriguez) or freak starters (Mis, Hunter Greene). Brewers surely use their own Stuff/Arsenal metrics, but I'm sure they're seeing something similar and that's what they think they can use. They like their Slider/Sinker guys a lot too. Which brings me to another name ahead on the Stuff+ list (6th); Aaron Ashby., who strikes me as somewhat similar Hard sinker with big movement, elite groundball rate. Ashby though has the K-rate to go with that groundball rate, and if they can increase that even slightly, that's what will unlock Zerpa.

This is the trade analysis we truly needed.

I'm someone who has liked the Mears trade from day 1. But that being said, and as I've said in the Megill news post, I'm always open to trading just about any reliever (I mean not someone like Uribe with 5 years of control left, but most others) for the right return. If there is one skill the Brewers have, it's finding or creating relievers. Trading someone who is good, but not elite, with no options remaining, makes perfect sense. I'd see what we can get for Mears, and would rather make room in the 'pen for one of the starters that misses out on the rotation (One of Patrick, Myers, Gasser, Henderson). Whoever they feel would benefit most from facing MLB hitters, albeit as a reliever, as opposed to starting in AAA.

I'm perfectly fine with trading just about any reliever for the right return. At least ones with 1-2 years remaining who are starting to get expensive. Hader got us Gasser and indirectly Contreras and Payamps. Williams got us Durbin. If Megill gets us anything even half as useful, and the $4m can be put to other uses, I'd go for it. Wouldn't do it just for the sake of trading him though. When he's on his game, Megill is absolutely unhittable. If he can find that reliability, he can be truly elite.

Buxton is a great player. I just think it's too much to both give up a lot in prospects, add $15m AAV, and to do that for a player who already spent most of his 20s injured and who we'll be getting the age 32-34 seasons from. $15m is cheap if he keeps having seasons like 2025, I just think there is a real risk that he won't stay healthy enough to do it. Giving up what it takes to get him, only to have him sit on the IL would really hurt the Brewers. I also think the Brewers budget might struggle with adding $15m at this point, and would require some outgoings. Next year it'd be fine (With $30m in salary off the books, and $16m in buyouts), but I don't know if they'd be willing to go higher even just one year.

I don't know if bringing back Suter is the best decision, performance wise (though he is still a pretty good pitcher), but man I would absolutely love to have the Raptor back. One of my all time favorite baseball players. An entertainer on and off the field, and seemed like both a great teammate and person.

I don't think Durbin and Collins have very high ceilings. But they did put up close to 3 fWAR seasons in their rookie seasons, and would've gone above that with more regular playing time. Simply more playing time and slight improvements would make them 4 WAR players. I think Durbin has the most potential to improve, while I suspect Collins will never beat his 2025 season. They do have pretty high floors the way I see it, so fairly likely to be regulars or 10 man bench types, but not the tools to be stars. Patrick is trickier. But the fact remains that he put up a 3.53 ERA over 120 IP in the majors (With an overall workload of 160 IP including AAA), the peripherals mostly match that; FIP is identical, xERA/xFIP still sub-4. That would improve almost any rotation in the game, as is. And it looked sustainable to me. Pitchers are hard to predict, they can find a new pitch that changes their outlook. Or find more velo. Or more movement. Or improve command. And that's all hard to predict. I don't think he has the stuff to be an ace. But if that sweeper and/or changeup improves a tick and becomes more of a weapon? That can work wonders for his mostly FB-based arsenal, and could elevate him further.

You flatter yourself if you think I'm following you around. I visit the site every few days, and I read the posts in the general forum, minor league forum, and transaction forum that have new posts, or at least the ones that interest me. You post in many of those. There are no notifications or anything, so I haven't seen your post until now. If you want to clutter things up even more with *crickets*, thinking you score some point, be my guest. I think it's pretty clear what a downvote is; disagreement, but not strong enough to warrant making a post about. Or in some cases that a debate wouldn't lead anywhere. In this particular case, I disagree about writing off Mitchell, saying we can never ever count on him for anything ever. He's injury prone for sure. Some injury prone players stay that way, some get over it, some miss a lot of time but are good enough when healthy to still contribute. I think he has more to contribute, you in your post suggested he hasn't. Neither one of us know how it'll turn out, so it's just disagreement based on our best guesses. I don't think that's very informative or interesting for anyone to read, so the thumbs down conveys disagreement without cluttering the thread. In another thread elsewhere that I read earlier today, you elaborated and said that we can't count on him as a starter, that he might have more to offer but we should have another option in place to start, and bring Mitchell up if he does well. Much more reasonable take, hence no thumbs down. You've been on these boards for the entire time I've been on here. And if it seems like I disagree with you often, it's because I disagree with you often. If you post on a public messageboard, you have to be prepared that people will disagree with you. Especially when it's done using the tools given specifically for that purpose, without insults or getting personal. You say you're genuinely curious, but then phrase the rest of it like that. Doubling down, again, on the "I never post, only downvote" thing. And then, ahead of time, dismissing any reply I would have made. Whatever "my normal response" is. It doesn't exactly create the kind of situation where I would *want* to reply. Which, I suppose, is the intent. I'd suggest not paying so much attention to randoms on the internet using reactions on a message board. Or if you do, then use the ignore function. I have a long ignore list on here, that has made the board experience a lot better. But really, noone wants to read this kind of thing. I had to answer because you felt it necessary to call me out multiple times on this and just kept going. I'd suggest just moving on, for your own sake and for that of everyone else who come here to post/read transaction speculation.

He was in a front office role for a coulpe of years before he became Associate Manager, so he already has experienced that. Maybe he could use more seasoning there, but seems odd to move him on from that role only to move him back. While we don't know anything definitive, I think this move signals that at least something has changed. Which side that changed their plans remains to be seen though.

Yes I think that if he was the appointed successor, he'd still be in the role he was. Could be that Murphy was viewed as an interim (essentially) solution with Weeks taking over after 1-2 years, but now that it's Murphy's job to keep perhaps Ricky doesn't want to stick around as a bench coach (Or "associate manager"...) for several more years. Or perhaps Pat wants a different voice in the dugout, now that his position seems more permanent. Or something else, obviously just guessing here. But while this doesn't rule out Weeks still being the next Brewers manager, I'd argue it makes it less likely.

If the Brewers aren't worried about the late-season lat injury, then extending the QO was a no-brainer and we should hope that he accepts, or that the leverage of the QO helps a multi-year deal at a lower AAV be made. Woody showed that he still has it, and that he has the ability to adapt his game. Another season removed from the injury should have him stronger as well. Having Woody (And hopefully Freddy) around all the young pitchers can only be a positive.

Seigler shouldn't be the primary backup catcher, but he will absolutely get another chance in some role. Fans are, as always, putting way too much into surface stats in small sample sizes. Particularly when that small sample is someone's first, and irregular, experience in the majors. His AAA stats were very good, plate discipline was good, the underlying/predictive metrics (like xwOBA, DRC+) were better than the results. And playing multiple positions makes the roster fit easier. Might not be on the opening day roster, but he's just the type of player that the teams and casual fans will absolutely be miles apart in how they value them. He will get more major league PAs with the Brewers, and will do better than he did in 2025. How much better and how big a role remains to be seen, but the many people on here who call for, and/or expect, him to be released/outrighted will be mistaken.

Jake Bauers put up 114 wRC+, with even better underlying numbers (.364 xwOBA) to support it. He'll earn something like $2-2.5m in arbitration, can play some LF, plays solid 1B defense and is a better baserunner than the other 1B options, and hits LH. That's absolutely not someone you "definitely" remove. If they want to move on from him, he would at least get *something* in return in a trade, but seems a good candidate to keep. Trading Priester makes absolutely no sense. The point of having guys with 5 years of team control who have proven they can handle MLB is to keep them. At least until their later arbitration years. Myers looked good again towards the end of the year, he'll be a useful player. We saw early on this season why having SP depth is so vital, it's why we even got Priester in the first place. As for Jung, I like it. Assuming he's available and not overly expensive. I don't really see why the Rangers would trade him though, unles they were going for Bregman/Suarez or something.

I really don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that they wouldn't seriously consider adding Crow to the 40-man. Unless they believe his injury is career ending, or just about, he's a lock to be added. Plenty of teams who'd be fine with adding him to the 40-man over the winter, stashing him on the 60 day IL as soon as it's available, and using a long rehab stint and his first minor-league option for rehab. That is even assuming his injury keeps him out until next year, which it very well might not. Yeager is a possibility, but unlikely. EMJ is even less likely, especially given that Bauers, Black, Vaughn are already on the 40-man, and they also have Burke, Adams, Wilken, Boeve who they don't need to protect.

Counting both Mitchell and Thomas among those 37.

I don't see the fit. Yes he had a down year with the Yankees, but I don't think it has hurt is value to the point that the Brewers would be interested. They signed Feliz for $5m in 2017, Boone Logan for $3m-ish in 2018, and haven't gone above that since for a free agent reliever. So they don't believe in spending there. And while Williams ERA was bad, basically every other metric still looked fine. He's not getting Diaz/Hader money if he sings this offseason, but he's getting a pretty good deal. And if he takes a 1-year deal in order to build up value, it'll probably still be for 8 figures.

Assuming Peraltas option gets picked up, and the mutual options of Hoskins/Quintana/Jansen/Woodruff gets declined by either side, the 40-man roster will stand at 37. Steward Berroa is probably the first outright/trade on there. Easton McGee and Connor Thomas probably next, but I suspect Brewers like those guys more than the average fan does. So there's room for a couple of Rule 5 protectees, and still having a spot or two open for opportunistic pickups. I suspect that Crow will be the only addition. A couple of relievers that are possibilities, but I also suspect that is one area where the Brewers are fine with taking that risk, that they feel like they can fill those fringe spots with either guys that won't need 40-man protection, or guys they can sign to minor league deals. And, most of all, that the risk of them getting picked is fairly low.

I was 100% on the trade Hader/Williams/Burnes train (I personally would have traded Williams and Hader even sooner). But keep Freddy. $8m is an absolute steal, and maybe just maybe he wants to stick around an an extension could be worked out. Unlikely, but keeping him at least makes it a possibility. If someone blows us out of the water with exactly what the team is looking for, then sure go ahead. But I kind of doubt it. I think Freddys performance on the mound, his presence in the clubhouse, and the comp pick are worth more than what we're likely to get as a return and who we can sign for $8m.

The fairly common notion that Pratt somehow had a disappointing season is crazy to me. The Southern League is very pitcher friendly, so Pratts statline still translates into a 108 wRC+. With a 13% walk rate and 15% strikeout rate. While almost 4 years younger than the average player there. For someone who is a plus defender at SS. He raised his stock this year, and he's absolutely 1st on the SS promotion list. Which isn't to say he should be promoted straight away, but spend the year in AAA and if injures or poor form dictates it, he'd be ready to play.