Lathund

Also having both Daniel and David Robertson on the same team means no confusion with regards to which Da. Robertson they signed.

We're not sure, but the mere fact that he was tendered a contract would suggest it. Manny is an elite defender, and Nottinghams decent-looking offensive numbers so far are basically all due to a good HR rate, but one that based on his minor league numbers, HR/FB rate and statcast data seems unsustainable. Add to that a 35% strikeout rate. Basically, I think Piña offers both better defense and offense. But I also think they'll not make their decision until they've seen what they look like in spring; it could still be Nottingham. I suspect they'd want to keep both though. I think they'll try to sneak Nottingham through waivers at the end of ST.

And they're absolutely right not to trade their better prospects when there's so little in the upper minors. As you say, when there are few additions from within you're put in a situation of needing to consider trades of prospects to fill even low-impact roles, or you have to rely on multiple low and mid-level FAs every year just to fill the roster. It's not very sustainable. And if you keep making those trades, you'll never get out of that situation. You need to graduate prospects to your major league roster, even when they're not superstars. So guys like Mitchell and Turang have the kind of profile (Speed, defense, plate discipline, decent hit tool) that they are highly likely to make, and stay on, the MLB roster. What they lack, and are probably unlikely to unlock, is HR power, which is why they're not higher rated; they're very unlikely to be superstars. Yet so many fans seem eager to trade them away for 1-2 years of admittedly very good players. Which just leaves big and hard to fill holes on the roster going forward. Gotta think more long term. You can trade from the farm when it's strong, when making those trades does not create holes on the roster. Even just filling roles like backup catchers, infield utility, middle relief, 5th starter etc means that's less money you need to spend on over the hill veterans for those roles. Which is how you get to have money for free agents and for extending the players you want to keep.

Yes. Also, this year more than any, depth will be of paramount importance due to ramping up from 60 to 162 games. Some teams have already said they'll be using 6-man rotations. Not sure what the Brewers will do, but in addition to those 5 they have Peralta, Suter, Lauer who have all been starters recently and can go multiple innings, and Zimmermann on a minor league deal. Might be looking to see if Rasmussen can do the same. So whether it's done through spot starts, or through piggybacks, or a 6-man rotation, or just longer (and more infrequent) relief appearances, I think Brewers have a lot of pitchers who can do a decent job. Beyond the very best teams like the Dodgers I think the Brewers compare very well in starter/"bulk pitcher" depth with most teams. Most teams would be very happy to have Peralta, Suter and Lauer as their 6th-8th starters.

Happy with this. Was decent enough last year, seemed like a good presence. A left side of the infield of Wong-Arcia-Urias will work really well with the groundball approach too.

This forum would burn to the ground if Mitchell and Small were traded for Candelario. He showed a breakout possibility last year but he still has a career line of .235/.326/.721 slash in 1367 PAs and is already 27. No thanks. You would rather put a SS at 3B? To me it's more the issue of creating new holes to fill. Nobody really knows what Small or Mitchell would be; they might be stars, they might never make it, they might become role players. You never do know with any one individual prospect, but you have some sort of "average" or "most likely" outcome for them that you have to count on, and so you get a certain production from the farm as a whole even if individuals will exceed or fall short of that. Now, all this is just to preface the usual retort that they're just prospects etc; the point is that while no prospect is ever a certain thing, that's not an argument to just trade everyone. Brewers will need a LoCain replacement soon, and there is always a need for SPs. Look at how hard it is to find a good CF, look at what even mediocre starters command on the open market. So trading away two of your best prospects like that takes away two potential options to fill those holes for free; leaving the team to scramble to fill those spots down the line the same way you now try to fill 3B. So doing such a trade will need to be for a player who is truly worth that, and/or for a trade that brings you past a certain treshold or is the last piece of a championship team. Which brings me to the most important point: Candelario is neither. Maybe he found something in 2020 or maybe he didn't, and it's all BABIP-driven small-sample noise. Either way, he's a 27 year old RHH 3B with a 95 wRC+ with three years of team control remaining. The Brewers already have a 27 year old RHH 3B with three years of (cheaper) team control remaining, who has put up a 97 wRC+ for his career so far. If I had to guess at who will have the better 2021, then I'd lean towards Candelario. But enough of a difference to give up two of our best prospects and add a couple of million in payroll? Not even close. Keep Small (who might even see the majors already in 2021) and Mitchell for the future, and spend that $2m where it can best help. If we had a system like the Padres did, then I'd be a lot more positive towards trades like this. When Mitchell would be our 3rd or 4th best OF prospect, and Small just one among 10 promising arms at AA-AAA level. But we don't. And with how good the Dodgers and Padres and to a lesser extent the Mets and Braves look, this is not a year to go all in. Make incremental improvements, improvements that don't hurt the future, and do what you can to win the division and hope to get some of that Devil Magic in the playoffs. TL;DR version: Candelario is not a good enough player to warrant that kind of trade.

I don't really think Franco fits with the rest, as the other players are guys who struggled with fairly limited playing time and then have been demoted and eventually let go. So they're more of a bet that the skill set they've shown in the minors could still translate to the majors; or at least it hasn't yet been proven that it can't. While Franco has almost 3k PAs to prove that he's a below average player. I would assume Devers isn't being mentioned because it's hard to see why the Red Sox would even entertain the idea. He's 24, he put up a 5 rWAR/6 fWAR season in 2019 and the Red Sox only have Sale and Bogaerts on the books after 2022. So would seem like a prime extension candidate for them.

So to try to see what the Brewers see, I would imagine that the elite exit velocity (His 92.7 mph in 2020 would've been the 12th highest had he qualified. It was similar in 2018 and 2019 so that part seems real) combined with the high walk rate is attractive, and this from a player with a lot of speed who is at least an average defender in the corners, and can passably play CF it seems. And is a lefty. He is a pretty extreme groundball hitter however, so that exit velocity doesn't really play. I guess they think that if they can unlock some more loft while keeping that EV... So there seems to be some logic to it, and I'd expect nothing less from this front office. However that strikeout rate, albeit in still rather small 400 PA sample over 4 years, is ugly.

Unless there is some language in his contract making him a free agent on expiry, Robertson should be arbitration eligible for 2022 and 2023. Still not a true long-term solution, but at least not just a 1-year stopgap. Some interesting names you mention there. Generally I think that's a good strategy to adopt, trying to find the potentially blocked prospects, or casualties of 40-man crunches etc. Many of them won't have some big breakout of course, but even many that don't will still be useful platoon bats, middle relievers, utility guys etc for very little money. I think teams are getting better at not letting these guys go for (almost) nothing though, and better at identifying which of them to keep, so probably not easy to do.

Franco has some power, but despite that he is overall a below average hitter with poor defense. He may hit homeruns, but the lack of anything else to his game makes him a poor offensive contributor. Even Daniel Robertson has been a more productive hitter so far. And he's both cheaper, younger, more versatile, under team control for longer, and hits from the same side of the plate as Franco. Franco would be a very poor signing, particularly for a multi-year deal. I'm not particularly keen on Lamb either, but would much rather roll the dice on him being over his injury troubles and provide a lefty bat to complement the righties we have there. Cabrera and Fiers already signed, for $1.75m and $3.5m respectively.

Yeah there is way too much focus on 2020 numbers among many fans. The career numbers of the projected Brewers starters (Against both LHP and RHP) are slightly above 100 wRC+ on average. That is, above league average. That's of course a very rough measurement that doesn't take into account platooning, aging, playing time, pinch hitting etc. Projections tend to line up around that as well; average to slightly below average. You could say it's more likely to be below than above those numbers, given how some individual hitters looked so poor last year that it's hard to believe they were once good hitters (Narvaez for example), but even so that's a long way from the hyperbole thrown around on here saying this lineup looks like one of the worst ever, or that this is a 70-win team etc. It's pretty basic, an offense that's expected to be average to below average, pitching that's above average, defense that's probably average to slightly above average, and average-ish baserunning makes for a team that's expected to be around average, or slightly better. Assessing the team as such isn't even with rose-tinted glasses from a fan, it's also what the projection systems out there see based strictly on projecting past performance forward. Even the most pessimistic (The combined Steamer/ZiPS on Fangraphs) that projects 79 wins still projects that as tying for the division. Two systems are a lot more positive than that. So with regards to the optimist/realist/pessimist discussion earlier in the thread, the "worst lineup ever" talk isn't being a realist, it's being a pessimist. A pessimist will still be correct in the end some of the time, as will the optimist, but it doesn't necessarily make either one of them realists. In the Stearns/Counsell era, it has mostly been the case that it's the optimists who have ended up right more often than not, beating the projections and predictions. I don't really see a reason for that to change, it's not luck that has driven this team forward so far in these years, it's the benefits of having a systematic and forward-thinking approach, and being open to squeeze out those extra runs and wins in any way they can, not just by following the conventional wisdom.

Why on earth would we want Franco? He's a RHH with a 91 career wRC+ who is a very poor defender at 3B. And with almost 6 full seasons worth of service time, he seems like an unlikely breakout candidate. Brewers already has Robertson who has been a better hitter so far (97 wRC+) and is a couple years younger. And Urias. If your're gonna sign a 3B, make it someone who is a clear upgrade, or who has some potential upside, or who complements the existing ones (like a LHH). Franco is neither. If Franco is a very poor defender at third, why has his UZR/150 rating been better than Justin Turner's the past two years? Someone else also putting up bad numbers doesn't make Franco any better. You can live with bad defense if the bat is good, Franco is a below average hitter (especially for 3B) so his defense matters more. UZR is the one metric that he rates best in, by that he is only the 10th worst (Out of 44 with 1500 innings at the position) 3B since he started playing regularly in 2014. By DRS he is the very worst. By statcasts OAA he put up -2 in the short 2020, -8 in 2019, -4 in 2018 and -1 in 2017. The best case you can make for him if you take the most favorable metric is that he's a below average defender. Combine that with a below average bat and you have a player who won't be any better than Urias or Robertson, and likely worse. The Moose comparison is somewhat fitting in that they're both players whose HR numbers can lead people to think they're better than they are. Difference is of course that Moose is still the better hitter (especially if you compare his last 6 years only; he was a very different player from 2015 onwards), as well as the much better defender.

Why on earth would we want Franco? He's a RHH with a 91 career wRC+ who is a very poor defender at 3B. And with almost 6 full seasons worth of service time, he seems like an unlikely breakout candidate. Brewers already has Robertson who has been a better hitter so far (97 wRC+) and is a couple years younger. And Urias. If your're gonna sign a 3B, make it someone who is a clear upgrade, or who has some potential upside, or who complements the existing ones (like a LHH). Franco is neither.

If another 3B is signed, or Robertson is even halfway decent, I do think Urias will see a lot of time at SS. He's actually even been better /76 wRC+ vs 71) as a hitter than Arcia, and I believe him to be the better defender as well. Of course, I would love for Arcias 2020 "breakout" to be real and to create some real competition for places, can only be a good thing.

Yes, they're one and the same. BP host Pecota. I think they publish staff predictions as well, but no other projection system there. As an aside, I believe these were published before Molina signed. That should add another win (He's projected at just above 1 WARP) to the Cards.

I just hope MA is involved for the right reasons. As in, Stearns wants JT and MA is doing what he can to make that happen. As opposed to this being a MA-driven signing that Stearns might not want. I doubt it's the latter, as I think MA has seemingly given Stearns a lot of autonomy in recent years. But hey, if MA is willing to go beyond and loosen the purse strings more than he otherwise would, then I'm all for it. If no Turner, then I'm not too keen on the free agent 3B options out there. I would rather adress it via trade (Hader) or see what they have in Green/Robertson/Urias and pivot elsewhere (SP?) with the remaining money. JT himself was a 26 year old who had struggled a bit in his first couple seasons, and not shown much power. Only to unlock it via a swing change. Now there's Robertson who trains at thet same facility as JT in the offseason, with a similar swing, hoping to unlock something. It's unlikely he becomes JT, but at the same time finding the JTs, Max Muncys, Mike Yastrzemskis, Gio Urshelas etc. is something a team should do, particularly when the budget is limited. Now I have no idea how the Brewers actually view Green/Robertson. Are they guys they really believe in and think they can unlock something in? After all, they do have access to far more data than is in the public sphere. Or are they simply guys they brought in mostly for depth? If it's the latter, they need to make some kind of move to improve 3B, but if not then I'd like to see them trust their evaluations.

I think it's more about the team not being to keen to bring Braun back rather than the other way around. Or at least, they're not wanting to bring him back in a role or salary that he'll want, in which case he's happy to retire. Ryan and the team are both keeping the door open and not burning any bridges, but I expect him to retire. And I'm perfectly allright with that. Time to move on. Unless this is all just a way for him to avoid most of ST, which we know he dislikes.

There is no such threshold. Your first pick (unless you pick in the top 6) gets pushed back 10 spots. That's it. Which is not nothing, but if you're the Dodgers then that means picking 38th-40th instead of 28th-40th. The difference between the type of player available at each spot is a lot less than what spending $30m extra per year on short-term deals gets you. That's what I meant by "draft slots." If it truly were "nothing," then teams wouldn't mind going over it. However, since it was put into play I don't think any team has went over the limit, and numerous teams have worked hard to shed salary. Therefore, I think teams would disagree with the notion that it's "nothing." Good thing I specifically said it wasn't "nothing" then, so not sure who those teams would be disagreeing with. The real reason teams (The ones who do have the resources to easily do so at least) don't go over it though is that it means less money on owners' pockets. The draft slot just let's them pretend it's about competitiveness.

The PECOTA projected standings are out. They join the Fangraphs combined list and Clay Davenport in projecting the Brewers winning the division. This time with 89 wins. Interestingly, they have the Cubs 2nd and the Cardinals only winning an average of 80 games. The key to all this is run prevention; Brewers are projected to allow the 4th fewest runs in MLB; only the Dodgers, Padres and Rays are projected to allow fewer. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

The "HR or bust" approach needs guys on base to work consistently, so that it's not just 1-run HRs you're hitting. So if you have that kind of approach, you should be looking at the high OBP/high HR types (In recent Brewers history think Grandal, Thames or Vogelbach) even if they don't hit for average, as opposed to the swing-happy guys who might hit HRs and hit for a decent average, but don't get on base well (Moustakas for a recent Brewer. Baez for another example). Of course ideally you want all three, but then you're talking Yelich, Freeman, Trout, Betts etc, so gotta settle for something. But I don't think it necessarily has to be the case that the Brewers have changed their approach. I think this front office is one of the most Moneyball-type teams there is; they follow value above all else. So even if they prefer one type of hitter, if that type of hitter are generally valued (in terms of trade packages and salary) at 10% above what the Brewers think their value is, but the opposite type of hitter is valued 10% below, they'll go with the value play most of the time. Massively simplified of course, but I think you get the point. Personally though I like guys on base, and ideally some speed on them. More runners on base, by whatever means, creates more plate appearances, more pitches thrown by the opponent, more chances to punish defensive misplays and so forth. Not making outs is quite important. So this is why, as much as I liked him, was happy to not commit to a guy like Moustakas. And why I like Turner; I just don't want it to be done on terms that make sense. Like if the Dodgers are offering a sensible (From a team perspective) deal, and the Brewers have to outdo that by a lot, I'm not very interested. If they go with Rios (Or trade for Bryant or something), and Brewers are competing on more equal terms for his signature, then I like it. Should we end up with Robertson and Urias at 3B in the end, I at least like that they know how to take their walks.

There is no such threshold. Your first pick (unless you pick in the top 6) gets pushed back 10 spots. That's it. Which is not nothing, but if you're the Dodgers then that means picking 38th-40th instead of 28th-40th. The difference between the type of player available at each spot is a lot less than what spending $30m extra per year on short-term deals gets you.

I think Ray is probably the most likely, even if he has yet to fulfill any of his promise. Simply because if nothing else, he's probably the second best CF defender on the 40-man, so in case of injuries he'd be up. I would expect Ethan Small to get the Burnes-like introduction, a mid-late season callup to the 'pen with the intention to start in the future. It's easy to think that because he was in A-ball in 2019 he was far away; but I would think the way he was deployed (Short starts with time inbetween) was more due to having already pitched a lot of college innings, and that he was in Arizona and then Appleton mostly for coaching and working on things. He was a very advanced college pitcher, and I would've expected him to have pitched in AA (Maybe a very brief stint in A+) in 2020 had there been a season. File and Bettinger I think may be more injury insurance this year so circumstances would dictatea their chances. But it's hard to know who took a step forward during 2020 and who didn't. In a normal year someone who had a breakout might have ended 2019 in A+, but gotten an early-season promotion (or even started) in AA in 2020, and ended the year in AAA after yet another promotion. That kind of player would be likely to be in line for a callup. Whereas if said player stayed in A+ most of the year in 2020, even if he did well, that would suggest a 2021 debut is unlikely. But we as fans don't really know who might be among the former and who might have been among the latter during summer camp and/or instructionals. But you never know with pitchers especially. Don't know if we really expected Bickford to debut in 2020 despite his impressive 2019. Many pitchers in recent years who have gotten relief debuts after having not pitched above A+ or so; in 2020 much of it was due to necessity, but guys like Jordan Hicks stick out from earlier years. So I expect some unexpected reliver to debut. Someone out of Ashby, QTC, Andrews, Sanchez, Barker; whoever took the greatest leap forward. So to put out some actual predictions to be mocked in the future: Corey Ray will be the first MLB debut of 2021 relatively early on, followed by Ethan Small shortly before the all-star break after impressing in the minors. Dylan File will make his debut in an August doubleheader as the 27th man. Aaron Ashby gets a September callup and pitches 3.1 innings out of the pen. And to name a dark horse: Brice Turang. It would take multiple SS injuries, but I think someone with that combination of defense, baserunning and plate discipline is probably already a replacement level player. I think the Brewers will want to wait until he's more than that before they start his clock, but clubs do promote players like that early out of desperation sometimes. See for example Nico Hoerner for the Cubs. Again I don't actually expect it, but if I had to pick an unlikely but still realistic name it'd be him. Probably requires all of Urias, Arcia and Mathias to be injured at the same time after the trade deadline has passed though.

I wouldn't mind Brett Anderson at all. As you say, with better defense his numbers should improve and he was decent enough as a back of the rotation guy already. I liked the bit of personality that came through in the quotes and interviews I saw.

I have to believe the addition of Turner with Wong would get Braun excited to return. I wouldn't rule out trading Cain with Brewers picking up a portion of his remaining salary either to free up cash for both Turner and Braun. I think Braun is as good as retired, and that the team is fine with that. As am I. Trading Cain creates the need for a CF, and I think that Cains defense alone is still worth more to the team than whatever Braun brings at this point. Hiura at 1B also removes one potential spot for Braun. If they trade Cain to free up money for Turner (Unlikely to begin with IMO) it shouldn't be to also get Braun back, but rather to find a replacement CF. Taylor might be a decent player, but I don't want to make him a starter yet. I actually believe in Garcia, but only as a RF and not in CF. Even if Cain is paid more than we'd like at this point I still believe him a good player. We sorely missed his defense last year.

I think Urias is trade bait myself as part of package for a starting pitcher and they want either Turner or someone like Brad Miller or Jake Lamb to platoon with Robertson. Turang will be Arcia's heir, not Urias. IMO Urias is here to stay, and depending on how well Robertson does (Or if someone like Turner signs) at 3B or Arcia at SS, I wouldn't be surprised if Urias was the starting SS later on in the season. Arcia did seem to genuinely take a step forward not just in results but in underlying performance, but it's still a very small sample compared to his career numbers so I won't buy into it yet. It's worth pointing out that Urias so far in his career has been a better hitter than Arcia (76 wRC+ vs 71) and might well be the better defender too. He'll be cheaper, with more upside, and much longer team control so if the team has to choose, it'll likely be Urias. It might be as a Ben Zobrist type everyday player rather than a SS, but I think they'll stick with him for a while. I'm a believer in hi abilities, but only time will tell.