Lathund

I don't think he's getting traded. It's different to Burnes in a few ways. One is that Burnes was never signing an extension before hitting FA; Peralta probably won't either, but he might. Another is that we had Peralta still when we traded Burnes, so there was still an established #1 pitcher there. And by all accounts, Freddy is a hugely popular and a key figure in the club house. Third is that Peralta is cheaper. An $8m 1 year deal is a steal for someone of his quality. The farm system is already really good too. Yes you can always add and improve, but the team is good right now and there are reinforcements coming from the farm annually. So makes sense to focus on the major league team. So I think that the value Peralta provides on the mound and with his leadership, combined with the draft pick from a QO and at least the chance of an extension, outweighs the return they'd get and the $8m saved. If they traded him. The return would be a bit worse, but not too far off, than for Burnes (And the draft pick can be ignored, since that's just balancing the QO pick), I'd rather keep him, and I think they will. Can point to Burnes, Hader and Williams to argue against it, but there's also Adames to argue the other way. There's no urgent need to cut salary, and they want to build on 2025.

It's hard to put general rules for me, as there are always going to be plenty of exceptions. But some common general trends at least; Age relative to level is a big indicator. So it's not closeness to MLB per se, but more like getting to AAA at like 21 or younger says a lot. So someone like Turang for instance. For hitters, I also like to see a good hit tool and pitch recognition. Power can come with time; it often doesn't but it can. And mediocre raw power can turn into good game power. But big time power hitters with holes in their swings finding their hit tool is rarer. I also know a fairly common criticism on here is how up until the last couple of drafts, Brewers drafted seemingly only up the middle players, and not really any sluggers. Personally I was always a big fan of that approach, and while there are things I absolutely like with guys like Wilken, Fischer, Bitonti, Burke, I am wary of those kinds of picks early on. So I like the C/SS/CF approach for a few reasons. One is that the best athletes tend to go there; someone who has moved to the bottom of the defensive spectrum already as a teenager (or 20/21) doesn't tend to be a good athlete, and is a DH in waiting. That puts a much higher demand on their bat. Which isn't a problem if they hit their 80th percentile or better, but otherwise very much is. It also creates developmental challenges if you have too many of them. Fewer potential lineup spots creates fewer opportunities for them or someone else. At the ML level, the biggest step, it also creates another hurdle. You can carry a Brice Turang for a while waiting to see if his discerning eye and bat to ball skills will develop into a good hitter. It's harder to carry a Keston Hiura or Jordan Walker, who won't provide anything while they find their way. Better athlete doesn't automatically mean better baseball player, but there *is* a correlation. But the real reason is that the allround/up the middle by definition offer a much higher ceiling. And a higher floor. In order to rate them really highly though, I still look for one or more standout tools. This was all about hitters, because I just struggle far more to make sense of pitchers. So many developmental leaps, or flameouts, that I never saw coming. Obviously the better the raw stuff, the higher the potential. But that's too generic to really make sense. But some things I like are, again, athletic pitchers. Whethers it's for injury reasons, or ability to adapt. I like to look at when the arsenal matches the pitcher; as in when someone with a low release point and big extenstion already is showing signs of mastering their high 4-seamer, or a tall over-the-top release pitcher with a great sinker etc. But more generally I like to look at the fastball(s). Not necessarily velo, just having some kind of with traits that makes it effective. Having that, and adding/improving the offspeed/breaking stuff just seems much more reliable than having even the nastiest secondaries but a fastball scares noone.

Buxton has been about as clear as I've ever seen anyone be about how he is not going to waive his no trade clause, even after the big sell-off. Sure, things can change. But players who do end up changing their mind tend to leave some leeway in what they say, as in saying how happy they are where they are and having no intention of moving, while not actual saying things like remaining a Twin for life, or never leaving. I'd be shocked if he waived it. And if he did, there would be so many teams interested that the bidding would get quite crazy.

There is no stronger force in the universe than the power of a small sample size in the mind of a Baseball fan. The average baseball fan will look at Seiglers (lack of) prospect status, they'll look at his minor league stats prior to the last year, and they'll look at the first few handfulls of plate appearances, and they'll deduce that he's terrible and that view won't change for a long time, not even if he does well. Swing decisions, Statcast "xstats", none of it will matter, the tiny sample size stat line will dominate the conversation. And the prevailing opinon on here has been wrong so, so many times. Usually because they make their mind up based on absolutely nothing. Or, statistical illiteracy in various forms. Now will Seigler turn out to be a good player? I don't know. But what he has done so far, such as what has been pointed out in the article, absolutely suggests he should get more chances. Brewers like their good swing profiles, and they seem to understand a thing or two about batted ball profiles. I like to do what I usually do, and trust that they know what they're doing. They won't always be right, but more often than not they will be. And I do think they're right about Seigler.

It's indeed not automatic, but my impression is that it's included almost every time. Even for guys like Eric Thames, who had like a year worth of service time already when he came back from Korea. Whereas for players signing a minor league deal, which is highly standardized, I believe it's not even an option.

Almost, July 28th.

I'm very much in the "keep Freddy" camp. He's only making $8m, Burnes and Hader were due quite a bit more which surely played into deciding who to keep or not. Brewers have a lot of good young pitching, but the pitching staff is better with Freddy than without. Get his performance and mentorship for a season, get at least the ability to talk extension (I don't think it'll happen. Freddy will surely, and deservedly, want to cash in), and get a draft pick from the QO. Yes, trading him gets more than the QO, but enough to outweigh what he'll do? And it's not as if the Brewers don't already have a great farm. Now if they sign Woody, then I'd be more open to trading Freddy. But I do think they should keep one veteran leader in the rotation. Use the rest of the year to get a better idea of which versions of Oritz and Vaughn you could expect going forward. That decides whether you think those are areas in need of upgrading. But there are also prospects I'm sure they'd not want to block long-term there. SS in particular is a tough position to upgrade should they want to. A big trade for Geraldo Perdomo (My favorite option. But unlikely to be available), Josh Smith (Though defense isn't great) or Otto Lopez perhaps. But there are SS prospects in the pipeline, so doesn't have to be a long-term thing. Another area I'd look at is catcher. As in, start looking to the future. Is there a realistic chance of a Contreras extension that makes sense? I suspect not. He'll have 2 years until FA, and that means to start listening to offers. Not shop him, but listen. And how intently you listen has to depend on what other options you have. Quero's injuries have made that much harder to evaluate. Is he the real deal? What do they think of Siegler, Wood? Do they think Dinges can be the catcher of the future a few years down the line? So considering a trade relies on having an internal or external alternative ready to go. If they feel like they do, then you can get an absolute haul for a guy like him. Padres, Astros, Phillies are contending teams that have, or will have, a big need there. At least something to consider, but also nothing wrong with going another year with him and reevaluating. However, I wouldn't expect any of those big trades to happen. What I'd look at is infield and outfield depth. Brewers starters are great defenders and they can all play multiple positions. That means you don't really have to have strong SS or CF on the bench. You can have your 1B/RF/DH bat, and your backup infielder doesn't need to be a good defender. So a Willi Castro type guy, and whatever slugger is out there makes more sense than having Monasterio and a Daz Cameron-type. So meaningful bench bats, who can be solid starters when needing to cover for injury. With one of Peralta/Woody, Priester, Les Mis, Henderson, Gasser, Patrick, Myers, swingmen like Ashby/Hall, upper minors guys like Crow, Rodriguez, Hardin, Wichrowski, SP looks real good and deep. Finding a veteran like the 2026 version of Quintana is always a good idea, but not something to spend big on. This probably sounds weird coming from me (In case anyone reads and remembers what I say here...) and certainly feels weird saying, but I'd look at relievers. They're fickle, they're a lot less impactful than most people think.... but it's also the area easiest to improve. And when you have an already strong team, they'll help turn the run differential into wins. So get at least another elite setup man who can step in for Uribe/Megill when needed. The reality is that the Brewers will just do something completely unexpected. They'll, as always, look to find players available for less than the Brewers think they're truly worth, regardless of positional needs, and find a way to make it work.

Hoyer extenstion is pretty good news. It's not that the Hoyer front office is awful or anything, but it's also not one of the elite organizations in the league. If they had gotten whatever todays equivalent of Friedman at the time he was hired by the Dodgers, combined with a top 5 (or top 3) revenue, the division would get significantly harder. The Hoyer regime is ... fine. But their player acquisitions and roster management is all very traditional. They sign mid-market FAs, they go for veterans. They're a team that'll go for those players with the flashy surface stats but underlying worrying numbers (Montero, Pressly to take some reliever examples). They've made some bigger signings (Swanson), they've done some big trades (Tucker in particular). But it's like they are active without really being decisive or really impactful. Trade for Tucker and start the season like they did, and you kinda have to go big or else the trade would be wasted. Otherwise they could've just kept Paredes, Smith, Wesneski and Bellinger instead. A high-revenue team coming out of a 4-year rebuild should be super scary. Cubs are good, but they're an old team with a somewhat underwhelming farm. All of their MLB-ready guys have question marks. The pitching in the upper minors is uninspiring. They'll have a good lineup next year too, but they'll have to make a lot of acqusitions to build depth, particularly pitching. And a lot of impending FAs after 2026. I think if the Cubs had a budget like the Yankees or Dodgers had at times, they'd be a dangerous team. But as it is, they build their roster as if they did, but then run out of money partway through.

I don't know if he's even available, but if he is it's a really good fit. 112 wRC+ last year, 116 this year. LHH complement to Durbin and Ortiz. It's the kind of move that doesn't massively upgrade any one position, but that via playing match ups, rest days, injuries, pinch hitting etc improves the average quality of the at bats a fair bit. It's also not the kind of trade to go al out for either though, which is why I suspect it's not happening. They have no reason to make him available for anything but a haul, and Brewers have no reason to give up a haul for him. Only way it happens is if the Rangers value a Brewers prospect, or prospects, much higher than the Brewers do. Kinda like A's with Ruiz..

Jesus MadeLuis PenaCooper PrattJeferson QueroLogan HendersonMarco DingesTyson HardinRobert GasserColeman CrowAndrew FischerLuke AdamsLuis LaraBraylon PayneEthan DorchiesBrock WilkenBishop LetsonEric BitontiJosh AdamczewskiJD ThompsonJadher Areinamo

Yes hard to see why they'd trade Lopez at this point. A year or two down the line? Sure. But why now? And it'd coast a haul. But if he *is* available then yeah that's a really good fit and someone the team should target.

Absolutely not. He signed for a lot less this year, and if Brewers are looking to add a veteran next year they should either sign him to a similar deal to this year (~$4m), or find the next year version of Quintana. They're stacked with young starters, spend the money where the team is thin instead. If anything, Quintana should be a trade candidate.

I think this analysis is missing a couple of things. One is to use more than one defensive metric when it comes to small sample sizes like we're dealing with here. DRS thinks Ortiz is one of the worst SS getting regular playing time in the league. FRV thinks he's above average, top 10 even. DRP thinks he's slightly below average. Which one is "right" is hard to know, but having watched most games this year I don't buy that he's a bad defensive SS. I don't think the Brewers internal defensive metrics do so either. Another thing to consider is the SP vs RP workload and the use of openers. 5 Quinn Priester "bulk pitcher" relief appearances (27 IP) are, from a workload perspective, SP innings. This would move the team about 5 spots in the ranking. And further looking at the pitchers currently on the active rosters, the current crop of Brewers relievers have pitched a below average amount of innings. The real issue is more that some specific relievers, Uribe in particular, have pitched a lot. So bringing in another late inning option to be able to avoid needing to use Uribe or Mears sometimes would be helpful. But just looking at the macro level of total IP is a bit too simplistic.

Add me to the list of those curious about Adams. Sounded at the time like it was a fairly short term thing, and it's now been a month.

I find it incredibly hard to predict draft picks, but I'll venture and say that one of the Brewers first two picks will be a catcher, and I'd say Bodine is the most likely if I had to pick one.

I think the way to think about which prospects to trade or not trade, is simlpy value. Build the best player evaluation/development organization you can, and then trust their evaluations of prospects. Your own, and others. Figure out what you think each prospect is worth (Which is extremely hard, of course, and has a lot of variance), and be open to trade them if the return exceeds your value, and don't do it if it doesn't. Basically make use of the fact that teams value certain things differently, and that you are (hopefully) the better at valuing those things correctly. Which is obviously easier said than done. You will have so many borderline cases. There will be positional needs (in the minors and majors) to factor in, there will be Rule5/Minor league FA issues, and much more. It's also an approach that will be frustrating at times. It won't always align with your needs or your timeline. But it's what, IMO, builds both the minor and major league teams over time. So in other words, there's noone truly "off the table". But at the same time, there are many guys I don't see anyone realistically giving up what it takes for. For a small-market team, homegrown potential stars are just so immensely valuable, as we can't (or won't) go after the top FAs. So the prospects with the tools that makes the superstar outcome at least possible, should be kept unless the right long-term deal opens up. Like it did with 5 years of Yelich. Basically, you don't even consider trading Made unless it's for someone like Corbin Carroll (Under affordable team control until 2031). And trading players that good with that much time left almost never happens, which is why the Yelich trade was so unique in many ways. But to at least try to answer the question more specifically, the players I would say are off the table in most realistic scenarios would fall into a few groups: Extreme tools/potential as above (Miz, Made, Peña), up the middle prospects with offensive *and* defensive upside (Quero, Pratt, Dinges. Not quite the same offensive upside, but a potential elite CF like Lara is someone I'd keep), MLB-near prospect at positions of extreme need. Depending on how you view it, could look at SS/3B for the last one and include Pratt there, but I'd look at it more in terms of MLB-ready pitching. That is one thing that should be hoarded, and only ever given up for the right reasons.

If it's deferred salary, I believe it works the same as with regular salary, i.e game checks. So normally if a player is on one team for 81 games, and then gets traded to another team for 81 games, they'll pay half of the salary each. If all this salary is deferred, they'll still pay half each, except it'll be at some point in the future. And the first team will pay any deferred salary from prior seasons, and the new team any from future seasons. The money is earned now, from the present employer, just paid out at a later date, but still by the present employer.

Looking at the list above of these 8 (or 10, with Hall and Ashby) MLB-ready starters, my thought is the complete opposite; keep them. Starters are expensive. Look at what even league average starters get paid in FA for their declining years. If you can have that for multiple years, for a fraction of the cost, you hold on to that. They have options, some can pitch in the pen, and there *will* be injuries. The last two seasons in particular have shown that you will absolutely need those 8-10 starters, and more. So I think that's absolutely the wrong group to trade from if it is for a rental. For a controllable player, like a Yelich type deal, then obviously you need to give up a fair bit. But for rentals it's short-sighted to give up players who will have an impact in 2026 or even 2025. So I'd hold on to the likes of Wilken and Adams too; wait and see what they do in AAA and MLB. If they're both major league quality players, then consider a trade. It's much more the likes of Bitonti I'd be more willing to trade. Not because I don't believe in them, but because their impact is much further away. If you want to get better now, don't give up something that can help you now or in the very near future. We will see nearer to the deadline who will actually be available, but none of the players available right now seems like someone I'd want to give up these super valuable players for. Someone like Suarez would also incite a real bidding war, with him being a great fit for (at least) the Brewers, Cubs, Yankees, Mets, and probably someone who the Tigers or Phillies would want as well. Whoever gets him will pay a lot. Although as always the real answer isn't as simple as saying "trade from this group, not this",. It's more about trusting your own evaluations, and including players that others teams value higher than you do. That goes even for the MLB-ready pitching. If they value some of these guys like budding aces, rather than "just" solid starters, and are willing to give a return to match it, then you do it.

Patrick wouldn't have been available for the next 4 days regardless, so makes sense sending him down as opposed to someone who would be. With the allstar break he can still be recalled after it if need be, having only missed one potential start. I think he'll be back after a Quintana/Cortes trade.

I think the "Brewers didn't make an offer" thing is somewhat of a semantic issue. If they were interested in an extension with Peralta and Ashby, there is no reason to think they weren't interested in one with Woodruff or Burnes. Yes, we don't *know* this, but I can't believe any front office in the league that wouldn't have signed those guys to the Peralta deal if they could. Teams talk to agents all the time, they will for sure have gauged their level of interest in an extension, and gotten a rough idea of what it'd take. If that doesn't at all line up with what the team was looking at, there isn't any point in making an offer. Doesn't mean they didn't try. The player would be telling the truth in saying there wasn't an offer. (While you're still with the team, it would also be the smart thing to say regardless of whether it was true or not). And team officials don't talk about negotiations like that, and not much leaks from the current org. So again, this is just speculation, but I think it's far more reasonable to assume they tried, but didn't get close (For whatever reason. Player not interested, Brewers being cheap, w/e) as opposed to not trying. My personal guess, I don't think there was ever a real chance of a Burnes (Especially not after his 2020 rebound, or after whenever it was he hired Boras) or Contreras extension. Or rather, I'm sure they like it enough here to be happy to sign a market value extension, or slightly less. But not enough to go for a Peralta/Acuña type of thing, i.e the kind of thing the Brewers would offer. Woodruff and Adames at least on the surface seem more plausible to me.

I don't see what Fitzgerald adds. His numbers last year were fluky, driven by BABIP and a high HR/FB rate. Statcast's xwOBA has him as a well below average hitter, and much worse this year. He's not better than any starter he could potentially replace. So what's the benefit? Monasterio and Collins already cover a bunch of positions, and so can Seigler if/when called up. Maybe he's a small upgrade on Monasterio, but not enough to give up anything for him. I'd much rather have Hall.

"Wilken’s 74 strikeouts in his 222 at-bats are a red flag" A 26% strikeout rate isn't a red flag considering that it comes with a 20% walk rate and a .320 ISO. Strikeouts are bad when they're a result of being overwhelmed, poor plate discipline, or whiffing a lot without getting anything in return. Clearly not the case for Wilken. It's also very misleading to use strikeouts vs AB, rather than than PA (Which is what the stat is), particularly for someone with such a high walk rate. As for the rest, I strongly disagree with trading Crow. Almost MLB-ready pitching is exactly what we shouldn't trade. Hoard that, fill your roster with homegrown pitching, and use the limited money the team has (or is allowed to spend) on extensions and on position players. Rodriguez has taken a step back, but I'd only trade for a strong offer. I'd wait and see a bit longer with Black, it's a power-sapping injury he suffered that usually takes time to recover from. I still believe he can have a career in the majors. Burke and Quintana... sure. Not in a rush to get rid of either, but as part of the right deal I'm OK with it. What I'd keep in mind with Burke though is that he's rated as having some serious raw power that hasn't shown up yet, but he is hitting for average. If that power ever shows up, along with the contact ability, the potential offensive output is sky high though. So having some patience won't hurt.

Reynolds has an xwOBA in line with his best seasons still, so I would think his current overall numbers are more of a blip. But even so, that just means that the acquisition cost won't be discounted. It'll cost a fair bit of both money and prospects to get him. Would our roster be better with him on it? Yes. Is it enough of an upgrade to warrant the cost? No.

Candelario over the last four years: 92 wRC+ Durbin in his MLB career so far: 91 wRC+ Durbin is more versatile, a better defender, a better baserunner, and at least has the potential (albeit far from a sure thing) to improve. I would much, much rather stand pat.

I will say this though; with as deep as the Brewers farm is, the minor league phase of the rule 5 draft could see a fair few Brewers picked.