Lathund

Crow, Martinez, Seigler are the clear ones to me. Beyond that it depends a lot on what else they do with the roster, and how they internally rate some of the players. Let's look at the bats first. I have no idea whether someone like Murray is legit better, or if his BABIP and HR/FB% surge is just a fluke; Brewers probably have a better idea, which will affect that. Same with someone like Zamora. Doesn't look like a candidate to protect, but strong SS defense doesn't need much offensive upside for someone to take a shot (See someone like Workman this year). So probably no on both, unless they really see something. Wood is an intriguing one. Someone I'd definitely want to keep in the org, assuming they think he'll stick at catcher. I think the catching part is the argument the other way too though; Not many teams will want to have a Rule 5 catcher on the roster for a whole year. So unlikely to get picked. Areinamo is a different kind of dilemma. A better prospect, with some real upside. And a 2B/3B/SS is the kind of player a rebuilding team could afford to have on their roster without needing too much offensively from them. I think he's probably still too far away to be picked, but depending on the rest of the season and an eventual AA promotion that could change. As for pitching beyond Crow I don't see many clear candidates. But I also don't have the data, or abiilty to analyze it, to find the breakout candidates from pitch data. Like do any of Stallings, Yeager, Cornielle, Holub, Smith etc have the signs of guys who with even small tweaks can get MLB hitters out? If they do, and the Brewers are looking at freeing up a lot of pitching space, then adding someone they think could contribute in 2026 on the taxi squad makes sense. But I'm not overly bothered with the clear relief-only guys without overwhelming stuff; Brewers keep finding servicable relievers for nothing, so it should really only be guys they can use straight away. The other side is if they genuinely believe in someone as a long-term truly impactful player (i.e starter or elite reliever). Probably someone in that group they'll protect, I'll also make the general point I always make: Not many players get taken in the Rule 5 draft. Like you can make a list of 5-10 players who make some sense, and you would find at least a few in every org, but in the end there might be 15 players taken across the whole league as it's hard to find the right fits. Like even Martinez is in some ways not the kind of player that would normally be taken, but I'd protect him just to be sure. An absolute lock if he is also a minor league FA though; I recall something about a 2-year minor league contract so he might not be, but can't find it. So to sum it up; Crow will be a clear rule 5 protectee. Martinez and Seigler have a not-insignificant chance of being added during the season, but probably will be regardless. I don't see a clear candidate beyond that, but it's not unlikely that some pitcher will emerge looking like a MLB-ready reliever and be added.

2024-2025 Ozzie Albies: 87 wRC+ Joey Ortiz: 87 wRC+ And things like Statcast data does show a change in his underlying profile too, so it's not as if Albies is just getting unlucky. I don't know why he'd regress so at 27-28, but he has. It'd be absolutely insane to give up that package for two years of Albies, and Henderson is the reason for that. Look at what even mediocre FA starters cost on the market, and then consider what 6 years of Henderson (Even if he turns out to "only" be a back of the rotation guy) is worth to the Brewers. That's what the Brewers should be hoarding. But really, the main issue is that the Albies of the last two years is only a marginal upgrade. Yes he is not making much, but increasing salary and giving up real prospects is something you only do for actual impactful upgrades.

Wilken and Adams aren't really that far away. And while I don't put much stock in Lawlar's tiny MLB sample so far, it's at least fair to say he hasn't yet proven he's MLB ready. So trading Peralta + Wilken/Adams for Lawlar wouldn't get us much closer to an MLB-ready 3B anyway. If we were to trade Peralta, I'd look to either get the best return overall, disregarding specific need. Or go for a position where there aren't prospects fairly close to ready (There's also Made, long term). Or, if we're so eager to win in 2025/2026 as opposed to beyond; Don't trade Freddy to begin with. We have a bunch of promising young starters, but we've all seen what happens with injuries, with sophomore slumps (Myers). And so despite Mis, Henderson, Patrick, Priester, Gasser, Myers, Hall, Ashby, Crow etc, the 2026 staff is clearly much better overall with Peralta.

The amount of money in these cash trades is miniscule, on the scale of things. There is a limit on minor league roster spots. Quero, Martinez, Black, Alfaro, Seigler, Vaughn, Dalbec are his competition for 1B and C, and add a few more for DH. There just wasn't a roster spot for him. Cash is just getting *something* in return as oppoed to just releasing him.

Ortiz had a really awful start which will bring down his overall numbers all season long. But over the last month he's been fine. Still a bit below average offensively, but playing at a 2 WAR pace basically. For the full season he's got (Prior to yesterday) a .288 xwOBA and a .233 wOBA. I know how some people react to expected stats when what they want is to be angry and rage, but it does have meaning in that his performance is better than the results. So it's fair to expect him to be more of the player he has been in the last 30 days as opposed to for the first month+. He had a sub 30 wRC+ at some point, expected stats, projections, historical stats and the eye test would all point to more like 85-90 wRC+ going forward as being more likely. Now that means it's an area that could be potentially improved upon, but it's also not "demote and replace with someone who was never as good in the minors and has shown nothing in the majors yet" territory. And a note on Turang. The whole spring training shoulder fatigue being evidence he can't play SS just felt odd to me. He was a SS for years before moving to 2B due to Adames. They also don't make enough throws to really get fatigued easily. I just feel like it's something you could navigate around should the need arise, not overtaxing it in workouts, adjusting strength training etc. A strict rule of never moving a GG also makes no sense. Most of the time you might not do it, but easy to find scenarios where it would make sense, and historical precedence for it. If the roster makes more sense with Brice at SS, you move him. It probably won't, but if it does you shouldn't be locked down by dogma.

I don't believe it can be reduced. Surprised it's that high too, despite knowing how things like playing time, RBIs, and HRs count.

Durbin is a rookie with less than 200 PA still, and while 80 wRC+ isn't great that still makes him above replacement level overall. Probably worth it to give him more time, I still think he could be a decent player. Similarly, Ortiz is much better than the 44 wRC+ he has so far. How much better? Remains to be seen. Looking at the farm, there's Seigler, Boeve, Adams, Wilken and Pratt all in AA or AAA (Black likely will never play 3B again, but not impossible). Further down there's obviously Made and Peña a few years more away. So take that together, and I don't see the need for a big-time blockbuster trade or FA signing for the left side of the infield. By all means try to find a veteran stopgap, hope to get lucky like the Mets with Iglesias in 2024 for example. But I wouldn't spend any real resources on it. Or on a reliever. I'd look to trade some expiring contracts at the deadline if the situation allows (Standings, how well the AAA replacements are performing, roster health etc). For 2026, look for the abovementioned stopgap. But other than that, be opportunistic. As in don't look for a perfect fit, look for players available for less than what you value them at.

Civale was getting traded at the deadline regardless, unless the Brewers had an absolute ton of injuries. Peralta, Quintana, Patrick, Priester, Misiorowski, Henderson, Myers, C.Rodriguez, Hall, Ashby and eventually Woodruff, Cortes and Gasser. Civale is better than some of them, but equal or worse to more. He is on an expiring contract and so not part of the future, he isn't one of the best 5 options for the rotation currently. So he was getting traded anyway. Him asking for one just speeded things up. He doesn't have experience out of the bullpen, so might needed time to adjust. And he was very publicly unhappy about it, and unhappy humans tend to perform worse than happy, motivated ones. And sulking ones can affect those around him. Sadly, the obvious need to trade him probably reduced the potential (But already minor) return somewhat. As for the return: When people say "Surely they could have gotten more" for a trade, I'll usually point to the fact that they didn't, as a strong argument to support that they couldn't. But then there's the element of how you value the return, as it's not always obvious. I don't think a prospect trade would've netted anything other than a "PTBNL or cash" level "prospect". Now Brewers could do Brewers-y things and find a highly flawed pitcher but with some of the traits they really like, and try to work their magic. Low chance of success, but a lot of value if it hits. But they already have a very strong and deep farm system, so that level of prospect doesn't add much. So what's the thinking with Vaughn? He has been an average-ish bat prior to 2025, making him a roughly replacement level player with his (lack of) defense and positional versatility. 2025 has been worse, but his xwOBA is identical to the last 3 years, so he's probably still that average-ish hitter. $5m for that, when you already have Hoskins, isn't what they made this deal for. So you'd think they think they can get more out of him. The superficial arguments in favor of that would be that he was once a very highly ranked prospect for a reason, he was rushed to the majors and has spent his entire career in one of the most dysfunctional organizations in Baseball, under different managers and front offices. There are probably adjustments that haven't been made, tools and methods not used. On the flipside of that, there were also reports of a lack of work rate, more interest in golf than baseball etc. What do they see in him, then? I suspect it's something similar to Rowdy. In that he's someone who produces really good exit velocities, hard hit rates, barrel rates, and does so without striking out much. His major weakness has been chase rate (And, perhaps surprisingly, bat speed). If they think they can improve his chase rate, there's potential for improvement. To sum it up, I think the reasoning behind the trade is twofold. One, that there wasn't much value to be had in the first place and so the roster spot would be the main part of the return anyway. The second is that they'll take Vaughn, with his 3 options remaining, and put him in AAA unless Hoskins gets injured or traded. Most likely, he doesn't show enough to warrant tendering a contract. But in case he does, they'll then have two years (due to not reaching 5 years of service time this year) of team control on a RHH 1B to replace Rhys. Even as he is, his career wRC+ against LHP is 109. The other likely candidates to play 1B/DH next year as the roster stands (Martinez, Black, Yelich (DH)) are LHH. So if he finds even a small improvement, there is some kind of roster fit as the backup RHH power bat/PH. But all that being said, it's a low-percentage play of finding a Rhys replacement (And, in the mean time, a RHH backup for him in case of injuries). I probably still would've gone with whatever pitching project prospect they could find, but I also really have no idea what those offers were like. In the end it's a trade that needed to happen in some fashion. And one that won't impact either organization in the long run.

With the payroll that the Brewers are limited to (Whether by choice or necessity), adding another $20m+ salary is quite limiting to what else they can do. I suppose with the amount of pre-arb players on the team, and likely to come up in the next few years, there could be room for it. They should then try to leverage the $8m option, giving more money in that year to shave some off the overall. Problem is Freddy will be at the age where he'll probably want a long-term deal, and not a high-AAV 2-3 year deal. He also took a very team-friendly extension already, so probably isn't looking for another one. He'll rightly want to cash in. And I think while it's not impossible to find a deal with the Brewers, it's unlikely. Personally I wouldn't look to trade him though. He's making a lot less than Burnes did, and both makes less and is more valuable than Hader. I think keeping him for another year at $8m and getting a comp pick (Or giving more time for an extension to be made) is the way to go. Having a veteran like Freddy there alongside the youngsters who will fill up the rotation is a good thing.

If the pitching staff is really healthy come the deadline, then it would make some sense to trade one or two of the impending free agent pitchers (so Civale, Quintana, Cortes). But with them being free agents (Along with Woodruff. Mutual options are designed to be declined) it makes little sense to trade guys with multiple years of control and options left. That is unless the team have completely given up on them; in which case the return is likely minimal anyway.

Would have been very surprising if 2025 wasn't an odd year.

It's a lot to give up, and I was looking forward to seeing what the team did with so many high picks in the upcoming draft. But I also think people tend to overlook the value of decent or average MLB players, especially pitchers. For this to not be an overpay but just a fairly balanced deal, all Priester has to do is be a #4-#5 type guy for a few seasons. If he's anything more than that, it's a good trade. The pick hurts the most for me, but the average career WAR for picks 26-30 is 2-3 WAR. My quick search didn't find anything for the spots below that where the pick would be, but should be about the same or slightly less. The actual pick could end up being a bust or a superstar, it's not really relevant for the trade itself. I liked Yophery, but if prospects are to be traded then I'm fine with it being low minors guys without standout tools. So that if he is a prospect who makes it, his impact is many years in the future, and the lack of tools limits the ceiling. To make a comparison, his 90th+ percentile outcome isn't, say, Mike Trout. It's someone like Ian Happ. Which is still a fine player to have, but not something we'll rue for years. Or at least I won't. But yeah, all this hinges on what Priester is. Point is, he doesn't have to be anything too special to have been worth it. I think the changes the Red Sox started to make, and I'm sure the Brewers will continue to do, will make it likely that he's a useful player for us.

If Priester is even a #4 type starter for a few years, it's a perfectly fine price to pay. MLB ready starters with team control aren't cheap. I'm sure the Brewers can turn him into a servicable major leaguer.

89 wins. Will it win the division? Possibly. I don't consider the Cardinals or Pirates as contenders at all. I think the Reds are as bad as they're projected to be; I don't buy their 2023 position player breakouts, and their pitching (particularly the bullpen) is bad. Which leaves the Cubs. Who could be good. Their starting 9 is good, both offensively and defensively. But I don't buy their position player depth, their rotation won't be as good, and while their bullpen improved it was with 3 36+ year olds with declining velo. So they could be good, particularly if their starting 9 stays healthy. But I do think the projections are too optimistic about them, and the wrong injuries could hurt them badly. Steele or Imanaga going down would result in a pretty bad rotation, PCA is the only CF on their 40-man and would see them relying on rookies starting. Things like that. If the Brewers are in the high 80s, they'll probably be neck and neck with the Cubs I would imagine.

I don't think Freddy gets traded. Yes ideally you want to get something in return, over losing someone in FA. But the fact that Freddy is only $8m makes him easier to keep around for that last year, as opposed to Burnes and especially Hader making significantly more. And while Williams made a similar amount, he's also a reliever as opposed to a starter so relatively speaking it's a lot more. Combine that with a lot of impending free agents (Civale, Quintana, Woodruff, Cortes), and there's a good case for keeping him around and hopefully using the QO. Mind you, he might get traded, but while it was obvious that Hader, Burnes and Williams would be traded, things are far more open with Peralta.

This shouldn't be in blue.

I don't really agree with the take that the Brewers didn't expect Smith to be taken. Everyone expected that he would be, and if we know it the Brewers know it. I also don't think taking Connor Thomas was a reacting to losing Smith, if they were taking him they were doing it regardless. Brewers clearly didn't consider Smith worth adding to the 40-man, and they clearly liked Thomas. What did they see in them that made them take those views? I don't know, and time will tell if they were right. Some epculation on why though; It's interesting to note that some projection systems quite like Thomas; Steamer projecting a 3.86 ERA, The BAT 3.59. They're normally quite low on rookies. So perhaps the Brewers internal projections are similar, and combine that with an undercoached player (Thomas himself has already been quite critical of the Cardinals pitching development) that they saw potential in, and perhaps it starts to make sense. Also starting the post off with spring training arguments, something to add to that would be Connor Thomas 1.42 ERA so far, and Shane Smith's 5.40 ERA. Now ST ERA is quite pointless, and their FIP/xFIP are almost identical; either way though, nothing about ST so far suggests one is a "sure thing" as a MLB SP and the other one a AAA reliever unworthy of a 40-man spot.

Over the last several years, Cubs fans spend the offseason talking about how awful the Brewers are and how much better the Cubs are. When the Cubs finish 10 games behind, they suddenly switch to claiming they saw the weaknesses of their team all along. This year the Cubs did get better, so perhaps this is the one time they'll actually be right. But I don't think their view that they're by far the best team in the division is right. I also find the projections rather head-scratching at time. PECOTA was off by 14 games on the Brewers last year, and it still projects this young team to be significantly worse on defense and on the bases this year. But it's super optimistic about the Cubs defense. Amaya with his -3 DRP last year is projected at +4 DRP. While Contreras, with a +7.5 and +4.8 DRP in his last two years is projected for -0.6 DRP. Dansby Swanson at 31 is going to greatly exceed his average defense, I think defense and baserunning alone is off by a couple of wins. Offensively, PECOTA expects Hoerner and Happ to be much better than their career numbers. In Hoerners case to put up a 7 points higher DRC+ than he ever has in a season before. 40 year old Justin Turner is projected to improve on his last two years. William Contreras in his age 27 season is projected to be worse than his career numbers. Joey Ortiz is projected to regress a ton at 25. Taillon is projected to have his best season since 2019, 34 year old Matthew Boyd is projected to pitch as many innings as he has in the last 3 years combined, and do it at a level only ever matched in 2019. In fact he is projected to match his combined WARP from his 9 previous non-2019 seasons. Obviously, a computer is team-agnostic, it crunches numbers and doesn't know what effect it has on teams, so not like there's some actual bias there. I just look at the projections and see unusually optimistic projections for the Cubs, and when so much of their roster is expected to exceed their career numbers, the smart move is to take the under. The Fangraphs projections are more realistic, with the Cubs just 3 wins ahead (Though an 81 win projection for the Brewers seems really low still). But even that is largely powered by the ridiculously optimistic ZiPS which has many of the same issues I find with PECOTA. Now I'm also biased, but I just think the projections, by their very nature, miss out on many of the things Brewers do well; Defense, baserunning, platooning, aggressive bullpen usage, utilizing depth, in-season moves and adjustments etc. Maybe Counsell brings some of that to the Cubs, but as we saw in 2024 it's not like it was all Counsell (Not that anyone with a brain believed that), but a collaborative effort between Murph, the rest of the coaching staff, the team-facing part of the front office etc. If one was to make the Cubs slight favorites based on having more of a track record, then that's a reasonable take. But the general expectations that Cubs fans have, in line with PECOTA, is going to be way off. Again. As for the very end of the post; Devin Williams pitched only 22 innings in 2024 and the Brewers still had the best bullpen ERA in the NL. Losing him is not the big problem you seem to think.

I think Pratt in AA is an almost sure thing. He wasn't great in A+ but he also didn't really struggle, he could handle it. You'd expect his time there to be brief if he went there, and most of the season spent in AA. In that case I would rather just have him there from the start, facing better opposition for longer, working with the same coaches etc. And I'd imagine prospects themselves like it when they can stay longer in one place.

The benefit of "productive outs" is more or less cancelled out by how very bad double plays are. Moving on to the topic in general: When looking at strikeouts it also matters *why* someone strikes out, or why they don't. Swinging harder, trying to pull the ball, and trying to put it in the air will generally result in more swing and miss. If you successfully do those things, then you'd happily take the extra strikeouts in exchange for the home runs. Hitting the ball hard and swinging and missing kind of go hand in hand after all. Strikeouts become far more problematic in someone who doesn't hit the ball hard, as there is no tradeoff. Strikeouts are sometimes also the result of plate discipline and being selective. And they also go hand in hand with walks. If you don't lay off pitches, you're not getting walks either. Joey Gallo is perhaps the most extreme version of the profile of combining selectiveness with swinging hard. Extreme walk rate, extreme strikeout rate, lots of HRs. So far, I'm just stating the obvious. I think what's interesting is the opposite of this, where we get the Dee Gordon, Juan Pierre, Willians Astudillos, Luis Arraez types of this world. As in miniscule walk rates and strikeout rates, high batting average but no power. Players relying on their great bat control and bat to ball skills to make contact with anything. They are an example of where they'd probably benefit from striking out more. Not because strikeouts are better than other outs, but because of what happens when they don't. Their walk rate is low because they swing on pitches they shouldn't, both early in the count and with full counts. And fairly often putting the ball in play is *not* better than taking a ball. Depending on the location, pitch movement and the count (And the base-out states), it's sometimes not even better than taking a strike. The last part probably sounds unintuitive or just wrong. But think of it how the average BABIP was .291 in 2024. So putting the ball in play, there is a .291 chance of a hit, .015 chance of reaching on an error, .019 chance of a double play, .007 chance of a sac fly, and some chance of an RBI groundout or productive groundout that I don't have the means to calculate here. Anyway, point is that something like 2/3 of the time, the outcome is the same as a strikeout. Sometimes the outs are less bad, sometimes worse. The 1/3 that are hits or errors though are good, and the argument would be that putting the ball in play as often as possible maximizes the chances of that. But we can also see the result of putting pitches in various parts of the zone into play. And the pitches around the edge of the zone (Both inside and outside, i.e the pitches that Gallo lays off and that Astudillo or Arraez put into play) have a very low batting average, and almost zero chance of an XBH. And of course also no chance of a walk/HBP. The calculus is different at 0-2 compared to 3-0 or 0-0, but the point is that putting the ball in play excludes the other outcomes of a plate appearance. If the best you can hope for is a single, and the chances of even that are low, you're sometimes better off taking a strike. The other aspect of being in the "make contact with everything" approach also comes at the pitches you *should* be swinging at. If the swing is too heavily geared towards always making contact, that tends to mean either a lower bat speed, sitting back as opposed to trying to get in front of it, and a flatter bat path. That tends to mean that a player like that will rarely swing and miss at a middle-middle pitch, but they will also punish them with an XBH less often. A Joey Gallo will whiff on some, but will also put more in the seats. Anyway, this was long. Just trying to contrast the obvious downsides of strikeouts with the less obvious ones of not striking out. Not really an argument in favor of either direction, just that there is a balance to be had. Strikeouts aren't really worse than other outs, but they should be a consequence of doing some other things well. And too many is still not good. Likewise, not striking out at all has some real drawbacks as well, that aren't as obvious. TL; DR of this TL;DR: Swing really hard at pitches you can do damage on if you make contact, lay off pitches you can't do anything with, even if some might be strikes.. Easy, I solved baseball.

This also all started because of the claim that Black wasn't playing not because of a minor injury, but because Murphy disliked him. No matter what Murph thought of Black, if he was healthy he would be playing in ST. No matter if he was slated to be the starter, backup, AAA depth or likely to be DFA/traded.

DeJong over the last three years has put up a 205/.263/.372 slash line, good for 76 wRC+. Yes, he does it in a way (power) that our internal options at the position do not, but in the end it's the actual overall output that matters. And I'm pretty sure that among Dunn/Collins/Monasterio/Capra they can work a combined 76 wRC+ or better. And I think Durbin is going to be quite a bit better than that. Like I don't think even a realistic best case scenario is that much above a league average 100 wRC+, but league average offense with above average baserunning and above average defense is a 2-3 WAR player with a full seasons worth of PA. It's less than Adames, and I still would want another infielder to go with Durbin, Turang and Ortiz, but many people on here have decided that he's somehow a black hole, a sub-replacement player, and I don't think it's right. If nothing else, a player who had as many stolen bases as he had strikeouts in his minor league career is something I think I've seen before, and would love to see what that looks like.

How did you get any of that from the post you quoted? They didn't even hint at calling anyone a worse fan, or were passive aggressive, or anything of the kind. I can only hope you quoted the wrong post

He may well be impactful this year, but there is just no reason to have Yoho on the opening day roster. He would need to be added to the 40-man, meaning someone else would have to be dropped. Whereas if he remains in AAA, he doens't take up a spot and will still be available as depth. And you additionally gain a year of team control. See what you have in the guys already on the roster, bring Yoho up if they struggle/get hurt or if he's simply good enough to force it. Almost certainly what they'll do. I also think the likely infield right now is Durbin, Ortiz and Turang in some configuration; I'd argue Turang at SS, but if Durbin is better at 3B than I think he is, that would make sense too. I also think that it's going to be a Dunn over Monasterio for the bench role, but that could go either way. Black will probably see more time at 1B, DH and LF than he will at 3B. If they viewed him as a 3B, he would've played there more with it being a position of need.

Brewers rank 3rd on Baseball Prospectus' farm system ranking; Cubs 14th, Cardinals 17th, Reds 18th, Pirates 23rd. A point of emphasis is the depth of the system which they call "astounding". Not sure whether it needs a subscription, or just a free account, or nothing to view, but here it is regardless: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/article/96524/2025-prospects-organizational-prospect-rankings/