Lathund

I don't consider Quero blocked by Contreras. Contreras has 3 years remaining, seeing as how he is unlikely (IMO anyway) to sign an extension, he might very well get traded after 2. Quero in all likelyhood starts 2025 in AAA and won't get a full year of service time. Meaning he'll have 6 years of team control after 2025. Having them share duties for a year or two isn't a problem, it's in fact a great situation to be in. A backup catcher is needed far more often than other backups, and the combination of an elite defender (Who might be a good bat too, remains to be seen) and an elite hitter in a DH league makes it easy to get them playing time in a way that benefits the team. And injuries happen, another reason why you want a strong backup catcher. Whatever his role, Quero is someone who will likely contribute already this year, and definitely in the next couple. What makes more sense to me when trading for rentals is to trade away players further from the majors, not players who can help you while you have the rental. Or more generally, don't trade top prospects for rentals, however tempting it may be. For good players with multiple years of control (Like the Adames, Yelich, Contreras trades) you could include them, but for rentals it's just so weakening.

Spring training is for players on the 40-man roster and non roster invites. Gasser is on the 40-man since there is no IL currently. He's automatically included, but he won't actually throw a single pitch in game action in ST. Brent Suter had one of the fastest comebacks from TJS I've ever seen. But firstly the Raptor isn't human, and secondly he returned in relief which shaves some time off. But even if Gasser matches or even beats Suter's timeline, we're still talking late May at best. Still not going to be pitching in ST. July is the earliest somewhat realistic timeline. It could be September without it being unexcpected or having been a setback.

There's a long way to go for Made, but I think the two posters above who are only walking about stats are missing the point. There are absolutely gaudy stat lines in the DSL every year that don't amount to much in the end. They're usually not *this* good, but still. You can usually see strong signs of unsustainable performances even in basic stats though. Inflated BABIP, sky high HR/FB rate, subpar K/BB numbers. Made has none of that. In those basic stats alone you can tell a few things. Most importantly that he walked significantly more than he struck out. Yes it's the DSL, the pitching isn't very good. But walking 18% of the time and striking out only 13% of the time signals a great eye at the plate. Plate discipline stats support that. Chase rate, whiff rate etc. A seriously mature approach. And it's not like he's overly passive either. Now the real kicker in all this is when we also factor in batted ball data. Alongside that low whiff rate, low strikeout rate and ability to make contact he also hits for a ton of power. EV90 above the MLB average, as a 17 year old. Scouts like his mechanics and love his tools too. He's also a switch hitter who plays SS (Even if he might end up at 3B) pretty well and runs well. The reason there is a lot of skepticism about DSL is that people pay far too much attention to stats like raw OPS and nothing else, and then naturally the failure rate among those players is sky high. It can't really be emphasized enough how strongly Made's performances are supported by the underlying data. Another reason prospects fail is that their prospect rankings and evaluations are based on projection. There is a lot of "If he can cut the strikeout rate/increase launch angle/find more power as he matures" etc. That's in addition to needing to prove it at higher levels. Made on the other hand has all the tools and skills he needs. He "just" needs to prove it at a higher level. Which is no mean feat, far from guaranteed. But if there was ever a DSL prospect to be excited about, this is it. Prospect evaluators almost never go gaga for a DSL prospect this way. They're skeptics, cynics, conservative. And they all put him in the top 100, or in one case even top 20.

It was the same main catcher both years, so I don't think a change in philosophy has anything to do with it. And I don't think it's a conscious focus from defense to offense for Contreras. It's not a sport like soccer or hockey where offense involves risk and sacrificing defense, a catcher can do both. Sure his practice time isn't unlimited, but I don't believe their was anything intentional in this. Robo umps are coming, which can impact how Brewers look at catchers in the lower minors or the draft. But in 2024, 2025 and perhaps 2026, Brewers aren't just going to give up a huge edge like this.

Projections are really underselling the Brewers defense, expecting just about everyone to regress. Which, I feel fairly confident saying, won't happen. There's also all the things that projections can't account for even if they get the player projections right. That is the in-season additions, promotions and demotions. Bullpen usage, platoons etc, things the Brewers do well. But fundamentally I think the projections themselves are missing something with the Brewers. Perhaps it's the defense. Perhaps it relates to DRC+ and contact hitters. I remember the very early versions couldn't understand hitters like Ichiro, and viewed their performance as just luck. Adjustments over the years has made it somewhat better, but it would still treat a bunch of young speed+contact type hitters very conservatively. There's also the bullpen which PECOTA is pretty down on. To be hoenst, they're really down on most things. Normally when I look at a preseason projection there's a mix of players I think the projections overrate, and underrate. With my bias as a fan, naturally I find more projections I'd bet the over on than vice versa. But looking at the Brewers PECOTA projections the only optimistic one I see is Woodruff, and that's injury related. Last year it was 79 wins at this stage, and ended up with 93. I think it'll be off by a similar margin again. At the very least I'd wait until opening day to take projections more seriously. I think another infield move (Which I expect to happen) will have a big effect, even if it's not an amazing player. Currently BP are predicting the Brewers will spread a lot of playing time between various poorly performing players there. I expect reality to be quite different.

This thread coincides with my attitude towards the 2025 (And onwards) Brewers.

I'm sure Chourio would be a very good CF, but at the same time you can't really compare the defensive metrics from a CF to a LF/RF straight up like this. Firstly because, as another poster pointed out, these are mostly counting stats, so playing time matters. The other is that they're all stats compared to other players at the position, and that CF is harder position. A higher DRS/OAA/FRV at RF compared to someone else at CF doesn't tell you much. I expect Mitchell to play CF most days (Perkins against some lefties) and to have a very good season if healthy. The only uncertainty is the infield. We know 2/3 guys who will play there for sure, and I think/hope there is yet one more move coming, most likely a trade. Even if they really like Durbin, you'd still want a better 4th option than Dunn/Monasterio IMO. But with the current roster, I think it'll be Ortiz at SS with Dunn and Durbin not in a strict platoon, but with elements thereof at 3B. I suspect Durbin is better at 2B than 3B and so I would probably go with Turang at SS instead, but that's just me guessing. I know many people are hesitant to move Turang due to the platinum glove at 2B, but if it gets the most out of everyone there I'd be fine with it.

Made is ranked a lot higher by BA, BP, Pipeline. But reading Keith Law's blurb on him, I wouldn't even say he's "low" on him. He basically says that he'll have to do it at a higher level first. Sounds like he thinks he will, and that he'll then be one of the absolute top prospects in the game. But that until he has, he'll be a tad lower.

Pipeline generally feels like the safest, most conservative of the various prospect outlets. They'll tend to slot in the draft picks in more or less draft order, and they'll generally be slow to make changes. Jesus Made at 56 is pretty aggressive for them; I honestly wouldn't have been shocked had they not ranked him. The above is pretty easy to see. And it's not necessarily a bad thing; having different philosophies between the various publications is useful, gives additional perspectives. And while this is about the Brewers, it's interesting to see that the other major publications has seemingly seen sense (IMO) about the Cubs prospects, while Pipeline still has 7 of them in the top 100. Generally at the lower end though (except, rightfully, Shaw). I just don't see this generation of Cubs having a big impact. Partly because there's not going to be a ton of playing time for them. Due to both having a lot of established players already in place, but also because there's not a lot of positional flexibility, and a lack of well-rounded guys who contribute in all phases. Ballesteros can hit, but he's not a catcher, and probably not a 1B, and offers nothing on the bases. He *really* has to hit to make it, and the only lineup spot he can feature in (DH) has a 129 wRC+ incumbent under contract for two more years. Triantos and Caissie have lesser, but similar, issues. Not just strictly looking at the farm, a top 5 (Or even top 3) revenue team that rebuilds for 4 years should be in a better position by now.

It's on the pitching side they have a roster crunch. They will have 13 position players on the roster, and they have a total of 15 on the 40-man. If anything they'd probably want to add more for depth rather than get rid of them. They'll need to free up a spot or two soon (Yates, Kershaw) but most of their roster space will come when they can put their recovering pitchers (4-5 of them) on the 60-day IL. I think if they trade away anyone, it'll be pitchers who are out of options but don't have a lock on a roster spot. Ryan Brasier seems like the prime candidate. Anthony Banda or even Dustin May could be candidates too. They *could* trade/release position player depth too, but then they'd need to replace them once the 60-day IL opens anyway, and it's quite a risky situation to absolutely *need* to make signings/trades that late.

I like JB a lot, but he has no options left and there are too many good relievers for him to make the roster. Makes sense to replace him with someone with options. I think it's unlikely JB clears waivers and remains in AAA (Not sure if he's been outrighted before), but perhaps some minor trade gets worked out. Plenty of bad bullpens out there that he'd improve.

If he can be had for a reasonable 1-year deal, sure. A 3B would be a better fit, but I think the most important consideration for the infield search should be to find the best player. The current FA crop doesn't excite me much, and he's one of the better options. I think, ulimately, the additional infielder on the roster will arrive via trade.

Terrific director. Only slight issue I could see is that he's been dead for 15 years. Even if the pitching lab resurrects him, he'd be well over 100. Though he also wouldn't have been putting any strain on his shoulder or UCL ligaments during his time in the grave, so that could be a plus.

The only glaring need to me is an infielder. 3B/SS ideally, but 2B works too in a pinch. Maybe they like Durbin a lot, and maybe they are right to. Regardless, should still aim to get a 4th starting quality guy to the 2B/3B/SS mix, as in addition to replacing Adames you want to upgrade on Monasterio/Dunn too as the primary backup. Now I personally don't care if it's a power hitter or not. I just care that they put up offense, not how.

The money is spent no matter what, should do what gives the best results. Hoskins is significantly better against LHP than RHP, both in 2024 and for his career. They won't use him in a strict platoon, but even something like every start against LHP and half the starts against RHP is ~2/3 of the games, leaving 50+ 1B starts to someone else. Consider that Hoskins would also at least sometimes DH too. Not talking about Black getting 600+ PAs, but finding 300-400 should be doable if he's healthy even if they prioritize Hoskins more than they should. He's taking Jake Bauers spot on the roster, and he got 346 last year. Take his usage as a starting point, and carve out a start here and there. Yelich will still play a decent amount of LF, Contreras should probably get some more full days off than he did last year. There will be a decent amount of days where Contreras is at C and Yelich in LF, or either has a day off (or is injured). Assume 4 PA/start. 50 starts at 1B, 20 at DH, 10 other (LF, RF, 2B, 3B), and one PH PA in 50% of the games he starts on the bench gets you to ~360 PA. This is easily doable without really prioritizing him highly, or by expecting significant injuries to others. And injuries will happen. If Black himself is healthy, he'll have opportunities.

What to do with Tyler Black is simply to let him play. Seems like they don't believe in him as a 3B, though that'd be ideal if he could handle it. So Black should get most of the PAs at 1B vs RHP, with Hoskins playing mostly against LHP, with his quite severe platoon splits. Between 1B, DH, some corner OF there should be a decent amount of PAs.

Exactly. Brewers have done this in the past; sign some players early on in the offseason to have a passable roster already. Not what they *want* to go into the new season with, but something they *could* do so with. And then spend the offseason trying to find something better for good value, without needing to make a bad deal because they have no other option.

I don't know about Clancy (Harold) in particular, but on more general terms I'd like to say that looking to trade Perkins isn't about not rating him as a player, it's more about trading from a position of strength. Brewers currently have 4 above average or better defensive CFs on the roster in Perkins, Chourio, Mitchell and Frelick. Some teams have one, or none. So to a team like that, adding Perkins would be valuable. Whereas the Brewers, who have players with a similar skillset, would lose far less than the other team gains. Trades are ever less and less about "fleecing" another team, front offices today are way too smart for that. It's to some degree about valuing players skillsets correctly, but also to a great deal about their relative value. A players contract might make them untenable for one team, but improve another with more money to spare. A DH only, however good, is of no interest to the Dodgers for the next 9 years but could be for most other teams. Isaac Paredes was always going to be more valuable to the Rays or Astros than the Cubs based on his batted ball profile; that Tucker trade probably doesn't happen if the Astros played at Wrigley and the Cubs at MMP. Or, as in this case, it's the other players at the position that can make even a good player a luxury. And so to get back to the first sentence in the paragraph; you have to give up something decent to get something decent. So you make sure that the decent player you give up plays where you have other decent players, and the decent player you get strengthens you where you don't. No need to make a whole lot of negative assumptions about people who might see sense in looking to see what Perkins could return.

I like this. I think the only way to not like it is if you overvalue relievers. An above average starter is similar in value to even an elite reliever. One way to see that is by comparing how teams pay them; the highest paid relievers ever get the same AAV as Jameson Taillon (EDIT: Actually I was slightly off; thought Taillon was like $19-20m when he was in fact $17m. But close enough to leave it in there). And this mostly comes down to the difference in innings. Yes, you can pick and choose your spots for a closer which bridges some of the gap. But it doesn't make each inning 3 times as valuable. Remember a starter always enters the game tied or with a lead too. So Nestor and Devin, assuming similar health, aren't far apart in value. Same salary, one year of each. And the Brewers get 6 years of a player who finished real strong in AAA and AFL, and fills a positional need. WIth a profile they like; Speed, bat to ball skills, and defense (At least at 2B). The exit velos are a concern, but perhaps the injury tied into it. Perhaps not. And Cortes' elbow might be one too. But then again Devin just missed half a season with a back injury too. So yeah, to sum it up, I quite like it. If Cortes and Williams are similar, and Durbin is even an improvement on Monasterio and Dunn, then we're already better in 2025 than we looked to be yesterday. By a huge margin? No. But there's 5 years of Durbin after that. This is not a "sexy" move. The people focused on needles moving won't like it. Nor people who still think relievers can command the kind of return that Chapman did 8 years ago. It's just a steadily improving move. A big part of why the Brewers are where they are is that they keep gaining small edges here and there. This is just a part of that.

Our own Tungsten Arm O'Doyle!

Yeah just have to go back a year to see some really, really bad takes about Adames' value. I think it even got as far as some saying he would accept a QO.

$5.5m (Or a $4.5m decision, considering the buyout) for Colin Rea is not at all unreasonable in and of itself. $5.5m for Colin Rea if you have a $110-$120m budget and he is likely 6th or 7th on the SP depth chart is a bad idea, and you'd be better off spending the money on pretty much any other position.

Hudson trending downwards with velocity, already 60+ IP. Probably going to be very sparsely used in AAA, and be back fresh for the postseason.

He's also someone who was hurt last year, and the velo started ticking up throughout the season. Could just be that he's finally fully healthy. But yeah, sometimes a simple mechanical tweak can do a lot too. I just think that the Reds would've found the low-hanging fruit. Derek Johnson is pretty good at his job too, after all.

Modern batting order wisdom is a bit different from the traditional. Most of which comes from two things; Starting to correctly value not making outs, and the value of more plate appearances. Meaning that the speedster and slap hitter 1-2 combo at the top of the order are no longer a thing. Which isn't to say that you don't want those traits in your 1-2 hitter, just that it's secondary to being a productive overall hitter. And by far the biggest realization of the simulation age of lineup construction is that it matters very, very little. Sure, batting the pitcher leadoff and your best hitter 9th will have a fairly big impact. But the difference between the optimal lineup and any remotely sensible one, is miniscule. It's a handful of runs per *season*. So put your best hitters near the top of the lineup, try to alternate L-R somewhat, and you're most of the way there. Like simply sorting the lineup by descending order of OPS or OBP is fine. But some of the more specific findings; 3rd isn't the optimal spot to put your best overall hitter, mainly for one simple reason; It's the spot that comes up with the bases empty and 2 outs most often. So 2nd is the new 3rd; best overall hitter hits 2nd. Your next two best hitters should hit 1st and 4th; take the better OBP guy and bat him leadoff, the better power hitter 4th. Your next two best hitters are 3rd (Allrounder) and 5th (This is where the Chris Carter or Rhys Hoskins types go). Then just more or less use 6-9 to alternate handedness and roughly descending order of batting prowess. There's some value in putting a good OBP guy 9th, for similar reasons to why batting the pitcher 8th and not 9th made sense, as a "second leadoff" type thing, setting up the top of the order.