Lathund

Ah yes, the ol' "move your gold glove outfielder to 1st base to make room for questionable minor league talent" play. Love that one! Christian Yelich is not a gold glove OFer. His arm is a liability and while he can get to some balls he doesn’t have blazing quick speed to get to a lot of balls others can’t. That being said he is a solid defender with a great bat. I doubt we ever have a situation where it’s a good idea to put him at 1B. Zack Brown seemingly had an uncomplicated ankle sprain. Means he's out for maybe 6 weeks, 8 at most, but not the kind of injury that would scare someone off a prospect the same way it would an MLB player. Look at the A's return for Sonny Gray, those were a lot more serious injuries.

I'd be interested in Gray, assuming his struggles result in a discount. However I don't think the Yankees are seriously looking to trade him. They're looking for rotation help, but aren't seemingly keen on anyone out there right now. Trading away one of the starters they do have would just make things worse. Could perhaps be an option in the offseason, but would make less sense then.

We've been told "the future is bright" for decades. What's different now? It's not about what someone tells us. I look at this already good team where everyone is controllable still, I look at the players coming through, I look at an owner who is committed to making this club good long-term (Buying the Mudcats, renovating Maryvale etc), I look at a GM with a plan, and from that I make up my own mind. I haven't been a Brewers fan for decades, so I don't know what they told us or who told it. And I don't care.

I never expected Santana to repeat his 2017, and I don't think Stearns or any other exec around the league did either. Hence the attempt to trade him, and the lack of interest. So seemingly the alternative to keeping him and hoping he could repeat 2017, or something close to it, would've been to let him go for almost nothing, or at least a lot less than Stearns valued him at. Which in hindsight probably would've been the right move, but it's certainly understandable to not want to do that. I'd have taken whatever there was though; but I'm also someone who wanted to trade him at last years trade deadline. A move that would've been stupid to do at the time (And thus correctly wasn't made) but end up being correct in the end (or as of now anyway). A bit like going all-in and winning with 2-7 offsuit.

It's been 3 years since the sell-off started. 1½ years (or a little more) since the last of those trades (Thornburg). It's remarkable that we are where we are right now, and that'a a testiment to David Stearns and his team. Look at where the Cubs and Astros were 3 years after they started their selloff. DS has gotten us this far with his approach, so let him keep doing more of the same. I really like the value-based approach he's using, where need alone never dictates a signing. I know how upset some people were that we didn't go after Quintana or Gray last year, but I'm sure glad we didn't give up our version of Eloy Jimenez for what they're putting up now. If the price exceeds the value, and the value there is doesn't get you past a threshold (i.e Aroldis Chapman to the Cubs), you don't make the deal. Regardless of need. There might come a point when negative-value deals need to start getting made, but we really are not there yet. There are also more ways than one to build a roster, and so far I'm glad to see we've avoided traps like Cobb and Gray and the likes. Be patient, the future is bright.

Brewers (Counsell) said about Burnes that he was 100% going back to the rotation next year. I don't believe they were ever that definitive with Hader. They are rather different too; Hader was barely using two pitches and had control issues, while Burnes has very solid command of 4 pitches and uses them all. He's not a guy they'll use as a reliever long term.

Chacin, Guerra, Peralta. Then presumably Miley and Anderson.

Unless we score 5 this inning it should be time for Hernan Perez and Erik Kratz to get some work on the mound.

Miller should be the first one to go; was worth a punt but he won't be here next year due to cost and performance. After that, Hernan Perez needs to be the next one to go. The usefulness of that versatility depends on the rest of the roster as well. It's handy to have, but we don't *need* it. He just makes too many outs. 200+ plate appearances with a .279 OBP is seriously hurting us. Saladino can cover 3rd if need be. Villar has been solid defensively, and there's some (faint) hope he can produce offensively.

Jeffress was already up getting loose earlier... just put him in and do all we can do guarantee the win.

Should only pull a starter who's playing well on a low pitchcount if the intent is to let Hader/Jeffress go the rest of the way.

4 hits, 2 walks in 6 innings for 1 WHIP.

That's not accurate though, Brewers offense isn't anywhere near the top of the league overall. They're 20th by wRC+ with 93. A bit better, 11th, when looking at runs scored but with the 6 teams behind all within 5 runs (And Brewers have played more games than most). This offense simply isn't good, yet the narrative among many people, within the Brewers fansphere and nationally, is that the offense is really good.

On the topic of former Brewer on-base AAAA type OFs, Michael Reed is having quite the season with a 1.000+ OPS in AA and AAA, with an OBP of .462. Surprised me to see that he was still only 25.

I think that's an important distinction. If everyone else is hitting well you can carry an excellent defensive shortstop (Or catcher) who doesn't contribute much offensively. So if the offense around him picks back up, I think we could see him back sooner rather than later. If not, he's likely down until the roster expansion.

You don't really need to do a lot of mental calculations. Instead of the regular slash line or OPS, use OPS+ or wRC+ which are scaled to the park and league scoring environment. It's not perfect, but is very useful for purposes like this as well as historical comparisons. Arcia is sitting at 134 wRC+, i.e 34% above the league average adjusted for park factors. Which is about where Eric Thames is in relation to the MLB at large. So his numbers are good, Colorado Springs or not. The question is if they're real or not.

So I know it seems extremely likely that the Brewers AAA team next year will be in Fresno, but has there been any definite word on who this new CS team will be affiliated with? AFAIK the agreement with the Brewers runs out in 2018, do we know if that's likely to be renewed or not?

Pass on that. Between Merrifield turning 30 in January and Hiura doing well in AA, I don't think Merrifield brings enough marginal future value to sacrifice the long-term value of those three guys. I'm not sure I'd do that specific deal (I'm a big believer in Corey Ray and would like to see him develop here), but I certainly think Merrifield should be a target. Plugs straight in at 2B until Hiura is ready, or acts as insurance if Hiura doesn't make it (The elbow would be the likeliest cause of that I suspect). He has played 3B, 1B, RF, LF and even CF for the Royals, so he'd also be an option to spell Shaw against lefties and replace Perez role backing up the corner OF. He's not a utility player in the sense that Perez is, more in the way that Zobrist or Happ are; everyday players but not at a fixed position. So it's both an immediate upgrade, and a great fit for the roster. Not worried about his age. He's a bit of a late bloomer and we get his age 30-33 seasons. So not a fan of that specific deal, but it's still a trade for 4 years of team control of a 3+ WAR player so value-wise it's not unreasonable.

I understand but what good does stashing prospects in AAA or the bullpen for 3 years waiting for a spot or an injury do? At some point these guys start to lose their value. We more than anyone have to capitalize on these guys values. That means not only trading them before it becomes clear they aren’t major league quality but also giving them opportunities to succeed when they are ready. If Corbin Burnes, for instance, isn’t given a legitimate opportunity to win a rotation spot next year then I think we’ll be wasting his talent. But then again I’d say the same thing about Peralta. And Woodruff. But in reality there is just no chance all three will have the ability to win rotation spots next year. Not with Chacin Anderson Nelson and Davies all still around. That’s why I’d have no problem whatsoever using two of them to acquire Degrom or Syndergaard. I haven't said anything about stashing them for 3 years. 2019 sees a lot of pitching depth, but that's 1 year. And they wouldn't necessarily be the ones being stashed. I'd rather give them the opportunities to succeed in place of some of the established, expensive veterans. Davies and Guerra have options, they could be the ones stashed. Or traded. We don't know if Nelson will be back to his old self either. Chacin, Anderson, Nelson, Burnes, Peralta as your starting 5. Woodruff next in line to be given a tryout (6th man will always get plenty of chances), Suter (Long relief role), Guerra and Davies (Unless traded) available as depth. I prefer that over losing Peralta and Burnes and adding $15m to the payroll. Keep Peralta and Burnes, and use that $15m for something else.

It'll be very interesting to see how the Cubs do going forward. Their position player group are pretty much all under control through 2021 I believe, apart from Zobrist. And it's very good; barring injuries they are literally set at every position for years Contreras - Rizzo, Baez, Russell, Bryant - Schwarber, Almora, Heyward. With Happ as a super sub. Add a few role players to that and it's a really good lineup. But since they all have such similar service time, the year-to-year arbitration rises will be huge. So it's all about the pitching. Chatwood, Quintana, Darvish and Hendricks all have good records. They could rebound, in which case the Cubs don't have that many holes to fill, and they have the money to sign a starter and a couple of relievers. The interesting thing is if those guys continue their 2017 form, and the Cubs will need to fill those voids in free agency. Which could be done, if they're willing to spend. But as Darvish, Cobb, Lynn et al have shown, it's not always easy to navigate the FA pitcher market. They could have a super team for years, or they could have some real issues already in 2019 or 2020 finding pitching.

Hiura maybe but Peralta and even Burnes? Next season for starting pitching option we have: Chacin. Guerra. Davies. Anderson. Nelson. Woodruff. Peralta. Burnes. Suter. Trading away a Peralta or a Woodruff would not create a hole. It was actually ease a logjam a bit, especially if they are traded for a pitcher. Ideally in the next year or two there would be a spot for Peralta, Burnes AND Woodruff but I don’t see that happening. So trading one of them now isn’t the end of the world. Obviously they have to be part of the right deal. I’m glad Burnes wasn’t traded for Machado. But if we’re going for Syndergaard or Degrom heck yeah I’d include two of Peralta Burnes Ortiz or Woodruff. I look at more than just 2018 and 2019 though. Having 9 SPs, when I believe 6 of them have minor league options remaining (And at least 3 of them have experience working in relief), isn't a log jam. We've already used 9 starters this year, and at a minimum you'd want 7 competent starters to get through a season. But it's about more than the numbers. You only quoted one sentence of the post, the rest of the paragraph goes into more about the reasoning behind it. As does the previous one. It's not only about this one trade, but what follows it as well. It was about which prospects you trade or don't trade. Current major league contributing prospects with 6 years of cheap control and fairly high ceilings (Like Peralta and Burnes) are not the type of prospects we should be looking at trading if we're looking to contend. Filling two (Or potentially more) rotation spots with good players who cost the league minimum helps set up other moves as well, whether that be free agents or taking on salaries in trades.

1. Those are very, very different situations. Astros and Cubs were clearly the best teams in their division, already clear playoff teams and WS contenders. That's when you sell out to win. When an extra win or two over the rest of the season (including playoffs) can get you a WS title. You don't sell out when you're the second best team in your division and likely fighting for a WC slot. I disagree on your first point. This team was 18 games over .500 a week ago. 18 GAMES! They had a lead on the Cubs. One crappy week of baseball doesn't mean that this team suddenly isn't a contender anymore. I agree on your 2nd point though. Steans has made some huge moves. I think he's spoiled a lot of us into thinking whenever a big name becomes available, the Brewers will be a player. Had we been 18 games above .500 in the AL Central, I would definitely have been more inclined to think about it differently. But the Cubs have been right behind us the whole time, and have for the last few years been a second half team. People view the Cubs differently. I still view them as quite clearly a better team than the Brewers, and even if you disagree with that it would be hard to argue that they're not at least rougly on the same level. So 2.5 games back to a team that's equally good or better gives at best a 50% chance of winning the division. That's the kind of situation where you look to improve, but not in a way that hurts you going forward by going all in. You'll also notice I didn't say we weren't contenders, those were your words. But all that is besides the point, which was that we're not in the same situation as the 2017 Astros or 2016 Cubs. We may be contenders, but not on the same level they were back then. Or on the level that the 2018 Astros, Yankees or Red Sox are.

I was just gonna say. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn’t mean we are “emptying the farm”. I can’t wven tell you how many times I heard that last year when I advocated for Sonny Gray. The vast majority of prospects fail. A few years ago prospect lovers would have had a heart attack over the thought of trading Jorge Lopez. Now the guy is a throw in....the fourth piece of a trade. I completely understand the need to build from within and not make foolish trades. But not all prospects succeed. And not all prospects have a place on the roster. We can’t just hang on to every single prospect who has had a modicum of success or has an above average tool or two. Building from within is certainly a strategy we need to employ. But so too is cashing in your assets before their value tanks. Not to mention the roster crunch that the team is currently facing going into next winter and the Rule 5 Draft. I would hate to lose future potential big league contributors like Gatewood, Kirby and Quentin Torres-Costa for absolutely nothing because there was just too many guys that needed protecting. Stearns needs to clean that up, and I predict it's going to start within the next week. Related to both posts above; Hyperbole is annoying, agreed. One trade isn't gutting the fam or anything. But the kind of comments directed the other way, like the strawman arguments or exaggerations like how people are prospect huggers for the sake of having a top rated system and the likes are equally dumb. For me it's more about what type of prospect we trade or don't trade. Who we shouldn't trade are the prospects who are either major league ready or very close to it. Most prospects don't make it, but most of that risk is earlier in their careers. Even if you go "all in" now, the "window" is still "open" for 2019 and likely 2020 too. So whether you're looking for the more long-term approach of being steadily competitive Cardinals-style (Or what the A's would have done had they been willing to spend even a little bit to supplment their approach) or lean more towards going for it now, it makes very little sense to trade away players likely to be contributors in that timespan. Hence the unwillingness to move the likes of Burnes, Hiura, Peralta or even some other far along guys in AA. I'm very much in the patient long-term camp, but I'm fine with a trade if it's the right kind of trade. To me that means either some of the Rule 5 casualties (Whether that be fringe guys already protected, or guys we'd be unlikely to protect) or high-ceiling guys further down the minors. If you look at what it took to land JDM, or even useful players like Swarzak and Walker, you can see how it's still possible to get some good returns. Guys like Tristen Lutz have trade value, while at the same time unlikely to contribute to the major league club before 2021 or 2022. So make those trades. Trading Peralta, Burnes or Hiura however makes very little sense, and just creates new holes on the roster that'll need to be filled in the next couple of years. It's not so much that it empties the farm as it removes options. One big trade doesn't deplete the farm. Two big trades don't really either. But they start the ball rolling, forcing more trades to stay competitive. Ending up in a situation where you have to make moves whether they're good value or not. And I think it's too soon for that.

1. Those are very, very different situations. Astros and Cubs were clearly the best teams in their division, already clear playoff teams and WS contenders. That's when you sell out to win. When an extra win or two over the rest of the season (including playoffs) can get you a WS title. You don't sell out when you're the second best team in your division and likely fighting for a WC slot. 2. It's not about having "stones" or not, that's an awful take. It doesn't take any stones to make big moves, because that's simply doing the conventional thing, doing what's expected and what the fans want. Going against conventional wisdom is what takes stones. And secondly, how hasn't Stearns proved he has stones? Non-tendering the NL HR champion to sign a guy from Korea? Yelich trade? Biggest FA signing in franchise history in Cain? Saying that Stearns is passive, doesn't have the guts or w/e was around last season as well. It was then, and still is, an awful take.

If the Brewers indeed view middle infield as a big need, missing out on Machado shouldn't change anything, you simply move on to your next target. Who that is depends on a few things. One is how you balance this year vs the future, and that also depends on how the team views Arcia, Hiura, Dubon. And to a lesser extent someone like Hager or Moore. If you believe in those guys, and that they'll be solid contributors next year already, then acquring a rental makes the most sense. Escobar seems like an excellent candidate in that sense, as he can both play SS (Even if he isn't great there), 3B and even some 2B. If 2B only is good enough, then Dozier is an option. A more long-term move could be on the cards even if you do like someone like Hiura a lot, assuming it's a versatile player. And I think the Brewers might be looking at this, with the reported interest in Derek Dietrich and Whit Merrifield. I personally believe Merrifield would be an excellent acquisition. He's probably not quite the 124 OPS+ player he's been this year, but he doesn't need to be. The batted ball profile and plate discipline suggest that he can maintain a level not far below that. He'll have 4 years of team control remaining after this year, and most crucially he can also play 3rd, LF and RF (And has even played CF). So he'd play most days at 2B, but would also eliminate the need to ever start Perez in RF. If Hiura is up next year it'd be a bit more of a crunch, but that's assuming no other moves are made. If Aguilar is for real then someone like Merrifield makes more sense on the roster than Thames. As would he make more sense than Aguilar if he hadn't had this big breakout. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if priority #1 right now is Machado. #2 is Merrifield/Dietrich if the price is right. If not then #3 is a rental liek Dozier or Escobar. Who you target would depend on whether it has to be a SS or if 2B only players are enough at this point. That last part could also be affected by an upgrade at C: If you get a good bat there, then that makes it more palatable to have less than stellar offense at SS but instead good defense there (Whether that's Saladino or Arcia).