Lathund

Well said. It bothers me too when all he's being viewed as is as a minor trade chip. Guys like him with the speed/power combination and the ability to play a premium defensive position are the ones you should stick with and see what you end up with. If he was putting up these numbers last year, everyone would be delighted. Last year was bad, but Corey responded to that year and a promotion to AA by improving basically every area of his game. That's exactly what you want to see. Age is just a number. He's still on track to (if he mkaes it) spend his peak years under Brewers team control. He'll be in AAA next year, with an ETA of second half 2019 (If injuries and such necessitate it) or more likely 2020. 2020 is Braun's last year, but injuries and decline could mean that he'll not spend much time on the active roster. Santana and Phillips have disappointed, while Brinson and Harrison are gone. There's certainly room for a RF or 4th OF on this roster for those years even with Cain and Yelich there. Another LH bat and speed on the bases adds further value. So to me he's someone you keep. But let's look at the case for trading him. His trade value isn't high at this point. On his own he won't get us more than maybe a rental reliever (Along the lines of Cordell for Swarzak perhaps). At best he'd be a 2nd piece in a trade for a decent rental starter (Someone like Happ). As a "throw-in" for a major trade, there are other players with lower ceilings (Or high-ceiling A/Rookie level players) we can add instead. So the upside of trading him is that we get some minor return now, any eliminate the "risk" of him never becoming a productive MLB player. He's not someone who's going to need Rule 5 protection this year or next, so there's no real clock on things, no real downside to letting him develop.

Managing innings for those two isn't something I worry about at all tbh. Plenty of ways to do it, whether through skipping starts, shorter starts, temporary bullpen move or whatever it might be. Not a difficult problem to solve, and some combination of Miley/Davies/Nelson/Wilkerson can pick up the "lost" innings. DS and CC will manage it just fine.

I feel good about any Machado deal happening or not happening, in that I trust Stearns to not get drawn into a bidding war. He'll have an idea of what he's willing to give up, and either that's enough or it isn't. If it isn't we simply move on. I believe that Stearns properly values MLB-ready pitching prospects, and will handle those guys appropriately. As for Arcia, I have some serious doubts about his hitting. It wasn't just the numbers looking bad this year, he simply looked completely lost. But trading him now would be seriously selling low. He's such a good defender that he doesn't need to hit all that well do be a solid everyday starter. If he ever gets to 85-90 OPS+ (He was at 89 last year) he'll be an above-average starter (i.e 2-3 WAR), and it would make sense to perhaps prioritize offense over defense at other spots instead.

With regards to the Brewers it says that Orioles want Burnes as the center piece of a deal, which the Brewers are unwilling to do, instead prefering to build a package around Ortiz and Phillips. From the Dodgers the Orioles are looking to acquire Gavin Lux, and the Dodgers aren't too keen on that. Other than that it talks a bit about the prospects in question, as well as the Dodgers interest in multiple other infielders.

All per the Brewers:

It's not really a dilemma tbh. Whether he'd improve us or not is easy; He would. By a lot. So that's no dilemma. As for the cost of acquiring him: You make your best assessment of how valuable he is going to be for playoff chances, and playoff success, this year. You create some offers commensurate with that value. That's either accepted, or it's not. It would only be a real dilemma if we were in any kind of "now or never" situation, where going all-in on this season was even an option. It's not, so there's nothing preventing a value-based approach (Which Stearns seems to stick to) to this move. If it makes sense and the price is reasonable, the move gets made. If it doesn't, he goes somewhere else and we don't get involved in a bidding war beyond what we want to give up. We're not at the point yet where a Chapman-style move would make sense. So stick to the plan. Go big only for a controllable asset.

Is he not free to accept the assignment to AAA? He is, if the Brewers chose to assign him there and don't simply release him. They're moving on. Otheewise they would have just optioned him again. So either they just decided to move on, or Eric didn't want to go back to the minors again this time which is his right as a veteran. Either way he's not going to Colorado Springs. That's probably the correct take, but there is also the chance that they'd happily keep him in CS but need to make room on the 40-man roster for Miley, Burnes or a new signing. Some injury-hit team might claim him, but there's a decent chance noone does.

I just don't see how there's room for Keon on the roster with Aguilar, Thames, Cain, Yelich and Braun already competing for the 4 OF+1B spots. If they go with a 5-man bench (And thus 7-man pen) it works, sending down Sogard and Perez/Orf when Cain and Saladino comes back. But in a 21 games in 20 day stretch, I'd rather go with the 8-man pen. Even over the 7-man pen with a rotating door at the bottom of it. And as I write this: Salad man is back, Sogard DFA.

He has looked a bit better this year, but keep in mind that both UZR and DRS require large sample sizes, and don't really stabilize until after 1½-2 seasons or so. Over about a third of a season they can be very wonky. Domingo Santana, even if he has improved somewhat, is not the 3rd best defensive RF in the major leagues.

I'm not expecting miracles from Orf, but what I do like is the .388 (.393 if including winter league) OBP that he has. Who knows how it'll translate to the majors, but it's 100+ points better than Perez/Arcia have been this year. In case of Perez, it's even 100 points above his career numbers. And in case anyone was wondering, Perez had a .308 OBP in the minors. Plus, I love underdogs. Undrafted free agents making it to the majors is great to see.

I'm really liking what Corey is doing so far. After a disastrous 2017, he moved up a level to AA. Has increased his walk rate by 2%, reduced strikeout rate by 3% (It's still high though), increased .ISO by 90 points. Currently sitting at 124 wRC+ and leads the league in XBH. This while playing a premium defensive position, and while being 19/23 in stolen base attempts as well. Again what's especially encouraging is that he got a pretty aggressive promotion after struggling, and responded very well. Bodes well going forward. Santana and Phillips are struggling, so if he keeps this up he can be a useful player. I think it's more worth it to stick with him and see how he develops, rather than use him as a 3rd piece thrown into some trade.

A bat or two should be the definite target(s) the way I see it. I see people on here, and in the media, talk about this offense being good. It isn't. It's not even in the top half in runs scored (17th) or wRC+ (19th). It is, at best, average. Whereas the run prevention is fine (5th in ERA-). It can get better too, of course, but it's fine. The 5 from Thames, Aguilar, Cain, Yelich, Braun, Shaw who play on any given day are absolutely fine, even if Braun is struggling. What creates the inconsistent offense is that the #6-#9 spots are a black hole offensively. Baseball being what baseball is, sometimes you score 5 runs on 4 hits, sometimes you score 1 run on 9 hits. When the top of the lineup either have an off day, or have one of those days where they hit but don't have runs to show for it, this team falters. The bottom of the order are rally killers, making too many outs. Among the players with 50+ PAs, 4 of them (Arcia, Sogard, Perez, Bandy) have combined for 460 PAs with none of them above .270 OBP. Few baserunners, even if you have power, is what creates a boom-or-bust offense. Even a 2017-style Sogard, who gets on base but has no power, would help this offense a lot. Sadly the 2018 version doesn't. So improve C, 2B, SS. Maybe Nottingham can be one of those guys, maybe Miller can. Or maybe they can't. But improve there, somehow. Could be Escobat, Dietrich, Merrifield, Cabrera or whoever. But it needs to be something. I'm even warming up to the idea of Machado. I still think the cost will be higher than it warrants for a rental, but at the same time I can't think of any single upgrade, anywhere, that would be as big an improvement without emptying the farm. Yeah, his SS defense hasn't been great, but using fWAR he has been 3.6 wins more valuable than Arcia at the halfway point (Yeah, Arcia hasn't had as much playing time. But he's at negative WAR, so more playing time at the same level would make the difference even bigger). There's the contextual effect of lengthening the lineup as well. If your #6 hitter is Ryan Braun or Eric Thames, you're doing quite damn well. deGrom might be similar in terms of wins added, but you could probably get Machado plus a rental like Happ without giving up Hiura or Peralta.

That's the types of moves I hope to see so I hope you're right. This team's weakness, now as it has been for the last couple of years, is on the offensive side of things. Since the start of 2016 (i.e even while the rebuild was still in full swing) Brewers are 23rd in wRC+ (22nd in runs), but 7th in ERA-. Current season for offense is slightly better, but not by much; 19th and 17th respectively. I'd be happy to see the rotation improve, but the big resources should be spent on the biggest need: Offense. Plugging the black holes towards the bottom of the order will do more for our playoff hopes than any starter will. So get a rental starter, maybe even a reliever is there's a Swarzak type deal to be made. But spend the big resources, whether it's in taking on salary or in pure prospect cost, on SS/2B/C. This offense simply isn't all that good, and it needs to get better. A C or middle infielder who can hit at even a league-average level will do so much for the offense. Lengthening the lineup to include 6 good hitters, and thus as a consequence slightly improving the bottom of it as well, will go a long way to making this offense more consistent.

The problem with trying to fit all these things into one or a few different stats is that it's really, really hard to quantify most of these things. Or to get big enough sample sizes. Or to weigh their importance against eachother. I'm not saying you can't make stats like these, and indeed there are stats out there that try to do this: Baseball Prospectus' Deserved Run Average (DRA) is one. It adjusts for park, league environment, batter (quality and handedness), catcher, umpire, defense, temperature, pitch types and anything you could imagine. And it does have a better predictive value for future ERA than FIP, and of course far better than ERA itself. (However I don't think that'd go over well on this website, as it has Oliver Drake as the 4th best pitcher on the Brewers behind Perez, Hader and Peralta, making the Drake haters seriously question its validity ) A stat like FIP is simple, easy to caclculate, has good predictive value, and is easy to understand. High K% and low BB% tends to give up fewer runs than the other way around. It does a good job of isolating what the pitcher alone can control. But doesn't account for how the pitcher interacts with the park, the weather, the defense or quality of contact. Adding these things onto the stat is the hard part; even something seemingly as simple as quality of contact. Is it exit velocity alone, or based on EV combined with launch angle? How does in which direction it's being hit factor into it? And is a hard ball hit into the shift any better or worse than a weak one away from it? Average EV or median? Distribution of artibtraily decided soft/medium/hard %? What I'm getting at I guess is that there's a choice between precise but limited (FIP) or imprecise but extensive (DRA). DRA is already good, and will likely improve. But there's the problem of not really understanding what the number means. It's like a black box spitting out a number, but you don't know how you got there or what it's based on even if it's accurate. To take an example: Knebel has a 3.38 ERA, 4.38 FIP. Houser has 1 ERA, 2.76 FIP. They have the same DRA (3.20 vs 3.29). Now in that particular case it's likely to do with leverage/quality of batter and HR/FB rate (Knebel isn't going to continue having 40% of his flyballs go for HRs, nor is that going to stay at 0% for Houser), but that's because we know these other stats. It's an improvement, it can at a glance compare pitchers both in results and with some predictive value. But since you still need other context to understand it, it doesn't offer as much beyond (x)FIP as you'd hope. So it's a bit like the greatest supercomputer in the universe spitting out "42" as the answer to the great question about the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Great, but what is the question?

I'm hearing it's 50/50, either it happens or it doesn't.

Assuming a short DL stint for Cain and Saladino coming back soon: C: Pina, Kratz (I wouldn't mind Nottingham there. But w/e) 1B: Aguilar 2B: Villar/Miller SS: Saladino/Miller 3B: Shaw OF: Braun, Cain, Yelich 1B/OF: Thames Util: Perez There's of course the option for a 5-man bench and rotating the last bullpen spot, but I prefer it this way tbh. Give Houser an extended look. Can get an extra bench bat for stretches where a 5th starter isn't needed. I'd also very much be in favor of trading Hernan Perez is there's a market for him, and seeing what Dylan Moore or even Nate Orf could do in that role. That extreme versatility is handy, but with 3 other SS-capable (Villar only when mid-game needs call for it, but still) players on the roster you only really need someone who can play 3B, 2B and corner OF. That .272 OBP and 70 wRC+ can be improved on. I don't believe in Orf/Moore as savours, but there's a good chance they beat that. And save $1.5m while doing it.

He still has a minor league option remaining, so if he's having issues I'd rather he was able to take his time in the minors, slowly working his way up to a full work load and be ready for next year, or if injuries hit later in the season.

When Broxton is on, he sure is on. Sure is an entertaining player.

It's a temporary move. So if you're going to add someone to the 40-man roster, you make it someone who you don't mind risk losing when DFAd when that spot is needed for Miley or Nelson or a new signing or whoever. Of course that's not the reasonn that CC or DS will give in an interview, but that plays a major part.

When looking at these potential trades there's not just the prospect cost to take into account, but also the monetary cost, the opportunity cost and also where the biggest needs are. Whether the $30m or so over 2019 and 2020 for DeGrom will be affordable or not depends on how high Mark A is willing to go, which we don't really know. It may, or may not, be a problem. Then there's the prospect cost. I wouldn't include Hiura. Not because he's a certain slam dunk or certain all-star or anything like that, but because his value to the team is so incredibly high if he even works out reasonably well. Middle infielder who can hit for average and with some Power (Albeit mostly of the double variety) and play anywhere even Close to average defense, controlled for 6-7 seasons? There's not really a lot of similar talent in the sysem. I'd hate to lose Peralta and Burnes as well; giving up MLB ready, or near to ready, starting pitching is generally something I don't like doing. You've taken most of the risk involved with developing pitching, and even getting a #4 starter for 6-7 years of team control is extremely valuable. Especially when they can be even more than that. But, considering we'd be getting one hell of a pitcher in return, and have other good pitching prospect in the high minors (Ortiz, Woodruff, Medeiros, Brown etc) I could live with a deal headlined by Peralta and Burnes but without Hiura. Even though I wouldn't like it. But that amount of young, cheap, controllable pitching is also another reason to not make a move like this now. Especially if the intention is for this competitive "window" to be a long one. Nothing is guaranteed with player development, but I'd like to see what becomes of our starting pitching. I'd love to have what the Cardinals have with their seemingly endless supply of home grown rotation arms. There's risk to that approach. You can end up with a bunch of busts and wish you'd "sold high" and end up "wasting" this "window". But to me the high risk high reward approach is the only way to build a WS quality team. I'm willing to live with that risk. As unorthodox as this pitching staff is, and as much as many of us seemingly wait for it to crash, it has performed really well for the better part of 2 years now. Joint lowest ERA- in the NL, joint 4th in MLB. Improving the position player side is more of a priority IMO, and Keston Hiura is one potential way to do that. I'd prefer a big trade at the deadline to be an improvement at SS/2B/C. Might not even have to be a big one; Swarzak and Walker were very valuable contributors last year, and didn't have to give up much for them. There could even be some very good rentals or salary dumps available for packages that won't cost any of the top prospects. Look at what JD Martinez fetched for instance. Nor would any such acquisition mean "giving up on" Arcia as some have suggested. He has minor League options remaining. Jacob deGrom is a fantastic pitcher. But 2½ seasons of him would cost 18 seasons of Hiura, Burnes, Peralta (Or if just 2 of them, then 6 years of some other pretty good prospect) and something like $30m. deGrom will make this team better in 2018 than even the most optimistic best case scenario for Hiura, Burnes and Peralta. Quite possibly in 2019 as well. But trading for the best available rental in 2018 while keeping those three and the $30m is a better move overall.

If he can play 3rd and OF it removes the need for Hernan Perez on the roster, and his bat should play better than Hernan's. C: Pina, Kratz/Nottingham/trade 1B: Aguilar 2B/SS: Miller, Saladino, Villar 3B: Shaw OF: Braun, Cain, Yelich 1B/OF: Thames 2B/3B/OF: Dietrich

With a .173 BABIP while having career high line drive % and hard Contact %, Sogard isn't as bad as his stat line so far suggests. Even with a normalized BABIP he's still not good (You'd expect something a bit better than his career average but below last year), but it'd be the kind of production that could justify the 25th spot on a roster for a fairly versatile LHB who gets on base at an above-average rate. So it's not about what he's done so far, but about what you can reasonably expect going forward. But it's also about 40-man roster management. Those spots will be valuable this offseason for rule 5 protection. If Sogard's days are numbered (Which I Believe they are) then you have to look at the cost of a temporary promotion of Moore/Hager/Orf/whoever else needs to be added to the 40-man. Whoever gets called up there likely goes back down when Saladino is back, or if Santana starts raking, or an 8th reliever is needed. And if they have any kind of success, they'll need to stay on the 40-man if we want to keep them for the future. That's a 40-man spot that then can't be used on a Corbin Burnes or Keston Hiura down the stretch. Or on a rule 5-eligible player in the offseason. So keeping Sogard until Saladino is back might be the better long term move. Consider also the impact that even a big improvement on Sogard has. Adding even 200-300 OPS matters very little if you're getting <10 PAs per week worth of that.

I'm not too concerned with Cain, but I'm really surprised to see Shaw not on the DL. With how much pain he looked to be in yesterday, and how it had seemed to affect him for a while, resting that wrist seemed like a no-brainer. The lack of other good 3B options was perhaps a factor; Perez can play defensively but doesn't hit well; Aguilar has like 1 game there. Sogard is Sogard. EDIT: Well, I guess I was concerned about the wrong one. Cain on the DL, Broxton recalled.

Been waiting for Santana to be sent down for quite some time now, glad it finally happened. Really hoping he regains some form in Colorado, so that he gains at least some trade value. If he were to finish the season with his current numbers and his last option year used, he's a non-tender candidate. Sogard has to be next in line for when a reliever is needed or when Saladino returns.

That highlights the ever present question of this year vs (the) next (few) year(s). Firstly one has to ask what kind of success can be had this year? And how far do we go to achieve that? As much as we like to not believe it, the Cubs are still very good. Winning the division will be very difficult, even with strengthening the rotation. It's not impossible, but the WC is still the msot likely route. How much to bet on a 1-off game? And if we win the WC or the division, how far can we go? People will answer these questions differently, but I have a hard time seeing that any acquisitions made ahead of this deadline makes the World Series realistic. We're not catching up to the Astros, Yankees or Red Sox this year. And for whatever struggles they have had so far this year, likely not to the Dodgers, Cubs or Nationals either. For a team like the Brewers to win anything, developing our players is the key. Acquisitions, whether through trade or free agency, can be part of it and can fill some holes, but when trying to build a contender you'll run out of currency (Prospects or salary space) long before you get there. So as much of it as possible needs to be homegrown (As in acquired as prospects, whether that is through trades or draft or international or minor league FA), to be supplemented by a few key acquisitions of established players. Keeping prospects, letting them develop and establish themselves, carries with it a lot of risk. I heard it said a lot around the last deadline that Stearns was risk-averse, or didn't have the courage to "pull the trigger" on big trades, when that's really the other way around. Trading prospects for major leaguers reduces risk (as in volatility) and uncertainty, but it reduces your potential winnings. Even in a balanced and fair trade where both teams assess the worth of players correctly, the team acquiring the prospects will, and should, get more overall production out of it. On average. As in, they could also get absolutely nothing. So when trading prospects for a presently valuable asset, you remove (To the extent that you ever can) the risk of getting nothing in exchange for getting a known quantity of something, at the cost of turning down your chance at the jackpot. Now, whether you do that or not should depend on this: Do you need to win the jackpot to reach your goal? Or is that "something" you acquire enough to get you there? I'd argue that for the 2018 Brewers, the former is the case. For the Cubs when looking at Chapman, for the Astros when looking at Verlander or for the Red Sox when looking at Sale I'd argue that it's the latter. This is all a long-winded way for me to say that my belief is that the Brewers should give up very little of the future in order to strengthen in 2018. I obviously don't know exactly what a DeGrom would cost, or that Hiura and Peralta/Burnes or Woodruff/Ortiz (As I find it hard to believe he would cost less than Hiura plus one from each pair) will ever amount to anything, but considering the rest of the roster I believe that the chance of success, and especially sustained success, is greater when *not* making that trade. Now, if it's a question of acquring the SP equvalent of Neil Walker or Anthony Swarzak (i.e a rental who will still contribute significantly in 2018) for the equivalent cost of Ryan Cordell or a PTBNL then by all means that's a different matter to me.