Lathund

There's a need (Or not a need, but it would be good to) to move someone. Santana is the one OF who we could get the most in return for. And there's a big difference in what Santana gets us compared to Aguilar/Broxton. If the team is looking to strengthen SP/2B through trade, then it pretty much has to be Santana.

EDIT: After re-reading the definitions, I can't say that my choices fit the categories all that well, but just take it for what it is. Breakout: Corey Ray. Considered him as bounce back, but as a pro he doesn't really have anything to bounce back to. Whatever you want to call it, I think we'll see considerably better things from him in 2018. Or rather, with his tools and his makeup I would much rather bet on him than against him even if things haven't looked good so far. While he certainly hasn't performed anywhere close to what you want to see from the #5 overall pick, you also have to take into account the environment in Carolina. A .698 and .678 OPS looks bad, but was still a 101 and 91 wRC+ respectively at a premium defensive position. Again, that needs to get better. But as long as the speed and CF defense are there, we can afford to give him time. I'll also mention Jean Carmona here, who I expect to have another strong showing. Honorable mentions: Erceg, Grisham, Dubon Bounceback: Jacob Nottingham. In a way he already did bounce back, but a lot of people didn't realise. They look at a .209 BA and think "bust" without giving it any further thought. Obviously, that BA needs to improve. But even looking at the overall numbers Nottingham produced a 103 wRC+ as a Catcher at a level he was 2 years young for still. He improved his walk rate by 3% and cut his strikeouts by 8%. Improved his .ISO by almost 50 points. And he did all that with a career low BABIP of 255. Getting even halfway from there to an average BABIP improves his stat line a lot. And he did this while improving behind the plate, with more runners thrown out and fewer passed balls. Honourable mentions: Luis Ortiz Bust: Brett Phillips. Now I should say that "bust" is really far too strong a term, a step back might be a better term. Phillips defense, versatility and power gives him a fairly high floor. But I think that expectations overall are a bit too high. People were low on Brinson and talked about him being "strikeout prone", but do compare his numbers to Phillips. He strikes out a lot, and a .400+ BABIP isn't sustainable, don't let last seasons numbers (In a small sample size) fool you. He has an MLB future, but his hit tool needs a lot of work for him to be an above-average starter, let alone more than that. I hope he's the last man standing in the 4th OF role this ST, and I look forward to him proving me wrong as it's a guy that's very easy to like and cheer for. Sleeper: Pitchers coming back from injury. Williams, Houser, Kirby, Bickford. They don't get talked about too much, but they all have the pedigree and if they are fully recovered from their injuries could all have breakout years.

I voted against the DH. For the simple reason that I prefer that all 9 players in the lineup play on defense, and all 9 play on offense. I don't particularly enjoy watching pitchers bat, but I do enjoy the strategic issues it creates. That being said, I do think the implementation of the DH is inevitable, and while I prefer having no DH it's not something I feel all that strongly about and won't be upset when/if it does happen.

I could see Shaw at 1B long term if Erceg turns out like we hope he will, but I don't see a move to 1B this year as we indeed don't have anyone else to play 3B.

I think the path forward depends on where the big free agents end up. The Archer trade should IMO only be an option if we can't get a Darvish. If we get Darvish, a lesser trade where we keep Woodruff/Burnes/Ortiz would be much preferable to me. Need more than just the 5 starters to be competitive, and in order to keep the starter depth needed you must have players with options left.

Not that I think it'll make much of a difference in the long run, but would have preferred the catcher without options (Bandy) DFAd/traded before the one with (Susac). Bandy might very well get claimed when he is inevitably DFAd, and then we'll have only Nottingham on the 40-man. And I really like Nottingham, and think he'll continue to improve, but I wouldn't be comfortable with him in the majors just yet. Bethancourt would need to be added to the 25-man roster if he was to be the backup if Vogt or Pina went down. And for the surprised about someone wanting Susac comments: It was guaranteed that he'd be claimed by someone. He was a top 100 prospect, who still has a minor league option remaining. Just takes one club with a favourable 40-man roster situation to take a flyer that he'd bounce back.

While I agree with you for games 1-162, in game 163 forward, I don't feel comfortable lining up anyone currently in the rotation in Game 1 and Game 5 versus Kershaw, Scherzer, etc... Then do what the Astros did; if you indeed look like a true contender, trade for that starter at the deadline. So much can go wrong even with the best laid plans, I'd rather overpay at the deadline in a year where I know for sure we'll compete, than make the same type of all-in moves during the offseason when noone knows what the season will bring.

I made an edit as I figured this would be the takeaway for many. Get that ERA- a further few points lower (As I think these five guys aren't being signed for their career averages but for what they are expected to do going forward) to 89 and that's a top 5 rotation. Nor is it taking into account Jimmy, nor that the prospects coming through can make it. And the point is that you don't have to have an "ace" to get to that top 5 level. It's not even a matter of not wanting an "ace", just that for what you give up for that ace you can potentially get more in return by spending the same on two #3s, or something else.

Well, he also just posted that according to his source, the team isn't expected to make a big free agent pitching acquisition. That would fall in stark contrast to a bunch of other sources, so we'll see. But if they are looking to firm up the rotation via trade for one or two starters, the farm system is going to take a serious hit. Yeah, no FA signing would be a contrast to about every other report. What if Broxton was traded for Corbin and Santana for Salazar in straight up deals? Would that move the needle for people? Just taking a couple of well discussed proposals already but that would keep the payroll still flexible and keep remaining prospects. Salazar Anderson Corbin Davies Chacin With Nelson returning at some point and Woodfuff in case of an injury or ineffectiveness. If we can't land Darvish, which if we're being honest was/is probably like a 2% chance, then I like Corbin as much as Arrieta, Lynn, or Cobb. I wouldn't mind that scenario (Or similar scenarios in terms of cost) at all. There's no true TOR type of pitcher in there (yet), but I also honestly don't think one is needed. Those five guys together have a career ERA- of 93; which would have been good for 8th best rotation in the majors last year (Ironically what the Brewers had...). I mean you want even better than that, but it just shows that even a bunch of "just" above-average pitchers gets you very far. The fact that Corbin (Or someone else like Ryu) is a rental is even a positive to me; less issues when/if Nelson is back or if Burnes/Ortiz/Suter/Wilkerson/whoever absolutely kills it. If they don't there'll be trades to be made next year too. Basically I'm in favour of any approach that keep the top pitching prospects here, something I think is key if we are to compete for more than just 2018 and possibly 2019. Injuries happen, regressions happen. You need 7-8 starters per season, you need depth, you need prospects to fill in when you lose starters through injury or retirement or free agency. The Yelich trade took a chunk out of the system, but so far it's just one move. There's nothing to suggest the "window" can't be a long one; Parts of the team is set for years now, but if we keep as much of the top talent on the farm as possible the internal replacements can keep things going for longer. There are no guarantees, Lutz and Hiura and the likes might be busts. But I would rather take that chance, and have the chance to be competitive for years than just bet everything on a 2-3 year window.

Most Brewers players have a very limited track record in the majors, and several had career years in 2017. While humans, with context, can say that at least some of those breakout performances are in fact sustainable, a stats-only projection cannot. So such a projection system will not rate those players very highly, and create some rather absurd results. Chase Anderson isn't all of a sudden an ace, but it's unlikely that he'll post an ERA/FIP significantly worse than his career numbers. Likewise with Zach Davies. As mentioned before, even Fangraphs themselves say the model is likely too harsh on the Brewers, and that ZiPS (Which will be added to the projections soon, once all teams are done) will be more favourable. There's definitely a time and place for data-based projections, as they can do certain things better than our subjective opinions. But there are also areas where they come up short, which I hope this will be an example of.

Posted this in the Yelich trade as well, but BP Milwaukee looked at the two big OF moves, and seem to really like the Cain signing http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/01/30/cain-and-yelich-renegotiating-surplus/

An interesting take on the value of the Yelich trade (And the Cain signing) from BPMilwaukee: http://milwaukee.locals.baseballprospectus.com/2018/01/30/cain-and-yelich-renegotiating-surplus/

I've thought about Ryu too. If the Dodgers sign Darvish, they have a ton of starting pitching and Ryu could probably be had relatively cheaply. I'm fine with a 1-year signing if it keeps our top pitching prospects in Milwaukee. After 2018 we should know a lot more about what Woodruff,Ortiz, Burnes, Peralta et al are all about and if some can be counted on in the 2019 rotation.

Am I alone in thinking that we shouldn't actually look to acquire a ready-made TOR starter? It's extremely expensive (either in salary or prospects) and there are no guarantees that someone who has been a TOR guy remains one after signing; pitchers flame out. Or more accurately, it's extremely expensive in relation to what else you could get instead. Getting even league average run prevention from the innings that last season went to Guerra, Peralta and Milone will make a serious difference. It's not that I don't want TOR type starters, I just don't see acquiring them at that stage of their career as being necessarily a good move. If it takes two from the AA-ML pitching prospects, then it really does limit us once the next rotation hole needs to be filled (Through injuries or players flaming out, or in 2-3 years when player start becoming FAs) since there won't be internal options there. Even in a "win now" approach, part of it relies on having depth, on not being a starter injury away from the whole thing collapsing. To maintain the amount of starters you need to handle adversity, while having a sustainable 25-man roster, you need players with options. Suter and Woodruff can likely do a decent job starting right now. Ortiz, Peralta and Burnes can hopefully do it soon. Even when trying to win now, there has to be room for some guys like this, even if it is as 6th and 7th starters in AAA. I'd simply look to get the best pitcher we can for Santana alone, or Santana + lottery ticket(s). i.e not giving up our top pitching prospects. That won't be a "proven, controlled TOR starter" type (Archer is probably the only one of that kind available, and even then there's 20 pages debating how good he really is...), but it could perhaps be a mid-rotation starter with some upside. Could even look to acquire a 1-year rental and see what Ortiz, Burnes, Peralta, Woodruff, Suter (And to a lesser extent Houser, Williams, Wilkinson, Derby) do during that year. Even if we're entering a window, it's not a 1-2 year one. Not all moves have to be made this very minute. If none of the guys mentioned look to be the real deal ahead of 2019, a move can be made then. Or to put it more succinctly: Acquire good pitchers with upside, and hope one turns into a TOR guy. Replace your #4 and #5 with #3s. Replace your 6th/7th starters with #4s or #5s. These things alone get you far. And if some of your #3 guys turn out better than expected, well you've got a winning rotation. And doing it this way keeps more decent prospects around for the future, or for other trade needs.

If the window gets long enough, you get to a point where it's no longer a window but you are in fact in a gazebo. How long that is may be up for debate though. Anyway, I'd argue that the moves so far only really signal an ambition to start winning, not an all-in move. After all, it's been just one trade so far. We have a $90m payroll, all key players for 3 or more years, and still have several top 100 prospects and a very deep farm system. There are many ways to go from here. Sure, if we trade for Fulmer or Archer or someone similar, and give up the top prospects we'd have to for that to happen, then that signals a likely all-in approach and a clear window. But say for example that we trade Santana and some minor pieces for a pitcher in the tier below those two in cost, and then sign Neil Walker to a reasonable deal. There's still a strong farm system to back up a strong major league club. If you take the approach to try to develop internal replacements (Which is a risk of course) then there need not be a window. It becomes a window if fewer than expected prospects pan out of course, but you at least have a chance to try extend it (To the point where it might as well not exist) if you so choose. It's not even an either-or approach, it's the balance between reducing risk (And shortening/creating a window) by trading 3 prospects for an established player, or taking a risk and going for sustained success by letting those 3 players develop. The next couple of moves will tell us a lot about which approach the Brewers have in this.

Can't see Cleveland doing their part of the proposal. Mejia or McKenzie (the untouchable) is worth a lot more than D Santana and a "throw in". I disagree, santana is pre arby and has had success in the majors. 3+ WAR players with a potential for more dont grow on trees and hes got 5(4*) years of control The problem might be that, such as suggested in the Crasnick report from the winter meetings, that other teams don't really believe much in potential for more. And perhaps not even that the current level is sustainable. The strikeouts, the swing and miss, and the perceived batted ball luck (BABIP, HR/FB rate, IFFB%) perhaps plays into that. That's not to say he won't attract interest, but I think many of us Brewers fan are overestimating the return we could get.

True, but I'm going to go ahead and place my faith in HH19 at this point. He made no bones about it being an AL team. The guy is batting a thousand I believe him, been spot on so far. But he could be 100% correct that that's the plan, and it still ending up with an NL team coming in late with a better offer.

I haven't posted anything on the trade yet, because I'm still unsure exactly what to think. Not that I'm indifferent to it, just that I see both some real positives and real negatives, and I'm not quite sure how I value them and what the end result is. So I'll just use this post to sum up some of the points and see where I land afterwards. Beware of some rambling. To start with, I should say that I don't think this was the year to make the big moves, I would have preferred to use 2018 to see if 2017 was real, to allow some top prospects to graduate and get ML playing time. But, I'll try to not let that get in the way of the analysis, as I can also see that the depressed FA market (Cain would've been long gone at a higher AAV in most previous years), the Marlins fire sale and the huge 2019 FA class and the incoming 40-man crunch making some arguments for why making these moves now makes sense. We should first take a moment to appreaciate how rare the Yelich trade is. It's a 4-WAR (Average over his first 4½ seasons) All-star outfielder, under contract for 5 years (Or 4 years + team option, which is even better), through his age 26-30 seasons for an extremely team-friendly amount. The 5 years in particular, for such an established player, are very very rare. Even rarer that they get traded. The years of team control in particular will reflect the cost; when we compare this trade to other trades, nearly all of the comparisons are for fewer years, or higher salaries. And yet it gets judged by the same standard as those by many. Trades are always hard to judge as one can't predict the future. But there are projections and predictions (And Yelich is young, consistent and seemingly durable (155 and 156 games in 2016 and 2017) so should be comparatively easy to project), and there are very few players expected to be more valuable at the time of a trade than Yelich; at least I struggle to come up with any examples. (In a vacuum that is; Chapman was infinitely valuable in that he may have been the difference between WS and no WS, but not in raw numbers). There simply aren't many opportunities to acquire players like this. There aren't many 26 year old FAs either; Bryce Harper will be one, and is clearly a better player. But that's also going to be the biggest contract ever, likely $400m+. Stanton had averaged less than 0.5 WAR more than Yelich (And was a year younger tbf) when signing his for $325m. What would Yelich get? I don't know, I'm not a great judge of the FA market, but it would be the kind of deal a club with a budget like the Brewers would never, ever make. So what I'm trying to say is that this is the only way to get a player like this. Brinson could become one, but probably not straight away. Meaning there'd need to be an early extension to make full use of it. And with more risk. And risk brings us to the next point. Even a fair veteran for prospects trade is lopsided. The immediate (and 1-2 year) return is in favour of the club trading the veteran, and the overall value over the years of control is in favour of the other club. That's just the nature of it. You pay a premium for certainty. I would think it's not unreasonable to expect that Yelich will produce 15-25 WAR over the 5 years of control. The projections for Diaz, Harrison, Brinson and Yamamoto are much, much wider. With high-risk and high-ceiling prospects like Brinson, Harrison and Diaz it's even tougher than usual. The best case scenarios for Harrison and Brinson (i.e their hit tools becoming even above average) are superstars, 5+ WAR players, so 30 WAR each over their years of team control. Or they could never establish themselves in the majors. Or be 4th/5th OF types. Or simply average starters. Even when discounting the most unlikely outliers (i.e none of them making the majors, or all of them becoming superstars) you still have a very wide range. But even then, when weighing the various projections and scenarios together by their likelyhood you still end up at an expected value higher than the average for Yelich. So, in that sense it's an 'overpay'. Every veteran for prospects trade is, by design. For one team a narrow and fairly certain range of outcomes is more valuable, at this time, than a more uncertain outcome but with a higher average outcome. So you're paying for certainty and decreased variance. You're also paying for knowing when you're getting that production, from which playing position, and in what manner. The Yelich trade is a great example of this IMO, where the prospects are very high risk and high variance and the veteran is very consistent and low risk. There's also the fact that the three highest rated pieces in the deal were all position players, and the pitcher included wasn't one near the majors. Pitching prospects are much more volatile, much harder to predict. So if sustained success for the next 4-6 years or so is what you want, keeping hold of your AA and AAA (and ML) pitching prospects makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe the cost of the deal could have been lower had some top pitching prospect been included, but as much as much as I believe in Harrison and Brinson I value developing internal pitching options more. There's higher development risk in pitchers (TINSTAAPP and all that), but that's the kind of risk a small market team can bear, hence focus development on pitching. They also have a higher economic risk when making signings, but that's one risk a small market team can't bear, so I'd focus on position players there. So yeah, while I think the overall package could have been less had a Woodruff or Burnes or Ortiz been included, I'm still happy with this. While this seems to signal a change in approach, I still don't believe it as an "all in" move. It's a move (Or moves, if we factor in Cain and the likely Santana trade) to signal the start of a competitive window (Which might be the kind of window that is intended to stay open for a loong time, or a "soft" window, or "Cardinals-style" type of approach, or whatever you want to call it), it's a move to shift from high-risk to low risk. By which I mean that a focus on retaining and developing all top, high-celing prospects, like Harrison, Brinson and Diaz, is perhaps the best way to build a true WS-favourite, a kind of one in a generation team. But it's also an approach that gives a pretty good chance of hardly ever going to the playoffs if things go wrong. Somehow I was a lot more against this type of move before it happened; looking at a prospect list and imaging those three names gone felt a lot worse than looking at the same lists now without these guys. It's still a strong system. The fact that they were traded for five full years of a young player helps; it's not a short-term move. The OF is set for several years now, but that just gives time for Grisham, Ray, Stokes, Lutz and the rest to develop quietly. That's the beauty of a deep system. There's also the matter of what we do with Santana and in the FA market. It's still possible that the strengthening of the current rotation comes from free agency, say Alex Cobb. And that Santana is used to replenish the system. Won't bring a Harrison/Brinson/Diaz package of course, but perhaps prospects in a position of weakness. Looking at it like that, the balance off this offseason isn't either rebuilding or "going for it" in the traditional sense. It's a shift towards winning now, or winning soon(er), but more like reshaping than anything else. I don't think we'll see a massive buying spree, I still think that the team will rely a lot on the prospects (mainly pitching) to fill major roles in the team over the next few years and not just be used as trade chips. A big question to ask though is how far these moves take us? Is it enough to be truly competitive? Was it too soon? Will we be caught somewhere inbetween, with neither the future value or present value we'd like? I guess that this already very long rant hasn't really brought any answers, so I'll stop for now (40-man issues being one thing I never even got to!). But the overarching feeling I get, surprisingly considering my views before the trade (and the Cain signing) is a fairly positive one. And that's despite believing that Brinson will be a huge success (And possibly he would not have been that here, not being given the development time needed during a competitive push), that Harrison is very high risk but worth it due to the sky-high potential, and that Diaz will be a productive MLB starter. But it depends also on what the next step is. I want these moves, and possible future ones, to supplement a focus on developing our own talent. Not as the starting signal for a series of short-term moves.

Yelich is a fantastic player, and would be an immediate upgrade who's under team control for a reasonable salary for 5 years. So I certainly wouldn't mind if he suited up for the Brewers next year. However I don't Think it's the best use of resources: For one thing he'll be very, very expensive. Yelich is a player who's valuable to basically every team in the League that isn't either completely set and committed in CF for the foreseeable future, or who are just entering a rebuild. It'll take a massive haul, anything less than that and someone else will come in and offer just that. I've seen many posts essentially saying "He's better than Brinson, and it's probably likely Brinson doesn't become better, so we should make the trade". I don't necessarily disagree with the premise; Brinson could be an all-star CF, or his hit tool could never develop or he has injury struggles etc. But it's not Brinson for Yelich, it's Brinson plus 2-3 other good prospects. There's also an opportunity cost; Could those prospects bring back more of an improvement if spend on pitching? Yelich is an upgrade, but from Brinson, Phillips, Harrison, Ray, Grisham, Lutz et al I Think it's worth rollling the dice that one or two will turn into good players. Yelich also isn't the great defensive CF that Stearns seems to want, and if Yelich is signed more as a corner OF then trading away one (or both) of our top ML-ready CF prospects doesn't seem too wise. There are obviously many different permutations; exactly who will we need to part with? Will there also be a Santana trade for pitching? Signing Cain? Some scenarios I like more than others, but in most of them I still find that I prefer to skip the Yelich trade. Trade Santana+ for pitching, keep both our young CFs, and sign Cain if you want to improve the OF for the next couple of years is my preferred course of action. Simply standing pat in the outfield and signing a FA pitcher honestly isn't the worst thing either, even if that likely means some dead Money in a few years.

Clear payroll to sign Darvish and then Harper, Machado, or Kershaw next year. Or all of them. Unless they are militant about staying under the tax threshold next year as well, I don't think giving up major value to rid themselves of Ellsbury matters. They won't care at all about the luxury tax next year. If they stay under this year they'll reset the penalties to a lower level. At some point they'll want to get below it again to reset, but in a year where Harper and Kershaw are possibly available, it's not going to be that year.

Re: Shaw. I don't think the Brewers want to trade him. But I think it's a backup plan to trading Santana for (pitching) prospects and replacing him with a FA (Cain); if the market for Santana isn't there, then Shaw is really the only comparable player to make that kind of deal.

I mean I'm not too keen on the idea of adding 30+ pitchers on big contracts. But if we had to do it, I'd want it to be Darvish as I'm a big fan.

If there is indeed anything to the Cain/Moose rumours (and thus the related Santana/Shaw trades), I do see what Stearns is trying to do; acquire (potentially) elite prospects essentially in exchange for salary. As a concept I don't mind it, it's a creative way to turn payroll flexibility into future assets, and if the return would be a Zach Davies type of prospect even into more immediate production. His batted ball profile does seem to be ideal for Miller Park, and he's a 29 year old who seems to have improved in his mid-late twenties. So I don't even hate this particular deal, in principle. So it really does depend on the haul for Shaw, and the deal for Moustakas. With the slow FA market and the Yankees (and others) looking to stay under the salary cap, there might indeed be a chance that he might not get a Boras-like contract. As always, I think Stearns has a price he's willing to pay, and will stick to it. It seems like the Brewers have those kinds of offers to a lot of FAs; if their demand drops low enough, we'll sign them. There are a lot of moving parts here, but I approve of Stearns looking at every type of move in order to improve. And I'm confident that this is only something that would happen if the offers on both fronts were highly favourable.

Darvish for 5/80-90??!? Essentially that article is making two points. One is that the comparatively small return for Cole, which the Yankees, who were very much in the running for Cole, could easily have matched, would suggest they have someone else in mind, who makes sense financially. Which I agree with; and that could very well be Darvish. But then goes on to claim they seem to think he's available for 5 years and 80-90 million, which I really can't see happening. Surely at that point several other teams would come in with 5/95 or w/e, there's room to outbid that. I'm very much against the big FA deals for players 30+, but at that price even I would't mind. Admittedly that would be as much due to how much I like to watch Darvish pitch as it would due to it being the best move, but still.

Nobody questions the tools and talent for Brinson. But tools and talent don't always equal production (see Jason Heyward). He seemed overmatched in his first taste against major league pitching and this is a guy who fanned 191 times in low A ball. Since 2015, he's spent most of his time in very hitter friendly environments. To his credit, he's produced like he should there and the strikeout rate has come down considerably but there has to be some concerns. 55 plate appearances. He had a BABIP of .107. This for a guy who had the 17th highest average exit velocity in MLB and who is a very good runner. Or in other words, it's likely a matter of a small sample size and bad luck. There are adjustments to make, something his strikeout rate in the minors has shown that he can, but even if he does exactly the same thing he has done in his 55 PAs so far over his next 600, the results will be significantly better. Injuries are the only concern for me, but nowhere near enough to make me want to trade him. It's a player with a very high upside, this close to the majors who will be under team control for the years we expect to be competitive. You roll with that and give him every chance to make it in Milwaukee. He's one of the last outfielders in the entire system we should be looking to trade at this point IMO.