Lathund

The loss yesterday was a lot harder to take than this. Blazek and Peralta just didn't have it, and it happened against one of the best offenses in the league. The negatives are quite obvious here, but to look at some positives from the series we also did shut the Nationals out, 8-0. Zach Davies and Jimmy Nelson had two excellent starts. Lewis Brinson is hitting. The great thing about baseball is that even the worst loss is just one loss, and there's a new game tomorrow.

Worth pointing out the defenses role in this as well. The guy scoring from first even after falling down between 3rd and home should have been out against most RFs. That flyball out to Braun should probably be caught as well. Didn't see a replay of the plays at first so can't say for sure, but looked like more could've been done there too.

Bullpen should be relatively fresh at this point, so could be a move to a 12-man pitching staff for a while, i.e Swarzak and Brinson replacing two pitchers. But yeah, the timing of it and this clearly not being a planned move would suggest injury or trade. Or, far less likely, a Miguel Montero situation or something else off-field.. Whatever the case, it's hard to guess what's going on. You'd think it's an outfielder who will be absent. But with Perez being the 4th OF, him being needed in the infield (If this concerns Villar, Sogard, Arcia, Shaw) would also necessitate an OF being called up. Whatever the reason may be, I hope the promotion is permanent and Lewis gets a chance to adapt to the majors. Should be an interesting day regardless!

I know that at least a few weeks ago, Zach was leading the majors in sacrifices. Seems to consistently bunt quite well. EDIT: Still does. Tied for the lead with 9.

I like Cordell, think he'll have a pretty good MLB career. Unfortunately for him, Santana and Braun are in the majors to stay. And he's competing with Broxton, Phillips and Brinson for the remaining spots. So it's not a huge loss. If we suffer a spate of injuries in the outfield we'll still have Broxton, Brinson, Wren and Captain Kirk in AAA. And Hernan Perez for that matter. You'd think that even with a good second half of the season, he shouldn't be all that expensive to sign to an extension. But yeah, that's a later discussion.

It seems to me to also be about an attempt to make fun of the people who diagree with his view, i.e the ones who want to stand pat. Create a strawman that anyone worried about overpaying is being ridiculous and that we think any trade at all "would ruin the rebuilding process". Using batting average and plain falsehoods to say that a 20 year old in A+ (2.5 years younger than the league average) producing 120 wRC+ is somehow a disaster. Not the first thread started for that purpose either.

You link to an article that reports that both the Brewers and Braves (Among a half dozen other teams) are interested in Gray. Both teams have been linked to him, neither team has actually signed him. Yet the Braves are doing the right thing when it comes to Gray, and the Brewers aren't? At least try to make some sense.

Not entirely true. If the Brewers can trade for someone who can help for the next 3+ years they should trade for them. Someone like Dee Gordon would be a good trade target kind of a win now and is signed through 2022 I believe at a fairly friendly contract. I would eliminate Gray and Verlander from the list along with a few others. Definitely no to relief pitchers. Dee Gordon is 29 already and can't hit. His contract is really not very friendly either, you are probably paying over 7M per win by 2019. He would bring some value on defense but not enough to actually give players up for him. I mean I get the idea but that would be a really poor target. Indeed. We also have an inhouse option in Mauricio Dubon, if base-stealing slap hitters with good defense is something we're looking at. Obviously no guarantee that he'll be as good as Gordon, but worth exploring if we can get similar production for $9.5m less per year and without giving up any prospects. He's also one of those prospects I feel perhaps irrationally positive about so I'd like to see him given a chance. And before he's ready, we have Jonathan Villar. I'm not a big fan of his, and I think it's 2016 that's the aberration rather than 2017. But that being said, the upside we know is there (Regardless of how likely, or not, you think he is to reach it again) means that it makes sense to not give up on him yet. No matter how frustrating he is to watch right now.

He's not that young. It's not impossible he figures it out and lowers his K rate, but not very likely. One thing I've been wondering, has he had his vision tested? Who know, maybe he's in the same situation as Gatewood. Even if vision is tested, is he the type of guy that just doesn't want glasses or contacts? You would think they check for this every year, but I don't know that for a fact, or how in depth the exam is. Broxton does appear to be squinting at times. A long shot I know, just throwing it out there. If nothing else, I would imagine that with the ball he took to the face earlier this season his vision would have been tested, considering where he got hit.

Or a great plan when he continues to pitch like he has of the course of most of his career and then Hader sticks in the bullpen and Woodruff pulls a Peralta and gets DFAd in four years. We can all make assumptions as to what is going to happen but the fact is none of us know. Gray could very well spend most of the next two seasons hurt. He could also spend the next two seasons pitching like he did in 2015 and receive Cy Young votes. I just don't understand this reliance people want to have on our pitching prospects. Hasn't history taught you anything? The liklihod that they all reach their potential is almost nil. If all of our prospects fail, then it simply isn't meant to be and we need to draft/develop new prospects and hope some pan out. Our prospects panning out are the only way we will consistently compete. It's nice for Boston that they can trade away 2 prospects of the highest caliber/ceiling and supplement any shortcomings by throwing gobs of money at high end free-agents. The Brewers don't have that luxury. The only way we will get star caliber players is to draft/develop and bring them through the system, or trade away a ton of prospect value for 1-2 years of a star-caliber player. The more prospects we keep in the system, the better our odds. It's a numbers game, as so many prospects fail. Hence why I have no desire to dump some of our highest ceiling, near mlb ready talent for 2+ years of a #2/3 best case scenario before our team is truly ready to contend. Agree 100%. Of course there are no guarantees that our prospects, any of them, will pan out. But betting on that is indeed the only way to see sustained success for a small market team. Need to take that risk in order to see any chance of a potential reward. The attitude of "we need to trade our prospects before they lose their value" will get us nowhere. We don't know which of our prospects will make it and which ones won't. That's the whole point of a deep farm system. We have an outfield logjam that at some point will need to be adressed, but it doesn't have to be right now. And it shouldn't be as part of a bidding war. A team like ours needs to build for success long term. It's about finding and maximizing value whereever we can. And that involves finding most of our core players from within, or aquiring them cheaply whenever there is a chance to do so. Which David Stearn so far has shown every sign of attempting to do with waiver claims, minor league free agent signings and such. Sonny Gray to me makes sense if you believe he significantly increases our chances of going deep in the playoffs. I don't believe that to be the case, despite thinking he's a very good pitcher who will significantly improve our rotation. Maybe not an "ace", but a very good #2 type of pitcher. I believe the team needs far more than that. And so with that in mind, giving up 18(-24) years of, say, Hader/Ortiz/Woodruff/Burnes + Phillips + whichever 3rd/4th prospect(s) are involved, for 2½ years of Sonny Gray isn't worth it to me. Because I feel that's the way you have to look at it. Up until the point where you have so many pieces already in place that the (relative) certainty of high production for the short term can get you to what you desperately want; the World Series. So spending big on Quintana or Gray or Darvish or whomever makes perfect sense for the Cubs. It may make perfect sense for the Brewers in a couple of years time, when we have the offense, defense and bullpen to support them. But to me it doesn't make sense now. At least not at the prices that are seemingly being quoted. If the quoted price for Quintana or Gray was within what DS was comfortable with, I'm sure he would have done the deal. If it's more than that, you just walk away. Overpaying just because "you have to" or because "that's what it takes" or any similar reasoning is a losing game. At the stage where the Brewers are at now, ask yourself this: Would you make the same deal regardless of the current standings, or in the offseason? If yes, then it's a worthwhile trade. If not, it isn't.

CGSO for Aaron Wilkerson. 9 IP, 2H, 0R, 1BB, 7K. And he went 2-for-3 at the plate as well. Quite a game!

I love watching Yu Darvish pitch. A player I would love to see in Milwaukee. However I don't see a way that this deal makes sense for the Brewers, as Darvish will be an expensive rental who we'd be very unlikely to sign to an extension. I just so badly wish it wasn't so...

Wrote a really long post that went into depth on team building philosophy, on scrapping the idea of rebuild vs win now philosophies and such. And then closed the browser window like the idiot that I am. Anyway, the gist of it was essentially that trading for Gray, Quintana and the likes makes perfect sense for the Cubs, Astros, Dodgers and the likes. I'd say the Quintana deal would've made sense for the Cubs even at a higher price. It (Trading for someone like Gray) even makes sense for us up to a certain point; depending on what we give up. With the high demand, and the likely bidding war that's the result of that, it makes less sense. We're at the point where we are justified in strengthening, but only if it matches our valuation. You look at the value of 2,5 years of Gray vs 6 years worth of team control for the prospects you give up; and you also take into account what that extra production now of a Gray/Quintana means for your World Series chances. For the Cubs, Jimenez and Cease were probably 2 years or more away from the majors, their true value likely even further away. If their window is open for 3-4 years, they essentially gave up very little. So I look at our current team. It's not bad compared to the league as a whole, but compare it to the other playoff teams and I'd say we're going to be the worst, or perhaps second worst, team in there. Sonny Gray would help us get to the playoffs, but would do very little to help us win the WS as we have several other areas that need improvement. And to me that's why you go for big trades like this, if you believe that you're just 1-2 pieces away from the WS. And I really, really don't believe we're anywhere near. And so if what we're aiming for is merely a playoff spot, and we don't have a clock ticking on our "window", then I firmly believe that the only way we should be looking at buying is if it's at the price we're comfortable with. We're a small market team, we need to maximize our value and not overpay or undersell. Or perhaps in other words; is this a trade we would do in a non-deadline scenario where the current standings were of no concern, one that even in the offseason would make sense to us? If yes, do it. If no, stay away.

Santana leading off tonight. Highest OBP on the team behind Babe "GOAT" Sogard and, of course, Brent Suter, so makes sense to me.

If this team is as close to competing as it apparently is, why trade Santana at all? He is literally exactly what you are looking for on a competitive/rebuilding team: young, improving, controlled. He's locked up until after 2021. I know we are OF rich, but why take the gamble on Phillips or Brinson when you know what Santana's floor is and he hasn't reached his prime/potential yet? I think Broxton makes much more sense to replace than Santana. Just seems like an unnecessary risk to trade what you know you have for a SP and then move in a prospect where you don't 100% know what you have, when you could just move the prospect plus a few lower pieces and keep the proven guy. I much rather trade Ray/Ortiz/+ for Gray or if it came down to it Brinson/+ than explore something with Santana at this current moment. Why not Broxton? Because we won't get much at all in return. I'm not actively trying to get rid of Santana, but looking at the outfield logjam we have coming up I simply feel that he's the one outfielder we have that other teams would overpay for. Anyone else we trade, we'd be trading away at a discount. I look at what we lose at a position of strength, vs what we could get at a position of need. Yes it's a risk, but I believe 6 years of Brinson will be of more value than 4 years of Santana. Anyway, I know I'm firmly in the minority in my position on deals of this kind, and that's fine. It comes from the belief that in general the premium you pay for "certainty" in established big leaguers is too high. You take on significant risk with betting on multiple prospects instead of that one proven player, but not enough risk to justify their low trade value. This thread is about Gray though, so we should stick to that. I brought this up in relation to someone who suggested including Santana in the Gray deal at this trade deadline, which I am against as it weakens us too much over the rest of the season. I agreed with him in the more long term though, that a Santana trade could be a net positive.

I've mentioned in a couple of threads that I think Santana is someone we should explore the trade market for, as I believe he's more valuable to an AL team with limited outfield options than he is for us, an NL team with a lot of outfield prospects and depth. But even with that view, I don't think it's the right move to make at this trade deadline. I simply don't see the market for a bat-first outfielder/DH being all that great at the moment. It's something to explore in the offseason, where I think the market could be better. And while I think Brinson and perhaps even Phillips will, over their respective remaining team control, be more valuable than Santana, they won't be more valuable this season. Even with the significant defensive upgrade. They'll need time to adapt. If anything what I'd prefer is an indirect trade of Santana for Gray. Meaning we trade prospects for Gray now, and trade Santana for prospects in the offseason. Where Santanas value is likely higher (esp if he keeps playing like he has and stays healthy), and where we'd have more (I would imagine) potential trade partners, and thus can also find the type of prospects we like. I'd also be curious to find that out, though I expect we never will. My guess is that he wasn't. If he was, I don't think there would've been much trouble putting together the rest of the deal. Jimenez and Cease are highly rated prospects, but both quite far removed from the majors. Brinson is much closer, as are any of our major pitching prospects (Burnes, Hader, Ortiz, Woodruff) which makes them less risky than Cease. And I'd imagine as the 3rd/4th pieces of the deal we could include better prospects than the Cubs did, without touching our top 10-15 guys. As you say though, it could be that the secondary piece was someone DS absolutely did not want to give up, but I don't think that is as likely.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I see Santana as someone we should at least explore the trade market for. I think he's a very good hitter, and he is young enough to potentially get even better (I don't expect that, but it's possible). But he's also a defensively poor corner outfielder, playing for a NL team with significant outfield talent and prospects at all levels. He's valuable to us, as he would be to any team. But his value is even greater to an AL team with little outfield depth. If we can strengthen our rotation, without giving up major pitching prospects, in exchange for Santana (Plus probably some lesser prospects) I'm open for that. If we trade Braun (Seems unlikely now) I'd be more inclined to keep Santana for the long term. One bat first poor defender in the outfield is OK, two starts to hurt. All that being said, I'm also happy to keep Santana around for a long time to come. He will produce offensively. I just think he can be even more valuable as a trade piece, if the demand for such a player is there. As for Jimmy, I believe in his breakout. He always had the stuff, but pitching is as much about having that as putting it together. There's also a significant mental side to it, and that can take time to master. His pitch selection is different this year, and seems to work better. He's done some mechanical changes, which is perhaps what's allowing him to throw strikes more consistently; which is what I believe the major difference is. Statistically there's nothing that suggests a regression either from what I can see. His FIP and xFIP are exactly in line with his ERA. HR/FB ratio is at about his career avg. In fact his BABIP, at .330, is even higher than his career .303 avg. He's getting half the % of infield fly balls compared to his career. If anything, he should give up even fewer hits than he is. I doubt Shaw is a .300 hitter going forward, and I expect he'll not hit HRs at quite the same rate (IFFB% and HR/FB % would certainly suggest that as well), but even with some regression he's a very useful player going foward.

At least Scahill is efficient. Needed only 7 pitches to load the bases.

I agree that we should be careful with that. But it's also a question of how much the A's would value the likes of Broxton or Santana. If including an MLB bat means we don't give up any pitching, then that should be something to at least consider. Probably won't end up doing it, but I'd not dismiss the idea entirely.

DJ and Vogt do add another dimension to it. I already trust Stearns and his analytics/scouting departments, but with the extra knowledge involved here I feel that whatever the decision is on Gray, it'll be a well-founded one. I still fear the price will be too high for my taste, but I also have far more confidence in Stearns than in my own ability to judge that I still suspect that the starter we end up with won't necessarily be one we expect. It could be a cheap (In terms of prospects, maybe not salary) rental or 1½ season type veteran. Or a mid-backend starter who's stock has fallen but where there's potential. I know the overall ambition is young and controllable talent, but with plenty of that in the minors there's no contradiction in making short-term deals if they don't cost us much in the way of prospects.

That's one ugly first inning.

I absolutely agree...we must deliver out harsh punishment for attempted humor...especially when it's noted in the title. Not that I agree about account suspensions, but it wasn't in the title to begin with. It was edited in.

Phillips is back up. Which should mean that either Braun is not fit, or that it's Rivera going back down, and Perez will act as the primary IF backup instead of OF. I would imagine they'll make the corresponding move as late as possible, to see what condition Braun is in?

Webb will be in the squad for tomorrow. Blazek option to AAA, and Phillips called up.

Balls certainly seem different, the articles linked by sveumrules are well worth reading and make a good case for that. And if the balls fly further, why not try to hit more flyballs? Add those together and you'll see a big increase. Remains to be seen where this goes. If the balls are different, was that something that was intentional by the MLB? Or a result of changes in material, production methods or testing? What, if anything, will they do about it? Some suspect the new balls of causing more blisters as well, which could perhaps do more to force their hand. You'd also think that pitchers will adapt to the "flyball revolution", and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.