monty57

The Brewers' chance of being competitive in September: A) Wrigley falls down, so the Cubs have to forfeit all their home games. B) Someone in the Astros' organization hacks into the Cardinals' network and replaces their MLB team with their AA team. C) In an attempt to fill the stadium, Pittsburgh management DFA's their current players and re-signs all living members of the late 70's "We are family" team to increase their "coolness factor" D) The Reds continue doing what they're doing. If all of the above happen, I could see the Brewers having a chance at winning the division :-)

The only way they could conceivably start 30-20 is if they have the nerve to start the season with a rotation including 5 of these 6: Nelson, Peralta, Jungmann, Davies, Hader, and Lopez, add a major league bat (Alvarez or Morneau) to play 1B, and major league quality CF. Nelson has the stuff to certainly be ace-like over a 50 game stretch. Peralta would have to return to 2014 form and one of the kids would have to become a ROY candidate out of the box. Hader has the stuff to be that guy if they have the guts to move him up. In addition to that they'd need bounce backs from Lucroy and Gennett, continued power from Davis and Braun, and adequate play at 3B from some combo of Villar, Perez or Middlebrooks. Now if they're sitting 30-20 with that young staff, do you sell off veterans who are providing offense, especially ones you control in 2017 also? Maybe you sell off the CF you've picked up to be a stopgap, and sell off Segura to make room for Arcia, but those are moves that could improve your chances not diminish them. They need to eat Garza's contract which was a massive mistake by the previous regime. Even if he pitches to his 2014 form, his trade value will not recover to the level where the return would be of any impact. Yeah they could save a few bucks, but really the payroll situation is fine so they can easily eat some dead money. Briggs, I think you're not that far off here. I don't expect this run, but as the team currently stands, they could pull off a hot start. I'd say that Garza is more likely to pitch to a sub-4 ERA than Hader to start the season, but that's not a big issue. Playing good for a month is a lot different than playing good for a season, so even if they were to pull off that hot start, Stearns should not veer from his current strategy. To your idea of signing a veteran 1B and CF, I think 1B is possible, but they're likely going to stick with Broxton to see what they have in him until Phillips is ready. I also think they're going to trade Lucroy and one of Braun/Davis before the season starts, and if this happens, this whole thread is probably moot.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. When the Lind trade happened, you said something along the line of "I thought we were building for 2017, but now it doesn't look like we're doing that," and consequently have hammered the line that we're purposely "tanking" this season, so I thought you were upset about what's going on. As to the "tanking," I don't think our opinions are all that different. I just look at tanking as purposefully throwing meatballs down the middle of the plate, or throwing the ball away on defense to allow runners to score. We are still going to try to win games, we just aren't going to be that good, so we won't win a whole lot. As to the 94 loss season, I think Logan has a valid point. We greatly overachieved to start 2014 and ended up about where we expected at the end of the year. In 2015, we greatly underachieved to start the season, and all year I hoped we would sell off some good pieces before the players started playing to their ability and ended up around .500. I don't think it's a valid argument to say "we were a 94-loss team" and use that as the starting point for how many "wins we're losing" by not having certain players. From a true talent perspective, we were around a .500 team last year, and we have lost talent from that point. I want to see what Broxton can do, but he will not match Gomez, so that's a loss. I think Cecchini could replace what we lost in Ramirez. Parra was playing corner OF, taking starts from Davis, so I don't think he's that hard to replace if we keep Davis and Braun. K-Rod was a closer on a losing team, so I don't think replacing him with one of our talented set-up men will cost us too many games. Our pitching should be better with the loss of Lohse, and Peralta, Garza and Nelson pitching better than they did last year. Therefore, if no more trades are made, I would argue that we would have a better record than we had last year. Now, I think we will still trade Lucroy and one of Davis/Braun. That will of course hurt the 2016 roster, so I think we will be a sub-.500 team... we may even be a 100-loss team at that point, but I think our pitching will be good enough to keep us from that level. I don't see this as purposeful tanking to get the #1 pick, but rather trading guys who will not be part or our next good team for guys who could be core players for that next good team, while not wasting money and adding risk by obligating the team to a long-term, big money deal this offseason when it doesn't make sense. I think picking up someone like Cecchini is "hunting for a gem" that could pay off if he regains his form. Signing someone like Young is simply looking for a versatile bench bat who has a good shot of ending up in AAA. Stearns needs to add value to the franchise any way he can, and one of those ways is picking up some scrap heap players to see who will fill out the roster in what looks to be a down year. Hopefully some of them pay off. I personally would rather see Cecchini end up being a good 3B for us for the next half decade, and Peralta/Nelson/other young pitchers all pitch well, netting us the #3/4/5 pick than see them all crash and burn, bringing us the #1/2 pick.

Thats the key to these signings; the strength of the 2017 draft? I don't get your anger at these minor moves. It seems that since Stearns traded Lind for three teenage pitchers instead of a AA/AAA guy you have hated every move he's made. The "key" to the moves he's made is to add young talent that can help them down the road, while adding some role-players to compete in Spring Training to see if any of them impress enough to make the opening day roster as a bench player. Right now, we have our OF set, with an extra corner OF who will start in AAA if another trade isn't made. We have our SS, and a LH 2nd baseman, and we have brought in multiple guys to back up the middle IF. Cecchini is 24-year-old former top prospect, and he will likely be our starting 3B. As of now, we have Lucroy and Maldonado at C, and our starting rotation and bullpen seem to be pretty well set. We need a first baseman, and obviously guys like Young and Nieuwenhuis were not brought in to fill this spot... they are simply guys hoping to fill the bench. We will probably trade Lucroy and one of Davis/Braun, but have not yet done so. Doing so will hurt the 2016 team, but should stack the farm even further, elevating it to one of the best farms in baseball. If they decide to start Young in RF over Braun, and trade all of our pitchers for bat boys, then I will agree that the sole goal of Stearns is to tank the season and put a bad product on the field. Otherwise, I will believe that they are making moves for the future, but are not purposely trying to lose games in 2016. I guess I would like to ask who you think they should sign. I don't think there is anyone on the planet who would turn this into a World Series contender, we can't afford to strap ourselves down with a Zimmerman-type contract, and I doubt most decent free agents would even want to sign a multi-year deal with a team that is obviously in the beginning stages of a rebuild. Guys like Young could actually help the team this year in a bench role, or they could get jettisoned in spring training. It's a perfectly fine no risk/some reward, minor league deal, and certainly does not prove that Stearns is doing everything to make the 2016 Brewers the worst team in baseball.

As my boss says, "better the money in my bank account than the corporation's bank account." There's also the "LL" part of the LLC. If the money is in the LLC account, and the company gets sued, that money is on the table. If it's in the owner's accounts, it's much harder to get. As a general rule, try to keep enough in the company account to cover expenses with a little left over, but don't keep too much there. Before people get upset about the owners sticking it to the fans, I think a good portion of the excess revenues will be put into player acquisition and development, and not just taken out and put into owners' pockets. That can go down in the "reinvesting into the future" category. As long as it's an expense, it's not profit, so to the IRS paying to pick up an international player counts the same as paying someone on the MLB payroll (these are the "loopholes" politicians like to harp on, things like paying your employees that keep effective tax rates down). These all add up, and in my opinion expenses for the future are at least as important to the franchise as what they pay their MLB players... t's just that the number everyone will see is the team payroll, which is only part of the picture, and that will get some people upset.

The question I have is that does dumping Garza even for half the contract meaning that savings could go towards FA talent when we are competing? I know it's upto MA how much he's willing to spring for but if he is willing to pay 400 (made up number) million over the next 4 years, could we allocate Garza's 2016 allotment to 2018? Not spending revenues would turn it into profit, which would be taxable. As an LLC, the taxes probably pass through to the owners, so they would probably take dividends to at least cover their tax liability, so a good portion would not be able to be spent for the future. But, whatever remains could be held in an account owned by the LLC and spent in future years if that is what the ownership group chose to do. Just don't expect $12M not spent this year to equal $12M more spent in the future. Remember, Attanasio is a New Yorker living in California, so he could have over 50% of his income eaten up by taxes. This is why most teams don't look to make a big profit each year (they just don't want to go negative). They'd rather just build the value of the franchise, so when it is eventually sold it will be capped out at the much lower long-term capital gains rates. That said, I think it's likely that a decent chunk of money will be used for things like international signings, and maybe picking up a bad contract if the team throws in a good prospect... things that will cost money now to help the future. Re-investing in the team can allow for more money to go to building the future, and less to go to Uncle Sam.

I'd love for Stearns to, in his first offseason, be able to find a young, high-upside answer for every position in which we have a question mark. However, I also think this is not possible. Because of this, I have no problem if we sign a veteran to a short-term deal to fill a couple of positions until the long-term answers arise. If we can find our 1B of the future in the Lucroy trade or elsewhere, that's great. If not, I'd rather see someone like Alvarez or Morneau on a low-cost, one-year deal than see us put a AAA "never will be" at first all year. We should not do a 3-4 year deal, but for a year... why not? A Melvin move this offseason would have been to use our trade chips to target a "MLB ready" 1B. I think Stearns is more likely to nab a higher upside 1B in the low minors, while using free agency to fill the MLB roster with a veteran like Alvarez for the short-term. I hated when the "meh" free agent signing was sold to us as our ticket to the promised land. I'm fine with it when it's filling a position of need with an actual MLB player for a year. As to the "race to the bottom," I like that we're trading assets to bring more value to the system at the lower levels, as we won't compete this year. I also like that we're targeting the best overall package, which often is going to be filled with guys who are not yet MLB ready. I can't get behind not adding potential value if it is there (like an inexpensive FA 1B) just so we lose more games. You should always look to add value if it's not in some way harming your team (i.e. a long term deal), and there is some merit to having some watchable players on the roster.

The Brewers do not have anyone who is a free agent after 2016, so if they happen to find themselves in the playoff mix at trade deadline, they do not have anyone in the "trade him or lose him" situation. Therefore, I would think that they would simply hold on and trade said player the following offseason. Even in this situation, I do not think they would trade any prospect of significance for a rental player. I still think Lucroy and one of Davis/Braun will be traded this offseason, and if they win with this roster minus Lucroy and one of Davis/Braun, then this will definitely be a short, fun rebuild :-) Edit: Off topic, but if they were to trade Lucroy and Braun, they could feasibly have a payroll around $30M, with nearly half of that going to Garza.

All true, but with at least part of the fan base not all in on total rebuilds and 3.5 million seats to sell in 2016, when all you get for news on the team is fringe player waiver claims, they're not great PR. This has been about the busiest offseason I can remember. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part. We've made lots of moves. We just haven't repeated the past offseasons' mistakes of spending 10-15% of payroll on muti-year deals for second/third tier free agents.

Lots of good points in this post: re: Why not just play Santana? Santana is not a CF, and there is no need to use up his service time just to have him on the MLB team. He'll be in the majors, and that will likely be when Braun or Davis is traded. If that happens to be the 2016 trade deadline, then that just means he'll spend a few months in the minors, possibly adding a year of team control. Note that I'd guess either Braun or Davis will be traded this offseason, allowing Santana to be an opening day starter in RF and making us all happy that we have real CF's on the team. re: Will we lose 100? It really doesn't matter, but I think our young pitching will keep us from hitting that many losses, so I'd take the under there. Either way, we're going to get a good draft pick. re payroll: MNBrew is right. We will have loads of extra money to spend in 2016, it's just not going into the MLB payroll. I hope they are able to use it wisely to help us for the future, and once the time comes Stearns will be able to add to payroll to get it up into the middle-tier payrolls, but coming from a low payroll, that will leave a lot of free cash so it could make him feel like a kid at Christmas. Again, I hope he uses it wisely. re the topic of the thread: Nieuwenhuis is a no risk, some potential return signing. It's more exciting to see a high upside signing, but we need to have role players during this phase of the rebuild, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with this signing. As YoungGeezy said, there is no risk to it, and best case scenario is a Scotty Po scenario, where we end up getting a guy to bring some excitement to the team for a year or two who is flipped for a Carlos Lee return when our young guys start hitting the majors and we're getting ready to compete.

Really they can't get a Venable or any kind of guy with some record of major league success to play CF for a year? Nieuwenheis is probably going to be a 4th outfielder filler until the better prospects are ready, but I'm interested in seeing what Broxton can do. I think he could be an exciting player to watch, and the only reason he doesn't have an MLB track record is because Pittsburgh's OF is stacked, so he was blocked. I would have had nothing against signing Venable for a year (assuming he would have done a one-year deal to play for a bottom feeder), but I wouldn't sign him to play over Broxton who is ready and could be fun to watch. He'll play good defense and steal bases... he just has to prove he can get on base enough. The future in CF is Phillips, who is nearly ready and may even be up this year, so there's no reason to go overboard on a CF signing. If you are looking for someone with an MLB track record, that's probably what we'll get at first base. To some extent, I get what you are saying. There needs to be some entertainment value on the MLB field for the fans. I personally like to see what the young guys will do, but signing someone like Alvarez could give the fans who are excited by shiny things some "oohs" and "aahs" with monster home runs. To those who keep saying "the goal is to lose as much as possible": I have been as big a proponent as any to stockpile young talent, and I like what Stearns is doing, but we have decent pitchers who are already at the MLB level. They are going to cause us to win some games... possibly more than some other MLB teams, and I'm fine with that. We also have some bats, and even if Braun or Davis is traded, they will be replaced by Santana, who is a capable MLB player. We are going to take some lumps, and are not going to be a good MLB team, but the young talent is already starting to form at the MLB level. I don't think we're a 100-loss team, even if/when Lucroy is traded and replaced with Josmil Pinto, who I have never heard of until I saw his name in brwrsfan's post.

I can't be the only person on this board who would hate seeing ex Brewer prospects play for the Cardinals... For me, it's more about seeing what we gave up for what we received. Watching the Royals win the World Series, and seeing seemingly half the All Star game made up of former Brewers/Brewer prospects leads me to believe that maybe we could have done far better than we did if we hadn't made the trades we made. As to him on the Cardinals, I don't know if it would effect me a lot more than seeing him (or other guys we traded) on any team. I actually cheer for the "Brewers" playing for the Royals in the World Series, but it bothers me to know that the Brewers played a fairly major role in building the Royals "dynasty," while feeding us the line that we needed to make moves like that if we ever wanted to have a chance of winning. "Selling the farm" got us to one NLCS, but one of the main recipients of that sale have been to two WS, winning one, and are still looking at being World Series contenders for the foreseeable future. If Odorizzi helps lead the Cardinals to a World Series, I guess it would be more salt in the wound. I root against the Cardinals, but really I just want the Brewers to do well... or at least have a strategy that can lead to them doing well in the future. In the long run, it is probably proving out that trading Odorizzi (and many others) hurt us more than it helped us, and that bothers me.

This one will be painful with no likely payoff. That's why I'm annoyed by it. The present is a direct result of previous actions. The Brewers did what they did over the past decade. Those actions netted the team a couple of playoff appearances, but it also left the franchise in a position that a complete rebuild was necessary. I think this could have been avoided, but it would have meant changing strategies years ago. Now I'm just happy to have a new GM and an intelligent owner who apparently had an epiphany and realized he was on the wrong track.

When we aren't going to win many games anyway what does it matter if he is one of the 8 best players? I don't really see how learning to adjusting to major league pitching is best achieved by having him learn a new position at the same time? It could hurt his long term development which would be the worst possible outcome. To take that sort of risk on a team that isn't going anywhere seems counterproductive to me. If this team was a possible contender and he was the best option it would be one thing. In the position the Brewers are in there is just no justification for it. If they want to convert him the first long term then send him to AAA to do so. Yeah, if I had to guess, I think Braun and/or Davis will be traded, opening a spot for Santana. However, if that is not the case, then it's not the end of the world if Santana starts the year in AAA. It would suck for him, but the team would maintain additional control of Santana, while he continues to develop his skills. Then, they would have him for additional time when the team is better and he is in his prime. Again, I think he'll be on the team as a starting corner OF on opening day, but we shouldn't force him just to get him on the team. If that was our strategy, Arcia is probably better than Segura, and Phillips could be our opening day CF. Honestly, we probably should have left Santana in the minors this past season, and let Schafer be a warm body in CF until the offseason. Needing to prove to the fanbase that we got a MLB player back in the trade was a Melvin thing, and calling up a player and playing him out of position just to showcase him to the fans may not be the best for the long-term good of the team. Stearns definitely doesn't mind not getting "MLB ready" talent back, doesn't want to play players out of position, and seems to value versatility and defense. Unless he sees Santana as our long-term answer at 1B (which hasn't been rumored), then I don't think he'll put him there just to get him on the field.

For those thinking that one of our OF will get moved to first base, here's a comment from Stearns in Adam McCalvy's write-up about this trade: "Clearly, we need to add to our first-base depth, and we feel we will be able to do that over the coming weeks and months," Stearns said. Now, that could mean that he'll add to depth by bringing in some guys to play the position in the minors, but I think that means he will pick up our opening day 1B later this offseason. I don't think we're moving an OF to 1B.

I'm coming in late to the conversation. I was interested to see what Rogers would do this year, but I like this trade. It seems that Broxton for Rogers would be an even value trade, so getting a decent young pitching prospect thrown in seems to make this a good deal for the Brewers. Broxton seems destined to be our opening day CF, and will get his chance to shine until Phillips is ready to take over. At this stage, it's impossible to know whether he'll then be flipped, or become a fourth OF. This necessitates either Santana in AAA or a trade of Braun or Davis. No way Santana should be sitting on the MLB bench. As to 1B, I'm sure Stearns has something in mind, and Alvarez doesn't seem to fit with what he's been doing so far. He seems to value defense , versatility and athleticism, none of which makes you think of Alvarez. I'd guess there is a target on a younger first baseman somewhere that will once again throw everyone for a loop. This is certainly an interesting offseason.

Can't hurt to pick up a guy with a live arm to see what he can do. Not every move has to be for a few years down the road. We still have to occasionally take a flier on an older guy trying to make the MLB roster. He has good stuff and it's a minor league deal. Nothing earth shattering, but certainly nothing to get worried about.

My guess is that he is being signed as a AAA project, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Maybe Stearns will be a "feet to the fire" type of guy that tells Middlebrooks he can ride a bus and eat Ramen noodles until he starts laying off of bad pitches. Who knows, if Middlebrooks finds some plate discipline, this could be a steal of a pickup. If not, then it's good that we didn't give up anything for him.

The Astros trade was about 2017, which is why were all excited about the future. We traded the Astros a recent MVP candidate with multiple years of friendly team control, and a solid MLB pitcher who is cheap with lots of team control. Of course we should get back some studs for that. We still made that trade. The Lind deal does not negate it. We have the good prospects from trading away our better trade chips, and we now have more prospects from trading away lesser trade chips in Lind and K-Rod. As I stated, we have a good deal of guys in the high minors who project to be role players. These guys have value, and will help the team in the next few years, but I like that instead of bolstering these ranks with another guy in the high minors who could become a role player, we rolled the dice on three young kids who have the chance at being special. And no, they are not the guys a team just spent $3M in signing bonus on... Lind is not netting that kind of return. Instead we got three guys with excellent control and the likelihood that they will add a few MPH as they grow into their 20's. My favorite stats on pitchers are K:BB, K/9 and BB/9. That seems to be important to Stearns, so I like that. I think it's far more likely they will add a couple MPH over the next few years than it is for a guy with a big arm and no control to learn to throw strikes. Since everyone likes the guy with the big arm, I think Stearns may have found an "inefficiency" by targeting guys like this.

This team looked close to being a decent team by 2017, but that is clearly going to be pushed back towards 2020 or so based on the caliber and age of prospects we are accepting in trades. I think we can all agree that Lind was not going to be a Brewer in 2017, so he had to be traded... he wasn't a part of the "decent team in 2017." What we did with him really has little bearing on whether or not we will be "decent" in 2017. Let's say we picked up a guy who is in AA who is more likely to make the majors than any of the three we received, but will likely be a bullpen arm or a utility guy (we weren't getting better than that for Lind). Sure, he could help the team in a limited role in a couple of years (assuming he makes it), but not any more than about 30 other prospects we already have who fit that bill. We certainly need a lot better guys than that in order to be "decent" in 2017. Therefore, the return we received from Lind was not going to be a determinant in whether or not we will be "decent" in 2017. It could, however, make us much better a few years further down the road if any of the three guys we got put it all together and become better than a bullpen or utility guy. What will help us be "decent" in 2017 are the trades of our good trading chips, and the development (or eventual trade) of the young guys we already have. We traded Gomez for a Santana, who has already showed something at the MLB level, Phillips, who has the potential to be a multi-time All Star, and some promising young pitching. I would expect something similar from a Lucroy trade. For Lind, with the current state of the system, I'll gladly take multiple young guys with potential over one AA guy with a low ceiling. We have quite a few of those guys already. We got three teenagers who throw in the low 90's and have very good control. After years of going for either college "high floor/low ceiling" guys or flamethrowers who couldn't find the strike zone, I kind of like these pickups. Note that most of the "sure thing," "high floor" guys we got didn't make it, so it's far from a sure thing that trading Lind for a more advanced prospect would net us anything. Any time you trade for a prospect, especially one that isn't "blue chip," which Lind wasn't bringing back, the odds of them making it are slim, so I like getting multiple guys over one more advanced (but still flawed) guy.

Looking at the Brewers' top 30, they have two guys (Arcia and Phillips) who we hope will be perennial All Stars. We then could make a case for each of the remaining 28 that they could produce at the MLB level. That's good, but it puts us in a position where adding another guy in his early 20s in AA for whom a case could be made that he could produce at the MLB level isn't a necessity. Lind was not going to bring us another Arcia or Phillips. Those guys come from trading guys like Gomez and Lucroy. Therefore, given the current state of the Brewer franchise, I like the thought of trading our lesser chips for young guys who have not yet developed enough to catch everyone's eye. It's riskier, but if one of these guys puts together a good season in full-season ball, there's no way we're getting him in trade for an average-ish guy like Lind. As to the players we got, I like that they all have excellent command with room to add a few MPH on their fastball. It seems more likely to me that one or more of these guys will develop physically and retain their control than a guy with a big fastball and no command will suddenly learn to throw strikes.

What will be the Padres Infield? Didn't they trade Alonzo too? The Padres don't worry about things like that. Just get a bunch of OFs and stick them wherever you need someone. Sort of the beer league softball approach to team-building.

If St Louis has an aging veteran pitcher who becomes a free agent and they are not going after him, other teams should run away.

When I said "similar," I meant similar value to the team, so I figured WAR was the best stat to measure that. They are different players, but have provided similar value to their respective team(s) over the same time frame. In a vacuum, they should provide similar return in trade. In reality, it will depend on how badly a playoff hopeful team with deep pockets wants an All Star caliber bat at a corner OF position.

This brings up the problem that when data is flawed, and it is the only data you have, how do you use it? I think this affected a lot of teams who continued to sign players well into their 30's, and continued to believe that building a team the way you built in this era was the way to go. I think the Brewers were one of these teams, and I hope that with the new guard coming in, we will not be that way going forward. This is why I think Braun's contract will be untradable in a couple of years, but it seems to be the only one currently on the Brewers' books other than Garza, who is already near the DFA point. The Red Sox signing a deal like this are pretty much guaranteeing that in a few years they will wish it was off the books.