monty57

I've thought this as well. I remember thinking with guys like Sexson, Burnitz, Jenkins, Cirillo, Vina, Loretta, etc we should "have a chance this year," and yet we were never able to crack the .500 mark. Until we come to the realization that a handful of good position players and maybe a decent pitcher or two surrounded by a bunch of replacement level guys will never be a good team, we will continue to play bad baseball. However, there will still be people (perhaps blinded by "Brewer glasses" as I was in the '90s) that think "we have a good core, so we should be able to compete." For the past couple of years the MLB team has lost talented players and replaced them with less talented players. Unless some drastic changes are made, this trend will continue into the future, as we don't have the talent in the minors or the payroll flexibility to replace the guys who will leave over the next couple of years with similar talent. In other words, we're much less talented than we were a couple of years ago, but we're probably more talented than we will be in a couple of years. That's sad, since we stink this year. We absolutely need to find a way of getting good, young, inexpensive talent into the system. Had we made some moves in the past (or not made some moves we did), we probably wouldn't need a rebuild. Since the Brewers' brass (and many fans) demanded that we do everything possible to win in a short window, we really need to take some drastic measures to get the franchise back on track. I hope and pray that Gallardo will put some good starts together, that Weeks will stay hot, and that Ramirez's knee doesn't collapse, as trading a few of the veteran "chips" we have is now necessary. If we can land a few gems in these trades, things will look a lot better. Let's just hope we don't end up with returns like we got in the 90's for our stars like Burnitz and Cirillo. My optimistic side still has some belief that if we can land these couple of gems, and free up tens of millions of dollars a year, we could turn things around in a relatively short time frame. Unfortunately, the pessimist/realist is beating the optimist into submission.

I do not believe the Brewers will trade Braun, Segura, Peralta, Lucroy, or Gomez, and probably won't trade any of their pre-arby guys like Schafer, Maldonado, Thornberg, etc. Francisco is probably safe, as he's at least a decent backup plan for one of the corner IF spots going into next year. Everyone else makes my "likely to be traded" list. I would be shocked if Axford, K-Rod and Gonzalez aren't traded. It's less likely Gorzelanny will be traded, as he's signed for next year, and we will need to have some players on the field in 2014. The news that Aoki is a free agent sooner than we thought, along with the presence of Schafer/Gindl/Davis makes his trade very likely. Melvin's already making comments that make it look like Gallardo and Lohse are being shopped. Ramirez and Weeks are likely gone to ease up the payroll (hopefully it'll be for good value and not just a salary dump). Hart of course can't be traded, so he'll just be gone for nothing.

I wouldn't expect a high-end prospect for Axford or K-Rod. However, since K-Rod is gone after the season, and Axford's price tag would probably be too high for us to offer him arby after this season, I'd like to get something for them. Even though we've already got guys who fit this bill, I'd think that a high-minors guy who projects to be a good reliever or back-of-the-rotation starter would be a good return. Six years of a decent relief pitcher has more value to the franchise than a few months of either K-Rod or Axford. I think the only way we get any more upside than that is to trade them for a high-upside guy who is still in the low minors. I think this would probably be the best case, but also the riskiest.

Well, this isn't good news, but I think this makes it pretty likely he's traded. With his price tag and production, I would think he'd be able to bring back some useful talent in trade.

So would you trade Segura for someone like Shelby Miller? Yes, I know that would never happen, but if you could deal a SS with crazy high value for a pitcher with crazy high value, would you? If we had a MLB ready guy who projected to be a league average SS waiting in the wings, this would be a no brainer. However, this is not the same scenario as Gomez. Segura is still in his pre-arby years, and we don't have anyone remotely capable of replacing him. The question should be "would you trade Gomez right now for Shelby Miller?" Although Gomez's salary may be less than his "free agent value," he's still making $8.5MM/year more than Segura. Throw in that we have capable replacements ready to step in, and Gomez could be traded. I wouldn't give him away, but if we got a lot of value back in trade, I'd make the deal. It seems more likely that Aoki will be the one dealt, with Schafer/Gindl/Davis filling in. In the likely event that we are still down next year, we could trade Gomez then, when our high-upside A-ball OFs are closer to ready. I don't know what Aoki would bring back, but I think he has decent trade value. He's "proven" as a leadoff hitter, gets on base, can play all three OF positions and has a lot of "team control" for not much money. A team looking to win now, not willing to trust "unproven" players, would jump at Aoki. Gomez would bring back more, but I don't see Melvin/Attanasio trading him this season unless Attanasio's really feeling the need to trim salary and no one's biting on Ramirez and Weeks.

That's easy then... the Orioles don't get Gallardo and we let him pitch for us for the next few seasons, or we trade him to a team who will give us a good prospect, and not a Top 200 guy who's several years from making the majors if he ever makes it. We have plenty of average-ish prospects, so there's no reason to trade Gallardo unless you're getting a top guy in return. Gallardo is a good pitcher with a couple of years of "team control" who is just entering his prime. If he is 100% (and it seems he's "regained" his velocity/form, so it's likely the early season troubles came from taking part in the WBC), then he is worth a lot in trade. For multiple years of a top-of-the-rotation starter with a price tag around 50-75% of what he'd get on the FA market, I would hold out for a very, very good prospect. If you can't get it, then hold onto Gallardo. We have leverage in that there is absolutely nothing wrong with going into next season with Gallardo at the top of our rotation. They're the ones who have to give to get.

From the above linked article: The Baltimore Orioles have already been reported in saying that they are interesting in Gallardo. They say that Gallardo could fit well with them. Gallardo and Weeks for Kevin Gausman (RHP) and Jonathan Schoop (2B). We pick up some of Weeks' remaining contract and maybe get another lesser prospect or two thrown in. I just hope Gallardo can continue to pitch like he has the last couple of times out. He's done a lot to get his trade value back up.

If something isn't changed, next year will be basically this year's team minus Hart, but because of pay bumps, we'll almost certainly have a $100MM payroll so we won't have money to fill any holes. This coming at a time when ticket sales (our main source of revenue) are declining and will likely continue to decline into next year (no big free agent signing to bump sales). Plus our 30-somethings will be a year older, which in baseball is not a good thing. Schafer is absolutely a major league player, and we have several other MLB ready OFs in the system, so it makes a whole lot of sense to shop at least one of Gomez and Aoki, as they both have plenty of trade value. Hopefully Gallardo's recent string of better outings will bring his trade value back up, as he could bring a franchise-changing amount of talent back. Whoever said that he wasn't Greinke, so we shouldn't expect a Greinke-like return needs to realize that Gallardo is under a fairly inexpensive contract for a couple more years, while Greinke was a half-season rental. I've posted the comparison several times, but I believe a 27-year-old Gallardo (entering prime) should net a similar return as a 31-year-old Shields (exiting prime), which was essentially one Top 10 prospect and another Top 100 prospect. The problem is determining why he's lost velocity and whether it's a permanent thing. Ramirez is old, limping around on a bum knee, can't play everyday and is still owed around $25MM for the remainder of his contract. If we could con someone into giving us value in return for him, I'd be elated. Weeks has negative value, and we just have to hope his option doesn't vest. Relievers won't net much, but we should definitely shop K-Rod and Gonzalez who will be gone next year, and Axford if we can fool anyone into giving up something for him (he'll probably make $7-8MM next year). I doubt we'll make moves that would look like we're giving up on 2014, but I don't see much chance of us being any good if we stand pat. We'd probably top out "middle of the pack," which means not good enough to make the playoffs, but not bad enough to get a good draft pick and all the "pool money" that comes along with being really bad. At the very least, I expect us to try to get rid of some salary, since the ownership group is set up to lose a lot of money if ticket sales drop and we don't get rid of some payroll. Hopefully we can get something of value in return, and it's not a salary dump.

Pre-season, Wil Myers (#7 BP, #4 BA) was a much more highly-touted prospect than Rendon (#35, #30), and I don't think Rendon's 52 MLB ABs make that much difference. This off-season, the Shields trade netted Myers and Odorizzi (#83, #92), and I think that a 27-year-old Gallardo is close to 31-year-old Shields' value. Therefore, I think that prior to Gallardo losing his velocity, a deal centered on Gallardo-for-Rendon would be a starting point, and the Nats would probably have to throw in more value to even things up. I don't know how much trade value Gallardo has lost with his diminished velocity... it probably depends on whether "baseball people" think the loss is permanent or not. I hope for the Brewers' sake that it's not permanent, because he could be a franchise-changing trade chip if he's 100%, or he could be a very expensive back-of-the-rotation starter if he doesn't find his velocity. That said, I don't think this trade is likely, as the Nationals aren't in dire need of pitching. Plus they may not even be "buyers" this season, or at least they may not be serious enough "buyers" to want to ship off their top prospect(s) in a mega-trade.

Might as well let Francisco play everyday, as he is the closest thing we have to an everyday 3B if Ramirez were to get traded.

No way would I make a QO for Hart after this season. He had knee surgery prior to last season which obviously didn't fix the problem, so after getting a recommendation to have a more invasive procedure which would've cost him the season, he had the same surgery that didn't work the first time. Since he didn't have the more invasive surgery, there is a good chance the injury has not been fully corrected, meaning more knee problems / time missed in the future. We blew the chance to trade Hart for something of value. Now we just need to hope that we can get some production out of the $10MM we're paying him this season and let him walk away. Let someone else pay for him to break down in the future.

You're right that the Nats don't have a glaring need for starting pitching, so I don't think this would add up, but I'd be intrigued by a deal centered around Gallardo-for-Rendon. If we could get Rendon and were able to trade Ramirez for a decent SP prospect (Z Lee?). We'd have shed a lot of future financial obligations, while shoring up a couple of positions with cheap, young, high-upside players for the next six years. Maybe some type of three-team deal where the Dodgers get Ramirez and Detwiler/Karns, the Nats get Gallardo and something from the Dodgers, and the Brewers get Rendon and Lee. The fact that all three of these teams are under-performing this year makes this seem far-fetched, but who knows.

I agree that Aoki makes sense to trade (probably the biggest trade chip that may actually get traded). I'm not as concerned as to which prospects would get the call when and if it would happen. I'm more concerned that they use the prospects, and don't add a veteran into the trade to fill the roster spot for the rest of the year, or that they hold onto both Aoki and Gomez because of fear of the "unproven." The second half of this season should be a good time to let some of our prospects get some MLB experience and hopefully some of them will shine. As to Braun, at this point I'd put him on the DL. It sounds like he continues to aggravate it by swinging, so I'd just tell him to take two weeks completely off. In a close race, I could understand them not wanting to potentially miss a game or two of Braun. They're not in a close race, so the main goal is to make sure he's healthy. Hopefully it's something minor and two weeks will "cure" him, but if not, do whatever it needs. He's a lifetime Brewer, so I want to make sure he's 100% going into the future.

No mentioning of Aoki in it and I can't really find anything mentioning Aoki in a trade rumor/proposal. Gives me the thinking he's either not really wanted or not available from those in the know. Just a guess, but Melvin may want to see how the Braun situation plays out before he looks to trade an OF. Not how I'd do it, but the way the Brewers are run, I could see them not wanting to play an OF of Davis, Gomez/Aoki, Schafer. If Braun is healthy and doesn't get suspended, I'd like to think one of Aoki/Gomez (probably Aoki) would be shopped. I know it's not Melvin's m.o. to trade someone with more than one year of "team control" remaining, but with all the MLB-ready minor league OFs we have, I hope he makes an excpetion.

I have no problem with extending players, but I think it should be done early in their pre-arby years to get the biggest discount, and I think that you still have to be willing to trade the player if the right situation arises. If you could somehow take away all the issues surrounding Braun, he is the one player we could use to instantly bring tons of young talent into the system. There would be repercussions to this, of course, so it would have to be the right situation to do it, but it could be done. It needs to be mentioned that while signing these contracts can have positive effects on a franchise, they can also seriously set a franchise back, as is illustrated in Minnesota, where the Mauer contract is really hurting them. If Braun is indeed suspended 100 games (as the MLB appears to be shooting for), or if he gets an injury that keeps him out an extended period, we have no chance of competing. Regardless, by the end of Braun's contract (as is the case of most contracts signed through a player's late 30's) he will not be living up to what he is being paid unless you're measuring it on extra fan attendance to watch him hit "milestone" marks. But it's not Braun's deal that I'm arguing against. The extensions I don't like are the ones where the team waits until the player is in year 2 or 3 of arby before offering an extension. By that time, you don't get much of a discount, and there are obviously question marks surrounding the player or else the team would've offered the extension long before they did. I also don't like signing big money, multi-year deals to free agents in their 30's, as they will probably end badly. Both of these have been used often by Melvin, and combined with the fact that he rarely ever trades older players for younger players are the big reason we're in the situation we're currently in. I'm a little more negative than others because while I share the 'stache's outlook on our prospects (btw thanks 'stache for the great posts), I think that our "trade chips" at the MLB are almost all damaged goods at this point. Hart hasn't even played this season and the trade deadline is weeks away. Ramirez has already missed significant time with his knee, and hasn't had it repaired, so it could blow at any time. Gallardo has lost velocity which is making him a very average pitcher. Estrada's looking like a back-of-the-rotation starter. Braun is facing a big suspension, fans nationwide think he's a cheater, and he's got what could be a serious injury to his hand/thumb which has effected him for about a month, hasn't improved and may send him to the DL. Axford lost his closer's job. Neither Lucroy nor Maldonado have hit very well, and Weeks is looking more and more like a bad player who occasionally has a hot streak. In other words, we'd be "selling low" on just about everyone who we would possibly trade who could bring back something of value except for Gomez and Aoki. We won't trade Gomez after just signing him (Melvin wouldn't do that), so the only move of any significance I could see us doing to bring in young talent is to trade Aoki, who may bring back one decent prospect. Other than that, we'll try to get fans to show up to see K-Rod get save #300 before trading him off for a middling prospect, and we'll probably trade Gonzalez to someone in need of a LH bullpen arm. Anything beyond that will be more of a salary dump move, which will have some benefit, but won't bring us the young talent we'd like to see. So, I think that next year's team will look like a less talented version of this year's team, and I remain pretty certain that Miami, the Pirates and the Cubs will all see the playoffs again before we do. So yeah, I'm pretty negative on the foreseeable future of the franchise. It's not because of some bad play this year... I've been warning that this would be the outcome for a few years now. In any business (and in life in general) you can't continually trade your future for the present and still have a good future. It'll catch up to you.

It's laughable to me that Houston/Miami are allowed to operate below 40mil in team payroll. I'm pretty sure they will have revenue sharing sent their way each at or above 40mil without a Single Paying Fan watching a home game! Where is that money put in to on the Ballclub? If the team doesn't spend as much money as they are to get in Revenue Sharing then they shouldn't have any money sent to them. It should be forfeited back. I don't know, maybe they're using some of the money to polish their World Series trophies. Isn't winning the World Series the goal for a franchise, and if so, isn't it laughable that a team which has been in existence since 1969 and hasn't won a World Series would look down on a team which has only been in existence since 1993, but has two World Series championships? Add that it's a safe bet that Miami will make the playoffs again before the Brewers will, and I don't think the Brewers (or their fans) should be doing any laughing at Miami. There are a lot of ways to build a team, but I see three basic frameworks to build a championship-caliber team: 1) Operate in a big market, where you can buy good players in the free agent market, extend your players when they near free agency to "market value" deals, and trade your prospects for high-priced vets. This is where the Brewers have been operating, but the obvious problem is that they don't operate in a big market, and have only been able to "rent" here for a while, as they increase revenue streams and greatly increased payroll from the rock-bottom levels it was at near the end of the Selig era. One note is that even though this strategy should be the easiest for those with the resources, many big spending teams without a good plan often flounder, and with the heavy "luxury taxes" in place, even the Yankees are shying away from this strategy. 2) Use the "Marlin model." Stockpile young talent. Let that talent mature while paying the MLB team league minimum salaries. Once the talent matures, spend a lot of money on veterans for a one-year shot at the title. Sell everyone after that shot (if successful) or mid-year (if unsuccessful) for a boatload of young talent and start the cycle over. This isn't a plan that keeps the fans happy, but it has proven successful. 3) Continually cycle talent, keeping a malleable core of young, talented MLB players, while always looking at any possible means to keep the farm filled with young talent. This path is not easy, and it takes the willpower to institute a long-term plan and to stick with it, even when fans and the media "talking heads" are ripping you for not "going for it." The GM isn't always going to be popular, as oftentimes fans and the media can be very short-sighted and can also get "married" to players on the roster. Some moves will make the fans immediately happy, while some won't, but that can't be the goal. The goal always has to be that any move has to fit into the long-term plan in place. Bottom line is that without a long-term plan, you'll often find yourself in no-man's land. Maybe you luck into success every now and then, but generally you're just going to be a nameless face in the crowd.

Plus, we're looking at what we'd get for Ramirez, who has a bum knee and is owed around $25MM for the next 1.5 seasons, and Weeks, who basically has negative value in trade. If we could end up with Zach Lee plus some other decent young talent for Ramirez and Weeks, I'd be okay with that. I hope the reports that Ramirez will be highly sought after this trade deadline are true, but I'm in the "believe it when I see it" camp on that one.

Regarding all the talk about extending people, my general rule would be that if the player has enough question marks that you don't offer the extension prior to arby, then he has enough question marks that you shouldn't offer him an extension when he's in year 2 or 3 of arby. By that time, you're not getting a significant discount to market price, and there is a good chance that the problems which kept you from signing the guy early will re-emerge. These type of extensions and free agent signings are fine if you have a payroll capable of sustaining a team full of "market value" contracts. Unfortunately, teams like the Brewers need to have a significant portion of their team playing on less-than-market-value contracts (pre-arby and arby). Basically, we need to try to get as much young talent as possible, extend the top (core) ones while they are in their pre-arby years, and let the rest play out their contracts, hopefully being able to flip many of them for more young talent when they are nearing the end of their "team control."

Paul, I think what bcd80 was getting at is that we have a lot of pitchers in the upper minors. If we make some trades to bring in more AA/AAA guys, where will we put everyone? For example, if we trade Ramirez and Gomez and bring back some AAA pitchers, what happens? I think Hellweg and Thornberg will remain in the Nashville rotation, but Kroenke and de la Cruz could easily but moved to the 'pen if we add some exciting pitchers in trade. Fiers could be permanently moved to Milwaukee's pen at any time, and the probable trades of K-Rod and Mike Gonzalez would open up a spots for him and someone else from AAA if we bring in some minor league pitching. If we bring in more than three high-upside AAA SP, then I'll be floating on cloud nine, and won't care what happens to the guys we currently have pitching at AAA. Looking at the state of the farm, as long as we don't trade for outfielders or AAA first basemen, I don't think we'll have a problem finding some spots for talented players.

Williams sounds a little better - according to the MLB.com guys, 95 MPH FB with a good slider. Bonus that he struck out the Cubs' top pick three times in a game.

Thanks for the info. Hence the strategy of wasting a third rounder on an "organizational soldier" who knows he's not worth much so he'll sign for less than slot. I won't be too down. It's the way the system's designed, and I like the upside of the first two picks. Too bad we have to waste our third rounder in order to pay for the other ones. Hopefully he'll win some games in long relief in a few years.

90-91 MPH FB/sinker with no developed secondary pitches and a ceiling as a middle reliever. Has a team ever not even attempted to sign a guy just to save his slot money for another player?

We'll never know, but we still would've had a good team with a legitimate shot at the playoffs, plus we would be in much better shape as a franchise at this point. That's still 9 more games than the Brewers got for Fielder after 2011. Hudson had Tommy John surgery, which isn't uncommon for a SP, and he should be back this season. He's 26 and still has (I believe) three more seasons of "team control" remaining. Meanwhile Detroit fans are enjoying Prince's HR's while we're fighting for the #1 draft pick. But, it's not about Hudson in particular. I just used him because using any name that wasn't specifically named in a "valid source" as having been offered will get someone chastised for making things up and being unrealistic about "what's out there." Melvin insisted on receiving two MLB-proven SP in return for Fielder. Since Fielder only had one year remaining, he would only be traded to a perceived contender, and what contender could trade two SP from their rotation? Melvin's expectations were unrealistic, so instead of trading him for one young MLB starter or probably two not-yet-MLB-ready SP, we settled on destroying the future of the franchise for one playoff appearance.

I hope he's right that Ramirez would bring "a wealth of good-to-top prospects." That would be great. I just think other GMs will worry about his knee, his salary and his age. This wasn't mentioned in the article, but if we have to eat his salary, then really the prospects would cost $25MM plus Ramirez. In that case, why don't we just call the Twins, say "we'll give you $25MM for the rights to Sano," and then give Ramirez away to anyone willing to pay his salary? Cash always has value, and I agree that if Ramirez is 100% healthy, and the receiving team doesn't have to pay him, the Brewers should get some decent prospects for him. Unfortunately, he's far from 100% healthy and his salary has a negative value in any trade negotiations... how negative probably depends on who we're talking with. The Dodgers may not care about the money, but most teams would. The author didn't mention anything about Gallardo's loss of velocity, which is making him a very mediocre pitcher. I've said for a while that if Gallardo is 100%, he should net a Shields-type return, as he's just entering his prime, while Shields is exiting his prime. However, I'd think other GM's would need some proof that he's 100%. A few outings in June/July where he gets his velocity up would do wonders for his trade value.

I don't really like the "what if" game, as I prefer looking at the aggregates, but here's a quick scenario: Suppose Melvin had taken the offer that was on the table (per Hardricourt) of Hudson-for-Fielder straight up. Then suppose TheCrew07's idea from above (Lawrie at #40 for Parker #33 or Minor #37) went through. We still would've had a good team in 2011, as Daniel Hudson had a good year that year. We may or may not have won the division, but we would still have had a very good shot at the playoffs. However, the real difference would be on where we'd be now, with a starting rotation for the next few seasons of Gallardo, Hudson, Minor/Parker, Odorizzi, Peralta. Who knows what other moves would or wouldn't have been made in conjunction with the above stated moves. We can't re-write history, but my point is that we could've done things differently, keeping a very good team on the field in the "present" (2011) and keeping an eye on the future so we wouldn't have the current present (2013). It's the aggregate moves (things we did do and things we didn't do) that have led us to where we are now. We'll never know what could've been, but I'll never believe that what we did was the only possible option. No business should be run the way Melvin/Attanasio have run the Brewers, constantly trading the future for the present.