monty57

I agree, which is why I question why some people are insistant on only trading Hart if we get a young starting pitcher in return. Sure, if Baltimore loses their mind and trades us Dylan Bundy for Hart, I'd jump at it, but since that's not realistic, I'd be happy if we landed a really good young position prospect in return for Hart. Maybe that allows us the ability in the future to look at trading someone else as they get closer to free agency and the stud position prospect we got for Hart is MLB ready. I'd say that if we trade Hart, we just look for the best young talent we could get in return. I'd probably look for someone who projects to help the Brewers at the MLB level in 2014, or maybe mid-season 2013 if we decide to sell, but who would start 2013 in the minors. We got Segura and two high-upside pitchers for a couple months of Greinke. If we could get something like that talent level for a full year of Hart, I'd be happy.

Things don't have to be black or white - go "all in" or tear things down to rebuild. I'm an advocate of trading tradeable guys on the final year of their contract when the team has enough question marks/warts that it isn't really expected to win the division. This is one of those years where if everything goes right we could be a playoff team, but we shouldn't really expect to be a playoff team. We also do not have the resources (in money or prospects) to "go all in" by picking up some stud players to fill the holes in the roster. Therefore, I look at the roster and see who is in the last year of their "team control" that could potentially have some trade value and find Hart and Gomez. Both will be gone after this season, so we wouldn't be giving away any of the future by trading either of these guys. The decision then is whether receiving the benefit of one year of the marginal difference between Hart and Gomez vs their likely replacements (Gamel and Schafer) is more important for the franchise than receiving what we would in trade for Hart and/or Gomez while playing Gamel and Schafer. I personally think that given a full season, the difference between Gomez and Schafer isn't that great. A year ago people would've given Gomez away, and now people act like he's essential to the team. Schafer's ready, and the salivating going on over Upton and Bourn leads me to believe that there could actually be some trade value there, so if we can get some decent value for Gomez, trade him. Hart is more difficult because he's a better, more established player than Gomez, but that also means he'd bring back more in trade. It is certainly likely that Hart will outperform Gamel in 2013, so we'd probably be taking a small step back for one season but I wouldn't call that a rebuild. I would take any top prospect back, I wouldn't limit myself to "a top pitcher who can help the 2013 team." I worry that Melvin will only trade Hart if he can get an MLB-ready young starter, and that may not happen. Our farm needs talent across the board, so I'd be happy to get a top talent at nearly any position. I think trading some guys when they're tradeable, close to exiting via free agency, and you aren't expected to win is what allows teams to keep from ever having to go through a rebuild. Conversly, we're at the point where if we continue to try to patch things up and see what the season brings, we will find ourselves in a position where a full rebuild could become necessary.

I agree this is a good comp for Hart's value. Not sure how I feel about that. I feel the same way I've always felt. I like Corey and he's been a good Brewers. However, even at a slightly reduced "team friendly" deal, he will be too expensive for the Brewers to extend considering all of the other contractual obligations of the team. If that is indeed the case, then I think that given the present state of the Brewers franchise, what Hart would bring in trade is of greater value to the Brewers than having him play one more season for the Brewers and then leave in free agency.

Jerry Sands, Stolmy Pimentel and two others going to PIT. Hanrahan and someone else going to BOS. (per MLBtraderumors.com)

Veras is the prototypical "good arm, good stuff, no control" pitcher. When he's on, he's tough to hit, but when he's off it's ugly to watch. As bewerfan said, not a bad deal at around $1MM. I think it's smart for a bad team to throw a guy like this at closer because there's a chance he has a good first half and some team will overpay for him in trade because of his Saves.

The Cubs have some good, young talent, and they're letting them play. They'll extend some of these core players, and once they get a core built up, they'll have the money to fill in the holes and then they'll be a team to worry about. They're not there yet. They seem to be building the right way, and Epstein brought the "street cred" that the fans needed to believe that a turnaround was the right thing to do (and would be done right). That said, they still need to give the drunks in the bleachers something to cheer for, so they have to make some signings like Edwin Jackson now and then. Bourn would seem to be an odd signing, as they have Brett Jackson, and his most value comes in CF. Oh well, I'm not going to get upset if the rebuilding Cubs block one of their best MLB-ready guys.

Well, if there's a park for a LHP to "get things straightened out," it's PNC.

Or it means Narveson pitched well in the spring (or there are injuries). Hence they moved a young pitcher to the pen or had them start in the minors since they have options (other than Rogers) and Narveson doesn't. You don't seem to preclude the fact that Narveson could start as you mention he would if the youngsters fail, but you make it seem impossible for him to start and be productive? Melvin made a comment a while back regarding Peralta which sounded like he's going to be in the rotation. Yo is obviously there. Therefore, if Narveson were to begin the season in the rotation, it would mean that either Estrada (who has been really good as a starter) or Rogers (who has a ton of upside) would have to pitch in the bullpen, or that Fiers (who showed he can get MLB hitters out before fading late) was being sent down to AAA. I've always liked Narveson, and he filled his role well before his injury. If healthy, he could help the 2013 Brewers. I just don't know that even with a good spring training the Brewers would name him a starter unless someone else got injured. Probably the most likely scenario would be that Rogers would be moved to the pen, and I hate that idea because if he proves he can start, he will be a huge asset to the Brewers going forward.

I just don't know that if I were a GM, I'd want to pay double (or triple) for Greinke. All things being equal, I agree with you. However, all things are not equal. When you have seemingly unlimited resources, you pay up for the best. Billionaires don't drive Honda's because they're the best value for the dollar. If all teams had the same payroll or if big money teams could sign as many players as they'd like, there would not be such a difference in pay between the elite and the next lower tiers. Since some teams have much more money than others, but all teams have equal number of players, the elite will get mammoth deals from big money teams. Of course, the Cubs are in the big money category, but they're still reeling from past management's failed "window" strategy trying to win the World Series several years ago. There's no reason for them to pay big now, but once they're done rebuilding their system, they'll be "big market." As to Jackson, he is one of those guys with good stuff and flashes of brilliance that keep people believing he will reach his potential. However, you're about as likely to get a 3.75 ERA as you are a 4.5 ERA, and his WHIP will be anywhere in the 1.2-1.5 range. His K/BB is only 1.94, he strikes out around 6.8 / game, while walking 3.5. If he could harness everything, he could be a solid #2. However, he's 29 with nine years of MLB experience, so at some point you start to believe that he is what he is... a good but erratic arm who could pitch like a #2 or a #5. Over the course of his contract, I wouldn't be surprised to see an ERA a little over 4 with a WHIP around 1.3. I may be being generous, as his career ERA is 4.40, and his three-year avg is 4.10, including 2011 where he posted a 3.79 ERA with a 1.44 WHIP (looks somewhat lucky). For a team with some extra money to throw around while the team struggles while waiting for prospects to mature, I guess it's not terrible, but I sure wouldn't want the Brewers to have signed this deal.

If Cubs fans didn't have bad contracts to complain about, then what would they have to talk about? I'm certainly glad Melvin didn't sign this deal.

From MLBtraderumors.com: "The Nationals non-tendered Gorzelanny last month instead of offering him arbitration. Gorzelanny had a projected salary of $2.8MM entering his final year of arbitration eligibility, but he hit free agency a year early instead." According to that, the Nationals released him because they didn't want to pay him around $2.8MM in 2013. If true, I'd hope the Brewers would get him for around 2 years / $5-6MM.

Are you just speculating, or is that really the deal? I like the pickup, but not at 2 years / $10MM.

Green is no lock to make the team. Bianchi had a better year than Green did at AAA, and can play all 3 infield positions. They already have 2 LH hitting bench players in Gamel and Schafer. Obviously you don't start Gamel at 3B when Narveson is starting, and he wouldn't be a guy you'd want out there over an extended period but they can get by playing him there occasionally to rest Ramirez and get Gamel's bat in the lineup. I think endaround was responding to my earlier post where I pondered who would be the long-term answer should a player get injured. If Ramirez needs a day off, then Gamel could probably fill in at 3B. If Ramirez gets hurt for an extended period, then it may make sense to play Green as the everyday 3B until Ramirez returned, even if this means calling him up from AAA. As much as it stinks for Green, you are probably right that from the Brewers perspective it will make sense to send Green back to AAA to play everyday. I just hope that when/if Weeks or Ramirez gets hurt Green is given an everyday shot with the Brewers to see how he handles it. All things staying the same as they are now, Bianchi will probably make the roster over Green, largely because he could backup SS. If Gonzalez returns as a backup, it would be interesting to see how the bench lines up.

If Gamel is the primary backup at 1B, 3B, LF, RF, the odds that someone gets hurt at one of those positions is pretty high. The question would be, while Gamel may be the day-to-day backup at those positions, would he be the everyday backup? For instance, would the Brewers trust his defense at 3B for a month or two, or would they go with Green or Bianchi. Same in the corner OF, would Gamel play over Schafer? Plus, we have the obligitory "it's early in the offseason and anything can happen" point. I doubt Gamel will be traded, because as others have said his trade value is basically zero. However, the two most logical players the Brewers could trade (should they go that route) would be Hart or Gomez. If either of them go, Gamel should get additional playing time.

Oh, I know, which is why I ended the speculation part with: "Or everything could've went wrong. It's a bird in the hand vs two in the bush. There are a lot of ways it could've been played. Melvin's choosing to "open a window" got us a division title banner hanging in the rafters." I've seen the Marcum trade debated ad nauseum and one side either wishes the trade wasn't done or that we'd have received a younger pitcher with more team control instead of Marcum, while the other side counters by saying we made the NLCS and that makes the trade worth it. The main reason to study history is to learn from it, so basically I was trying to say that what's done is done, and we now need to assess the current situation and focus on the future. To me, the current situation is that the Brewers have a some big money contracts which eat up most of our declining payroll, and we are in a period where most other teams' payrolls are increasing, leading to an overall rise in player salaries. We have a few glaring holes, notably the bullpen, possibly the need of a veteran starter, and while our farm is improving, and I like to pitching that's developing, we have a lack of position prospects in the system, as well as a lack of "can't miss" prospects. The past was fun, but if the last paragraph illustrates our current reality, what is the best option moving forward. Reality is real, so working in that reality what will make us the best team going forward? Does it make sense to push for a better team in 2013 and how would that effect 2014 and beyond? Most discussion is on signing a free agent, but is that in our best interest or not? Does is make more sense to trade away some players? Should we look at extending anyone, whether it be an expensive contract to Hart or Gomez or an inexpensive contract to someone like Segura or Peralta... and if the latter, at what point should that extension be offered? All in all, what is the basic plan on how to develop the team. To date, Melvin started by building from within, and then jumped to the "window" strategy. Is that going to be our methodolgy going forward, and if so at what point are we currently sitting in that cycle? Or, as TV deals are once again pushing Milwaukee into "small market" status, are we shifting gears to go to more of a Tampa/Minnesota (pre-Mauer deal)/Oakland model of continually cycling talent? Now is really a good time to decide which road we're taking, as the landscape of baseball is changing with the TV deals, and the window Melvin opened has closed significantly. To topic of this thread, what we should do with the 2013 pitching staff should be determined by our long-term plan. If we intend to grow our pitchers from the farm, they eventually need to play at the MLB level. That would seem to point to 2013 being a good year to let the young pitchers pitch. Some will succeed and some will fail. Those who succeed will greatly help future Brewer teams. Those who fail will be replaced by the growing group of pitching prospects we're developing. In the not-too-distant future, we should have a fully homegrown staff (starters and relievers), and probably even be in a position where we're trading away some pitchers as we won't have room for all of them. If we're looking at keeping the window open as long as possible, then we should bring in some veterans and stick Rogers in the pen. We may (or may not) be better in 2013, but next season we will have the same questions as to whether we can count on the "young" pitchers. So, in using the Marcum trade as a learning tool, should we be the 2010 Brewers, trading prospects for a short-term fix, or the 2010 Jays trading a vet for good prospects?

I think Melvin came into the offseason hoping to pick up a couple of "proven" relief pitchers for $2-3MM each. Then the market opened and guys he was looking at were going for $4-6MM each, so he turned to the "veteran starter" market, hoping to be able to sign someone for a maximum of two seasons (preferably one) at no more than a certain price (probably $8-10MM). Again, the market opened and the prices were too high. Now, he's letting the market play out a little to see if some of the bids for the second tier pitchers are more in line with the Brewer budget. His top priority has to be getting some relievers, so hopefully he can find some guys without too many "warts" at a discount price, leaving him some flexibility to either sign a starter to a one-year deal at the end of the offseason, or have some dry powder for a mid-season pickup if the need arises. It's no fun getting a budget cut. It's really no fun getting a budget cut when most of your competitors' budgets are going up, causing prices to rise across the board. I think I have to applaud Melvin for not getting into the feeding frenzy. I just hope there's some chum left over after the sharks are done. I do remember that going into the 2010 season, Melvin was looking to trade Fielder for prospects. When the market was different than he expected, he ended up doing a complete 180 and trading prospects for Greinke and Marcum. I think Melvin went into this season looking to add free agent pieces to compete. With the market apparently not what he expected, I wouldn't be surprised to see another 180.

I dislike the trade, but any speculation is just that. Sure we may have missed the playoffs in 2010, but maybe the stud young pitcher we got instead of Marcum would have taken us to the playoffs last year, and would have us sitting as the favorites to win the division this year. Or, maybe we still do make the playoffs in 2010 and the stud young pitcher doesn't have the Marcum meltdown and we make the World Series, so instead of raising our "Division Champions" banner in front of the World Series champs, we're raising the World Series banner in front of the downtrodden Cardinals. Maybe if we didn't get Greinke we'd have Odorizzi ready to step into the rotation and we wouldn't have needed to focus on SS because we had Escobar. Maybe we would've traded Prince for multiple stud prospects, who would all be hitting their stride right now, so along with the stud pitcher we got for Lawrie, Odorizzi and the guys we have on the team right now, we'd also have a young ace or two from trading Prince, so we'd be locked in with one of the best teams in baseball for the next four or five years, essentially trading our division title in 2010 for multiple playoff appearances going forward. Or everything could've went wrong. It's a bird in the hand vs two in the bush. There are a lot of ways it could've been played. Melvin's choosing to "open a window" got us a division title banner hanging in the rafters. It is also the reason we have the team/system we have and the payroll obligations that go along with it. It's the reason Attanasio/Schlesinger have cut payroll. We now have to look at where we are going forward. I dislike the Marcum trade, but we can't change it... all I can hope for is that Melvin continues to learn from his actions. I hate being in the position that we are with no bullpen, a need (or at least a perceived need) for a starting pitcher and no financial ability to fill those holes because our payroll is shrinking while prices are rising and most of our payroll for the next two seasons are taken up on a few players. I also hate that we've become spoiled as fans into thinking that we're going to raise payroll forever and that we should never think of trading "proven" for "prospect" unless it's a last resort (mid-season trade when we're out of it). The "window" stretegy may feel fun while you're in the "window," but it usually assures that when the window closes, you're left with either a fire sale or a period of mediocrity while you wait for contracts to expire and the gutted farm to rebuild. I'm generally optimistic, so I still hang on that ray of hope that we can still avoid a prolonged downswing, but we can't make any financially foolish moves. Thankfully, the team seems to realize this as well, as Melvin is passing on big money, multi-year deals. Standing pat with the pitching we have is very risky, which is why I think the odds of winning the division this year are small enough that I'm willing to take a small step back this season by trading guys like Hart and Gomez in order to take many steps forward for the future with young inexpensive talent playing significant roles, thereby granting us financial flexibility to build a winning team around our core players.

I doubt we'd give up more for Morales than we'd get from Hart, but even so, it doesn't really make sense if we have to give up anything for him. The only way this would work is if the Angels gave Morales away for nothing to a team willing to pay his whole salary simply because they don't have room on their roster for him. If we could get him for nothing and could trade Hart for a top prospect (two big ifs), then the move could make sense. We'd probably take a step back at 1B this season with some combo of Morales ® / Gamel (L), while adding a good young prospect to help us out for six years or so. Of course, the big question would be how much of an upgrade would Morales/Gamel be over simply handing the starting job to Gamel. If we are going to trade Hart, is it worth paying $5MM or so for Morales as a RH platoon 1B / RH bat off the bench?

The only way I can comprehend the smallest market in baseball going 10+ years without "wasting" some seasons rebuilding is to continually trade expensive vets with limited control for top young talent so that there is always a number of good players making league minimum on the roster, allowing us to afford a few expensive players (including Braun) on the roster and allowing us the capital (in both money and a fully-stocked farm) to fill holes on the roster through free agency or trade. I don't see any way that we can just continue to extend all of our talented but expensive players indefinitely and fill in holes in the roster without ever going through a rebuilding phase when we have a limited payroll. Continually spending big money for players is the reason teams need rebuild periods. Edit: Also, while you are probably correct in what is going to happen (Hart/Gomez only traded if we're out of it mid-season), both of their values drop dramatically after opening day, as the receiving team loses the ability to make the qualifying offer and receive draft compensation.

You think 2/8 for Burnett was a bad cost move? I think that's been one of the best value signings of the FA period. (JMO) I agree, and while it sucks to nickel-and-dime everything (no one likes sticking to a reduced budget), $4MM is around 5% of our probable opening day payroll, and money will probably be even tighter next year as it's Ramirez's balloon payment year. Is it a wise use of funds to spend even $4MM/year for two years on a free-agent reliever? Melvin's in a tough position this year, as his payroll is being slashed by around 20% while many teams are seeing huge payroll increases. But, he built the boat he's sailing.

Right, which is why Melvin has a big decision: -Do we spend more money and prospects, hampering our future, to slightly upgrade our chances this year? It seems to me the market is too expensive for the cost-cutting Brewers to buy enough new talent to really make a difference, so the only way they make a splash this offseason would be to trade away some of our few good prospects. As more and more teams get huge TV deals, I think the Brewers need as many guys playing for league minimum as possible to remain competitive into the future. -Do we stand pat with a good offense and unproven pitching staff, allowing the big contracts to gradually fall off the books (starting with Hart & Gomez after 2013) before signing/extending more players to big contracts? It's early, but this appears the direction we're headed. We have talent, so we should be around a .500 team. With some luck, we could even squeak into the playoffs. This is a boring but safe way to play the offseason. My concern is that if we end up a middle-of-the-pack team, we haven't maximized the value of Hart's last year, as his value in trade would be greater than his value playing for a so-so team and then walking away. -Do we trade some of the big contracts before they walk, perhaps lowering our chances to win this year, but strengthening our future while adding financial flexibility to fill holes in the roster? I still believe that with the system we have, we could make a quick turnaround with a few good trades. The Greinke trade was the start of it (too bad Marcum was hurt, as trading him would've helped). Trading players when they are entering the final year of their contract when your chances to win it all are slim allows you to stay younger and less expensive while maintaining good talent on the roster. In this scenario, phnxcrew's statement I referenced is a good thing. Some of the Brewer's young starters will fail, but some will succeed. By this time next year, we will have a lot of our questions closer to answered, as we will know how guys like Peralta, Rogers, etc performed in a full-season in the bigs, and the guys who pitched on the farm will have another year under their belt.

The pattern's pretty similar, one team trades good established players who are close to free agency to get very good prospects. Agreed The bottom line is that Hart won't bring as much as the pitching has on the trade market. You aren't going to get a front line pitching prospect, so what do you get, some second line prospect(s) or a position player prospect? Choo brought back Bauer. No one is remotely saying "dump Hart for anything just to free up salary." Markets change, and "universal rules" on trade value only apply until the market changes. Never assume that what is overvalued one year will remain overvalued. Small sample, but it appears we're moving from a period where top prospects with team control were the most valueable commodity in baseball to a point where "proven" is becoming more valueable relative to prospects. That's likely due to the massive inflow of new money into the system. GM's with extra money to spend (generally under a limited term contract with a lot of pressure to "win now") are tripping over themselves to see who can spend the fastest. I'd expect that as the "money supply" evens out over the next couple of seasons, salaries will normalize, but right now looks like a good time to shop a proven vet with an undervalued contract for a top prospect. I don't even care so much about the position, just that we would get a top talent who will be under Brewers control for six years. and if he would resign at his current rate, the Brewers should really think about it Why on earth would he do that? He may sign a "team friendly" deal, giving a slight discount to market rate, but there's no way he's signing another deal for $10MM/season when "clearly inferior" players are signing for more than that. We will already have around half our payroll going to Ramirez and Braun in 2014, while paying eight figure salaries to Weeks and Yo. Extending Hart (without trading Braun, Yo, Ramirez or Weeks) would really tie our hands financially for the foreseeable future. If we truly think we are a World Series team this year, then we should hold onto Hart and Gomez, add some pitching and go for it. If we do not think we are a World Series team this season, we should seriously consider trading Hart and Gomez for good, high-upside young talent who will make us younger, better and less expensive for the next half a decade plus. There is someone out there who thinks they'd have a World Series team if only they could land a 30 HR guy, and the current trend hints that they would be willing to give up prospects for that shot at glory.

This is the natural outcome of utilizing the "window" strategy (build the roster to open a "window" and then go all in to win it all during that window). Eventually, the "window" strategy will lead you to a cliff, as spending money and prospects to go all in leaves you in need of re-building your money and prospects. Melvin built the team to win over the past few seasons, and now we're naturally going into the cycle of rebuilding/retooling. We have a lot of big, expensive (for the Brewers) contracts on the books, leaving us with limited financial flexibility to fill holes. It would be revisionist history to try to determine what would've happened and where we'd be if we had taken another path. What's done is done, and we've got a couple of playoff appearances under our belt. Now we need to look at where we are going forward. We could either do what apparently is the wont for the author of this thread... continue to try to go all in to see if we can force a crack in the window to sneak in for another year. That would either cost money or prospects (hurting our future, pushing the cliff back a little, but making it deeper) for a little better chance at winning this season. We could stand pat. The offense takes up a huge portion of our payroll, so there is talent there. Some games could look ugly, but the ride could be fun, and if everything goes well we could pull off a playoff appearance if some of our untouted but over-acheiving starters continue to prove the pundits wrong. Through natural attrition over the next couple of seasons, some of the big contracts which are limiting our payroll flexibility now will fall off the books, and if we can draft well we will naturally re-build our farm as long as we don't trade the best pieces away. Or, we could potentially forego a little this season to help keep the drop off the cliff from being so painful. Trading guys like Hart and Gomez would probably make us take a step back this season. However, the benefits would be numerous: (A) Most importantly, we would get really good prospects in return, hopefully making this a quick turnaround (B) We would save around $15MM by playing pre-arby guys Gamel and Schafer instead of Hart and Gomez. This could be used to help in other areas or saved for the future © We would give MLB experience to MLB ready guys like Schafer, Gamel, Rogers, Peralta, etc. determining which will be parts of the future and which falter (D) There is a definite chance that we could be as good this year after trading Hart & Gomez because of the talent we get back and the available money to fill in other holes (bullpen) with actual talent. I'm not looking at trading irreplaceable pieces. Hart is an average-to-slightly-above-average 1B and Gomez is someone many wanted to DFA prior to 2012. It would be great to have unlimited resources and simply buy our way out of any problems. That's not reality. At this point, if I were given the choices above, the last choice for me would be option #1. If the market's there (and it looks like proven vets are bringing back good return in trade so far this offseason), I'd trade Hart and Gomez for good young players. If it's not there, given the prices FA's are getting, then I'd "do nothing" (as this thread calls it) by simply picking up a couple of so-so bullpen arms and trying to find a veteran SP cheap at the end of the offseason. The last thing I'd do is pay current market prices for a FA starter and bullpen arms, which wouldn't really do much this year and would simply block players and take up payroll in the future.

This is exactly the tack Melvin should take should he consider trading Hart. Speak with Hart's agent and get a list of teams/cities where he'd consider signing an extension. Figure out which of those teams would be a good match in trade, and give them a call. He'd get more for Hart from a team if Hart was willing to extend with them, just like the Mets got more for Dickey because he is probably going to extend. As to the Dickey deal, I don't know much about the prospects, but the new money flying around MLB seems to have put a damper on the perceived value of prospects. Teams seem willing to trade prospects for expensive vets this off season, so I hope Melvin can capitalize.

Over time, some of our prospect pitchers will be forced to the pen, and that's normal. That should allow us to have an inexpensive and flexible (options) bullpen in the near future. I just don't like throwing guys who could be starters into the pen before they're given the chance to sink or swim as starters. As it stands right now, I'd go with Yo, Estrada, Fiers, Peralta, Rogers. In the likely scenario that we add someone else to the mix, I'd probably start Peralta or Fiers at AAA as our "#6 starter," simply because Rogers is out of options and has to be on the MLB roster. If he doesn't cut it as a starter, then send him to the pen. However, if he does well, he will be a much bigger asset to the team now and into the future as a starter. Estrada needs to be in the starting rotation. He has been very effective as a starter for the Brewers. His overall numbers are skewed because he had some ineffective innings as a reliever, but his numbers as a starter are good. If he has another good year, he will of course help the Brewers in 2013, but will also be a good chip to dangle in trade next offseason as more of our prospects force themselves into the MLB rotation.