monty57

If I recall correctly, when Stearns was hired, one of his strengths was supposed to be his ability to spot talent at a young age. Then he made the Lind trade, which I was excited about at the time. Since becoming GM, he hasn't had many chances to trade MLB players for prospects, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this deal.

Yelich, Hiura, Narvaez, Braun, and Garcia all have track records showing they're better than they've been this year, so they should improve. Urias has a lot of upside, so he needs to keep playing every day. I like the OP's thought of Arcia at SS / Urias at 3B, since Arcia does have talent, and maybe he can finally start to break out. I'd also like to see Taylor brought up for CF, as he has some upside and this is a good opportunity to see what he has. I guess at this point I'm ready to let the kids play. They have three days until trade deadline, and it's getting to the point where if they can flip Anderson, Braun, Sogard, Smoak, or Gyorko for anything, go for it.

Good point. What we need is for Burnes and Peralta to continue to improve. They're the guys with potential to be near the top of the rotation. If that happens, we could have a very good rotation for the next few years, and guys like Lindblom and Lauer would be competing for the #5 spot. It'd be pretty cool to have a set rotation with depth and not have to spend a bunch of FA money on pitching. That might even make a good offensive FA upgrade possible.

Every SS on the free agent market can also handle 3B. In fact, given Stearns's track record for seeking versatility, I would be very surprised if he acquired a 3B via free agency that also couldn't handle the middle infield. That's a possibility, but would they sign without some kind of guarantee that they were playing SS? Just to throw it out there, the class consists of (courtesy of MLBtraderumors.com) Francisco Lindor, Javy Baez, Carlos Correa, Trevor Story, Corey Seager, Didi Gregorius, and Marcus Semian at the top, with Chris Taylor, Brandon Crawford, Miguel Rojas, Greg Garcia, Donovan Solano, and Danny Santana also on the market. Given Attanasio's history, I could see him raising payroll for a big name, but if any of the top guys are signed, I'd guess that they'd be our SS, Urias would be 3B or 2B (if Hiura moved to 1B/DH) and Arcia would be utility. Edit: Cots says Baez is in his final year of arbitration in 2021. Not sure who to believe.

I think it's fair to assume that players will hit closer to their career average, which should help the offense immensely. For whatever reason, no one is hitting this season. If Garcia, Yelich, Hiura, etc just get back to their expected results, our offense will be much better. For next year, I expect most of the one-year-plus-option guys to be gone, so our big acquisition should be 1B/3B. Unfortunately, while the 2021 FA class if full of shortstops, there aren't many FA options at the corner IF, so it will be interesting to see how Stearns addresses this need, especially since it looks like we'll be around $100M in salary before adding a 1B or 3B. Note that with the SS class that's out there, Arcia will be be about worthless as a trade chip. Maybe we just sign Baez or Lindor, make Urias our 2B and move Hiura to 1B/DH :-)

Over what time frame? As long as someone sticks to a philosophy, my opinion on them won't change in the short-term. I think he's built a major league team with a lot of talented players with years of "team control." As long as he continues to do that, I think Brewer fans are in for more good years than bad years under Stearns' tenure.

So, could this have been a way for the Brewers to save a million dollars or so on a guy who wasn't performing? Peterson seems like the kind of guy you bring up when there's not going to be a lot of playing time, who don't mind losing when you need to bring someone else up. Agree. I'd like to see Ray or Taylor get a chance, since they could use another OF right now.

I think Stearns really wanted Urias, and figured he was "selling high" on Grisham and "buying low" on Urias. Urias was a much higher ranked prospect. Personally, I hope both of them have great careers. The second part of the deal was Davies / Lauer. Davies probably had more value due to his MLB success, and this was probably necessary to make up for Urias probably having more value than Grisham. My hope at the time of the trade was that we got someone who could become a LH version of Davies with more control, but obviously he hasn't proven himself at the MLB level yet. When/if he does, we will get a middle-of-the-rotation starter for five years. Nothing sexy, but there's a lot of value there.

Regarding the Brewers cutting payroll in the offseason: Everyone knew Moustakas & Grandal were here on 1-year deals. Many wanted them re-signed, but they signed for monster deals elsewhere... much more than we paid them. Perez, Thames, Shaw, Guerra, Barnes, Saladino and Spangenberg were all under control, but the Brewers didn't think they were worth what they had to pay to keep them. Perez signed a minor league deal with the Cubs, Thames signed a $4M deal with the Nationals (I think we would have owed him $8M). Shaw signed a $4M deal with Toronto (we paid him $4.675M in year 1 arby, so would have probably paid him at least $6M in year 2 arby). We paid Junior Guerra $2.225M and he was heading into arby (he signed for $2.65 with Arizona - probably about what we'd have paid). Barnes was playing for league minimum, heading into year 1 arby, and is now playing for the Angels for $685,000. Saladino is playing in Korea, and Spangenberg is playing in Japan. I think that 2019 payroll was artificially inflated because we had the opportunity to get Moustakas and Grandal on one-year deals, so I didn't expect that money to automatically be available unless there was a top-tier guy we could land. It seems that Stearns went pretty hard after Rendon, but he signed with the Angels, so Stearns signed some guys with good career splits, looking to platoon. So, last year's payroll was $122M, with Mous and Grandal making $23M. They left, and this year's payroll was $102M before Covid shortened the season. The big cut in payroll was exclusively Mous and Grandal. Next year, Braun, Anderson, Smoak, Sogard, and Gyorko will probably be gone, and Holt is already gone. If Stearns can land an "A" talent, Attanasio will probably increase payroll. If not, then I expect we'll make some trades to try to add more young, controllable talent for the "core," and the rest of the holes will be filled with one-year free agent signings, keeping the payroll somewhere around where it currently sits. Of course, this is contingent on the expectation that things will be back to normal next year. If owners think that next year will be played with no fans, or limited fans, it's going to be a tough year for free agents.

The same can be said for other places too.... fans outside cities' suburbs are watching other teams too. True, but for some reason I feel like the Brewers (and likely the smaller market teams) have a wider geographical spread for their fan base. The Brewers frequently have a high attendance rate at the stadium, and a lot of those people travel from throughout the state. Maybe that’s how all teams are too. Wisconsin's population is only around 5.86M, so the whole state is smaller than several of the cities in which other teams reside. Milwaukee sits just north of Chicago, and west of a big lake, so when you extend your "circle of influence" out, south and east don't add much attendance. Then you have Minneapolis/St Paul on the immediate west border of the state, making some of the NW portion of Wisconsin Twins fans. Meanwhile, a team like St Louis doesn't have much competition for viewership. Plus, they have a winning history, which helps them with fans. Hopefully, the Brewers can continue their winning ways, which will help going forward.

I agree the minor leagues are more important to small market franchises than they are to larger markets, and I share the concern mentioned in this thread about the current state of the farm. One difference I see with Stearns and Melvin is that while both have traded pieces from the farm for major league help, Stearns seems much more concerned about finding controllable assets in trade, while Melvin looked for shorter-term fixes. They may not look as sexy as picking up a Grienke or Sabathia, but getting a MLB player for 4-6 years is meaningful. A lot can happen to a farm in 4-6 years, so by the time someone like Urias starts getting expensive, we will have a significantly different system than we have today. As our current MLB roster is built, we have quite a few positions (including most of our pitching) that could be around for a long time. That eases my concern over the strength of our upper-level farm teams. Right, but they also traded five years of control of Trent Grisham to get Urias. As well as giving up the better pitcher in Zach Davies to get Eric Lauer and his 5 years of control I know. I was talking about trading away prospects. Look at how many years of service time Melvin gave up to get half a year of Sabathia and 2 years of Greinke. Acquiring service time seems to be more of a concern for Stearns than it was for Melvin. Just my opinion, but it seems like it will be easier to keep a good "core" if your better players are around for 4+ years than it is when your better players are only here for a short stint. A complaint against Melvin was that he used his trade chips to "patch holes" for a year and tried to get "core" players in free agency. That led to an old, expensive team struggling to reach .500, with little financial flexibility. Stearns seems to like "patching holes" with one-year free agent deals, while using his trade chips to bring in "core" players. We'll never be able to fill our roster with good free agents, so Stearns' strategy seems to me to be a better one for a small market to remain sustainably good for an extended period. I put some of this on Attanasio, who said that he liked players who had recognizable names. I think Attanasio has changed over the years, and isn't as "hands on" as he used to be, so Stearns probably gets a lot more freedom than Melvin ever had. Everyone will look at things differently, but I really like how Stearns is building the franchise, and I haven't lost any faith in him.

I agree the minor leagues are more important to small market franchises than they are to larger markets, and I share the concern mentioned in this thread about the current state of the farm. One difference I see with Stearns and Melvin is that while both have traded pieces from the farm for major league help, Stearns seems much more concerned about finding controllable assets in trade, while Melvin looked for shorter-term fixes. They may not look as sexy as picking up a Grienke or Sabathia, but getting a MLB player for 4-6 years is meaningful. A lot can happen to a farm in 4-6 years, so by the time someone like Urias starts getting expensive, we will have a significantly different system than we have today. As our current MLB roster is built, we have quite a few positions (including most of our pitching) that could be around for a long time. That eases my concern over the strength of our upper-level farm teams.

Baseball has a strange way of making you feel that every game is life-and-death, and every streak means a player is great or awful. That's why we need to be reminded that small sample sizes are meaningless, and all it took was one winning series and the feelings about the Brewers has shifted. The Brewers have talent on their roster. They started out 7-10, which isn't that bad, and every team will have losing stretches over the year. It's a short season, so some good teams will probably miss the playoffs due to a rough stretch or unfortunate injury, while some bad teams may sneak into the playoffs due to a hot streak. But overall I like the way Stearns builds his teams with a "core and satellite" type strategy, and while the one-year vets who were signed to fill in the roster may or may not play well, they will be gone next year to be replaced by someone else. As long as we keep a talented, "controlled" core, we shouldn't have long stretches of ineptitude, which is a welcome thing for a lifelong Brewers fan.

The one thing that I really don't get is this idea that this roster is better suited for a 162 game season. This depth that we keep hearing about is just not there. This is a bad roster whether the season has 60 or 600 games. Over an entire season, every team has stretches where they are hot and stretches where they are cold. The Brewers are 7-10, which isn't that bad. Meanwhile, the Cubs have started out hot. In a normal season, there is plenty of time for that all to even out. In a 60-game season, any team that has a big hot streak has a good shot at the playoffs, especially with the expanded playoffs. Meanwhile a team like Boston, even with the talent they have, has put themselves behind the eight ball with their 6-13 start. To call this a "garbage" roster after two weeks seems a little early, akin to my 9-year old who was ready to write off Yelich after his cold start. I get that from a 9-year old, but not from someone who has spent a lifetime watching baseball. Baseball is a streaky sport, and a 60-game season is going to have some "favorites" out of the playoffs, and some "bad" teams making the playoffs, depending on who happens to get hot. The mighty Miami Marlins are 8-4 and the Baltimore Orioles are 10-7. Does that make their rosters and their GMs great? Of course not, just like a 7-10 start for the Brewers doesn't make their roster "garbage."

Nothing is forcing us to trade Hader. However, if his arby numbers are so big that Stearns thinks that what he could get in trade is greater value to the team than paying Hader, then he will be dealt. It is highly unlikely that he stays with the Brewers through free agency, but that's because of the economics of baseball, not because we didn't draft a third baseman. Don't let emotions cloud your judgement. Everyone knew this season was going to be "weird," and any team that had a hot stretch would probably make the playoffs. That the Brewers are under .500 after two weeks may look bad for this season, but it shouldn't be a reason to to throw away the long-term plan. I'd love to see the team go on a run here, but I have no problem with them selling if they don't start playing better soon. I don't think Hader will be traded this season unless they're blown away with an offer. However, we have a number of guys with short-term contracts who could draw interest in Braun, Knebel, Holt, Gyorko, Anderson, Sogard, and Phelps. They're all veterans who could help a playoff team. That keeps our core intact, adds something (even if it's not a "stud" prospect) to the farm, and we should have plenty of money to add a couple of pieces to the MLB roster next year. As to the "if our scouts had done a better job..." part, no team drafts well enough to fill the entire roster with good players. Every roster has guys obtained through free agency and trades, and every team has some players that are better than others. We have a lot of talent on our roster, and most of the talented players are controlled for a long time. Sogard and Smoak are one-year fliers to fill in around our more talented players.

This offseason the team cut payroll, and Stearns built a team for NL baseball, with a lot of utility guys and platoon-split players for a league where the pitcher bats. I personally like the DH in the NL, but Stearns built this team before the DH was instituted. He may have made some different decisions if he knew we'd have a DH. I'd love to have a better farm, but at least we have a lot of young talent on the MLB roster. Stearns seems to like stocking the roster with young, team-controlled players, and "filling in the holes" with vets on 1-year deals. Outside of Anderson, our rotation in under control for years to come, and on offense we have guys like Urias, Hiura, Yelich, and Narvaez under control for a long time. We have a lot of talent in our "core," even if some of them haven't fully "clicked" yet. I've always liked the concept of building a core of young, controlled talent, while using free agency to fill in the gaps around this core. Small markets don't have the resources to sign big money free agents to be your "core" players, so I like the way Stearns is building things. Like most things this year, COVID has disrupted baseball, so this year can't really be used as a barometer for anything. Let's enjoy having baseball back in our lives and hope that things are back to normal as soon as possible.

Off topic, but has anyone seen how slow Gyorko is? MLB the Show had him with a "1" for speed, and I didn't believe it until I saw him trying to score yesterday, and got thrown out by a mile. His 40-yard dash could be measured with a sundial.

We have Anderson signed for this year. Houser, Burnes, Woodruff and Lauer are under control through 2024, Peralta through 2026, and Lindblom through 2022. I have no problem with Anderson, but if all of the guys who we have long-term control over are pitching well, I don't want to see them sent to the bullpen just to give Anderson the spot. It is great to have some depth in the rotation, and if these guys prove to be decent MLB pitchers, we could have a solid MLB rotation for years to come.

So is it expected to be Woodruff, Burnes, Peralta against the Cubs, Houser, Lindblom, Woodruff against the Pirates, with Lauer and Anderson starting off on IR?

I think Counsell's biggest strength is how he is able to keep the clubhouse "loose" and the guys all seem to get along. This "Blue-Gold World Series" is a perfect example of this. Everyone is probably pretty stressed out over everything going on in the world, and this adds a little fun and team-building to what could be a boring and/or stressful time. Note that the two captains are guys who are in their first year with the team who are expected to make big contributions. That wasn't on accident. Also cool to see that the teammates are helping each other. The article on the Brewers site quoted players saying that pitchers were telling hitters what they were seeing (how to get them out) and vice versa.

Agreed. It's smart that they keep them away from everyone else so they don't get more people sick, but anyone who is sick now and is not being hospitalized (which should be the case for most MLB-aged people) should easily be ready to go for opening day.

I understood that all the teams had to have their lists into the league office on Sunday afternoon. I wonder why most other team have their lists in (& announced) but the Brewers do not.. It seems that whenever there is a deadline, the Brewers are always a day late.

That's my thought as well. They'll be able to play a 30-on-30 game every day. Might not add anything for the fans, but it keeps the players isolated.

Another interesting point, once the season is underway will teams just stop testing players. Would certainly be detrimental if 3-4 players on the Astros, for example, tested positive and had to quarantine/sit out as the playoffs were starting . I read they'll be tested every other day, and if they're positive they will have to sit out. Some team is going to have an outbreak and will have to play for a couple of weeks with minor leaguers filling in for starters. As to "severe illness," from the numbers that are out there, it is very unlikely for a young, healthy person to get "severely ill" from COVID. It happens, but it's a fraction of a percent. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be cautious, but they're a bunch of young, healthy people with constant medical screening. They are at low risk of "severe illness" or death from COVID.

Who is ignoring COVID-19? Choosing to see optimism in a potential season doesn't mean people are forgetting that the pandemic is still going on. It’s just a comment, let’s not make it more than it is. I would be curious of the plans if and when people test positive...especially if an entire team gets hit hard. There is little wiggle room in the schedule for anything to go wrong, even a bunch of rainouts would be bad. I read that there will be an injured list specifically for COVID, with no minimum or maximum time frame. So, if someone "shows signs" (i.e. has a temperature, coughing, etc.), the team can put them on the list. If it turns out to be negative, they can put them right back on the team. Conversely, if someone tests positive they can be on the IR for however long is necessary. They are allowing teams 60 players to use for the season, so hopefully a team doesn't get hit so hard as to not have enough players for a game. An outbreak could lead to a team using an inordinate amount of minor leaguers, but that's still probably better than just scrapping the season. Interesting about the potential to have a bunch of 5-game series. Having a deep staff becomes even more important, as teams can't stack their top pitchers against rivals like the Cubs do with Quintana against the Bewers. A 5-game series means that you should see the opposition's entire rotation, so some weak links in the rotation could be amplified. Warts and all, I'm happy to see that baseball's back!!