monty57

I'm fine if Stearns isn't sold on the guys he has and thinks Weiters is a significant enough upgrade that getting him at a reduced price on a "bounceback" deal makes sense. I'm fine if Stearns thinks that Susac would progress better by getting 1/3 of the starts behind Weiters before becoming the full time guy next year, with Bandy getting full-time duty in AAA. I'm fine if Boras is just spreading this rumor to build up his client's value, and our plan is to go into the season with the guys we have. I just hope it isn't another time where Boras goes around the GM and calls Attanasio directly and convinces him to sign his client.

We may be up against the clock a bit on the 10/5 for Braun but the Dodgers don't see that as their problem nor should they. They only should if they think that Braun is the piece needed to go all the way. If they really want him, then they have to make a move now or he gets a no trade clause, although he may still allow a trade to his hometown team. But, for the most part, I've accepted that Braun will probably not be traded and will be a Brewer for life.

And the Cubs will never win the World Series because they're cursed, and a small market team like the Royals will never win the World Series... any others? I don't think I've ever said either of those two statements above. Anyone can win a World Series. Any franchise. It's been proven too many times for it not to happen. Eventually the Brewers will luck into one as well. I just don't think the Dodgers realize their window with a pitcher like Kershaw. They have a few more years of the dominance if he stays healthy. If they don't make the corresponding moves to go in for a World Series, they will regret it greatly. I wasn't saying you said those things about the Cubs or Royals, but that there are always people saying "this team can't win because..." and then they end up winning. Right now, the Dodgers are one of the most talented MLB teams, with probably a top 10 farm system, more money than most/all other teams, and one of the best GMs in baseball. Right after the Magic Johnson group bought the team, I think they spent money just to make a splash, but I can't understand calling a Friedman-led franchise "dumb," and I don't see how they are "not making the corresponding moves" when they have one of the most talented rosters in the majors with a $250M payroll last year. Plus, they just traded away a very talented prospect to upgrade their MLB roster.

And the Cubs will never win the World Series because they're cursed, and a small market team like the Royals will never win the World Series... any others? The Dodgers have tons of money, and they took one of the best GMs in the game away from Tampa. They have a very good MLB team, and still have talent on the farm. I'd say they're pretty likely to be good for a long time, and probably have pretty good odds to win it all at some point in the near future. If Magic Johnson was calling the shots, Braun probably would have been a Dodger last year, and we probably wouldn't have had to even take bad contracts back. Unfortunately for the Brewers, he's not making the calls, and Friedman will make sure they don't get swindled.

Scooter has about an identical amount of PAs the last 3 years as Forsythe, so lack of opportunities is not the issue. Forsythe is a much better player than Scooter both at the plate and in the field besides being far more versatile. Scooter to the Rays makes enough sense, just don't expect anything of value in return. last season scooter hit .263/14/56 Forsythe hit .264/20/52 minus the power numbers, they are very similar. I agree that defensively and versatility are 2 big advantages over scooter. i don't expect a top prospect back for Scooter, but he wouldn't be a bad replacement for Logan for the Rays. Yeah, Gennett really doesn't have a role in Milwaukee, so any potential trade partner should be checked out. He is a relatively inexpensive, starting-caliber MLB player with some team control, so hopefully the Brewers can get something for him. Not elite talent, but something useful. As to the trade-at-hand, two years of a decent MLB player for six years of a potentially good player is probably fair. I wouldn't be happy if the Brewers did this, but for the Dodgers, they have deep enough pockets that they can afford to trade away some prospects in order to win now.

You mean like Wei-Chung Wang in 2014? He was a Rule 5 which made it a different situation, but since they found a mystery injury that allowed them to stick him in the minors and hold onto him, I'd say yes to your question. The Brewers have some promise in their bullpen, but I don't think they'll hesitate to make moves if guys aren't cutting it.

If Braun does not get traded, which is looking more likely, it will be interesting to see what happens in the outfield. This is probably one of those situations that will work itself out with injuries or one of Santana/Broxton/Brinson not playing well, but if everyone is healthy and playing well we will have a "logjam" that may end up meaning one of Broxton, Brinson, Santana or maybe Thames are traded before next season starts. If the NL is going to adopt the designated hitter, I hope it happens soon.

The only position where it made sense to sign a veteran "flip candidate" was bullpen/closer, and we just did that.

I'd say that this is a good problem to have, as average-ish MLB pitchers with team control should have value on the trade market. I am not too worried about the Brewers letting their prospects rot away while lesser talent sits at the MLB level. This is a good year to let the guys currently at the MLB level sink or swim, and I expect a lot of movement in the rotation over the next couple of years. Hopefully at the end of it all, the average-ish guys will have pitched well enough for us to trade them to continue stocking the system, while the guys who can be better than average will give us a solid rotation for a long time.

Agree. Even Hiram Burgos has a shot if a couple guys are traded or injured. He had some dominant stretches in the minors, and coming off a really nice winter league stint. Probably no room for guys like Wilkerson or Burgos, but not they are options. Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see Lopez or Woodruff make the rotation coming out of ST. They may want to trickle these pitchers in, instead of suddenly adding 3-4 rookie SP in a short amount of time. This would also speed up the rebuild a bit, because all these SP prospects will need a little adjustment time. They probably wouldn't want to start Hader's clock quite yet, but may want to do that with a Lopez since he's older and not quite as concerned about his clock. If they didn't have six MLB guys already, I'd agree that one of the rookies could start in the MLB rotation. As it stands, they should probably trade someone just to make room for the guys they have. Then, the rookies will get sprinkled in as injuries occur, if someone is ineffective, or when someone gets traded at the deadline.

At some point this spring, a starting pitcher will go down somewhere. If it's one of our guys, that determines our rotation. If not, then we are in prime position to trade one of our six starters (really one of the five not named Davies). If no one is hurt, and no one is traded, then I think the aforementioned idea of sending Nelson to AAA to work on his control (and also help keep some of our promising prospects away from the thin air of Colorado) may be the best option. If no trades/injuries occur: -Davies and Guerra are sure things for the rotation. -Peralta pitched so well in the second half that I think we have to keep him in the rotation to see if he's finally "found it." -Anderson is as close to a "solid innings eating vet" as we have. Nothing spectacular, but should put up decent numbers for us until our prospects are up and there's no space left for him, at which point he should be tradeable. -Garza is probably the most likely to be traded before the season begins. However, outside of one outlier season with the Brewers, he's had a pretty solid career, and a good first half could mean we could get something in return for him at the deadline. On the flip side, with limited team control, he'd be the easiest to jettison if he starts out poorly, opening a spot for someone else. -Nelson has an option and if we need someone to go to AAA, he looks like the guy who could most use some time away from the pressure of the big leagues to "find himself." It's not a bad position to have excess MLB talent, with better talent coming up through the minors looking to push our current guys out of the rotation. Most of our rotation will be "pitching for their lives" this season. Hopefully everyone pitches well, and Stearns has some tough decisions to make.

Shores up the bullpen a bit after we traded so many people away, lets our inexperienced guys get some experience as setup guys before making the jump to closer in the likely event the Feliz is traded at deadline, and hopefully we'll get something in return when/if he is traded. Oh, and it should help us win a few more games, making our MLB team a little more enjoyable to watch.

Thanks for providing the list. I looked at that a while back and thought Chatwood would be a good target. He shouldn't demand a king's ransom, and could be a darn good pitcher if he didn't have to pitch half his games in Colorado. Plus, with our newfound interest in defense, we might even be able to help out a ground ball pitcher by 2018 :-) Even if he didn't turn out to be our #1, he would be a very solid guy to have in a rotation while we're vying for the playoffs. Throw him and Davies as veterans with guys like Hader, Ortiz, Woodruff, etc. filling out the other spots, and we could have a pretty solid rotation top to bottom.

Personally, I hope the long term plan is to avoid the big prospect trade and the expensive FA signing. I'm hard pressed to think of a premium pitcher on a FA contract that is desirable if you could take it over. Price? Verlander? How about Lester going forward? What's he going to be in 2 years. Strassburg? I could see an argument for Scherzer, but man that's a big number. There's the rub. I wouldn't mind them signing a guy, and think that they probably will, but the situation has to be right. Can they find a guy in his late 20's who could head up our rotation without potentially bankrupting the franchise? Even though we have a considerable amount of free cash flow going forward, I doubt we'll be able to sign a "true ace" on the free agent market. We're more likely to find a "low-end #1/high-end #2." These guys, especially these guys who are still in their prime and not past their prime, are not always available on the free agent market every year. That's why a trade may be the way to go if we feel we need to add someone to be our #1. As I mentioned, I don't think now is the time. However, if Braun is not traded (which is looking more and more likely), then he's a Brewer for life. If Broxton, Santana and Thames all have good seasons, then we almost have to trade either one of them or Brinson by next offseason. If we headlined a deal with Santana, dealing from a position of strenght/depth, and targeted a pre-arby SP, then a trade might make sense. Trading our top prospects would be counter-productive to the gains we've made over the last 1-2 years. Trading the talented "odd man out" in the MLB OF situation could help us in both the short- and long-term. You could also swap out "pre-arby guy next offseason" with "highly touted AAA guy this July." That may be more realistic.

"everyone" thought it was too early to sign Lester? I'm sorry, I tried to be clear that I meant "ready for the playoffs that season." The Cubs obviously had a lot of young talent, but when he was signed many people questioned why they were making the move when they did, as they were still believed to be a year or two away from the playoffs. As I said, "I could see the Brewers making a move for a starting pitcher before the national media think they're ready, but I think that's probably next offseason rather then this one. Hopefully, our young guys progress over the next 12 months, and by next offseason we will have a much clearer picture of where we're looking good and what piece(s) we need to fill some holes to get us in the playoff picture." A move like this wouldn't make sense right now. However, if some of the Brewer players take some steps forward, then it may make sense to obtain a top of the rotation starter next offseason. I would prefer a free agent signing rather than giving up prospects, but we don't know what will be available. Maybe guys don't progress (or prove to be flukes) and next offseason is too soon, but if guys like Villar, Broxton, Santana and Davies continue to play well at the MLB level, and Thames and some of our better prospects show that they can be good major leaguers, we will have a pretty solid foundation and could be ready to spend money on a good starter. I started my quote with "I know we're not the Cubs." My example was simply that I think we'll go after a good starting pitcher once the foundation gels, and that will probably be before the "talking heads" of national media think we're ready. I think/hope that could be next offseason. It shouldn't be now, as we still have too many question marks, some of which should be answered this season.

One general manager says why would anyone give up a couple of prospects and take on some of the money when there are bats like Mark Trumbo and Jose Bautista on the market who require only cash, no talent in return? MLB Network guys were saying that it looks like Bautista could head back to Toronto on a one-year deal because of the weak market. That would take one option off the table, but also shows that teams aren't willing to give up much for OF bats. A trade could still happen, but I've pretty much settled into the belief that Braun will be a Brewer for the rest of his contract, which isn't the worst thing that could happen. They will just have to sort out the OF logjam as the players become MLB ready.

I know we're not the Cubs, but I think it's good to look at what they did. When some of their prospects were up, but before anyone in the national media thought they were ready, they made the Lester signing. Everyone said it was too early, but they ended up making the playoffs. I could see the Brewers making a move for a starting pitcher before the national media think they're ready, but I think that's probably next offseason rather then this one. Hopefully, our young guys progress over the next 12 months, and by next offseason we will have a much clearer picture of where we're looking good and what piece(s) we need to fill some holes to get us in the playoff picture.

I think a big part of this potential signing is that the Brewer management doesn't want to take a step back and completely suck this year. I want to see young guys get their shot, but filling an entire bullpen with guys with little experience and little "fanfare" could get brutal. This isn't blocking someone like Brinson or Hader, this is pushing our worst middle reliever back to AAA, while allowing the relievers who do have some talent to get more experience as a setup guy before they get moved to closer when Feliz is likely traded at the deadline. I understand where And That is coming from, as naming someone "closer" is the easiest way to add value to a player, but I think that falling back and losing 95-100 games would not be good for this team, as it would be bad for player confidence, and it would turn fans off of the rebuild. Of course, Feliz himself is not that big of a difference maker, but the combination of getting him (and maybe another vet reliever) along with acquiring MLB players like Shaw and Thames could keep us closer to .500 than 100-losses while not really blocking anyone.

I'm just hoping we get a great Peralta for half a season and then trade him. That works too.

What if you could get creative? Doubt a deal's ever been this way before, but 1yr, 2option years, but Holland could opt out that option? You could just do a mutual option, so both the team and the player have to say "yes" for the option to be exercised. I'd go for an opt out clause if he meets certain criteria. And those criteria are high enough to warrant that we can put a QO on him. Are we sure we're ready to pay something like $16M for a closer? Stearns seems to have his eye set on signing a former closer this offseason, and the names I've seen are Holland, Romo and Casilla. I can get behind this. They have the opportunity to guarantee a closer spot, letting the "youngsters" get a little more experience in middle relief and setup roles. If the guy does well and they're out of the playoff race, they can then trade him and let a "youngster" get some experience closing after the deadline so he's ready for 2018. A one-year deal for one of these guys would be a no-brainer, and even a two-year deal wouldn't bring too much risk. I don't like the player opt-out idea. As others have said, that puts all the risk on the Brewers, and I that's not good.

Now we just have to hope we get "2nd half Peralta" for a full season.

and a team like the Packers who want to rely soley on the draft may piss away Rodgers career with only 1 Super Bowl. Which is exactly how many Super Bowls the rest of the teams in the division have combined over the past 50+ seasons. Championships are very hard to come by. Dynasties rarely happen. I agree that there is an uneven monetary playing field in baseball, but even the big money teams have a hard time winning a championship. I'd like to see equally shared TV revenue, which would be the only thing needed to level the playing field, but until that day comes, the best thing small market teams can do is what Stearns seems to be doing. Get a lot of talent at all levels and continually do what it takes to add more talent at all levels. No model (including spending more than anyone else) will guarantee you even one World Series ring, but the model Stearns/Attanasio are building in Milwaukee should make them a competitive team for an extended period, and hopefully that will end in multiple playoff appearances and maybe even bring a championship home to Milwaukee.

I think that as long as Stearns is GM, everyone in the system will always be a candidate to be traded if the right situation arises. That said, I don't think he was signed to be flipped. I think he was signed because management likes him and we don't have any other 1B. I would be surprised if he were traded in the near term, but wouldn't be surprised if he gets traded prior to his final season if he is playing well and the Brewers have an alternative to play first.

From MLBtraderumors: The Brewers have been in contact with the representatives for seasoned free-agent closers, but there’s no guarantee they’ll sign any of the remaining available options (e.g. Santiago Casilla, Sergio Romo, Greg Holland). These are all good pitchers with good track records. If we can get one of these guys by guaranteeing them that they will be our closer, then I think someone would give up a prospect at the deadline if they are pitching well.

I would look for a guy with "name value" and no real check marks against him. Winning teams will also be going after him, but they would only be able to offer a setup or middle relief role, while the Brewers can promise him the closer role (at least to start the season in case he totally bombs). If he succeeds, by proving himself in the 9th inning his trade value should be elevated, which would help the Brewers, and he will be a "proven closer," which will help him sign a bigger deal next offseason. The main risk to the Brewers is the few million they pay him, while the upside could be a decent half season out of a reliever and some decent prospects at the deadline. It may not be a blockbuster haul, but it's a low-risk way of adding talent to the system.