Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

brewerfan82

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,202

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by brewerfan82

  1. brewerfan82
    Just trade everyone to Texas and get it over with: Texas gets: - C Lucroy (~1.5 yrs, $7.5m rem.) - OF Braun (~4.5 yrs, $90m rem., helps make Brinson available) - 1B Carter (helps make Gallo available) - SP Nelson and/or SP Guerra - RP Smith and/or RP Jeffress Milwaukee gets: - 3B Gallo (#7 on Top 100, #1 on Top 3B, #1 on TEX) - OF Brinson (#13 on Top 100, #1 on Top OF, #2 on TEX) - RHP Tate (#31 on Top 100, #7 on Top RHP, #3 on TEX) - RHP Ortiz (#63 on Top 100, #4 on TEX) - RHP Matuella (#7 on TEX) - OF Taveras (#8 on TEX) - SS Tejada (some 18 year old with a .907 OPS this year we may be scouting) - 1B Fielder (~4.5 yrs, 80m rem., helps offset Braun's salary) Texas gains some rotation and bullpen help and their lineup for the rest of this year and next year becomes: RF Choo (.884) CF Desmond (.899) C Lucroy (.853) DH Braun (.881) 3B Beltre (.778) 1B Carter (.830) / Moreland (.707) LF Mazara (.750) / Rua (.807) 2B Odor (.787) SS Andrus (.771) / Profar (.828) Easy. Done deal. (half blue)
  2. brewerfan82
    Updated after a tough stretch leading to the all-star break: - Since the previous post: 10-18 (.357) - Currently 38-49 (.437) - To end up with 100 losses, they'd have to play like a 52-110 (.320) team the rest of the way - To end up with a .500 record they'd have to play like a 93-69 (.573) team the rest of the way - To be on pace to lose 100 games, they would have to lose their next 13 games in a row Atlanta, Minnesota and Cincinnati are still the only teams on pace for 100 losses. 20 of our next 29 games are against teams with records worse than ours (6 vs Reds, 7 vs Dbacks, 3 vs Padres, 4 vs Braves). They are going to have to be impressively bad to hit 100 losses. That said, we have slipped to being closer to 100 losses than to .500 at this point. I'll let you decide if this is good or bad news depending on your desire for them to tank to a better draft pick
  3. brewerfan82
    I would presume he means with improved pitching, next year's team could be much better. A somewhat comparable example would be the Orioles. In 2011, they had a team OPS of .729, an ERA of 4.89, and a 69-93 record. In 2012, their OPS was .728, but with an improved ERA of 3.90, their record went to 93-69. The Brewers have a .718 OPS and 4.47 ERA and are likely to lose some offense before next year, but with good pitching, you never know. All that said, I don't think Stearns has any visions of making starting pitching improvements to help the team immediately. I think he just means he wants to add young controllable pitchers that could help in a couple years still.
  4. brewerfan82
    Old or not, we have lots of team control with the guy, so just set his price tag to what you think his potential is (I'm guessing as a mid rotation starter to fill in a rotation?) and if someone offers a trade valuing him as such, take it, if not, don't. There's a realistic risk in him having no value if you hold onto him and he becomes a fluke, so if someone makes an offer valuing him at what you think he may establish himself as, then you go for it. Otherwise, if teams are valuing him as a AAAA player, you're not likely to lose much if you just hold onto him and he flops.
  5. brewerfan82
    How does sentence one lead to sentence two? They've given Gallo 1 plate appearance this year, so they haven't had a need for him. If anything, them doing well without his services demonstrates he's a disposable piece (this year) and should make him available in a trade for a guy like Lucroy. I think it just depends on how much the Rangers want to upgrade/solidify their team and go for it this year. We have pieces to significantly bolster their already well put together team at catcher (Lucroy), rotation (Nelson/Guerra/Garza), bullpen (Jeffress/Smith), and/or bench (Hill/Carter) and they have a lot of enticing prospects we'd love to take off their hands in return. I don't think any other team can improve their roster to the extent the Brewers can, so if they're willing to deal some of their big prospects, we're in a position to make a deal happen.
  6. brewerfan82
    So we should be giving them to guys like Nieuwenhuis and Presley instead? Older guys that are struggling as well? I agree with you (they've all been pretty bad but at least Kirk and Alex have had stretches where they weren't terrible) but Keon has no clue what's going on at the plate right now. Guerra and Davies have had better AB's the last two nights than he has. We already sent him down to AAA to figure things out this year and he raked (.269/.365/.521/.886 7 HR, 7 2B, 1 3B, 16 SB in 119 ABs). He came back up and he looks lost again. I'm not sure what sending him back down will do for him, it seems to be a mental block at the big league level that he needs to get over and he can't do that in the minors. JJ Hardy started off his career with a .143/.284/.179/.462 line in 56 at bats (Broxton's batting .179/.289/.205/.494 since coming back up), so it's not unheard of for players to start slow and then pick it up. We have the luxury of allowing guys to figure things out at the major league level this year and I have no concern about him blocking time from the older options on the current roster. So my vote is to keep him here and get him as many at bats as possible to sink or swim in. He still only has 57 career MLB at-bats, give him a couple hundred to show some improvement.
  7. brewerfan82
    Anyone still positive this is a 100 loss team? Considering the low expectations, they've played some nice ball so far! Here's some fun with the numbers so far: - Currently 28-31 (.475) - To end up with 100 losses, they'd have to play like a 53-109 (.330) team the rest of the way - To end up with a .500 record they'd have to play like a 83-79 (.515) team the rest of the way - To be on pace to lose 100 games, they would have to lose their next 14 games in a row Currently Atlanta, Minnesota and Cincinnati are the only teams on pace for 100 losses. And Cincinnati is only a 2 game winning streak from getting out of that club.
  8. brewerfan82
    What if team X gives you the following options: 1.) Team X takes on all of Braun's contract, no bad contract comes back to the Brewers, and the return is good or 2.) Same deal, but if Brewers either take on some of Braun's contract or take a bad contract back in return, the return is even greater. You wouldn't even consider the second option? With tons of financial flexibility right now, it seems silly not to try to maximize the talent you get in return in any trade.
  9. brewerfan82
    Well, like it or not, Lucroy is going to be traded for prospects. And getting the #7 MLB prospect overall and #1 at 3B (a position we're scarce at) and the #31 MLB prospect overall and #7 at RHP (we need as much pitching as we can get) is not a bad start. If taking on a contract that's comparable to the remaining of Braun's contract (which we may be able to clear some of off the payroll in another deal) for a guy who's posted OPS+ of 164, 151, 122, 102, and 124 the past 5 years gets you the right guys, you at least have to consider it. It all depends on if other players are involved and how much of Prince's contract you have to cover, but I think you at least consider it.
  10. brewerfan82
    Can't watch it. Up near the head? He missed him down and in by the legs on the first pitch and then drilled him way up in the middle of the back by the letters on the second pitch.
  11. brewerfan82
    Didn't you just write this in the Jimmy Nelson thread: So Jimmy Nelson is needed for the future, but Matt Harvey wouldn't help? I understand the argument that we don't need to give up anything to keep Nelson (other than the missed opportunity of whatever we could get in return in a trade), and we arguably can get a more valuable package in return for Lucroy, but the reasons for having or not having the individual pitchers on the team during the rebuild seems contradictory. Matt Harvey at the dollar figure he will be at after this year will not be worth it to trade Lucroy for him. That's why. Also, he has been atrocious. So we would take our biggest trade chip and move him for a pitcher that may suck. Yeah, really sets us up for the future. Jimmy Nelson is ours and we control him until the year 2021. Not really comparable. Fair enough, makes sense I wasn't really advocating Lucroy for Harvey would be better than whatever is actually offered, but I'm definitely not as against trading Nelson as you seem to be. Also didn't realize Harvey was a super 2, that definitely makes it harder to see him as a good fit within the rebuild's timetable. That said, I highly doubt we get an offer for someone who's as likely as Harvey to be a legitimate ace going forward and I think you have to think pretty hard before passing up an opportunity to add someone like that. 53 innings of bad pitching to start one season doesn't wipe out the other 427 innings of his 2.53 ERA, 9.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 1.00 WHIP career for me. All that said, I highly doubt the Mets are actually looking to trade him at this point either.
  12. brewerfan82
    Absolutely not. This does not set us up for the future at all. Didn't you just write this in the Jimmy Nelson thread: So Jimmy Nelson is needed for the future, but Matt Harvey wouldn't help? I understand the argument that we don't need to give up anything to keep Nelson (other than the missed opportunity of whatever we could get in return in a trade), and we arguably can get a more valuable package in return for Lucroy, but the reasons for having or not having the individual pitchers on the team during the rebuild seems contradictory.
  13. brewerfan82
    The problem is you're extrapolating a small sample size of 58 innings. I'm not saying he doesn't have the potential to continue producing at that rate, but that's much better than he did over a full season just last year (4.11 ERA, 1.286 WHIP) while his FIP just keeps going up each year (2.95, 3.78, 4.10, 4.59). And I think any pitcher would be pretty dramatically better if you increase his K/9 by 1 and decrease his BB/9 by 1, I just don't know that's very likely or happens often. Again, I like Nelson and I think he could be a part of the next competitive team's rotation, and I doubt they're actively shopping him, but I also don't think you hold onto him just to hold onto him if you're offered a package you like.
  14. brewerfan82
    On a team that isn't expected to contend for a couple years, every player is available for a price. Since they can afford to wait out any growing pains, his value to the Brewers should be based on his potential rather than his current production and is likely higher than other teams value him, but you definitely listen to offers if teams are interested. If we were contending for a playoff spot and Nelson was our best pitcher, then it'd be silly to trade him, but that's not the situation this year and likely won't be for at least a couple more seasons.
  15. brewerfan82
    1.) Only has 54 MLB at bats vs. 2452 MiLB atbats (with a .278/.395/.422 line) 2.) Has an OBP over 200 points higher than his average, no matter how low your average is, that's nuts 3.) Has an incredibly low BABIP of .167, which suggests he's had some bad luck in the 24 times he has put the ball in play (in an extremely small sample size) 4.) Can play multiple positions in 2B, 3B, and LF 5.) And this is the big one... he's a Rule 5 pick. We can't demote him without losing him and if we keep him we've got a low-cost option to fill out our roster for the next 5 years. In a rebuilding year, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't hold onto the guy. Forgot about the rule 5, but if he continues to show he can't hit at this level, why would you want him. If he hits for .100 over a full year, fine, but 54 at bats isn't enough to write a guy off with. That's an incredibly small sample, especially for a guy's first taste of the majors and not having consistent playing time. In JJ Hardy's first month of his career, he had 56 ABs for a similar .143/.284/.179/.462 line. It happens. It's only 1/10th of a year's worth of at bats.
  16. brewerfan82
    1.) Only has 54 MLB at bats vs. 2452 MiLB atbats (with a .278/.395/.422 line) 2.) Has an OBP over 200 points higher than his average, no matter how low your average is, that's nuts 3.) Has an incredibly low BABIP of .167, which suggests he's had some bad luck in the 24 times he has put the ball in play (in an extremely small sample size) 4.) Can play multiple positions in 2B, 3B, and LF 5.) And this is the big one... he's a Rule 5 pick. We can't demote him without losing him and if we keep him we've got a low-cost option to fill out our roster for the next 5 years. In a rebuilding year, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't hold onto the guy.
  17. brewerfan82
    First that's not a fact, that's an opinion. Second, there's no way the 2008 team had enough talent to win a WS Interesting statement to make immediately after telling someone else that their statement was not a fact, but an opinion...
  18. brewerfan82
    That is the dumbest reason not to trade him.... You don't give him away, but if the right package comes along, you trade him Not dumb at all (in fact, semantically, as far as reasons to not trade him, that may be one of the most obvious and best reasons...). He already said if the right package comes along you trade him. If Carter shows in the next year and a half that he's got a chance to be the next Davis/Encarnacion and you can sign him to a 3-4 year extension through 2020/2021, he could be a very useful and veteran piece to compliment the young talent when the team is competitive again. Like he said, it's not like we have a bunch of 40-homerun power first basemen lined up to take his place in the minors right now. That said, it's a little early to determine if he's going to keep this up. The potential has always been there, so there is hope, but if someone provides an offer valuing him as the hitter he's been so far this year and not as the one that was released by the Astros for nothing last year, then I think you have to take it.
  19. brewerfan82
    I'm sorry man but, reading this thread. The majority of your posts come off as a troll vs a BrewerFan. I don't get the point in any of them for wasting the time to type them. Guerra with the Win. 6IP. You're around 120 posts thus far which would leave me to believe you joined this site heading in to this season. Why if you're going to piss and moan about a team that's clearly in rebuild since a year ago? It's like the absolute worst time to join this site if you were expecting a 90win season talented team. +1
  20. brewerfan82
    Just out of curiosity... what specific moves are you hoping they make?
  21. brewerfan82
    I think the lack of specifics on the possible return at this point has little to do with what the value of that return could be and is just simply, outside of Milwaukee, that's not the story people are looking to read right now. People know who Ryan Braun is, the possibility of him changing teams and considering which teams might add him is enough to write a story about right now. There are just too many teams, scenarios and prospects, whom most people don't even know, to discuss at this point in a way that would be interesting to a national audience. If actual discussions start taking place with a couple select teams, I'm sure stories will start coming out with how much of Braun's contract the Brewers are willing to pick up and what players the other teams may be willing to include in a package. But until then, that's probably not catering to the majority of these guys' readers.
  22. brewerfan82
    Apparently not as well as the Yankees, the Twins, the Astros, the Reds, the Padres, and especially the Braves.
  23. brewerfan82
    nice, so you're expecting us to make the playoffs!!!! Umm what? There's 81 regular season home games
  24. brewerfan82
    Agreed on the first sentence (assuming the value returned is based on current performance). However, I think the answer to the bolded statement is clearly if we have a desired return and the other team refuses to give it up without a pitcher thrown in. There's another team involved in trades and we can't really just force them to give up a package they don't want to agree to. It's like saying you don't understand why we had to give up Fiers in the Houston deal. Obviously we wouldn't have gotten the full return we did without him included. Also, it may make more sense to throw a wildcard in like Peralta in a packaged deal and then trade other currently high-valued players in their own deals to get maximum return. But it's really hard to know without being a part of the discussions.
  25. brewerfan82
    I don't think many here think it's a bad contract, just a big one. Even if it's fair, it's big enough that many teams simply don't have the payroll space to add it. And it's one for a guy in his age 32-36 seasons, not his age 28-32 seasons. So there's definitely the potential for some drop-off in production and for the contract to become "unfavorable" in the last couple years. The whole eating some-to-much of his contract concept has nothing to do with whether or not it's a fair contract to begin with. It has everything to do with making the pool of interested teams as large as possible and maximizing the return we could get.
×
×
  • Create New...