brewerfan82

This may be verging on semantics, but I think some people are underestimating how bad a team has to be, to be a "100 loss" team. There hasn't been a 100 loss team in all of MLB since 2013 and in general there are only 1 or 2 per season in general. Additionally, there's an interesting article on FanGraphs right now (http://www.fangraphs.com/community/being-sunny-about-the-brewers/) that shows some projections of the current roster using Steamer projections for 2016, and if I'm looking at it correctly, only 2 of 300 simulated seasons resulted in a 100 loss team. I'm not saying I expect this team to compete for a playoff spot or even play .500, but even if we trade away a couple more players, 100 losses is REALLY bad and I think this team will be much more watchable than that. Back to the topic of the thread, I'm in the "no harm, no foul" crowd on the Capuano signing. By all accounts, Caps is an extremely smart player, a good teammate and likely a good mentor for the younger arms. So even if his production doesn't warrant a call-up to the majors, I think he has qualities they value and I don't mind a few Capuanos sprinkled into the mix on a rebuilding team.

I'm in. I'm really excited to see the Brewers build up the farm system and watch the kids develop, but I wouldn't mind having some interesting veterans filling holes on the major league club in the meantime and from a pure entertainment standpoint, I've always enjoyed watching guys that can blast the ball, regardless of strikeouts and defense. It's a nice sell to the casual fans and gives us another guy who could potentially have a big first half and get flipped for more pieces at the deadline. Additionally, between Carter and Alvarez, we've got bats to fill in the DH during interleague play (and potentially fulltime in a year or two).

Not sure how Carter is such a worse option than Ramirez was the past two years: [pre]Yr Player ABs HR BB RBI OBP/SLG/OPS -------------------------------------------- 14-16 Carter 468 30 61 78 312/459/771 2015 Ramirez 279 11 16 42 295/430/725 2014 Ramirez 494 15 21 66 330/427/757[/pre]

The only team that would trade for either of them would be looking for short term help. So age doesn't really figure onto it. Ramirez got us something because he always starts slow and has a record of finishing well. Carter has a reputation of not being very good period. Knowing a player usually starts slow and has monster second halves is bound to get you more than someone who usually blows but had a hot half season. If he produces this season and into next things change. I just don't think flipping him for anything of value will happen this July. That's not a bad thing. We need someone there for at least one season anyway and he can build much more value by being good for a couple seasons than he ever could in half of one season 1. Because of the reason you stated, age is one of the reasons they are comparable. Both were/are lightning in a bottle acquisitions that aren't necessarily looked as longterm solutions. The only difference was that ARam got us what he got us KNOWING he could ONLY be for the remainder of the one season and Carter still has the potential to help someone for a couple additional seasons as well. 2. I think you're overrating where Ramirez was in his career and/or underestimating what Carter has shown: [pre]2013-2015 Overall ----------------- Ramirez: .328/.434/.762 1273 AB, 44 HR, 88 BB Carter: .312/.459/.771 1404 AB, 90 HR, 183 BB 2013-2015 Pre All-Star ---------------------- Ramirez: .321/.431/.752 699 AB, 26 HR, 49 BB Carter: .303/.438/.741 848 AB, 52 HR, 109 BB 2013-2015 Post All-Star ----------------------- Ramirez: .335/.437/.772 574 AB, 18 HR, 39 BB Carter: .326/.491/.817 556 AB, 38 HR, 74 BB[/pre] So while I'm not saying Carter's not without his warts, I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare him to Ramirez and suggest he could even bring a better return than ARam did.

Yeah, if they're willing to dole out those prospects, they're much better off offering a package to the Marlins to get Fernandez than to get an arguably marginal upgrade at catcher and outfield from the Brewers.

I don't think you're getting Seager (ranked #2 in MLB) or Urias (ranked #4 in MLB) in any deal that we could offer. For perspective, for Gomez + Fiers, the only top 100 player we got back was Phillips (#32). Using a very unknowledgeable and basic look at their farm system using MLB Pipeline, for Lucroy, you might be able to snag De Leon (#23) and Barnes (>#100). And if you take on Ethier's contract to cancel out half of Braun's salary, you could probably get another top 50-100 guy like RHP Montas (#54) and/or RHP Holmes (#58) along with a couple non top-100 guys. Maybe the combo of Lucroy/Braun gets you all 3 of those pitchers. But I don't think they have a need for Segura assuming they keep Seager. But, if they want Lucroy and Braun for three MLB top-60 pitchers, a handful of organizational top-20 guys, including a major league ready catcher, and Ethier (maybe we can flip him as well since he just seems like another clog for younger guys, although with his hefty contract, maybe he just makes a Davis trade more feasible instead) I spose you could do worse. Edit: Actually I forgot Ethier can actually fill in at center, so that's a possibility as well.

I'm okay with us keeping Braun and definitely don't see the point in trading him just to trade him, but there's no reason to not listen to offers. It's a reasonable assumption that his productivity will decline the further into his contract he gets and because of that he's more valuable to a team looking to compete today than he is to the Brewers. Also, BECAUSE we're not in a financial bind is exactly why we should be willing to eat some of his contract if it allows us to get a greater return on players who can help us when we're looking to compete again. In the end, if the right offer comes along, it probably makes more sense to trade him now than to keep him and take on all the risk that he will still be a productive player when we need him to be. The question is just whether another team is willing to offer up a package worth pulling the trigger on.

I think part of the problem with assessing what we got in this trade is that they're not even old enough to be prospects yet. With their age, it's like we got three high school draft picks, guys whose skillsets we like, but we'll have to wait and see how they develop. It's kind of like figuring out a way to trade for draft picks in a system that doesn't allow you to trade for draft picks. That said, is this like getting three 10th round picks? 20th round picks? 5th round picks? I have no idea, but it'd be interesting to hear what their equivalents would be in that respect more-so than where they would be ranked among existing prospects in our system.

Not that it affects the point of the post, but I'm pretty sure they only picked 2 Rule 5 players from the major league portion of the draft (and none in the minor league portions). Update: I stand corrected, they traded for 2 additional ones!

Or it makes it easier to have a guy like Alvarez in your lineup with so many OBP guys surrounding him and maximizing his RBI production when he does blast one.

Doesn't look like it. Games started by position in minors: 2B - 332 GS LF - 76 GS 3B - 58 GS SS - 2 GS

Also, I think Walsh will have a good opportunity to get some ABs against lefties. Even with his stats coming against minor league pitching, he's gotta be a better option than Scooter there. Colin Walsh vs. LHP 2015: 120 ABs, 4 HRs, 49 BBs, .308/.512/.450/.962 Scooter Gennett vs. LHP 2013-2015: 113 ABs, 0 HRs, 1 BB, .124/.147/.150/.297

.447 OBP last year. Meh.

Maybe not 12, as the quote was up to 12, but Lind had the 12th highest WAR for 1B in the majors last year. So there are plenty of teams that could definitely be considering him as an upgrade to their roster right now and it doesn't seem implausible that a dozen or so may have at least checked in on his availability.

I don't like the idea of making a trade just to dump money. I don't think Mark A. is mandating we cut payroll from where we are currently, and since we're not looking to compete the next two years, I don't think Garza's money is going to prevent us from anything we're trying to accomplish in that timeframe, aka obtain young, cheap talent. I think both Garza and Segura are more likely to bounce-back and bring back prospects in a deal than LaRoche is, so I'd rather hold onto them and see what actual talent we can turn them into rather than have LaRoche just to fill a hole.

Except the Cubs aren't the Brewers. The scary thing with the Cubs is they grew their team into a contender the way a small market team needs to, through young talent and their farm system, but can now spend money like a big market team to maintain, grow and expand that talent. They succeeded probably a year earlier than anticipated, but they have the resources to fill holes and take it to the next step as needed.

So... He'll be worse than whoever the Cubs would have pitched if they didn't sign him AND he'll be better than whoever the Cardinals pitch without him? That's the only way that makes any sense.

Pretty sure "budget constraints" was meant in a broader sense than pertaining to just this specific year. The Brewers are never going to have as much money available to spend as teams like the Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs. So positioning themselves to have as much financial flexibility as possible down the road, when it's time to max out their budget on a contending team, is very important and having an extra year on a guy before free agency here and there could be the difference between contending for the division and contending for the World Series.

Sign me up. Plays 3B/1B, left handed bat, shown 30 homerun power in the minors (66 HR in 1616 AB) and takes walks (293 in those same 1616 AB, as well as 441 Ks... but who's counting ). He's not your typical, young, high upside, see if he can make it through the year so you can stash him in the minors guy, but he's going into his age 26 year and seems like a good flyer to take. Looks like a 3TO type that could be fun to watch, pop some homeruns and might turn into a nice trade piece if nothing else.

Seems pretty obvious Stearns values flexibility. The past two acquisitions can cover any position outside of pitcher and catcher, making it easier to target best players available regardless of position and still fill out the roster. Seems like a couple nice complimentary depth moves for whatever happens next.

I think the point isn't that it's a "contending" lineup, but rather that it's a lineup that's built with players at each position that serve a purpose in a rebuilding year, be that as a player (due to age or contract) that could still be around to help in a couple years, or a player that could be an attractive trade piece to another organization at some point. I think we all agree that players like Lind *should* be traded, but it doesn't have to happen immediately (although that would be my preference as well). Right now Stearns has a lot of negotiating options and doesn't *need* to deal any specific players or positions which helps with leverage.

Got this from Adam McCalvy's Twitter feed. I think this is the biggest thing this acquisition does. It sets Stearns up with a lot of flexibility during the offseason. Going in we had a big hole at 3rd, now that's possibly filled (but could still be upgraded in the right deal), or we can trade any of Segura, Gennett, other misc. infielders without worrying about opening another hole. It gives Stearns options and negotiating power since as of now we have bodies to fill all our positions.

I like it. I live in Baltimore and fans aren't happy

I may be wrong, but I thought there was a new rule in place that a team receiving a player in the final year of his contract is ineligible to receive a comp pick at the end of the year. So while we may lose the possibility of receiving a comp pick by trading him away, I don't believe the Mets would gain the possibility of a comp pick by trading for him. In which case, I don't think they'd up the package they're willing to give up for him because of that. Anyone understand that part of the comp pick procedure well enough to verify that?

Thanks! Good idea. The base projections I started from (which is a compilation of several projections) didn't include QS, but I could develop an estimate from the other projection stats.