Brock Beauchamp
-
Posts
6,895 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
News
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp
-
Their names are too similar. I blame their parents. -
I think paying a veteran outfielder makes them a more complete team. Your opinion may differ, that's fine.
-
If you go into the season expecting one rookie to start, you're almost guaranteed to have two rookies starting by the first of May. These guys will get their shots.
-
Evaluators are often wrong but they're still more well-informed about prospects in the broadest sense of the term (as in all 30 teams) and they have no personal incentive to fudge the numbers one direction over the other (well, the good analysts, anyway). As for Law, he's one of the better analysts out there. I'd put his track record against almost anyone. He's overly opinionated and a bit of a jerk at times but he's also good at his job. When he speaks, I tend to listen because there's useful information in there. And anyway, I clearly said it was possible for the Brewers' rookies to all burst onto the scene but it's also unlikely and a pretty bad Plan A going into the season, in my opinion. That kind of decision is operating without a safety net.
-
I don't know. Last offseason and early in the season, I heard the likes of Longenhagen and maybe Law (not sure if it was Keith or someone else like Szymborski) really talking up the upper levels of the Cleveland farm and how they were going to get scary-good, scary-fast. There were rumblings that most of baseball was sleeping on Cleveland's organization a bit. While I really like Milwaukee's hitting prospects, I haven't heard similar rumblings about them. Naturally, that doesn't mean the Brewers can't burst out with a bunch of rookies, that's always possible, but it's a dangerous way to build an Opening Day roster.
-
I think the article brings up a very valid point that while it's fine to rotate 2-3 rookies through a single position until you find what sticks, it's really dangerous to do that with the same 2-3 rookies over two positions. The offensive downside could be disastrous if both decide to be, you know, rookies and post .550 OPSes for two months. That's the kind of thing that could sink a season where the Brewers are already at a disadvantage to the Cardinals. Get off to a bad start in April and May and it may not be possible to recover.
-
Ah, okay, well then that changes my opinion quite a bit. Thanks for the clarification. Turang might sneak onto a single list. I do not see him making two of them.
-
Refresh my memory on the new rule: the prospect has to make the top 100 of just one of BA, FG, or MLB? Or is it BA, BP, MLB? Such a weird agreement for a CBA.
-
You don't believe the Brewers will consider starting Turang on the opening day roster? He would qualify for an extra pick that way, wouldn't he?
-
I agree. And I think the market on him will be relatively soft.
-
I haven't heard much about Turner lately. He's likely to take a one-year deal, right? That seems like the kind of thing the Brewers could swing.
-
That's on me. I literally posted this last night: So my editing failed hard yet again.
-
Yet another great analysis piece from DuWayne. Well done! And wow, it appears Matt Arnold slid into someone's DMs and stole the show from the A's and Braves.
-
Pretty hard not to be a HUGE fan of this trade. It appears the A's and Braves were at a standstill in their deal, allowing Arnold to sneak in and kinda rob everybody blind.
-
Hey, I flipped this over to the FA rumors section. In the future, please use that tool to post rumors of this kind. It REALLY helps the site because the FA section is much more google-friendly and set up to be promoted on social media (and it posts to this forum so from a user aspect, there's no real change to its appearance). Thanks!
-
Just wanted to say that I *really* like this piece and well done, DuWayne.
-
While I'm not a huge fan of the trade for a few reasons, on paper it makes some sense. The Brewers gave up Wong, who is coming off a career high offensive season. In return, they received Jesse Winker, who is coming off a career low offensive season (largely due to injuries and possibly a bad home park). It's a classic buy low situation. And on top of that, they also brought in Toro, a cheap utility option with some upside.
-
To appease some users who don't like articles clogging up the Brewers forum, I've begun automatically sending videos to this forum so the primary forum doesn't populate as many article/video threads.
-
The mind boggles at the numbers we're seeing right now. Hunter Renfroe is potentially a nine figure contract guy. What world are we living in right now? It's just staggering.
-
I agree, I'm not that high on Swanson but someone out there is going to buy into his 2020 and 2022 seasons and give him a contract I would not personally give.
-
Given how this offseason is going, I think that 6/$150m number for Swanson is going to be way low. At this point, I'm fully expecting him to get something in the $200m range.
-
I hadn't considered this. What an interesting idea. I'm sure some team will try this, I'm really interested to see how it pans out.
-
The biggest problem (the way I see it) is television revenue. When the Brewers are drawing $40m a year from their TV contract while the Dodgers are drawing $250m, baseball is just going to be broken. And a salary cap doesn't really fix that on its own. I cannot see a situation where owners agree to this but TV revenue must be shared, just as teams share gate revenue. And at that point, you can probably get the MLBPA to agree to both a salary cap and floor. The union isn't necessarily against a salary cap, they're against a salary cap that allows owners to pocket more and more money. If you find a balance point where the floor and cap are tied to league revenue, the union likely agrees to it. And the way I see it, that basically fixes 75% of baseball's problems in one fell swoop.
-
Like the article points out, any move individually makes sense. But when combined, they're not exactly compelling. One thing that chaps me about the moves is that every MLB team received a $30m payout this offseason as Disney completed the BAMTech buyout. The Brewers could have easily invested that money into Wong and Renfroe while also patching up their roster. Both players are on expiring deals that come well under the one-time $30m revenue addition. With all of that said, it's still only December 9th. There's a lot of offseason left and I will reserve final judgment until we're well into Spring Training.
