Matt Breen

Cubs and Astros lead the league in strikeouts last season. I'm not saying they are 'good' to have, but they don't necessarily have to mean a team is unsuccessful.

I noticed he's been all over the tanking this this off season. I don't really know much about his relationships with teams and the league, but there are always writers who are toadies for the various powers. I can see the players not liking it - it may diminishes options for veterans. But the big issue seems to be with the bigger market teams. They seem to be driving this issue. They don't like sending tens of millions of dollars to teams who they perceive aren't even trying to win. I wouldn't be surprised if Olney is taking up their cause at their behest. Of course, maybe he just thinks it's a terrible situation. In the end, it's part of a campaign to install changes in the system during the upcoming labor negotiations.

Next Top 25 is going to be fun. Lots of changes with all the deals - and others likely to come.

In the end, we got a borderline Top 100 player for Davis. It's about the value I expected to get for him at this time. Sure we could have waited and Davis might have repeated his great 2nd half. Or we could have waited and he could have hit .220. We made a deal now, and we got what we got. I'm not going to naval gaze over these kinds of things - and I don't want Stearns to do so either. The organization has a plan and this is one part of it. Make the deal, move on. Of course there are risks Nottingham fails, but that's how it goes with prospects. Many of these deals will yield little or nothing. But again, that's the nature of what we are doing. With Davis gone, we will likely turn to Santana. He'll get his chance, and if he fails, someone else will get a chance down the road. But now is the time to test guys like Santana - find out if they are part of the next winning team. I'm happy with the team's philosophy so far. The actual players we get can't be judged for a while, but we seem to be on a good path. I like having that feeling. I know 2016-17 will be tough, but I'm going to enjoy watching the young kids develop.

My comment was mostly in jest but more about the rankings and the people who do the rankings than the organization or the players themselves. Was there anyone on this board, other than his dad, that expected much out of Ben Hendrickson? Hendrickson had a sweet curveball that could totally dominate a game when he was on. Too bad that wasn't very often. He had some stretches in the minors where he was pretty awesome, but the control just never materialized.

Braun's coming off back surgery, plus only one year removed from all the hand issues. No one is likely giving up much until he shows he's healthy again. You're still talking $95M over 5 years ($18M deferred). Adding a $15M salary at this stage isn't in a lot of teams' budgets. I don't think anything happens until he's shown himself to be healthy and productive for a few months.

It seems opinions differ. John Sickels rated Nottingham a B+/B prospect, which would place him #5 in the Brewers system. Baseball Prospectus rated Nottingham #66 in their Top 101, which would place him #3 in the Brewers system. Baseball America was much lower on him than anyone else and had him #11 in a slightly-lower-ranked Athletics system, so presumably he would be in the mid-teens in the Brewers system. The MLB.com Pipeline ranking (#16 in the system or whatever) is irrelevant because they haven't updated those yet, and Nottingham had a huge breakout 2015. If you're confident that he can stick at catcher (which Stearns & co. presumably are), then it seems like top-5 in the system is about right. Pipeline was updated a couple of weeks ago: http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016 NOttingham is not on the top 100 list. He is listed as the #8 catcher. BA Top 100 just came out. Nottingham isn't a top 100 guy for them.

Nottingham is a solid prospect. Fits a need at C or 1B - although that's not that big of a deal in my book - but I'll take it. Maybe he's not Top 100 in some eyes, but he's likely pretty close. Davis' value was always sort of murky, so I'm good with adding a Top 100 (or near Top 100) prospect in the deal. Catching prospects are difficult - many flame out (especially going from A to AA). So it'll be interesting to see how he does next year.

I would bet Braun heads back to LF with Santana going to RF.

Law has out his Top 100 prospects. Arcia is #10. I don't know other rankings, but four Brewers made the top 100.

The Cardinals have simply been smart. We've talked about this before. They draft decent. They make astute trades. They know when to let veterans walk. They sign the occasional free agent when needed. They extend guys as needed. They don't get weighed down by bad contracts. This is nothing secret. It's just doing all these things rather well. It doesn't mean they are perfect. They have bad trades and bad draft picks. But they have kept a steady stream of talent onto their team - a steady stream that includes everything from stars to role players. It's just been a smart organization.

In case anyone is wondering, we'll plan on doing a new Top 25 toward the end of Spring Training or right when the season starts. I have a feeling there will be a lot of moves right up to opening day. Already we have quite a few new players to consider, and I imagine there will be some more (plus a few departures).

Suggestion that the Brewers get Tim Dillard to replace Joe Block: http://www.brewcrewball.com/2016/2/8/10930210/brewers-should-consider-tim-dillard-for-open-broadcaster-position

I think 'playing the right way' can have a couple of interpretations. One is the 'white way' - as noted earlier. The other is working hard, helping your teammates, doing the little things (hitting cutoff men, laying down bunts properly, backing up plays like you are supposed to, etc.).

Don't forget the 1 strikeout he had. Sure it was only 86 ABs, but that's pretty impressive. He had an .884 OPS in 2014 while playing in Japan.

Can we put that on a uniform?

I have always liked a Lucroy/Davis package to Texas, but that Hamilton guy is kind of in the way. Heck even a package with Lucroy/Davis/Smith would look really nice for Texas. Probably talking way to many prospects to be throwing around though. I mentioned something about a blockbuster with Texas using Luc/Davis/Smith. But Texas would have to unload a ton of talent to us. How about Tate/Ortiz/Matuella as a starting point? Three pitchers with tons of upside. I can dream. And then there's Gallo, Brinson and Mazara - lots of upside there. The one thing that really works is that Luc/Smith/Davis only make about $6.5M - meaning any team can really afford them. The cost to get all three - that's a different story - but it would be fascinating to pull off such a trade. I don't think Hamilton would be a huge obstacle. Texas isn't paying him very much - I think something like $5-6M - the Angels are picking up the rest. With the age and injury history of of Prince, Hamilton and Choo, you could find everyone plenty of ABs. And Texas is really left handed reliant - so Davis and Luc are perfect.

This is why I go think it will be Texas or Washington. Both have teams that are older and poised to be contenders. They also have histories of making splashy moves. The door to contention for these teams is the next few seasons, so a move to add Lucroy (and possibly Davis or Smith or Peralta or whomever) is now. I see Washington as more desperate - with their window of Bryce Harper being three years. Texas has a lot of depth, so they can handle losing some prospects.

Of all the teams that would be interested in Lucroy - and all the teams that match up with our desire for younger prospect types - I still see Texas and Washington as the best fits. Both are older clubs with a window of 2-3 years of contention. They need to strike now, and Lucroy fits the bill perfectly (position need, cheap, good). Both clubs have been looking to improve their offense of late - it just makes too much sense for something not to happen.

What is a targeted approach?

Regarding Maldonado, I'd be okay giving him a shot at more playing time. First, I hope the team told him to get in better shape. He looked really heavy last year, and I hope he was told to be ready to take on more of a load - and thus be healthier. Second, as others have said, Maldonado is a good defensive catcher who supposedly works well with pitchers. I'm okay with that as a starting point since we're going to have so many young guys on the staff this year (and in the next few seasons). Is he a long term answer? Is he going to get 500 ABs? Probably not, but he serves the purpose of helping develop our young guys. And if he takes the opportunity to heart, maybe he'll be in better shape this year, and hit better. I'm okay letting the other guys we have fight it out for back up, including Weisenberg, who I think will be an okay reserve.

David Schoenfield at ESPN was doing a chat and he said Lucroy is easily worth a Top 5 prospect + more. Some people were trying to concoct deals with lesser people, and he was shooting them down. He said the Brewers feel he's worth 2 top 5 type guys. He suggested Trea Turner + something extra from Washington would be a nice deal (the Nats could then re-sign Desmond to play SS).

I'd love Trea Turner. Slide him over to 2B - that's a future middle of the diamond.

2016 is experimenting, acquiring assets, seeing who might be part of the future. Some of our young minor leaguers will start to be called up. 2017 is about seeing the first wave of minor leaguers emerge, giving guys like Arcia, Phillips, Lopez, etc. time to settle in. 2018 will be when we start seeing something interesting. I don't know if it's .500, but what the heck - we can dream (and not unrealistically). It's the year guys Nelson, Jungmann, Davies, Peralta, Hader, Lopez, Phillips, Santana, Arcia, Reed and others will have some experience under their belts. These guys are will be in their primes. Because so many things can go wrong, I don't know if there will be enough talent to get to .500, but 2018 looks like a year to say we'll be decent. Yes. So many things need to go right for us to be close to .500 - and that usually never happens. Yes, but I think we can be interesting - even fun. It'll be a blast to see guys like Arcia and Phillips and whomever get a chance. But young players often struggle - so I expect lots of growing pains. If 'bad' is below .500, give it 2-3 years. But you never know. The rebuild never ends. That's the point with what Milwaukee is doing. It's building a sustaining engine. That's why we aren't loading up on AAA guy or whatever. It's about constantly funneling quality talent to the majors. As other have said, it's an approach that requires a constant mining of talent through all available channels, including the draft, trades and more. Perhaps you can say that come the time we get to .500ish is the time the 'rebuild' is done, and it's more of a 'sustaining' mode we go into. I'll be disappointed if this hasn't happened within 3-4 years.

^ This is exactly right. We have the luxury to experiment right now - try guys like Cecchini or Perez or whomever. Focus on getting the best players, let fate, time and circumstance sort things out. It doesn't mean you don't get a 3B, it just means you don't put positional priority at this time. That could change down the road, but for now, it's not essential.