Matt Breen

21 seems light, but then again, it really doesn't matter. It's one opinion, and in the end, the players have to produce, whether you the best or worst system. I imagine we'll have others put the system quite a bit higher. The best thing about seeing the team higher is that it sort of gives me a feeling that we're heading down a good path - that there's a turnaround in the future.

When??? Haudricourt said this recently: Truth be told, the Brewers would not hesitate to move Braun and his five-year, $105 million contract extension that kicks in next year if a sensible offer surfaced. The baggage accumulated in recent years with his PED scandal and health issues, as well as significant no-trade protection in his contract, make a trade unlikely at this point, however. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/what-the-brewers-starting-lineup-would-look-like-if-opening-day-were-tomorrow-b99647430z1-364593341.html There have been some other things - mostly tweets from various sportswriters about the fact that there's not a lot of interest in Braun at this time. It should be noted that Haudricourt's article caused other sources to basically report the same thing - that the team would move him if they could.

Martes would be the most valuable part of the trade. He has very high upside. I don't know much about Martas, but the other guys aren't exciting. Stassi is a .245 hitter in the minors - .232 at AAA. He just can't hit, so he's likely a back up. Marisnick can't hit either .236 on almost 700 ABs in the majors. 199 strikeouts, only 32 walks. He is 25 in March, and he's got some good tools, but he looks like a defensive back up type. In the end, even if Martes slips into the Top 100, it's him and a couple of back ups in the proposed deal. I want more. If the club likes Martes, then they go after other guys who have higher upsides.

I had a hard time between Luc and Arcia. I basically said, what could I get if I traded each guy. For Arcia, it's pretty easy - he's a Top 20 prospect so that's what I could get back for him. For Luc, I think we could get a Top 20 guy as well (or an equivalent package), plus a little more. Again, it might not be a Top 20 guy, but it could be a couple of Top 100 guys plus some other assets. In the end, I just think Lucroy can bring a little more than Orlando. Maybe I'm overvaluing Luc, but we'll see what happens in the long run.

1. Lucroy 2. Arcia 3. Nelson 4. Davis 5. Jungmann 6. Peralta 7. Smith 8. Lopez 9. Braun 10. Knebel

Nothing very exciting here. The author clearly doesn't think Luc is worth an elite prospect in return. Maybe one or two of the players mentioned are Top 100 players, but it's really full of a lot of okay - but not that good - prospects. He also seems obsessed with returning a catcher to Milwaukee, which isn't how we should be thinking. The Houston deal was really awful. Getting Swihart straight up was the one deal where a team is trading a Top prospect (not that Swihart is a prospect anymore, but he's got less than a year of experience and was a top guy just last year). I give the guy credit for thinking of some deals, but I'd pass on most of this. A bag of average prospects is not what I want for Luc. I want some high upside guys. If no one wants to give up something good, I'd rather just keep Luc and roll with him until someone does want to pay the right price. It's a risk, but guys like Max Stassi and Jason Masnarick are not going to do it for me.

Andrew Heaney would be a nice get, but I think the Angels are counting on him being in their rotation this year. I'm not a Shoemaker fan - just doesn't look that good - and at 29 he's not going to change much. Santiago is solid, but he only has a couple of years of control - so I'm not interested (plus the guy gives up a ton of HRs - I'm wary of those kinds of guys). I liked Skaggs a couple of years ago, but I really haven't heard much about his recovery.

Angels system is bad. I'm not a fan of the proposal because Ward really projects more as a back up than a starter. I'm sure people will see that he hit .348 on 200 ABs between Rookie and Low A ball - but he's never been seen as a guy who's going to hit that well. And he's never hit for power - in college or the minors. Some critiques of Ward are shown elsewhere in this thread. Kubitza isn't bad looking, but he's not that good either. Atlanta gave him up last year for a couple of A ball guys of little distinction. I'd sort of put him on par with Cecchini - there's some potential, but it's nothing I'd bet on. He's a fine guy to get as a throw in on a deal - but he's nothing special. Of course, if the club loves Ward, maybe they like such a move. I just don't want to deal Davis for a couple of guys who don't project to be starters in the big leagues. I should add that Davis would fit in well for them. It's just getting players we like back that's the issue.

I'd pass on Alvarez. Carter is at 1B, and I'd rather see Cechinni given a shot at the hot corner (or Perez or whomever). Jackson I could see. You hope he rebounds, then you flip him mid-season and call up Phillips. But signing guys in order to flip them isn't a sure strategy. An injury or declining play can ruin the entire plan, and you're stuck with a $10M black hole - money that may have gone elsewhere (international signings, infrastructure, etc.). I'm not saying you don't do it - just that it's a strategy with risks.

Arizona is reportedly interested in Howie Kendrick, but they can't pay him without clearing salary. Thus the original idea. Here's the note from ESPN's baseball roundup: "The D-backs are "active in trade talks" to move one of their second basemen, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports. Such a move could presumably clear a roster spot for free agent Howie Kendrick, whom Arizona is said to covet. On their 40-man roster, the Diamondbacks have Chris Owings, Aaron Hill and Brandon Drury as potential options to play the position. If the team is pushing to deal any of those players, Hill is likely the preferred option, seeing as he doesn't carry the upside that younger players like Owings and Drury have. Although the D-backs like Kendrick, they remain reluctant to give up a draft pick in order to sign him, sources tell Rosenthal. Also, the team likes what it has in Owings, which means the trade talks could be just to clear roster space for additional depth elsewhere." http://espn.go.com/blog/mlb/rumors/post/_/id/23146/mlb-rumors-roundup-nationals-serious-about-cespedes It may all just be nothing, but I see AZ in a 'win now' mode, and thus it's the time to make such inquiries. They need to shed money, we can take on salary. They just have to make it worth our while to facilitate such a deal.

This is what I think. - Teams are probably still wary of Ryan's health. He played 140 games last year - pinch hit in 8 of those. That means he didn't start roughly 1/5 of the games. Teams are going to be wary. And the issue with Braun's hand is not something there is much history about (unlike something like Tommy John surgery). Teams could simply be afraid of the long term ramifications of the injury. The treatment is so new, there's just not a track record to convey a full understanding of the risks. Add in the following: - He's owed $95M - not outrageous, but not a small amount either. Teams willing to spend that kind of money may have been more interested in players such as Upton, Gordon and Cespedes - guys who only cost money (and in some cases, a draft pick). They don't have to give up good prospects - something many teams are loathe to do. - Braun is 32. Some teams are skittish about having a player in what is often a 'decline' phase of his career. This is so tough to judge. What makes Joe Mauer turn into a 1.5-2.0 WAR guy at age 31, while other guys, such as Matt Holiday, are producing a WAR of 3.0+ at age 35? - He's not a good defensive player. He's adequate in LF, and would be a fine DH. It may limit his appeal. - The whole PED thing may scare some teams. People argue that teams don't care about PEDs by pointing out contracts handed out guys like Nelson Cruz, Melky Cabrera and Johnny Peralta. Those are legit points, but it doesn't mean every team is okay with making those deals. - Braun has been listed as one of the most hated people in baseball. He lied to the media, to his team, his teammates and the public. You can call out numerous guys for getting busted for PEDs, but few of them publically smeared another person to cover it up, or orchestrated a long charade of denial. People (including players, coaches, staff and fans) don't always forget this kind of behavior, and while some may not care, others might. No single thing is probably the deciding factor in a team wanting to trade for Braun or not trade for him. But taken as a whole, it may make clubs nervous about adding him - especially if the Brewers expect some significant assets in return. Thus, to entice a club into making the deal, the Brewers may need to lower the return and/or pay some of salary (the other items, such as his defense and PED history, the team can't control). But at that point you're giving away a good player for cheap - so you may as well keep him. His bat should still be a positive on the team, and perhaps down the road he can show last season's health wasn't a fluke - thus making him more attractive in a trade. Again, I'm skeptical team would really take Braun without a significant concession on our part. There's no one single reason for that, but a laundry list of concerns. It doesn't mean a good deal can't be reached at this time. It just takes one team to set aside all the concerns raised. We'd be foolish not to investigate a deal. I just think it's unlikely at this time.

Better question: Has it made the organization better?

The problem with Garza for Hill is that Garza has two years on his deal. Arizona doesn't want to take on more dead weight, even if they think Garza might help them a bit this year (which is a big question mark).

The point is that Milwaukee should be looking at every situation and seeing how they take advantage. Arizona doesn't need Hill, he makes a lot of money, and they'd love to clear his salary so they can add another player. We can take on Hill's salary in exchange for them giving us something else of value - namely a quality prospect or two. For Arizona, this might be the only way they can clear salary - by attaching other assets to Hill. We need creative thinking - seeing opportunities where others might not. That's the point of this kind of a trade - which happened just last year with AZ and ATL.

The merits of the DH aside, I think it happens. Probably take 2-3 years to be instituted. In the past, I've kind of liked the pitcher hitting, but I'm warming to the idea of the DH. I debate whether having the DH will help bigger market teams - or if it really doesn't matter. My initial thought is that you have to pay another 'starter' - meaning your payroll gets stretched. Perhaps that is right - but I don't really know. In the end, I'm probably okay with whatever.

MLB Pipeline will have their Top 100 list out next Friday. Until then, they are releasing Top 10 players by position. They did catchers today. Here's the schedule: http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016/?list=prospects I expect Arcia, Phillips, Lopez, Clark and Hader to make it. But if someone doesn't, no big deal. This is someone's opinion, and sometimes they just don't like someone for a particular reason (just as they might overly value someone for a particular reason). The exciting part is that Arcia, Phillips, Lopez and Hader have solid chances of being in the majors for good (assuming they do okay) at some point this year. That influx of talent will be fun to watch - even if there will be growing pains.

Yeah, I'm skeptical Braun brings a major prospect back, especially if we don't include a ton of money.

Let's be up front - I don't want Aaron Hill. He's aging, and not very good. But AZ is supposedly trying to deal Hill to free up some money. What if we took him - making this like the trade last year where Atlanta took on Arroyo and his $10M salary, plus Toussaint, who was in the upper areas of the Top 100 on most prospect lists. Atlanta bought Toussaint for $10M. Why not do the same thing? Take on Hill plus a top prospect or young player - Shipley or Bradley or Lamb or whomever would work. We take on Hill's salary - which is $12M. In return, we get some quality assets to add to our system. You can ultimately include other players in the deal - example: AZ would probably like Will Smith a lot. That, of course, would increase our return. It's basically buying a top prospect for $12M. We have the salary space to burn this year. The team could just release Hill, or they could hang on to him, see how he does, and try and flip him mid-season. I certainly wouldn't want him blocking anyone, but if he plays okay, he might fetch something down the line. Again, not advocating for acquiring Hill. I'm saying use our salary space to buy a good prospect or two.

Do you mean Alex Bregman? If so I think he'd be great to trade for. I think at the very least he'll be a good solid MLB starter. Arcia & Bregman would be an amazing duo potentially. I watched Bregman playing with LSU alot and he is the real deal. I think if Houston is smart, though, they let Altuve walk after the 2018 or 2019 season and replace him with Bregman. While Altuve will only be 30 entering the 2020 season, he'll be likely declining in terms of running speed at least, which is a big part of his game. Yes, alex bergman. Houston would be wise to keep him, but win-now can often cause teams to deal a guy like him (such as AZ dealing Swanson to Atlanta). They do have Altuve for four more years. They could potentially move Correa to 3B as well in a few years.

Deals for Luc: Nationals: Something involving Trea Turner would be good at 2B. Nats wouldn't do Golito. Twins: Jay and Kepler would be a nice combo to get. Texas: Tate and Matuella - like the high upside arms. Tampa: Snell would be awesome, but I don't know if they'd do it. Probably end up with more of a quantity deal. Houston: Bergmann (Houston doesn't need a SS or 2B). Move him to 2B, which is probably his ideal position. Daz Cameron or AJ Reed would be an interesting starting point. Please note that these are starting points. You might have to expand the deal to make things work. But my goal is at least one big upside player. I really like Texas as I want their pitching. I think that's the big thing we need in this org - high upside pitching.

I love me heap big amounts of extra base hits. When compiling the most recent Top 25, I saw Phillips had 60 or more xbh in 2014 and 2015. That's pretty awesome. I'd love him to hit 30 HR, but I think he's more of a 10-15HR guy, with 40+ doubles/triples. That would be a heck of a player to have.

Segura's future options are: 1. Brewers start him at SS this year. He does poorly (like 2014-15). We then unload him for peanuts. If no one will trade for him, he is just non-tendered next off season. Likelihood: 60% 2. Segura plays well enough that someone will trade for him. He is dealt by the trade deadline - again opening up the spot for Arcia. We are happy for the prospects. Likelihood: 20% 3. He is dealt before the season begins. Likelihood: 10% 4. He plays well enough, and then shifted to 2B to open up SS for Arcia. Likelihood: 5% 5. He stays at SS all season. Likelihood: 5% Add it up and there's a 90% chance he is gone by next off season. If Segura plays well, we'll trade him for younger talent. If he plays like 2014-15, we'll unload him for cheap (or nothing).

Several people have said this, but for me, it's watching the young players, seeing how they develop, seeing who improves, and recognizing who's going to be part of our next winning club. I want to see as many wins as possible, but I'm realistic in that I don't see us having a chance at having a winning team.

Regarding the asking price of Lucroy, I'd rather make a good deal now rather than wait and hope we can make a better one later. That doesn't mean you take a bad deal - but you need to be realistic. I look at what we got for Gomez last year - at top 50 prospect (Phillips), a top 100 prospect (Santana), plus to interesting arms (Houser and Hader) - as a solid starting point. If we could get that kind of haul, I'd do it now. If we can't find something similar, then I'm okay waiting. I also don't really care that we don't have any obvious replacement for Lucroy in the minor league system. Right now, it's about getting the best talent available. Sure I want a stud catcher prospect, but let's face it, we aren't going to be winning for a few years. We can use that time to fill the catcher position in another way. We have the luxury of using stopgap players or taking some risks on other guys. Perhaps we end up going the FA route - who knows - a lot can happen in two years.

I really like Chapman. As you note, a Gold Glove type guy. He's got big, big power, but the hit tool is lacking (and I don't know if it is good enough to reach the majors). He's probably lucky if he hits .250. If he can improve his average just a bit at AA, he'll be nice prospect.