Matt Breen

Best moment was the final game of 2008. Friends of ours (Cub fans) came by the day before the game and handed me two tickets. They said something like, "This means way more to you than us." I took my son - then 9 years old. Just an amazing time. I watch the video of Braun's HR and still get chills. My son doesn't remember a lot, but still can talk about the confetti dropping and everyone going crazy.

Boils down to Minnesota gives up Plouffe, Jay and Kepler for Lucroy. Kepler and Jay are at #96 and #63 of the MLB Pipeline Rankings (for what those are worth). Plouffe has produced 2.6 and 3.5 WAR the past two years, respectively. He's a good player. I don't think the return is underwhelming - it just lacks the sexy Top 20 type prospect that some would want to get from dealing Lucroy. I'm not sure Minnesota would do it - but so much just depends on their view of Lucroy - are they getting the 2014 or 2015 version, what are the health ramifications, etc. But if he's somewhere in between, he's a huge upgrade for them, so perhaps it flies. If the Brewers think Jay can't be a starter, I'm not sure it works for us. I think you need Jay to be a starter for him to be special. That's what kind of makes the guy really interesting - if he could transition to starting successfully, he could be a top flight pitcher. And Kepler has a lot of potential. He's just tapping into it, especially his power. Neither guy is a great bet to be a star - but there's a lot to like. As for Plouffe for Kaminsky - St. Louis gave him up for Moss - and inferior player to Plouffe. So we can probably do better. Not a bad starting point, but I think there's more to be had there. In the end, we'd up with three good, but not great, prospects. But I think Jay and Kepler both have some interesting upside. I know a lot of people expect us to get some amazing prospects for Lucroy, but I'm just not sure that's going to happen due to his recent injuries and mediocre 2015. If we trade him, I hope we can get a top 20 guy or two, but I'm just not sure it happens. If a deal like this happened (Luc for Plouffe, Jay, Kepler, then Milwaukee flipping Plouffe for Kaminksy+), I would be okay with it. I'm also happy just hanging on to Luc and hope he rakes in 2016, but that's a risk as well.

Like Milwaukee, Minnesota needs to build primarily from the draft. Thus, moving Plouffe is probably a key for them as he's a good player, but they have a ready made replacement. I could see the Twins being willing to give up a solid prospect like Kepler, but their rotation is pretty mediocre - I doubt they'd want to give up a top arm like Berrios. Thus (as noted above), get a third team involved who needs Plouffe. The hard part is getting a third team that needs Plouffe, and someone we want. Might have to be some other players moving in such as deal, but I guess that's for Stearns to figure out. I have to admit that I'm intrigued by Kepler. He's still developing as a player (he's from Germany, so he's never had that great of competition), and most scouts think he'll improve his power numbers. He could slot into the '1B of the future' role. All that said, he's not a super premium prospect - the kind of player I want to get for Lucroy - but I like the kid.

Berrios would be pretty sweet to get hold of, but I doubt Minnesota gives him up. Plouffe doesn't thrill me unless we can flip him for a good prospect or two.

Reading some different articles around the web, it sounds a lot like Chapman's value was really affected by the abuse allegations. Pretty much everyone was underwhelmed by the return. I did read a couple of people saying that the Reds should have kept Chapman until the deadline, when someone likely would have overpayed in the heat of a pennet race. Or they should have just kept him and taken the comp pick next year - it'll likely be more valuable than the guys they got back. Of course, that would have meant paying Chapman next year, which Cincy seems to have really wanted to avoid. I guess with the Reds in our division, we should be happy for the return, but it just reeks of a missed opportunity.

I see they have Cal Quantrill going in the #6 spot to Oakland. Cal is the son of former major leaguer Paul Quantrill - who I remember more as last Wisconsin Badger to play in the majors.

^ This pretty much nails it. It's a long term strategy and mentality that creates many chances to win over a long period of time. It's a hard philosophy to stick to, but it's our best chance to win a World Series.

From the movie Airheads (words aren't exact): Question: "If God and Lemmy got into a wrestling match, who would win?" Answer: "It's a trick question - Lemmy is God."

This is season 5 with no forseeable end to the pattern. 2012: Hart, Ishikawa, Taylor Green, Gamel, Brooks Conrad 2013: Yuni, Juan Francisco, Sean Halton, Alex Gonzalez, Blake Lalli 2014: Reynolds, Overbay, Clark, Rogers 2015: Lind, Rogers Ahh! The horror! The horror!

Little light on the return. Davis and Jagielo look like interesting players, but nothing special. No 'sure thing' or no player that just reeks of high upside. I have a feeling Chapman hurt his trade value quite a bit with the abuse allegations - Reds probably should have dealt him earlier - but hindsight is 20/20. Yankees will have a beast of a bullpen - Chapman, Miller and Betances - probably the best 1-2-3 in the majors.

I think that one important factor about the Brewers and the 'rebuild' is that this organization is in a better situation than other teams that have had to do rebuilds - such as Houston. The Astros rebuild took a long time because when the rebuild began the team was in horrible shape from top to bottom. Milwaukee has some interesting assets that could allow us to rebuild quicker than some other clubs have done. Even without any further moves, look at our 2017 (not 2016) lineup. Lucroy - All star catcher, still only 31 Arcia - Top 10 prospect Santana - Top 100 prospect Davis - Hit 27 HR in less than 400 ABs this past season; .800+ OPS Braun - Still a force Phillips - Top 40 prospect Peralta - Top 100 prospect, 17 game winner with a 3.53 ERA in 2014 Nelson - Top 100 Prospect Jungmann - Good rookie season in 2015 Lopez - Probably a top 100 - maybe top 50 prospect this year Hader - Mabye a top 100 guy this year Young bullpen with some big arms. And there's some other guys that could emerge in the next year from he minors - Taylor, Wagner, etc. Plus some existing MLB players, such as Davies could step up. My point is we have some interesting talent now. Not all of these guys will pan out, but it's a good starting point - I think a lot better than what teams like Houston and the Cubbies had after they went into a rebuild mode. Yes, you need to find a 1B and a 3B. And you have to sort of 2B. But that's what 2016 is about. Let the young studs like Arcia mature a bit more, find potential longer term options at positions such as 1B and 3B. You develop good depth to handle the inevitable injuries that happen. And you keep filling the pipeline to deal with the inevitable failures of some prospects. That's why we try guys like Cecchini or Neiuwenhuis or whomever. Now's the time to see if they can fill a spot for a few years - or even just be a capable backup so we aren't employing stiffs like Yuni in the future. I think the team's most glaring weakness is the lack of superstar potential. The two current stars - Luc and Braun are getting past their primes, and the guys we have in the minors don't look big slugger type all-stars. Same with pitching - lots of good looking players, but there's no ace stud in the making. A couple of drafts can change this - plus some of our recent picks stepping up. In the end, I know for sure when we'll be 'good' - but I think we have a better start than a lot of the clubs that have had to rebuild. And even in 2017, I think we can be a fun club to watch as things take shape for the future. Maybe we won't be that good - but we should be interesting.

I think leaving Boston for the hated Yankees for 5-6 years soured Boston on Boggs for a while. Hard to forgive those kinds of things too quickly, but it eventually happens.

For me, Correa's power is the difference maker. He could easily hit 30-35 HR. That's hard to get at any position. Correa might eventually end up at 3B, but it's hard to say that for sure.

Texas has some good prospects that I would gladly take for Lucroy. Gallo probably isn't going to happen, but I'd ask. After that, I'd start with 21-year old Donovan Tate, the 4th pick in the draft last year. He is ranked around 40-50 on several prospect lists - he's a high upside starter. Then you add in Luis Ortiz (1st round, 30th overall in 2014), a 20 year old pitcher who is going to fall in the upper echelons of the Top 100. MLB Pipeline has him at #86 right now. If not Ortiz, then you go after pitcher Michael Matuella, who many had slated as the top pick in the draft last year out of Duke until he had Tommy John surgery in April. A Tate + Ortiz/Matuella deal for Lucroy would be spot on in my book. High upside pitching. Matuella has some injury risk, so I prefer Ortiz over him, but I'd be happy with either guy. Some people really like Ryan Cordell, an OF, but I'd go with the upside pitchers over him. Cordell is sometimes listed as an OF/3B, but don't be fooled - he's played 33 games in his life at 3B and had 12 errors. The guy is a corner OF with the ability to play some CF if necessary, but I think it's stretching it to say he's an answer to our dearth of third basemen in the system.

Problem is you're giving up our best trade chip for guys without a lot of upside. Kubitza, Cowert - both interesting players, but both project more as backup or fringe starters. Cron is interesting as well, but I don't see him becoming anything special due to his lack of athleticism, poor defense, and inability to get on base. If I'm dealing Lucroy, it's for a guy(s) with the potential to be really good - even great. We've improved our system depth a great deal - from the top down to the lower rungs - but dealing Lucroy is probably our only chance (at this time) to add a Top 30 type player. This team needs to develop a new Braun and Fielder. We have the #5 pick next year, and probably another high pick in 2017. Those are great opportunities, but right now, the only chance we have to add a top ranked guy is by using Lucroy as trade bait.

Flores may not be ready to start the season after breaking his ankle last September. I don't know if there have been any reports on his recovery.

I'm not a fan of Cron. Horrible walk rate both in the minors and majors. Plus he's pretty bad looking defensively. Still, he's got power - can't ignore that. Heaney is a decent looking pitcher - good, but not great. The problem is that the Angels need starting pitching in a big way. Dealing Heaney only opens up another big hole for them. Thus, it's probably a bad fit (no matter what you think about the trade's merits).

Kudos on the username. And welcome aboard.

Alvarez simply scares me as a defensive player. He just looks so awful. Nothing is more frustrating than guys who can't play defense with some modicum of competency. I say 'sort of scares' because I realize he could really hit well in Milwaukee. Guys like Alvarez scare me because we get sucked in by the sexy HR talent - and ignore the entire package, which in the end, is often a negative. Ultimately, a guy like Alvarez is probably worth the try. As noted, if he has a good season he can fetch a nice return.

It's hard not to root for Rogers - 30something round draft pick, never really a prospect, gritty battler type, smart hitter. It was great to see him do well when he finally got a chance last year. I hope he does well for Pittsburgh. That all said, the guys we got are interesting. I'm all for pitching lottery tickets - the more we get, the more we have a chance to find a gem. And Broxton looks like an interesting guy - I'm all for giving him a chance. I'll live with the strikeouts if he can play good defense and get on base at at a decent clip (he's had an OBP of over .350 the last couple of years in the minors). Now's the time to try stuff like this. I'm betting something else is in the works for a 1B. People mention Alvarez, but that just sort of scares me. I'd rather bring back Clark or someone like that.

I think there are elements of all the good organizations that we can emulate - not just one. The Cardinals have done lots of things well - such as the draft (even though they haven't had top picks), and the use of Latin American market, and not gotten too heavily invested in old free agents. Clubs like KC and Tampa have found lots of positives in undervalued areas - such as defense. Chicago has gone heavily in the international market to shore up their system. Oakland and Tampa have shown how versatile players can be important. I think it comes to picking those things that work for Milwaukee - thus a combination of all of these franchises - just taking what works for us. I think there are a few essential things Milwaukee needs to do: - Draft well (and not just the top 10 picks). I know this is obvious, but if we don't draft well, we'll never win. It's hitting on your top picks - plus the lower picks. Finding one extra guy a draft who becomes a major leaguer is worth a ton of money. Spend on scouts and research and whatever else you need. It's a pittance compared to signing a mediocre free agent starting pitcher. - Invest heavily in the international markets. This is in Latin America, Korea, Japan, wherever. Like with the draft, we need to put money into researching, evaluating and then signing international players. And that's not about the $10M signing - those are easy to find. It's getting guys like Arcia for 100k or less. Again, you find one extra guy like this a year, and you're doing great. - Extend good players when young to gain and extra year or two of control. - Avoid (for the most part) long term deals to our own players. While there are always exceptions to this rule, be very sure before locking up a guy who's going into his late 30s. Again, it doesn't mean you don't do it - just be very careful about handing out these kinds of deals. - When possible, trade players before they reach free agency to recoup more young, controllable players. It's important to know that you don't have to do this with everyone, but it's a great way to add young talent. - Invest in knowing as much about other team's minor leaguers as you can. Be ready to grab guys in trade, or guys who get released, that you feel are undervalued. These are low cost pickups that can really have a high ROI. - Use free agency sparingly. Use it to fill holes as needed, avoiding long term deals. When you do, keep contracts as short as possible. In the end, the club needs to: - Develop a large number of quality players. This is a cheap source of talent, which we can use ourselves, or trade as needed. This depth means we can fill many holes from within, and allows you to weather the storm when you get hit with injuries and or poor performances. Again, this is pretty obvious. But it's essential to strive for this. Don't skimp on scouting budgets or whatever - that will impact the quality and quantity of your talent pool. - Maintain financial flexibility - all the young players are cheap, and keeping room in your budget allows you to make moves that other teams might not be able to do. - Be ruthless in the execution of the plan. As much as it hurts to lose someone who's good, you trade players as they get to expensive and let good players walk in free agency. Count on the quality depth you have accumulated to fill the void. I know a lot of this is pretty much standard thought, but this is how we are going to win over a long time frame. The team I think we most need to emulate is probably St. Louis. They develop a lot of young players. They make the occasional trade, give out the occasional long term - but if you go through their lineup you'll find one major free agent (Peralta), a bunch of players drafted and signed as amateurs, a few long term extensions (Wainwright, Molina, Holiday) and a few guys that were traded for (using assets drafted by the club). All in all, I hope we have fun building up a winner the next few years.

Dave Stewart isn't running the Dodgers. No team coughs up two of the top five prospects in baseball (plus other stuff) for Braun and Luc. The bold comment did not go unnoticed. Well done. Gracias.

Open, honest communication will get you a long leash. I think this is great - just saying this is what happened, this is how we go forward. Most people (not all) can understand that. It offers a light at the end of the tunnel. Now comes the follow through - create a plan, implement it, and stick to it.

Dave Stewart isn't running the Dodgers. No team coughs up two of the top five prospects in baseball (plus other stuff) for Braun and Luc.

Great post. That is a very interesting comparison on a couple of levels. First, like you're saying, it's very useful for gauging Lucroy's value. They're almost the same age; Luc is a few months younger. They both have above-average defensive reputations, though I'd think Luc gains in that comparison even beyond playing a generically more important position because of his framing. Maybe you deduct a bit from Luc's column because he's coming off a down year when he was hurt. Overall it's close to an apples-to-apples comparison, and Luc looks like the somewhat shinier apple. It's also an interesting comparison for putting the idea of trading Luc in perspective. I've struggled with this a lot; I haven't been a strong partisan either way. But if you ask yourself whether it made sense for the Reds to trade Frazier and you answer "yes," which I do, then it becomes harder (by no means impossible, but harder) to make a case for why the Brewers shouldn't trade Lucroy. I'm sure some may say that one thing Luc offers that a guy like Frazier doesn't is the quality veteran at a position that is critical to developing young pitching. I, honestly, don't know how important having a veteran catcher mentoring these young pitchers is - it's one of those hard to quantify things in any sport. The catcher/pitcher relationship is pretty unique in baseball - and keeping Luc offers a comfort zone. But again, to what extent this helps a pitcher develop, I don't know.