adambr2

Arcia is a special enough player where I would try to save the year of service time and wait until he is past the point where he is going to qualify for Super 2, so I'd be in favor of a mid-season callup. We are not going to be contenders next year anyway. There is no reason to rush Arcia.

For those that feel he should just go to the bullpen and figure it out, I don't know how you can expect a guy to go do something he's never done before to get better. That'd be like telling a slumping Braun we're not going to start you but instead are going to give you a pinch at bat every 3 games Lohse seems to be doing just fine with it. And pitching out of the bullpen to me is different than pinch-hitting every few days. You're still an active member of the pitching staff, just in a different role.

How is refusing to pitch out of the pen an option for him? He is under contract to play professional baseball for the Milwaukee Brewers, is he not?

I can't for the life of me figure out why we won't just give up on Logan Schafer.

They'll get a top 10 pick. They're much closer to #30 (3.5 games) than they are to #20 (6.5 games).

Well yes, that and dig out low throws, stretch to try to save high or wide throws, learn when to cover and when to field and count on the pitcher to cover, learn to field much better than he did at 3rd, hold on runners, know when to go right to 2nd and wait for a relay, etc. We widely assume that Braun will end up at 1st, but we can't just assume good defense for a guy who has not played a single inning at any level in his professional career at 1st. He could make the transition, or he might be a butcher.

I agree trading Lucroy with lower value is not desirable, but I disagree that you can't trade him without having a suitable or respectable replacement. That's the beauty of rebuilding, you don't need a respectable replacement, you just need a body. There are plenty of bodies to be had. You can worry about suitable or respectable later. It doesn't need to prevent you from moving a guy now. I would also strongly speculate that the fact that the Brewers weren't interested in an extension for Lucroy after his most recent monster season is a pretty strong indication that they are in fact not headed that way with him (toward an extension ).

Why or? I think most are on board with trading Braun if a great haul is to be had. I'd still trade Lucroy. I wouldn't extend him. Even if he sticks at catcher well into his 30's, I don't see him being as productive as we've come to expect. If he ends up at 1st like many speculate, he'd have very poor value as a first baseman already. Also, in almost every case you can't just tear up and re-do an MLB contract, and even if we could we would never just wipe out the last 3 years of an extremely team friendly contract to give him $12 to $15M a year. I will say that with Lucroy's value quite a bit lower than last year, it's probably not the right time to move him now though.

I'm not necessarily a replay guy, but if it had been in place in '08, that might be a different story. Are you referring to the CC one hitter game? Because that was just a scoring decision and the league could have actually changed that after the game but elected not to, they wouldn't have reviewed that. My bad if you're referring to an entirely different game.

IMO...it doesn't. Not unless they're in obvious pain or discomfort. Maybe if it's a young arm on a strict pitch count.

Does Santana have any real chance of sticking in CF as the guy of the future there? Not s sarcastic question, I'm honestly wondering.

How is Davis even clearing waivers? 29 teams aren't going to just let a minimum salary .800 OPS corner outfielder just pass through.

All the things that went through my mind in the 20 seconds after I saw this thread title : 1) "Wow, didn't we just acquire Santana? Flipped him for pitching? " 2) "Wait, is there another Khris Davis in MLB?" 3) "Maybe we traded Davis and this is a different Santana. " 4) "I'm so confused." 5) "Oh." To answer the OP, I would guess his value lies either just inside or just outside a top 100 prospect. He has his deficiencies, but he has value. He's a cost controlled relatively young corner outfielder with a career OPS near .800. Davis for Santana straight up is probably fair, I think. If I were a contending team that was trotting out Logan Schafer into LF every day, I'd be thrilled to get Davis.

And I'll disagree again and say Garza would almost assuredly clear waivers right now. James Shields just cleared waivers, and if the Giants weren't interested in claiming him, I doubt they would claim Garza. Worse contract, but better pitcher, and having a lot better year than Garza, in the AL to boot. If the Giants wanted nothing to do with the $65 still owed to Shields, I can't see them jumping all over Garza for $40M. I'd go as far to say that it's pretty likely that Garza has already cleared as, 1) We almost certainly placed him on waivers as we were actively looking to trade him last month and there is literally no downside to putting him on waivers. 2) Had another team put in a claim on Garza and we had either negotiated with them or pulled him back, I think it's very likely we would know about it.

They already did put him on waivers I think a week ago, so the fact that he's still here would indicate there were unsurprisingly no takers.

This season reminds me of running cross-country in high school. It sucks, it's psinful, but you've got to push through to the end.

I agree you've got to wait til a guy is retired to make him a coaching offer. I don't think any active player in this era would welcome a coaching offer. Releasing a guy is one thing, you're just telling him you no longer want him, it's business. Asking a active player if he'd like to stay on in a coaching role is essentially telling him that no one is going to want him anymore as a player, which to me is a little more personal. True or not, you wait for the guy to walk away on his own before you start trying to make post-playing career plans with him. At the very least, wait until the offseason when he can consider all his options and it probably comes off a lot differently.

Defense FTW. Thanks Luc.

There is precedence for the Brewers to simply release these guys that are just not producing in the last year of their deals. Wolf I think was released in August the last year of his contract with better numbers than what Lohse is carrying right now. Suppan I believe was released much earlier in the season. So it wouldn't shock me if they still release him. It's possible they still let him ride it out. There's really not much upside to either move. Either they bury him in the bullpen just to pitch in garbage time or release him and see if anyone wants him for the prorated minimum. When rosters expand in September I'd rather give those garbage innings to guys who have a future here to evaluate.

Yeah, I can't believe that no one will take a flyer on K-Rod with the need that contenders have for good relief pitching this time of year. He's been so good this year and it's not like we are looking for a top 50 prospect. I realize the domestic history is a deterrent, but I didn't think that would make him virtually untradeable.

I'm guessing they were voting more with hearts than heads. That said, when they announced the move both parties sure made it sound like something else might be in the works. It was plausible at the time of the vote that he would be released or traded before he ever made a garbage time appearance.

Maybe just rare.

Well, I don't believe that Garza's value right now is the same as Gallardo in free agency this year. Yo is better, and younger. I also don't think it would be worth trading Garza right now if we had to eat, say $15M of his remaining deal. I don't think Garza is currently worth what he was when we signed him, and I don't think anyone is paying him $15M a year right now even on a short term deal. I guess we'll see. And yes I'm sure the $4M we sent Texas did positively impact the return we got from them. Worth it or not, we'll find out in the future. I'm not especially high on Sardinas, but the package was a fair return for a year of Yo.

Again, as I have said repeatedly I don't think Garza is untradeable , just not tradeable without either eating a substantial amount of his remaining deal or taking on a similar contract like you mentioned. Which makes it very likely that he stays for the time being. Also, every indicator on Yo was pointing down when we traded him? How so? He had a nice statistical year in 2014 and his ERA was back down to his career norms. There's no evidence at all to say that every indicator on Gallardo was pointing down when we traded him but yet that it's somehow not on Garza.

1) Gallardo was/is set to become a free agent. Because he is in the last year of the deal he is not eligible for a qualifying offer and thus can leave as a free agent and get nothing in return. That represents greater risk for a team, and greater risk needs to be offset with greater reward. B) How much do you think Gallardo will sign for as a free agent this off-season? Give us a number, please. You like to say "Player X isn't worth this much" or "there are much better players than Player Y" but you fail to name them. If you're that confident in your assessments, please back them up with names and numbers. Hold yourself accountable. 3) What in the world do you mean by "we couldn't trade Gallardo"? Gallardo wasn't given away - he netted Sardinas (a top 100 prospect in the majors by age 21), Knebel (hard-throwing bullpen arm in the majors 1.5 years after being drafted), and Marcos Diplan (high upside 18-year-old doing quite well in high Rookie ball). How does that constitute "not being able to trade" someone? He is set to become a free agent, and that's what he netted in return. 1) Wrong, Gallardo spent all year with the Rangers and they can make him a QO. Has nothing to do with why we had to eat 4M. B?) Red herring that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. To answer your question since I'm apparently not 'holding myself accountable ', I think Yo will get a contract in free agency fairly comparable to what we gave Garza, or a bit better. . Still has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about regarding a team's willingness to take on Garza's full salary in a trade. 3). I meant that we couldn't trade Gallardo without eating some of his salary to accommodate the trade. I thought that was pretty clear from the context. My mistake. Obviously we did trade Gallardo.