MNBrew

To me, this post says it best -- or says what's in my head the best -- of everything in the 4+ pages of this thread. No GM is perfect. For where this franchise is in its current trajectory, and for his cumulative track record since arriving, I'll take the net of who Stearns is and what he's done over most any other GM out there. It's funny how, outside of Tampa & probably Oakland, most any other of the most "smart" or "successful" GMs seems to work in one of the largest markets and/or has a payroll size that dwarfs the Brewers'.

Well, there goes our combined no-hitter. If there's any silver lining to Gio, it's that at least he only mirrors Corbin Burnes' unfortunate HR rate in his walk rate (only mild sarcasm).

This all-strikeout offense we have is worse than the pitching. That was an utterly rare RBI w/ RISP, but it still came with an out (on the first pitch, no less -- nice plate approach, Mr. Arcia). Can we have a DH for the shortstop? In 41 games since the break, Arcia has 24 hits including a whopping 3 for extra bases (.190 BA, .515 OPS).

At this rate, assuming he can keep it up, Gio's going to throw a 165-pitch no-hitter with at least 12 walks. 34 balls vs. 22 strikes after 3. Good heavens!

1. The numbers may say one thing re: Sano's defense, but he passes the eye test much better than you'd think, plus he's among the best at the barehanded charge play. He's no Gold Glover, but he's a long way from being Ryan Braun at 3B. 2. To the "conventional wisdom" point in boldface -- not an illogical surface-level conclusion -- a couple years ago the Twins played him at 1B and it was an unmitigated disaster defensively AND offensively -- enough so that they moved him back to 3B in spite of any previous concerns about how he profiled (physically and tools-wise). Career numbers indicate Sano has greater raw power -- and he can hit the ball a mile -- corroborated by his higher SLG-aided OPS, while Shaw's clearly better defensively, drives in runs at a greater rate, and is a little more well-rounded as a hitter, albeit a little less spectacular.

Whoa. They "let" Prince get to free agency because HE decided he wasn't going to sign an extension, but they still made a very significant effort to re-sign then-FA Prince with a near-Brewers-record contract (5 years & into 9 figures -- uncharted FA territory in franchise history up to that time -- only to repeat the effort & fall short the next year w/ Greinke). They made a "significant" offer that, IMO, they knew he'd never take because the market was much greater. They did the same thing with Sabathia. "Well, we tried!" is a good line for the fanbase. - They did the same thing with Greinke, too. - The bold-faced part is a somewhat subjective interpretation. I believe the effort w/ Prince was sincere but he was all about the most money, team loyalty meaning nothing (an ultimate Boras disciple, one could say). - The Brewers' money wasn't much less per year ($20+M vs. $23M-ish), but years 6-9 weren't ever going to come in a Brewers contract offer and would've proven far, far more damaging to the Brewers than what some believe Braun's 2nd extension has been.

Whoa. They "let" Prince get to free agency because HE decided he wasn't going to sign an extension, but they still made a very significant effort to re-sign then-FA Prince with a near-Brewers-record contract (5 years & into 9 figures -- uncharted FA territory in franchise history up to that time -- only to repeat the effort & fall short the next year w/ Greinke). Yes, they could've tried to trade him for comparable value, but they chose to keep him for the last year of arbitration-eligible/process salary as part of the "going for it" effort that ended 2 games short of the World Series -- and which yielded a great year by Prince. But to say the Brewers "let him walk" is simply inaccurate. . . . Walking was Prince's choice, not the Brewers, and happened in spite of the Brewers' huge efforts to keep him, thus involving no "letting" at all. In hindsight, NOT paying Prince the Joe Mauer-like money/term he signed for was reasonably wise given that only 3 of the years were remotely worthy of that kind of money. 2 were injury-riddled, 1 was injury-missed, and, fortunately for Texas & Detroit, he graciously retired & walked away from the last 3 years of the deal. Walking is a mutual choice, a great majority of the time. Yes, they did make ill-advised efforts to re-sign Prince. But they did have their line in the sand. We'll never know how much of it was true earnest efforts to bring him back, and how much was PR type offers that they knew Boras would never accept, knowing they had to at least appear to be making an effort. And Prince Fielder did not walk away from anything. He is still being paid every last penny on his contract to this day. Well, when a player retires, he's walking away from his employment and any remaining money he would've been paid (less deferred money already in the contract and, presumably, any remaining unpaid amount designated as signing bonus that's spread over the life of the contract. But you're right. He's sitting on the 60-day DL for the last 3 years of the deal and collecting his money because he never officially retired. As devastated as Prince was not to be able to continue playing, Boras made sure he's still getting all his money.

I'd rather see them go after Cole. They're in a bit of a unique situation with Yelich cheap, Hiura, young pitching that's up in the air. Go out and splurge once on the marquee FA pitcher and then you have to hope some other things can fall in place. I still believe in Corbin Burnes. He's too talented to not get it going, Woodruff is a stud. Lots of power arms coming up to put in the pen. But you'd have to sign Cole knowing it's going to severely hamper your ability to make other moves in the future and that you'll be paying for him for at least a couple years when he's not that good anymore. Or at least expect it. If he had a CC type run, as in when the Yankees signed CC, how good he was before he started falling apart, I'd take that. Teams haven't been paying 30 million over 6-7 years for starters since..I don't know, whenever the D-backs signed Grienke. Even the Yankees are being more fiscally responsible. So while I'd imagine he ends up in NY, if there's one guy who's worth it, it's him. I would definitely not spend on Strausburg or pay Ryu a bunch of money. Otherwise, a pitcher like Hamels on a shorter deal, or Odorizzi are possible options. If it were between Cole & Greinke, I'd take Cole, too. I was referring to this past trade deadline. Greinke's not a FA this winter unless he's got some sort of opt-out clause (I believe he's got at least 2 years otherwise beyond '19), but he's also a guy who's consistently shown zero interest in the biggest of markets, esp. NY.

Stearns went after 'em all, reportedly, to at least some degree, and several of them very aggressively. Thankfully he didn't heinously overpay or make some other version of a seemingly bad deal. Trades, like FA signings, take a willingness by both parties to make a deal work. I don't know if it was ever close to happening, but I'd have taken Zack Greinke for most of the cost of his contract (thus at least somewhat lessening the needed return). He may not have made all the difference the '19 Brewers may end up needing, but his track record, ability, and performance would be a nice help this year & beyond, age notwithstanding.

Whoa. They "let" Prince get to free agency because HE decided he wasn't going to sign an extension, but they still made a very significant effort to re-sign then-FA Prince with a near-Brewers-record contract (5 years & into 9 figures -- uncharted FA territory in franchise history up to that time -- only to repeat the effort & fall short the next year w/ Greinke). Yes, they could've tried to trade him for comparable value, but they chose to keep him for the last year of arbitration-eligible/process salary as part of the "going for it" effort that ended 2 games short of the World Series -- and which yielded a great year by Prince. But to say the Brewers "let him walk" is simply inaccurate. . . . Walking was Prince's choice, not the Brewers, and happened in spite of the Brewers' huge efforts to keep him, thus involving no "letting" at all. In hindsight, NOT paying Prince the Joe Mauer-like money/term he signed for was reasonably wise given that only 3 of the years were remotely worthy of that kind of money. 2 were injury-riddled, 1 was injury-missed, and, fortunately for Texas & Detroit, he graciously retired & walked away from the last 3 years of the deal.

p.s. to my ramble above: 1) For as stellar as Arcia's defense has been for now-45-or-so errorless games, I question the wisdom of trading our most advanced SS prospect when Arcia yet again goes months on end swinging at nearly every slider thrown his way. 2) It's ironic that Pina was horrific w/ RISP last year but is one of our better guys at that this year. 3) I'd swear Mike Moustakas must be among our "best" at unproductive outs this year, esp. w/ RISP. It's so often painfully frustrating to watch him hit nearly anytime a clutch hit is really, really needed. 4) One point on Miller Park: I remember when it was in the design process, there was talk about how they consulted with Robin Yount about how to construct the Miller Park outfield walls (dimensions, angles, etc.) so that it might be one of MLB's best parks for triples -- a Yount specialty and one of the most exciting (and longest actually lasting) plays that can happen in a game.

Great details, 'stache, and dead on. I'm not anything near a deep-stats brain, but that OP above summarizes and statistically backs so well their issues: - HRs are great, but if you don't do so well at getting runners in otherwise, eventually it's a problem. - If you make too many outs by striking out (way too much) rather than by making contact, it's eventually going to be a real problem. - If you don't hit well w/ RISP, even if you survive decently (record-wise) in bursts, eventually that's a real problem. - If you don't focus on advancing runners over in any way possible, especially when HR-hitting is in a slump, eventually it's a problem. For all the infatuation with (and value in) HRs and power-numbers-driven OPS, and the glitz of high velocity and K-rates for pitchers, there's just too much fundamentally sound hitting that's NOT happening for the Brewers when the ball doesn't end up over the fence. . . . For all the arguments about the statistical inefficiences of bunts, stolen bases, and whatever else, I think any team's prime directive offensively has to be to utilize any means possible to accomplish getting runners on, over, and in. If power or even general hitting is in a dry spell, especially a prolonged one, teams have to focus instead on generating offense by any other means possible. The '92 Brewers, for instance, were good, consistent, all-around threats to opponents' pitching staffs and their defenses, and that team would've won the AL Central had there been 3 divisions at the time. . . . If you consistently get runners both on AND over -- no matter how -- more likely than not you're also going to be getting them in -- the ultimate and only truly meaningful offensive result. In this "post-moneyball" era of 3TO, launch angles, and the like, the Brewers for a couple years have been among the very worst at having that those emphases come back to bite them (read: crappy RISP). . . . The wins by that approach can be really rewarding and exhilarating, but the rest of the time, it can be quite a problem, and that's what we're seeing bear out yet again. On the flip side of the coin, the 2018 Brewers' bullpen's success (and "bullpen days," which may have predated or at least happened more frequently than Tampa's "opener" thing last year) was really just borne out of necessity, but I think it was among what many thought was the start of a new trend away from traditional starting pitching (or at least the perceived value of it). This year the results of a "focusing on bottomless, flame-thrower-filled killer bullpens" approach - at least in terms of the surface-level (but nonetheless telling) stat of bullpen ERA - indicates it's failing pretty miserably in terms of being anything realistically sustainable. . . . not unlike how, as Washington's announcers pointed out on FS1 during the 15-14 barn-burner, hitters are now adjusting to all the 96-100mph fastballs to the point where it's quickly become no longer necessarily an absolute game-changing, nearly guaranteed-dominant "tool" for a reliever. Point of this ramble: Any team's key best odds for significant success seem to lie in one of two things: (1) Simply playing better all-around baseball than most any other team -- NOT the '19 Brewers' strength for sure, unfortunately; OR (2) Figuring out the "next" way in which to gain a consistent advantage over other teams in a way that puts your team out in, front results-wise, of most others. The Brewers entered the season with a seemingly good chance at (1). But it's not turning out that way and David Stearns & the FO need to focus on (2) instead to better increase the odds of (1) being the result. Continuing to favor the current hitters' "profiles" that are seemingly hurting the Brewers more than helping is very likely NOT going to change their status quo.

I'm not convinced Thames is anything more than he's been the past 2+ years: Good power when he actually connects, but he just doesn't make enough contact in general. Aguilar has enough of a better track record that I'm more willing to think he's still part of the long-term picture. If 1-year contract (with an option) guys Moustakas and Grandal like Milwaukee enough that they could be here for a while, and with Shaw still a very viable part of the mix, we have plenty of guys who can cover 1B sufficiently for this year & next without having to go get someone else for a while, plus he's pretty deft fielding-wise.

I think he's a really nice breakout candidate. He missed two years, came back last year, earned a role on the team, though was up and down. But his command should be coming back now that he's finally got a healthy off-season to train and a full ST'ing. Also, still holding out hope for Jacob Barnes. He's got the stuff to be dominant. Still, really concerning that we went from looking at Jeffress, Knebel, and Wahl to finish up games to having names like Claudio, Wilson and Fields being tossed around. Claudio is a proven major leaguer who was in the mix since the end of the Winter Meetings. Wahl has much less MLB experience and was definitely a wild card going into ST, albeit a wild card with a potentially higher ceiling. That said, Wahl was never a serious candidate to close games until he'd built up a track record that proved he belonged in that kind of role. I was rooting for him to be a factor, too, and I'm bummed he's out for the year, but he was hardly a sure thing.

Well, I'd just take 2018 1st half Taylor Williams vs. 2018 2nd half Taylor Williams. The former version could do little wrong. The more recent version did less and less right to the point where he could hardly get through an outing without getting into major trouble.

Interesting. More smoke but no clear fire just yet -- maybe outside of Knebel's elbow.

"Went well." You mean CC didnt say "Hes just not looking good, its panic time around here!" When are we ever going to ignore these generic comments?? For those looking for info, the lack of any comments, even generic ones, is obviously the issue. Ditto the other poster's hope to hear Stearns comment about Kimbrel negotiations, even though anyone who pays regular attention knows that Stearns doesn't comment about any specific FA negotiations unless the FA's destination is confirmed, MIL or elsewhere (and much less likely if it's elsewhere). As to the question several posts back about the lack of answers and the insinuation or assumption that all 4 main MIL beat writers are poor at their jobs because they don't have the answer at the same instant that it's known/realized/formed in the GM's head . . . . In cases where there's a set "media availability time" (which probably would be less rigid in ST if it exists at all), you just know the reporters are wanting to ask the questions we want the answers to, too, but there can be limitations as to when they can have the opportunity to ask the questions. In today's case, the Knebel news broke during the time the Brewers' coaching staff (at least) likely wasn't available due to the media due to game prep. Once the game got over, interviews could happen and answers could trickle forth. I hope that poster also realizes how quickly our beat writers tend to tweet stuff out once they're able to interview Stearns, Counsell, etc. It sure seems a waste of time to report "no answer available yet" to the questions they haven't been able to ask yet. Sorry to linger in the tangent. On topic, with the Knebel developments, I'm all the more wondering if Stearns has another move (or more, if a Kimbrel signing actually happens for MIL) coming since he's made a late-ST addition to the bullpen each of the past 3 years. Petricka & Williams have their plusses, but I have a hard time as of now envisioning them pitching so well that they don't have a minor league option used sometime during this season.

What's the Nilson Pepen reference & where's a link? Sounds like there's a scoop but what's being referenced here in this thread isn't being made clear. Time to go a-googling, although those initial efforts aren't yielding any answers....

If they weren't given answers, the silence isn't their fault. (Not sure you were implying blame or not.)

Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the case on the opening day 25 man. You aren’t going to need 13 pitchers in the first couple games. However, you could use a extra pinch hitter. Similar to Choi last year, wouldn’t shock me to see an extra bat for a game or two. I agree. I'm just repeating what I read that Counsell said. If he says that, I'd be surprised if he changes course.

They've said they'll start the year w/ 13 pitchers. - Seventeen pitchers currently left on the 40-man, but Wahl & Jeffress are bound to join Suter on the DL. - That means 2 cuts are coming, 3 if Tomlin's earning a roster spot. - Otherwise only Deolis Guerra and Jay Jackson remain from the NRI pitcher pool. 13 pitchers means 12 position players and there's no way NRI guys Ray, Orf, Hiura, Erceg, & Gosewisch beat out any of the 40-man guys. - Fifteen position players currently left on the 40-man. - One cut will be the 3rd catcher (likely Kratz unless there's an injury). - That tickets both Spangenberg (last option available) & Saladino (would have to clear waivers since he's previously been outrighted) for AAA UNLESS the unforeseen happens and they cut or trade Perez. Other factors: - Stearns, like Melvin, has a history of picking up someone another team cuts. Seems less likely this year, but not out of the realm of possibility. - It's also possible Stearns trades someone who may be high-priced for a potentially limited role (Anderson, Thames) who fits another team's needs enough for them to give up a respectable return for one or both of them. - Who knows if Keuchel or Kimbrel -- the only potential needle-movers left among FAs -- sign here, but however unlikely it seems, the seemingly 1% chance one of them signs is still a possibility until they're signed elsewhere. Of course, if Stearns trades both Thames & Anderson, then we have more room to absorb a higher (but not absurd) salary to take their roster/payroll space.

Nice to be able to put this thread to rest.

I like that list, but I'd take the Mets out and put the Cards in. I don't really see the Mets as Media darlings. In fact, they seem to get small market treatment more than anything. All the rumors of them trading Degrom and Syndergaard(a guy who's 25 years old, has the stuff that people hoped Strausburg would have and is coming off a "disappointing" 4.0 WAR season). Can you imagine if the Cards had a couple guys who still had multiple years under team control talking about trading two talents like that? I actually think they get treated like the little brothers they are in NYC. Other than that, I am in 100 pct agreement with that list. I might add the Pats as I just hate watching them somehow win year after year. I get tired of the Patriots winning every year, too, but the "from 10,000 feet," view like the 49ers in Joe Montana's day, when it comes to how they play the game on the field (in other words, taking Belichek's personality out of the equation), it's hard to argue with the results because they're just incredibly good.

Easy to root for a $199M payroll team to get beat out by a scrappy $205M payroll team. Yeah, I just understand why the Giants winning it all is any better, at all, over the Dodgers... I hate rooting for the media's darlings in any sport, which usually is tied to the largest markets. MLB: Yankees, Mets, BoSox, Cubs, Dodgers NBA: Lakers, Knicks (on the rare-lately chance they're actually good) NFL: Cowboys

Well, as I said, at minimum it'd be cool for them to beat out big-money LA for the NL West crown.