MNBrew

I think all this ^^^ may prove true re: the 2019 Giants. That said, I'd also just love it if they get their collective act together and beat out LA to win the division. They have some high-end talent. Of course, they have lots of others who are something appreciably less than high-end talent, too. But it'd be cool -- only if the Brewers aren't the NL team in the WS -- if the Giants gave Bruce Bochy the best retirement present ever, one more WS title.

To be clear: - I think the ball-glove logo is design genius and is a classic. I don't want it to go away. I like it remaining in the picture. I still greatly prefer it in navy and wish and the yellow would be gold. - I think the M-barley logo is classic & classy. I don't want it to go away, either. Both logos say "Milwaukee Brewers" in definite yet different ways that are both timeless in their own right. Both logos remaining (1a & 1b, or whatever you want to call the co-existence) is probably best for the franchise's lasting identity and, of course, merchandise sales. Whichever one's on the cap in a current uniform arrangement, the other should be on the sleeve. And if they ever go back to pinstripes, I'd prefer it be in the navy. The royal blue & yellow were inherited from the Seattle Pilots and were the team colors for 25 seasons (1969-1993). Navy & gold have been the primary team colors for 26 seasons - including this one - & counting (1994-2019). Both have roughly equal claim to usage over the club's history. Both have been worn by good teams, playoff teams (2x for the blue/yellow incl. the '82 WS; 3x for the navy/gold incl. 2 NLCS appearances ending 2 & 1 wins, respectively, short of the WS) & horrid teams.

You're entitled to your opinions. Not everyone thinks the same way. How old were you when those new uniforms were unveiled in January '94? How well do you remember the uniform trends happening at that time? Or are you young enough that your lens is only hindsight? I was there at Brewers Fest (or whatever the name was at the time) when those uniforms were unveiled. Fan reaction was very positive. New merchandise was being sold very quickly. I still loved the MB/ball-glove logo and I wasn't thrilled they were ditching it. But I liked what they came up with at the time. The '97 revisions were solid enough, toned down in terms of the design (size of the first & last letters on the front of the jersey; and the M was simplified on the cap), and pretty much removed the green except as a subtle trim color that wasn't really present on the jerseys anymore. The net of that seemed like change for change's sake and the results were fine even if a little bland.

I prefer the current "official" (primary) uniforms & logos, but I at least like the MB/ball-glove logo in navy. However, I HATE the yellow and would far prefer it be gold with the rest of the current color scheme. I loved the ball-glove logo at the time and still do. Royal blue & yellow? To me it's still nearly as tired now as it was then. Leave those colors on the retro uniform, which is the only place I feel they belong. The yellow on the navy-yellow uniforms & caps is just obnoxious to me. . . . Other than the official navy-yellow ball-glove cap (which I bought because I always buy the official cap when a new one comes out), I won't buy any merchandise with the navy-yellow scheme. I really don't like it. But I'd buy ball-glove stuff if it were navy & gold. The Motre Bame logo was a noble attempt that was ultimately not so ideal in its execution. Those uniforms & the then-new color scheme were super cool at the time, and the green as a trim color was fresh. Lots of teams also introduced new colors into their looks in that phase/era of new uniforms. . . . Folks now love to rip those uniforms. At the time (going into the '94 season), when so many other teams were modernizing their previously-dated looks, I was so glad the Brewers were finally doing the same -- and weren't last in doing so. Keep in mind that it was another decade or more before "retro" really started to become "in" -- NEW was everything to most teams.

They keep subtly upping the use of the MB/ball-glove logo, but if they'd made any change from the M/barley logo as the primary, it would've been loudly announced by the team and endlessly discussed here.

That '92 team was really, really good. Just missed the playoffs. The wild card didn't exist at that point. I liked Nilsson a lot but he was hurt a lot -- makes Braun look really good. 653 career games in 7 seasons -- barely over 4 full seasons' worth. Also, only played just over 300 at C -- not even two full seasons' worth. Personally I can't put him above Lucroy on that basis. Lousy arm, too, for throwing out runners, although it played really well in RF (like a LH Australian version of Charlie Moore except he could hit well).

For what it's worth.... 3B Don Money had one really good year but overall wasn't much above ordinary -- not really a huge jump over Gantner as a hitter except with a bit more power (and that's not saying tons). Only 3 MIL years above 15 HRs. Only 4 MIL years w/ a BA above .280 and never a .300 year. Don Money was a really steady veteran presence for a LONG time on increasingly better (& eventually elite) Brewers' teams in the '70s and early '80s. But Cirillo was better on both offense and defense. Gantner's MIL career bWAR: 22.4 over 17 years (1.3 bWAR/yr) -- not noted here as 3B, just to support my assertion that he & Money were both pretty ordinary hitters. Money's MIL career bWAR: 28.4 over 14 years (2 bWAR/yr). Cirillo's MIL career bWAR: 26.2 over 8 years (3.3 bWAR/yr). To me, they're both really good guys in different ways, but to me Cirillo was clearly a better player than Money. 1B Cooper was a better overall hitter with a much better all-around bat (>.300 career BA, very good all-around XBH power, K'd only about 65x/yr in his MIL years) and high-end defense (2 Gold Gloves). Prince had elite, prodigious power and walked a ton (OBP over 100 points higher than his BA). Prince's power may be better than any single tool of Cooper's. But Cooper was also a very dangerous hitter -- plus a highly regarded defender at the time -- and over a much longer time. Prince averaged ~95 RBIs/yr in his 7 MIL years, while Cooper averaged ~85 RBIs/yr for 11 MIL yrs. However, Cooper was far more consistent at driving in runners when he wasn't hitting HRs. Prince was a special talent but Cooper was the better overall player. Both were very good. I could see putting them on the same level (call it a tie, just like the '79 NL MVP) but personally I can't rate Prince above Cooper (and that's not any allegiance to Cooper or universally putting all the '82-era players on a pedestal, which I don't do).

Clancy, I'm with you re: Gantner. He was generally durable and quietly solid, but still very unspectacular. His offense was usually very ordinary at most.

1B - Cooper 2B - Molitor SS - Yount 3B - Cirillo LF - Braun CF - Thomas RF - Burnitz C - Lucroy SP - Higuera RP - Tough call between Fingers & Plesac Cirillo: 26.2 bWAR in 8 seasons; Money: 28.4 bWAR in 11 seasons -- Check out Cirillo's Brewers years vs. Money's and it's not close (.307/.383/.449/.831 vs. .270/.338/.421/.760, and Cirillo was Gold-Glove caliber consistently at 3B and kept losing out to Scott Rolen & others just by their reputations & repeater status (where guys seemed to have to disprove their worthiness to not get Gold Glove votes again)). Best-ever individual years would involve another whole list of players (Hader, Cain, & Yelich all in '18 to start with; Knebel in '17, too; Vaughn (for a year or two of his); Simmons' '82 & '83; Sexson from 2001-03; Eldred's rookie year; Greinke's '11 or Caldwell's '78; Sabathia's other-worldly 3 months of '08; Gomez in 2013-14; etc.). Somewhere above Oglivie got listed for RF, which he hardly played (50x in 1149 career MIL games, all in his first 2 years), and Cooper for DH, which he also pretty rarely played until his last couple years (avg. 9x/yr in his 1st 7 MIL years; 162x total over his last 4 yrs). Those make very little sense. Mark Loretta gets special mention because he was nothing but super solid and pretty darn good for his 8 Brewers seasons. He'll never supplant Yount on an all-time Brewers team, but he may be the 2nd-best SS we've ever had (to date) and he was one of my all-time favorites. Those non-winning mid-/late-'90s teams had some really good position players (beyond Loretta, there were also Vina, Cirillo, Hamilton, Nilsson & even at times John Jaha & Greg Vaughn; plus a couple good years of Kevin Seitzer before Cirillo) who spent the majority of their careers in MIL (except Seitzer).

Vina had 6.0 bWAR with the Brewers...similar to Jose Hernandez (6.2) and Ronnie Belliard (5.8). Vina had one nice year in 1998 but was otherwise unremarkable. If I was going to pick a 1990s 2B/SS, Jose Valentin (11.4) is the clear winner. It seems the main point in Clancy's post was about 2B. Jose Hernandez was a SS, not a 2B. Valentin was a SS, too (phenomenal range with a routinely very high error count -- he could get to tons of balls but often would make errors once he did). Gumby was a great dude & solid player but highly unspectacular. Longevity helps him out in this discussion but his production undercuts any real argument in his favor.

To an earlier post in this thread, it's also very possible that Shaw gets some starts at 3B when Perez is starting at 2B. I don't think it's going to be Moose every single day at 3B and Shaw only plays 2B.

Career Brewers PAs: Thames = 829; Aguilar = 877. Aguilar has higher career BA, SLG, OPS, RBIs (by 60), bWAR (overall) & dWAR & fewer Ks than Thames. Thames has walked 21 more times (about the same difference as Ks) and thus the non-BA part of his OBP is higher. Thames is worse defensively and mostly lesser offensively. Plus Thames is really not good at driving in runs when he's not hitting HRs (53 RBIs in 2 years that weren't himself -- 47 HRs, 100 RBIs) compared to Aguilar (109 RBIs that weren't himself -- 51 HRs, 160 RBIs). How do you figure Thames should be starting over Aguilar? I don't see it. Am I missing something?

As the Brewers' system showed its lack of quality depth (lots of bottom-end prospect pool & system rankings) in the first few post-2011 years, there was a ton of grousing on BF.net that they traded away a great young talent for only 2 years (at most) of Marcum and Greinke.

The Lawrie/Marcum trade has long been known as one of the two that "gutted the farm system" before the 2011 season -- a convenient "quick glance" reaction that just wasn't true. Along with the Greinke trade, yes, it skimmed the best prospects off the top of the system. But it was only 4 prospects total since Escobar had already been in the bigs for a year-plus, and of those 4, Cain had already gotten over 100 major league ABs. What those two trades revealed was that behind those 4 guys, the cupboard was pretty much void of high-end/blue-chip talent anywhere above the low minors. Lawrie went on to show some good glimpses of promise, but he never came terribly close to living up to his "star prospect" billing. All that said, what a great story a comeback to the majors with the Brewers would be -- and even better if he were actually to contribute!

I totally forgot he was drafted as a catcher. IIRC, it was he who told the organization he was changing positions.

I've read several times where Stearns has said there are no problems w/ Hiura at 2B. I think several folks remember he couldn't play the field when initially drafted but they've forgotten why and have made up an alternate narrative. It sure seems there's always someone thinking Hiura is actually incapable of playing 2B -- that he's THAT bad defensively -- and that's just not the case. Hiura wasn't fully recovered from elbow surgery when he was drafted, so he was only able to DH at the time. He's been fine in the field the next year and ever since. He's no Roberto Alomar in the field, but he's also no Rickie Weeks or Daniel Murphy. On a different note, that Yahoo link re: Moustakas is basically a note that cites Ken Rosenthal's article/note in The Athletic -- so nothing new.

I'm not holding my breath for Lawrie, but I'd sure love it if this turns out well for both him & the Brewers. Depth is that much better when it translates into success at the MLB level. In his early years I was highly unimpressed with what I perceived his character to be based on the reports many have referenced (directly or otherwise). I'd hope he's grown (or, as it may pertain, grown up) considerably compared to 10 years ago in the same way I think we'd all hope for ourselves that we've grown a lot over the same time span, no matter our current age.

^^I agree. I really liked what Miley turned out to be last year. But if the chances of significant regression are too great, and if signing him amounted to only a lateral type of move vs. a legit upgrade, I can go along with the idea of the Brewers not really pursuing him. What seems to have received little airplay in any of the Keuchel speculation/discussions is that Stearns has some history with Keuchel via the years Stearns was in Houston. Maybe it's insignificant in the scheme of things, but if the Brewers are truly "in the game" still, I wonder if that connection plays into it at all.

I don't think it's a "one or the other" proposition. There would definitely be room for two versatile defenders on this roster. As a switch hitter, Gonzales would be more consistent offensively. If Gonzalez is signed, it means Spangenberg likely goes to AAA as insurance. Someone asked about Perez's trade value, if any, if we signed Gonzalez, suggesting a potential cost savings, an either-or scenario, or both. My question was posed in that context.

Hernan Perez at $2.5M vs. Marwin Gonzalez at $8M.... I value Perez's versatility but, especially offensively, he is what he is -- in other words, there are definitely other fish in the sea. Is the upgrade really worth the cost difference?

A lot of those guys have been good players, but they're not necessarily still nearly as good as they used to be. The "name" factor is pretty high. Shields & Gio, for instance were top-eschelon pitchers for a good while, but that was a little while ago. Same could be said for a number of those other names. All could maybe re-reach previous heights, but it's also possible none will come anywhere close to how well they've done before. I think the main reason most of those guys are still available is that a) teams aren't going to overpay for past performance and/or b) players' contract expectations may not be realistic compared to what the market seems to be willing to pay for their actual recent performance level.

I'd say the Brewers' rotation yet again profiles as quietly solid if not surprisingly above average. Stearns/Counsell together know what they've got and what they believe the guys are capable of doing. But there are no "ace" names, and that so-called deficiency is what triggers the predictors, both for low standings projections and player acquisition speculation. Landing Kluber would be a pretty huge deal. I'd be pumped if that -- or Keuchel -- happened. I really like that Stearns is showing over time that he'll give up only what he feels is an appropriate return.

How nice not to have to utilize all the depth you built up! But how nice to have it if it's needed.

Well, there goes Neil Walker off the list... https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/01/marlins-sign-neil-walker.html At least a few here are probably relieved.

If Keuchel ended up in MIL -- with which I'd be happy -- I'd think somebody already under contract who's a non-headliner name (Anderson, Davies, Thames, who knows?) likely ends up elsewhere before Opening Day.