MNBrew

I'm guessing he was referring to Shaw's BA dropping 30+ points from 2017 to 2018. OBP was similar thanks to nearly 20 more walks & 3 more sac flies, but he had 27 fewer hits in 2018 in about 20 fewer PAs than 2017.

I get the idea behind this, and I'm on the same page re: the desirable attributes you're after, but it sure seems a lot of dominoes would have to fall to make this work. The first red flag to me on your idea is I don't see the Brewers relegating Braun to a 4th OF role. He's still a starter, albeit one who misses about a month's worth of games over a season the past few years. For the record, according to Baseball-reference.com, in the minors with the Brewers, Brantley played 53 games at 1B (32 games in 2007 and 21 games in 2008) -- never before that (starting in 2005) and never in the 10 years since including never in the big leagues -- vs. over 500 games in the OF in the minors w/ the Brewers. If we signed him, I'm not sure expecting him to play 1B for MIL is any smarter an idea -- or any more likely -- than expecting Braun to play regularly & primarily at 1B the next two years. Braun-to-1B didn't play out as much as initially projected and he's still a decent LF. This year was also very un-Braun-like, though of course time will tell if it was more of a fluke or a new norm. In past offseasons I would've been pretty convinced it was a fluke, although his hard-hit-ball rate was so high -- whatever the name for that stat is -- that I'd guess there's some rebound that'll happen in his 2019 numbers. If he can get back to improving his quality-of-swing rate, he'll be a good deal more productive overall that he was in 2018. Just how he ratcheted up his focus through September and (most of) the playoffs tells me that he still has plenty of game left. Anyway.... On the whole, taking position out of the equation, the guys Brantley's desired hitting attributes would most significantly improve on are Moustakas, Arcia, Santana (v.2018 & who I think is mostly likely the 4th OF in 2019), Shaw (maybe, although he walks a lot), Perez (not usually a starter), and Pina (kind of, maybe? -- 1st half Pina, anyway). But you can't take position out of the equation and Brantley's not switching to any of those positions. I like the idea of a Brantley-type hitter. But I can't see it actually being Brantley. I don't have any better ideas yet because I haven't paid much attention to prospective FAs. My hunch is that a greater percentage of any roster turnover would be to address some of 2018's glaring offensive deficiencies. If that's the case, there are tons more players possibly available via trade (at least conceptually) -- WAY too much to think about right now. (Edits to correct brain cramps in last night's very late writing.)

Not to sidetrack the thread, but I have to ask: Where in the world did this notion of a perceived need to upgrade 1B come from? Granted, his 1st half was nearly otherworldly, but it was still real, and Aguilar basically was one of the best-producing 1B in all of MLB. And he's cheap. So exactly how (and/or why) upgrade 1B? Okay, sorry, back to the thread topic...

This was his first full season after missing almost all of 2017 and most of 2016 due to injury. He was showing signs of fatigue late in the year. This year was about building up his arm strength so I wouldn't read anything into his lack of callup in September. I don't take Houser's absence in September as a negative. I remember Haudricourt noting that the only 40-man guys not up in September were Diplan, Houser, Wilkerson, and Dubon, and prior to that had been stating that the Brewers didn't want to call up nearly everyone (even though they came close to having the full 40-man on the active roster in September). Realistically they didn't need him. Some of the guys on the active roster didn't play that much anyway (for varying reasons: Williams, Albers, Nottingham). Stearns hasn't been one to call up guys but not use them.

^^This. Lots of folks who know a lot more about baseball than we posters here do seemed to think that the Brewers' heavy BP usage was a logical plan for the postseason but overall, and even in the postseason, raised questions with regularity about its sustainability. Obviously it mostly worked out well in September spurts and in the playoffs. Counsell knew what he had on his staff and had pretty good if not unorthodox ideas about how to get the most out of those guys. However, like many of those "expert" types, I have serious doubts about it being something that can be sweepingly effective on a long-term basis without frying arms, whether that specifically means significant/debilitating fatigue or simply effectiveness.

I'm not opposed to the first two trades but I don't agree on Realmuto's worth or the cost to our system's depth you're paying to get him. Even if Aguilar's production is in proportion to his 2017 vs. his 2018, I think he's well worth keeping, so shipping him out along with several other potential future regulars (Nottingham & Dubon, for instance) is a foolish underestimation of his worth to the Brewers.

I'm right about on the same wavelength with all this. A couple variances: - I'd resign Miley if the price is reasonable enough. - I like Soria but not for $10M. - I'd keep Santana. Your 4th OF needs to be someone who you'd be comfortable with starting 100 games (due to others' injuries, slumps, or whatever). His K rate isn't good, but he still has a sorta-respectable OBP relative to his BA in spite of the ugly K rate. He's a much more productive version of Broxton at the plate, plus he's 2+ years younger. And his September & October performance off the bench was encouraging -- not unlike what got him into the mix as a potential OF starter in the first place a couple years ago. He's still under control and not that expensive. If we rid ourselves of Santana somehow, we're just going to be spending more money or assets on someone who hopefully could do what Santana's already shown he can do. - I'm not sold on Schoop. Hot streak right before the trade made him look (temporarily) like the Schoop of 2017. But the yearlong view of 2018 Schoop was much worse than the 2017 version. I fear we already may have seen what the emperor's new clothes are actually like. - I like Moustakas on several levels, but the guy absolutely has to do better at not trying to pull 98% of the pitches thrown to him. I'd keep him & leave Shaw at 2B for another year IF a half-decent one-year contract could happen. I'd prefer keeping him over Schoop for sure. But I'm not convinced he's here next year. (Side note: Shaw's career OBP is a good 25 points above Moose's, and his career OPS is 70 points higher... and he's significantly cheaper.) - One utility player needs to have some experience in that role. Perez isn't stellar but fits the utility role well -- good D versatility, some speed, good team guy, somehow ends up with a not-complete-garbage BA with sporadic PT even if his K rate is horrid. If a better utility IF comes along, I'm definitely not opposed to moving on from Perez. - I like the Dubon idea but a) who knows if he's healthy yet, and b) if he is, who knows if his bat is going to be MLB-ready with a many-month layoff underway. He was as hot as could be up to the injury, but I doubt he's quite as good as he was during that 23-game hit streak. And even if he does end up on the roster, who knows if he's ready to be in a Perez-like backup role. I suspect he'll start in AAA and get a shot at some MLB time if his play merits it. - I think Vogt (if healthy) & Kratz both are worth keeping in the mix, but they both seem likely to be NRI candidates with a legit MLB contract to activate if they can earn a spot. I'm not convinced Nottingham's ready to be an everyday MLB roster guy -- though I think he'd have to be by 2020 -- so I'd guess either Kratz or Vogt is our backup C next year, and the other may still end up in AAA. To me, however we get there, one very important point is continuing to shift toward guys who make better contact more consistently. Maybe some of our suspect guys can improve (Arcia?), maybe not. But Moose & Schoop were definite steps backwards in that respect. Moose hit okay his first month-plus here, but eventually regressed closer to his career norms..... Guys are still going to strike out, but the swing rate at bad pitches seems way too high over the course of this year.

I don't see this setting up quite the way you have it -- my hunch is something that looks more like the "traditional" SP/RP model -- but I think most of those names are in the mix. One name seemingly missing here from the 2nd group (and many others' posts) is Taylor Williams. He was in the 1st half what Soria was acquired to be in the 2nd half when Williams (rightly, unfortunately) lost some of that high-leverage status. It was only Williams' 1st year in the bigs and he fizzled some in the 2nd half, but I think he's still a viable piece in the long run. The fun of this is that we seemingly have pretty excellent pitching depth even though we lack a Scherzer/Kershaw/TOR type. But sooner or later you can't keep all the current depth because new/other depth pieces push their way toward the top, too, and something eventually has to give.

I came down for a game a few summers ago, arrived late, and nearly didn't get in. Thankfully, the ticket window person mysteriously/miraculously came up with a couple tickets for my boys and me. The ticket person told me there's a limit on how many standing room tickets they can sell -- and told me the number, although I can't remember what it is.

Keeping in mind that deals can happen before decisions on options & arbitration have to be made, I mostly agree w/ JMB with these variances: Schoop -- I'm just not convinced he can be what we'd need him to be and I'm not sure the $10M-ish it'd take to keep him is worth the risk to find out. So I'd get out from under Schoop, whether by trade (ideally) or non-tendering him. Jennings -- He was reasonably serviceable much of this year, but not stellar. I'd keep one of him or Cedeno, and I'd lean toward Cedeno, whose successes seem a little more convincing. Vogt -- Health permitting, I'd give him a shot with a no-risk minor league NRI deal with a reasonable MLB salary and a team-friendly injury-protection safety net (e.g., active roster time incentives) if he actually can make the team. Kratz -- If he's not retiring, I'd work out a deal before arbitration decisions become a factor. A $1M salary with a few PT-based incentives seems very reasonable. We've also got Matt Albers, who was great pre-injury and unfortunately quite horrible afterwards. My hope is he can come back fully healthy and find his 2017 & April/May 2018 form. It'd stink to have to eat $2.5M (though not as bad as the balance of Wolf's & Suppan's salaries), but it would be a better alternative than using a roster spot on him IF he can't rediscover his previously very good form.

I believe I recall hearing some commentary during games about Aguilar playing more -- and longer -- this season than he ever has. If that's the case, how is this not like a rookie hitting something of an August/September wall? I'm not saying it's the same thing, but the guy hasn't played everyday for a couple years, and never in the bigs, meaning this season's a good 5-6 weeks longer -- plus the All-Star Game & postseason -- than anything he's ever done. The 2nd half decline is definitely noteworthy. I'm not turning a blind eye to that. But a possibly very valid explanation does exist. To the thread topic, I like the idea but I'm not sure how worth it the cost would be, both short- & long-term. Side note: Goldy is a very good friend of a former student of mine, now a colleague, who played several years in the AZ system with him. It would be all the more fun from that angle for Goldy to be a Brewer. Chase Anderson and Jake Elmore (with us part of 2016) are a couple of his other really good friends.

If I'm the Brewers, is there any reason not to try to bring back Miley? He HAS figured things out the way we'd hope other reasonable-cost potential reclamation projects (like Gray, whom I like the idea of) would. And given that he missed, oh, a good 1/3 or more of the season, you'd have to think he'd be at least somewhat reasonably priced. I like his pace on the mound & what I sense his attitude to be. . . . I think they have to try to re-sign him. If he feels he's worth way too much, then move on. Re: Gray & his $9M salary, keep in mind that that's only about $1M more than we "overpaid" (per so many posters here) Chacin last winter. I'd doubt Gio would be back. He was a classic deadline-type acquisition who did tons better in his limited outings than his '82 counterpart -- Doc Medich (not Don Sutton) -- did. For all the doubt about MIL's SPs, we sure seem to have a lot of reasonably-paid guys who've gotten us mostly good returns on our investments in them. In the moments they weren't great, Davies & Anderson gave us some reasons to doubt them, but on the whole they're still decent assets at reasonable prices. I'm not sure what a few of Thames, Schoop, and Broxton could bring us, plus maybe Perez and/or one of the established current starters already being discussed. It probably wouldn't be much in terms of star quality, but I'd take April-October substance (a la Chacin & Miley) over November-March headline excitement.

Granderson's about the only LH bat off the bench if our best lineup's on the field to begin the game. Other bench bats -- Broxton, Santana, Perez, Kratz/Pina (whomever's not starting), Schoop -- are all RH bats. In that scenario, the only LH bats in the field are Yelich, Shaw, & Moustakas, vs. RH bats Braun, Cain, Aguilar, Arcia, & the other C. From the NLDS roster, we still tip very much RH (10, vs. 4 LH bats). I think Granderson needs to stay.

I could see Moustakas coming back and Shaw staying at 2B as far more optimal for the Crew than keeping Schoop & moving Shaw back to 3B ... OR keeping Schoop & Moustakas and trading Shaw. Stearns' mantra is "controllable young talent." To me, Shaw's one the guy to keep for sure: - He's under control longer (3 arby-eligible years ahead of him). - He's got better power overall (best HR:GP ratio of the 3), better OBP, better SLG, & better OPS. BA for all 3 is about the same. - Shaw (28.5 years) is pretty much halfway between Schoop (about to turn 27) & Moustakas (a month over 30) age-wise -- right about 1.5 years either way to the other two. Problem is, you'd be selling low on Schoop. Yet, while we have great depth now, we won't be able to keep all of it on the 25-man by the time it's set late next spring. Something will have to give. With so many guys on the roster, sometimes you have to cut your losses. Schoop's overall package of skills is, to me, both least desirable and least cost-effective. Aguilar's within a half-year of Shaw age-wise. Again, controllable young talent. I don't look to trade him, either. He had a good 2017 and a mega-good 2018. Even with a so-so 2nd half, the sum of what he brought was still good. Eric Thames is a great team guy but he's older and far less productive. All that said.... I have a hard time thinking about who might be a viable & realistic yet significant SP to go after. Packaging a few capable & not outrageously priced guys, maybe with a quasi-prospect or two, might help return someone of significance. Thames, Schoop, & Davies/Anderson along with someone super young (A-ball or Rookie level) could help net a good return. I'm not sure they'd get us Bumgartner, but there's quality in that group and the right circumstances or timing might yield an SP we could really use. Wouldn't be quite like AZ giving up 6 guys for Richie Sexson, but maybe there's a combination of just enough guys from our depth that it could net us a big-ish fish.

You can't look at it through today's lenses. You cited classic 2018 thinking. 25 years ago, that's not how teams did it. Mollie had a killer year in '92 and they offered him a $1M deal after he'd just made $3M-ish (famous Bando quote: "Only a DH.") Robin had another poor-ish year in '92 (check out how mediocre-to-poor his last 4 years got) and they offered him a raise. Bando was a total idiot. Back on topic.... The talk up here all day has been all about Falvey & Levine bringing in a "their guy" manager. Not ever wunderkind brainy young GM is going to be successful. Molitor still has a ton more cred in my book and this was a totally boneheaded move. Falvey & Levine haven't exactly built up a resume of awesome Twins moves in their 2 years here. I think much more of this year's failure is on them than any coach or Mollie. But they've been determined to can Molitor and finally did. And it distracts the casual fan from their lack of good moves. I do root for the Twins (nowhere near like how I root for the Brewers) but I hope this backfires on them badly. What a poor & short-sighted decision!

I think Braun still starts over Santana. That said, I think Santana's more likely here & on the 2019 roster than not. I've always believed your 4th OF is someone you want to be comfortable with if he has to start 100 games. To that end, I love Broxton's defense but his offense is often pretty putrid other than the occasional HR. We spent the first half of 2918 with too many offensive black holes in the lineup (namely Pina, the revolving door at 2B, & Arcia) for me to want to risk that possibility again in 2019 in the OF -- which is what Broxton would represent to me. Santana's offense has come back around some, albeit much slower than was hoped when he was sent down to AAA, and I'd feel much better about him starting 100 games than Broxton. I feel like Santana has a better MLB track record and he's also younger. I'd love to find a way to keep Keon, but he seems more like trade bait & a non-tender candidate, all his cool positives notwithstanding.

Is Bill Castro available now? It's been 15 years or more since we've tried that trick. New overall baseball audience & almost every last one of the doesn't read BF.net.

It's sure nice having such good depth to choose from for the playoff roster -- thank you, Mr. Stearns. Of course, the roster can change from one series to the next. My head's going this way right now re: the 25-man bubble bats: Keon's bat has been especially worthless for most of September. His speed has been virtually inconsequential in September. His defense can be downright stellar but on the whole likely wouldn't come into play significantly very often if at all if he's only playing minimally in the first place, which would be the case. I think keeping Arcia is a no-brainer and he's already a mostly-glove guy, although his BA has risen nearly 40 points since he was last recalled from AAA. Santana can hit off the bench and his September is pleasant testimony to that. If anyone might be a surprise omission... Granderson's patience at the plate is admirable but if he's not walking, he's not doing much -- although thankfully he's been walking a lot. Perez has been adequate defensively but mostly "meh" at best at the plate lately, esp. when PH-ing or with runners on base. I can't see putting him on the roster over Schoop or Arcia. Thames has been nothing but a team-first guy even as his offense has eroded horribly post-Aug. 1st. Good dude. But he's mostly a sure out the past two months, esp. PH-ing and w/ RISP. So..... beyond the obvious (2 catchers, 5 rotating/starting IFs, & 3 starting OFs), I'd think Santana & Granderson get the next 2 spots (righty & lefty), then maybe Perez over Thames (coin flip & defensive versatility) if they only keep 12 pitchers instead of 13.

Maybe the question is whether Baltimore would've accepted that offer for Machado. I kind of doubt it, but I can't quantify why. That deal would've netted us one player with debatably zero chance of re-signing him -- so way too much for a rental. What that deal would've done, though, is still clear up some potential log-jams for 40-man roster space this winter.

That's the magnitude of Wednesday's game in a nutshell. But we also still may have lost with Yelich in the lineup. Winning wasn't a given. The Brewers definitely weren't playing great ball there for a while in that game, and the players who were throwing the ball everywhere weren't playing Yelich's position.

I get the need to vent when moves backfire or seemingly predictably didn't work out -- I vent plenty in my own ways (not too often here, though) -- but in a few recent games when the bullpen failed multiple times, it was plenty of high-frequency BF.net posters who were soundly lambasting Counsell's bullpen moves in the IGTs. I'd think high-volume posters here likely aren't just casual fans. I haven't paid much attention to IGT for years until the past few weeks, but I've followed the discourse a few times. Some of the yelps of frustration were very pointed, and it was very clear their target wears #30. I definitely agree that Counsell's bullpen management has been very good overall, but it's funny how our expectations are for perfection every time. Even the best relievers blow games sometimes. Back when Dennis Eckersley was in his golden days as a closer, I remember how astounding his save rates were. Then suddenly every starting getting held to an Eck-level standard -- a logic ideal but in reality not very achievable for many. On the original topic, I wish Yelich had been in Wednesday's lineup but I didn't fault him or Counsell for the choice one iota. I wonder if what made it seem worse was that some of the rest of our depth -- many being very accomplished, successful MLB hitters -- weren't coming through as they could've, thus we were still losing to the Cubs, and it was certainly natural to think that Yelich might've actually come through in some of those instances when others didn't.

Perez was hitting the ball alright there for a little bit, getting hits & bumping his BA into the mid/upper .260s. But it seems pretty ugly the past few games.

5 walks the past 2 innings. Gotta convert at least some of these chances. Instead we can't get any kind of hit. Perez has had 5 baserunners his last 2 ABs & did nothing. Ouch. We ought to be beating up on the Giants.

Doesn't a team NOT BURN an option on a player if they're not down for 20 days? Wasn't this how Broxton still had an option remaining going into this year even though he was optioned for the 3rd year in 2017?

I think Aguilar's exactly what Stearns has been very overt about trying to acquire -- controllable & very productive young talent -- and thus exactly who you don't trade. Worth something in trade? You bet! But all we'd then be looking for is the next Aguilar and wondering why we're paying Thames more for sub-Aguilar production. So in reality Thames is a $6M dude next year -- not shabby but not a total treasure, either -- and, Lord knows, a total underpay for a Yankees' bench guy -- and at least the $1M buyout in 2020 unless he's worth keeping at $7.5M. That's not worth a ton, but he's a very serviceable if unspectacular player most of the time.