MNBrew

I really haven't been able to imagine what outside moves Stearns might actually make, but a lot of these are very intriguing. At least some diversifying of the offense is necessary in terms of 1-2 high BA/OBP & fewer-K guys. My gut feeling is that he pulls at least one rabbit out of the hat that no one saw coming, but I have no guesses as to whether that's a pitcher or a position player. I like what Lucroy was but I'm not sold on him being the right guy again. He may still "have it," but there's enough luster off that shiny penny for me not to pick it up again. In keeping with my first sentence above, I don't have a better suggestion -- well, that's only mostly true: NOT Andrew Susac and probably not Jett Bandy either. Also re: Lucroy... - Matthew LeCroy is a former Twins catcher with a capital C in the middle of his last name. - Jonathan Lucroy has no capital C in his last name.

He threw wild pitches. I'm joking but serious. I think he set a team record.

I was a huge, huge fan of both Steve Stanicek and LaVel Freeman at the time. I used to love it when "What's Brewing" would come out back in the early/mid '80s with minor league updates, and of course The Sporting News (back in its good ol' days) with the WEEKLY updated minor league stats. TSN delivered LOTS of good news about those two guys and I could never figure out why neither ever got a very well-earned meaningful chance in the bigs. Stanicek had a brother (Pete) who played for the Orioles. Another guy who was good in the minors, showed something in the bigs, and then got injured was undersized lefty SP Sid Roberson back in 1995. He had years of 12-8 and 15-8 with sub-3.00 ERAs in high-A & AA El Paso (that hitters' haven!), respectively, in '93 (age 21) & '94 (22), earned a chance in the bigs. He went 6-4 but had a 5.76 ERA (sound like Zach Davies' 2017 1st half, anyone?), then got injured and never could get it together again. His K/9 & BB/9 numbers weren't ever stellar and his first run at MLB still had some signs of hope, but the injuries left him with no chance of ever improving on that first go-'round. Roberson was a quietly bright spot in the organization when not many SPs were doing much to distinguish themselves -- the start of the downward organizational slide that took the hiring of Dean Taylor to start to finally reverse. As a FL native myself, I liked that Roberson was a University of Northern Florida guy, too. I loved Taylor Green. So bummed that the injuries did him in. His spot on the postseason roster was well-earned. Somebody mentioned Doug Loman. I remember watching him foul a ball into his face in a game at Detroit. He was out for a while and never had the same shine thereafter, nor did he last long in the bigs once he came back. Dion James was quite the prospect but separated his shoulder diving in CF before his Brewers career really got going and never really got his game back together in MIL. Of course he got chances elsewhere and put together a respectable career. I loved the possibilities of a guy named Tim Pyznarski. I think we got him in a trade with San Diego, and I think he had been a minor-league MVP or something. Never sniffed MLB time in MIL, unfortunately, but had some pretty strong cred going for him when we got him. I have fuzzy recollections of some other guy like Pyznarski -- another OF or 1B type -- that we got from somewhere else earlier in the '80s (Baltimore?) but none of my searching has yielded who that may have been. For some reason I think his last name started with the letter B. I loved 1B/OF Jim Adduci. The guy had a sweet, smooth swing. We got him AND Paul Householder (former highly touted Reds prospect) in the same trade from STL for a bunch of nobodies who never became anybodies. He finally got decent MLB playing time off the bench in 1988 and distinguished himself with a .260s BA -- and a LOWER OBP (yes, you read that right) thanks to 0 walks along with a sacrifice fly or two. His son has bounced into, out of, & otherwise close to the bigs with a few organizations in just as part-time a role. I think he was just DFA'd by Detroit. While he had way too much MLB time to "qualify" legitimately for this thread, Matt Mieske was also a total favorite -- two-time MVP of his league when we got him in the Sheffield trade. He was a decent part-timer but never fulfilled the potential he seemed to show as a low-level prospect in the Padres' system.

My Darryl Hamilton (one of my all-time favorite Brewers - at the time and ever since) & signed Scott Karl (#42 -- last Brewer to wear it) gray game-used jerseys from the 3 Motre-Bame years ('94- 96) are the most unique ones in my closet, but that's the same reason I won't wear them to games. The navy '94-'96 jersey and now the current navy "Brewers" (NOT the "Milwaukee" with horrible yellow trim) have been my favorite ones to wear to games -- no name or number -- although I also like the gold/mustard/whatever alternate from a few years ago -- not the best concept ever, but an idea worth exploring as they did and executing on a limited basis. I actually had a replica gray road late-'80s pullover jersey that I wore a lot at that time in college but that disappeared decades ago -- I prefer authentics but still wish now that I would've kept it. Then it became dated in the 1990 season they went to all button-downs, which I thought was a stellar move -- classic style, not '70s/'80s bad-idea chic.

In the lower bolded part above, I agree if the net is that we're adding younger talent to the system in return, and especially if we get more players in return than we give up. However, I have memories of trades like these where we would've gotten a better return AND kept the better player if we'd traded the up-and-comer (trading Vina over Belliard is the quickest & most painful one that comes to mind; Kolb for Capellan was another; there were others esp. in that era). Of course those were the days of Wendy Selig-Prieb's ownership and, I believe, a different team budgetary approach & landscape.

Right. The system didn't lack talent overall, but most of their significant talent was in the low levels & not glitzy, thus my comment about not moving the needle much at the time. But there were more decent pieces than the outside "talent experts" -- and honestly many, many BF.net posters at the time -- ever gave them credit for.

The Braun-to-1B point has been hashed and re-hashed a zillion times. The organization has stated very clearly that that's not a direction they'll go. Braun is a solid LF whose play has really only been affected over the years by the injuries for which he's needed to compensate (playing a little deeper and not diving quite so often this year, for instance). Braun, when healthy, is also a borderline-elite offensive talent, and it wasn't any great surprise in the year-end news conference that it came out that Braun's been battling some injuries that affected his production. Braun's a smart & proud guy, so it's also likely he's not going to articulate right away the extent of the injuries or the extent to which they affected his play, lest he sound like he's reciting a litany of excuses, which certainly isn't his style. I don't consider myself a Braun apologist, but I do appreciate his history of sustained high-end production and the veteran, team-first character he brings to the team (the latter of which of course one would hope is the case given how he's seemingly learned from his poor & very visible choices in that 2011-12 time frame). When healthy, his output easily justifies what he's paid. He's also still pretty athletic and has respectable SB speed. . . . And if he's not healthy, then no other team likely wants to pay him what he makes for the accompanying sub-standard production, either. I'd think that if the team & Braun feel a move to 1B is the best way to keep him on the field and productive -- a la Joe Mauer -- then that's when we'd see such a move happen. I'm not sure either he or the team are convinced that's a needed move yet. Braun's clutch hitting this year, especially Aug/Sept, was just plain bad. But he wasn't the useless windmill at the plate that Villar & Broxton were. Braun's occasional ground out or fly ball to the OF at least would advance runners. On the general topic of the thread, I hope Sogard returns in a utility role because he's NOT a K machine at the plate. I like the RH/LH utility pair that he & Perez make. Villar could be a real asset if he could find his 2016 form again, but the year-long slump and defensive disaster indicate to me that unless he's productive near his 2016 levels, his future could well be elsewhere. . . . And on the topic of defense, while errors aren't everything, how nice was it to have a pretty sure-handed everyday 3B in Shaw whose error total never cracked double digits!!! Edit: added the originally omitted word in bold above, and edited a 2nd time because I hate making grammatical mistakes.

Yes, but that was not really the approach used in 2008-11. It was pretty much 'win now.' Our farm system was in shambles for several years after the Greinke trade. The statement in bold-face is true -- the cupboard was pretty bare -- but it wasn't a causality thing with the Greinke trade (and Marcum trade). The problem was that after those 4 guys & Lawrie were traded, there was pretty much zero A-level talent left in the system. There were plenty of decent parts left, it's turned out, but none that moved the needle much at the time. In the Greinke trade, we gave up Alcides Escobar, Lorenzo Cain, Jake Odorizzi, and Jeremy Jeffress. The first three guys were the biggest losses. First-time Jeffress was raw talent that couldn't stay in the bigs productively with MIL or KC, and was also underwhelming in TOR. So in truth, the net loss there was 3 legit prospects, plus a guy who -- like K-Rod before him -- has only been good when the boomerang (thankfully) keeps bringing him back to MIL. In the Marcum trade, we gave up the most alluring & probably only true blue-chip position prospect we had at the time -- Brett Lawrie -- and initial returns in TOR looked good for him when Marcum was effectively done in MIL due to injury-induced ineffectiveness after a year. However, that guy everyone bemoaned losing didn't play in MLB this year, holds a .261 career BA, .315 OBP, & .734 OPS. Those 5 guys didn't define the Brewers' farm system at the time. They headlined it. But after the headliners left, there was a major drop-off and a legit talent gap compared to most other farms systems. Anyway, back on the topic of possible Gray & Quintana trades, while I was really, really, really hoping they'd pull off something for a major rotation piece, now I'm not disappointed at all because we kept multiple high-talent guys AND stayed in the race 'til the very end without Gray or Quintana. Lacking either of those guys isn't why the Brewers didn't make the playoffs, but rather the Nelson injury, a few crappy bullpen collapses, and -- my biggest concern -- a low-scoring offense that was often ineffective late in games (and especially WAY too K-prone) after a good early-game burst -- and all the worse w/ RISP. I don't disagree with the reported/speculated theory that the Brewers will attempt to acquire a high-end SP this winter. But I'd be very careful about what I'd give up in return if the move were to be via trade.

This is pretty much where I'm at, especially on Garza now, although I've seen quite enough of Guerra this year already. He's not getting any better right now. Last 2 appearance, he's the HR-surrendering shutout killer. Those HRs, while not harmful to the result (thankfully), at minimum continue the trend of Guerra being very hittable. I'd love to see Guerra regain something close to his 2016 form, but I don't have enough faith in him right now to want to view him as anything other than organizational depth for next year. Of course, he has proven expectations wrong before and I'd love to see him do so again (for the Brewers, not someone else).

You can easily make a case for keeping nearly every single individual player on the current roster. The problem is that in having all of them together, there are too many high-K, high-HR, too-often-little-else guys.

I get the interest in Wren & Orf (good organizational soldiers & solid contributors), as well as DeJesus (based on his Colorado Springs numbers, mostly ignoring his MLB past). Maybe they're not difference makers, but at some point we could use a few role players to contribute something more practical that the only-occasional HRs that Broxton & Villar have provided most of this year. From a philosophical standpoint... I think the Brewers could use a better mix of SLG-weighted and BA/OBP-weighted hitters. The balance for several years has favored HRs, whether intentionally or not. Many (too many?) of our strong OPS guys are buoyed by their power and less by their BA or OBP. Power's important but not everything. There's value in contact hitters with a good BA and who get on base well in general. I'm a fan of OPS in general, but if a guy's game is mostly about power, there's often too little left when the power hits a dry spell or serious slump. They're not true comps re: my point, but the likes of Gwynn, Molitor, and Lou Brock are HOF hitters whose value was in their getting on base and, to varying degrees, their speed. Heck, Lou Brock's career OPS is .753. But the dude could hit just fine and run better than most others ever. Molitor & Gwynn's "power" was more their 2Bs & 3Bs, not their ordinary HR power, which in both cases is something this current Brewers team could use a whole lot of. Wouldn't an in-his-prime Jeff Cirillo help the '17 Brewers a whole lot!!! (Ditto for Fernando Vina & Mark Loretta.) I'm intrigued enough by what Kyle Wren that I hope to see him in MIL at some point. He's no "prospect" in the glitzy sense, but maybe it's worth a shot to see if he may indeed be serviceable. Maybe he can become what Logan Schaefer was supposed to be. If he fails, at least he'd have had his shot (joining a long list of OFs including Jim Olander, Jim Rushford, Lavell Freeman as just a few who come to mind).

I was wrong. Garza is dunzo. The only value in continuing to pitch him is improving the value of 2018's 1st round pick. Of course, this means he'll sign a minor league deal with the Cardinals and throw up a sub-3.00 ERA next year. Because that would be the Brewers' luck. Just like Mark Reynolds.... except the effect was delayed a year 'til 2017. With how putridly he hit in the 2nd half of his year in MIL, who could've seen this coming? This rebound year in COL is worthy of Comeback Player of the Year. The frequency with which this sort of thing happens with the Cardinals is unbelievable. Heck, even it took 2 months, a full season, and 2 more months -- 112 games' worth -- for "the Cardinals effect" to stop working on Jonathan Broxton and for them to release him at the end of May. So it would be just the Brewers' luck for the "Cardinals effect" to happen with Garza. That said, with how it's gone with him 3 of his past 5 starts for MIL, at this point I'd send him to StL anyway.

The 3rd inning tonight was hardly Garza's fault, but the 4th inning mostly was (with help from Torres, who threw kerosene rather than water on the fire). I don't think we just cut him. But I'd love to see them move him for anything equal or greater to a bag of balls in value.

That's an arbitration rule, I believe, and pertains only to the player's current team in a continuing-employment context. If a guy files for free agency, the next contract is whatever the FA negotiates and with whatever team he negotiates.

If I remember correctly, the most amazing thing about the Koskie play at the time was that he didn't actually hit his head on the ground. There was a great deal of discussion about that in the coverage both immediately and in his subsequent lack-of-return time that followed. The video is here (go to the July 5, 2006 game), although my browser's not cooperating so I can't watch it at the moment to see if my memory's correct: http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=mil&ym=200607

I just started at the start of the thread then skipped to these last few posts. I have 2 reactions: 1. I totally agree that (reasonably safely) reliable minor-league depth is thin at best in the Brewers' top levels of the minors. 2. With 8 proven major-league infielders now on the 25-man roster, IF depth at AAA thankfully shouldn't be much of a concern for the balance of this year. Re: #2, I would be quite surprised if Stearns doesn't beef up IF depth at AAA more going into next year, whether via trades, signings, younger players developing, and so forth.

Defensive metrics, compared to pitching and hitting, involve so much conjecture and subjectivity even all these years into the stats world's attempt to objectively quantify defense. That said, trends seen through a big-picture lens can be assumed at least somewhat reasonably to have some validity. Translating that into general terms.... I think this is saying that while the Brewers' players have much room for individual improvement in the field (on the surface, looking at the team's high error total and shameful fielding percentage), the defensive strategies the team/coaching staff employs are paying off pretty well.

Don't forget Todd Ritchie! Oh yeah, he was a starter. Never mind. Seriously, though, you run a risk with any signing -- whether that means deciding to or not to sign any player -- and no GM has a near-perfect record. At some point you have to stick your neck out and take risks. The main keys there seem to boil down to favorable odds re: the risk/reward aspect and your successes significantly outnumbering your failures. On those last points, I feel Stearns' track record has rightly earned him my trust thus far (not that he cares what I think). I also like that at least with the relievers, he's not afraid to DFA someone who's just not cutting it over enough of a period of time or with grotesque-enough results (Feliz being the obvious example, but also Blazek, Peralta, Marinez, and Goforth, among others, this year alone). On the original topic, I think it would be foolish not to pick up Garza's option. If enough young guys are proving they deserve to be in the rotation -- in other words, once he's legitimately blocking guys and the FO decides Garza's staying on the roster is detrimental to the long-term growth of the team and development of those prospects -- there are plenty of teams for which Garza would be a significant rotation upgrade, and the price makes him fit into other teams' budgets much more easily than guys making QO salaries getting similar or worse results. (I think the veteran leadership piece is meaningful, too, but that's already been well-debated here over the years with most folks' positions seemingly mostly unchanged by all the discourse.)

I like the Verlander idea a lot. I was thinking that if Detroit would cover some of Verlander's money, a return of Garza and either Philips/Coulter or Broxton/Trent Clark (preferably the latter). For his salary, Garza's a pretty darn good deal next year. He has his lousy moments but he also has good ones. Many teams will pay 3 time Garza's $5M option and still get Garza's results. We have to give up something of value to get something good, so the pair of players beyond Garza would have to have some cumulative positive appeal to them. If there were some way to get a Kinsler in the deal for a not-too-costly return -- esp. taking on all of Kinsler's salary (of course assuming Kinsler would approve a trade to MIL since the Brewers are reportedly on his "no" list) -- I think I'd be for that, too.

He was mad that Scooter took the Reds #4, so I think he'll be willing to come to the Crew only if he gets #2. Thankfully #2 is available since the Angels claimed Nick Franklin off waivers.

I'm emotionally exhausted watching the Brewers the past 3+ weeks, and it's mainly because the hitting has been so poor. I hate stretches like this where a lone run is a major accomplishment, a walk or a single is the best rally we can put together (outside of the first inning), and anytime we give up a lead -- no matter at what point in the game but esp. from the 4th inning onward -- it feels like I'd have better odds of winning the Powerball than the Brewers have of coming back to tie or take the lead. Most of our recent wins feel like they've been scratched-and-clawed for, hanging onto a 1- or (rarely, it seems) 2-run lead for dear life and praying the bullpen doesn't collapse. Lately it seems the more we need runs, the less likely we are to get them across -- and often the more likely our hitters are to punch a little dribbler straight at an IF or OF . . . or just strike out, which they seem to being doing worse and worse at these days (esp. Villar, Broxton, Thames, etc.). When Braun and Arcia are hitting pretty well and no one else in the lineup can consistently make contact (it was Shaw & Santana & Pina in some combination before them) -- much as I wish the bullpen were better and especially that they'd finally send Jacob Barnes to the minors to get his act together (sheesh, he's been terrible!) -- it just feels hopeless even when it's (hopefully) likely just a phase. I get it, we're not this bad of a team overall. The 59 wins to date are no fluke, but . . . . What I'm getting at mainly is that while the moves to augment the talent level in the bullpen have been nice to see, my greater preference would be to see an August move -- preferably two -- for a bat. Rentals are fine. Granderson's no savior and Kinsler's (and Phillips') best days are well behind him, but some of the struggling young guys could stand to be challenged and a little change to the team's makeup at the plate might help -- granted, most likely would be short-term, but that's fine by me if it doesn't interfere with the big-picture path the team's on. On the flip side of all this, it's hard not to figure they're just going to have to play themselves out of it. We're still rebuilding and that "grow through it" approach is part of the deal. But until progress happens and they start playing a little more like before, it's just plain painful.

The bottom line is that it's early and it doesn't take much for numbers to change quickly. Thames' killer start is the main reason Aguilar's not getting the PA his spring training roll suggested. Then again, halfway through ST, some were calling for Aguilar to be the regular 1B and for Thames' contract to be discarded because Thames was hitting SO lousy..... which cycles back to the original point that above all, it's early.

Right now it sure seems like we've traded most of our tradeable assets..... Sure, we have valuable young assets, but trading them to help the Brewers now goes against the rebuilding process. I get the notion of asking because I love player moves -- especially trades -- as much as anybody. But a very important part of the rebuilding process is letting the new/young assets develop as they need to, and, especially given all the vets who've been traded, I think we're squarely in that "development" phase which lacks the "sexy" stuff of big player moves and, really, simply takes time -- an unpredictable amount of time. We have a 13-13 team with most folks not named Thames or playing catcher hardly playing stellar ball. Realistically, it's still quite early in the year, and unless/until the right chance to acquire more "controllable young talent" is presented, it seems to me it's way too premature to starting figuring who the next trade candidates are. I'd think by the time it's July, potential moves on the trade market would be much more crystallized, but also at most would be for the Garza & Feliz types. It's in part due to that game of continuous/endless trade candidates that KC & PIT annually in the dumps for 20 straight years or so.

Stearns' comments immediately afterward indicated an understanding of how tough it is, especially with Cravy being cut right at the end of camp for the 2nd year in a row. Cravy's follow-up comments a few hours later were all that was needed from him to clear the air -- except maybe in the eyes of the media, who love a good story and would tend to overlook something that smoothes out a rough situation. I don't love Milone but to me the bigger joke was Cravy being told it was an open competition, yet Barnes pitching terribly most all spring and making the team over him. Yes, Barnes' K & BB numbers were good, but he got shellacked -- ERA of 13.00; 18 H in 9.0 IP. Wildcat, we all know AAA = Colorado Springs = terrible for pitchers, and Cravy pitched quite well for the Brewers late in the season (2.86 ERA w/ a 1.16 WHIP) which sure carries a lot more weight than his AAA numbers prior to that. And as Turbo says, I figure Cravy will get another shot -- now w/ Guerra out, possibly a whole lot sooner than anyone expected....

Just saw this on Twitter: Tom‏ @Haudricourt 13m13 minutes ago We are expecting to hear some more roster news on #Brewers soon. Stay tuned.