MNBrew

This is what kind've gets me. I don't see his value anywhere near $2.5million so it questions as to why he was even resigned. Stearns is wise to plenty and I'm willing to guess he's a whole lot smarter about baseball than all of us. Obviously you disagree with his assessment of Gennett's contract and/or value to the team. I trust Stearns' judgement. There are reasons to be skeptical about Scooter's ideal fit on the 2017 Brewers. But besides versatility, Stearns has also said repeatedly that he values quality depth, and Scooter is better-quality proven depth than many other available options. Scooter only costs the salary, not any assets in addition to that to acquire. There's a lot of offseason left and lots of transactions yet to be made across MLB -- we're still closer to the end of the World Series than to the opening of Spring Training. At this point a year ago, we still had more than a month left of Jean Segura's Brewers tenure. There are likely several players being counted on for 2017 who will either get injured or disappoint significantly enough that Scooter could amount to an attractive/viable and affordable alternative -- in which case we'd likely gain a little more attractive asset in return than if we're coming off as hoping to discard like some seem to want to do with him now. At minimum, given that it's only Dec. 16th, being irritated, anxious, or judgemental re: Gennett's still being on the roster seems premature.

To elaborate on the point above, the JSOnline article cites that Stearns said the Brewers ultimately chose not to use their pick on anyone. The Cubs were interested enough in Smith essentially to trade up and made an offer worthwhile enough for the Brewers pick Smith for them.

If I read it correctly (can't recall where), apparently now it costs $100k for a Rule V pick. I don't remember seeing if the "buy back" option is still half the pick price.

That's like the Von Hayes trade, except Trout's turned out to be all the player and way more that Hayes was estimated to be -- and for much longer than Hayes was before Cleveland traded him. It's funny how Braun's past transgressions -- for which he's long admitted and accepted full culpability, and since moved on honorably -- and the injury stuff from years past color folks' thinking enough now like they're still immediate issues (the injury thing, of course, is still present to some extent now, but the guy still averaged playing 6 out of 7 days a week). It's also frustrating how Braun is SO undervalued as an asset by many on this site that so many of you feel that A) we should trade him no matter what, even for a lesser return, and B) we should expect to pay a good chunk of his salary in any deal. . . . Yet if we were, for instance, Cardinals fans looking at him as an impending acquisition and knowing how the Cardinals operate (much as we often don't like it), we'd know it would be typical Cardinals form to pay 3-4 good young assets for him AND take on his full contract in spite of his current age. That being the case, and given that any comparable FA matching Braun's track record of production would earn at least $5M/year more on the open market, there's no reason at all to include any cash in a deal -- witness Yoenis Cespedes, who's less of a player than Braun in every aspect of his game except his arm strength!!! (and also has 5 fewer years of experience while only 2 years younger than Braun and, career-wise, only average 6 more games played per year than Braun including the year Braun only played in 60-ish). When one of the game's top catchers on a way-friendly deal and a fireballing entering-his-prime closer (only a year older than Chapman) having a great year only net you 3 of a team's top 10 prospects, there's no realistic way Mike Trout costs any team 7 good (elite, in Braun's case) players and top prospects. . . . Yes, Trout (career .963 OPS) is about the most-elite bat in the game -- a notch up from Braun (career .910 OPS -- almost all of the difference being in Trout's stellar walk rate (btw, Trout K's at a notably greater rate than Braun)) in most facets of the game -- but Braun's still an elite bat, too, and costs and average of $4M/yr. less than Trout. . . . Re-stated, sure, Braun's a step down from Trout, but Braun's still a step up from almost the entire rest of MLB hitters. So if you offer Braun in a trade, you only offer 2 top young players and maybe, at most, one other decent asset (whether decent MLB player or a 3rd prospect).

I've lived through and have vivid memories of all Brewers eras, uniforms, and logos since 1979 (age 11). The ball/glove logo is genius. The M/barley logo is cool, simply understated, and classy. I look at the ball/glove logo and still feel it's more "then." The M/barley logo to me is still far more "now." The ball/glove was the logo for 16 years ('78-'93). The M/barley logo has been the primary logo for 17 years ('00-16). I still strongly dislike the royal/yellow color scheme compared to the navy/gold, which is much more classy to me. Though I still like the ball/glove, I greatly prefer the M/barley. Of course the ball/glove isn't going away and I strongly hope that any iterations of the ball/glove (as the ongoing 2nd logo) are only in the current navy/gold colors. This navy/yellow thing is just a bad idea. Part way through this season, I finally caved & bought the new ball/glove cap. I like the navy aspect but still don't care to wear it much because of my dislike of the yellow, and I almost always end up wearing my M/barley cap instead.

They still could. Parker or anyone else is just as easy to DFA as Parker was to claim should space be needed for a Rule V pick.

Potentially this year's Torres or Boyer, only as an early-winter 40-man add rather than a late-winter NRI or late-spring MLB signing. If he sticks 'til spring, probably fine. If not, he's as potentially "disposable" as a fringe guy as many here (myself included) feel Goforth is.

I think the greater concern is the loss of young players with good potential via the Rule V draft. Dumping Nieuwenhuis later doesn't undo lost players.

Even if we lose a few players in the Rule 5 draft, few ultimately last the season and most of those who don't, they get taken back by their original team. So when this all shakes out, I'm doubtful that we'd lose (forever) more than 1, maybe 2, out of all those who might get picked. The Wang thing perplexes me, but maybe the Brewers still see potential in Goforth that's down deeper than his non-success in MLB this year (including ST, I believe). It's worth remembering that Blazek showed really about zero when they first gave him a shot. Then things straightened out for him and he was very reliable in '15 before the mess that was his 2016. On a different note, I've never understood the love for Tyrone Taylor. He's never shown a stellar bat (whether BA or power/run production) above rookie ball and his SB numbers are sub-Braun/Broxton/Perez. Maybe they saw him as a Jeff Cirillo type??? I wonder if the love was more for potential that ultimately has yet to show much sign of realizing.

I think CheeseheadinQC has a good point. I don't love Nieuwenhuis and wish he were our 5th OF at best. But for however high the ceiling is on each of our OF prospects, all those guys are unproven at the MLB level, and it's quite possible 1-2 of those young guys would then make the team and NOT be getting the quantity of ABs needed for their long-term development. For KN, however, he's at least somewhat accustomed to the part-time role, so it doesn't hurt anyone's development for him to be a bench OF. The difference between now & last year's situation with the young-ish OFs on the roster is that Liriano, Flores, & Broxton were all lottery ticket types -- one-time high-ceiling prospects -- and if they didn't pan out, it was no great loss of prospect status or investment. All that said, I'd love an upgrade over KN for the 4th OF role, but whomever that might be is not likely someone you'd want to invest much into, either, in terms of assets used to acquire or salary.

Stearns seems to be taking more risks on guys coming off of injury. Guess he sees a market inefficiency there. That's what I meant in the first part of that post. Could possibly be this year's version of Aaron Hill.

Plouffe could be an interesting add but also could be a very "meh" possibility better left for someone else. Had some trouble staying both a) on the field and b) productive.

Justin Turner getting QO'd today does put quite a damper on that hypothetical signing -- for me it'd be enough to nix it in a heartbeat. There's been some speculation about Luis Valbuena as a FA signing for 3B. If Scooter's moved, I could see that as being both more likely and also less costly than signing Turner. Maybe this is a dumb question, but is Justin Turner's perceived value overinflated because he plays for the Dodgers and he's coming off a good year? I mean, is he a glitzy name in a manner similar to how Boston, the Yankees, and sometimes the Mets pay ridiculous salaries to keep guys they like whereas most any other market -- most teams' "real" market -- wouldn't pay some of those guys anywhere near what those 3 teams pay? It's about the most extreme example, but did the Yankees really think any other team was going to pay anywhere near the $25-ishM/yr. they paid A-Rod on his last extension (or was it an opt-out & re-sign?)? (Edit was just for punctuation.)

Oooh, you had to bring those up. Yuck. I absolutely cannot stand the current BP jersey/cap thing, especially the '80s colors one with the football-style letters & numbers. Those rank right up there on my list of awful uniform/logo/merchandising ideas with the "special" All-Star game caps for every team.

OP did say this, and the thread title specifically says "Hypothetical," so it's pretty clear JB12 put it out there for the fun of discussion. To rail on the idea and say it's crazy belabors the obvious and misses the point. There are plenty of other threads that exist with suggested trade ideas that are equally unlikely for a variety of reasons, yet they're presented with great enthusiasm. I think the notion of conceiving a set of only 3 moves -- and in the direction of plausible rather than preposterous -- that would give the Brewers something of a chance to contend is an intriguing and challenging idea -- of course not realistic, but still fun.

I've long believed that your 4th OF should be a guy you're comfortable with starting for 100 games. My concern is more that KN is viewed as a 4th OF, not a 5th OF. I have no problem with retaining him if he's the 5th OF. KN offers little dependability except on defense, and I want more than that from a 4th OF.

I can't see Marinez not being back. He's a low cost bullpen arm with upside if he can ever improve his walk rate. If they trade him, it won't be for nothing. I agree. I was simply responding to comments earlier in the thread by someone suggesting Marinez as being someone who could be removed from the 40-man this winter. Given the year he had in 2016, his big arm, and his potential ceiling, I think the only way he's not on the Brewers' 40-man roster come spring training is if he's traded for a more appealing return, whether by himself or as part of a larger deal.

That sort of thing could be good, especially if he could be flipped for a lottery ticket prospect or two at the end of July. I think a lot depends, though, on the market for Scooter Gennett. If Gennett can be dealt for a good return, debating the options at third base (Hernan Perez, Braun, Ryan Cordell, low-cost FA, prospect acquired) can happen. If Gennett can't be dealt, then I'm content to stand pat with Villar at the hot corner - and see if he can get to the 20-60 mark this year. Maybe I'm missing something, but don't the Dodgers still have Howie Kendrick, who's a 2B stuck out in the OF at times because of a lack of other healthy or productive options? It sounds like they are pretty set on Villar being at 2nd. If he's at all in the plans at 3rd in 2017, I'd be surprised. Given that Scooter is a fairly low cost, controllable option at 2nd, I'm sure he's tradeable. His standalone value though, I would guess, is very minimal. At worst, I'd guess he'd return something around the Aaron Hill return, at best, probably a prospect in the 150-200 range. But Stearns has surprised me before. I can very well see Scooter being included in a trade to the Dodgers if Braun is sent to LA, given that they could use a 2nd baseman anyway. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Howie Kendrick still a 2B? Yes, he played a lot of OF last year, but I believe that was more for LA having a lack of other quality OF options and wanting to keep his bat in the lineup on account of Chase Utley. Kendrick, career-wise, is a 2B (1112 games at 2B vs. 121 total in the OF, most of which were in 2016) who also has another year left on his contract. At the same time, looking at his numbers at this point in his career, Kendrick's not somebody I'd want as part of a return in any trade even if his contract helps offset money sent the Dodgers' way.

If Marinez is a mop-up guy at best, and if the Brewers think Marinez isn't worth keeping, I'd guess they're about 100x more likely to deal him and get a return than to lose him for nothing when claimed by another team on his way off the 40-man because the guy put up pretty respectable numbers. Said slightly differently, if the Brewers believe his '16 results were fools' gold, then I think they'd trade him for an asset before other teams come to that conclusion rather than advertise their opinion by letting him go for nothing.

I thought I remembered Blazek pitching pretty well after the brought him back from AAA and before he went on the DL. No denying, though, that he was lousy this year pre-AAA and never the same after he came off the DL.

Some of these guys claimed on waivers at this time of year are viewed as sleeper-type prospects. Others will bounce right back off their next team's 40-man when a more intriguing or necessary addition enters the picture.

... although realistically, Capuano and Boyer will file for FA within a day of the Series ending, so it will functionally be right back at 37 pretty quickly barring further moves -- and more moves would seem to be a given with the number of young guys who need 40-man protection this winter.

I agree, Turbo. I'd rather see him retire a Brewer. The fact is that we don't HAVE TO trade him. There are, as a zillion posts have noted, plenty of reasons to consider it for a major return. I'm hardly convinced that the Brewers should have to pay any of Braun's salary in a trade to get a haul in return. All that is talked mainly spurred by the size of his contract, which is only a couple million dollars above the QO leve. He's still an elite bat and a very good athlete getting paid less than what the FA market would hold if he were a FA this winter.

That's what the NHL is enforcing for the Las Vegas expansion draft. There are some players/contracts teams would love to expose, but the league & PA agreed that no-movement clauses are just as applicable to the expansion draft situation.

I don't think you give up on Jorge Lopez just yet. The guy's head got screwed with by Colorado Springs (the location, not the team). He was our top pitching prospect a year ago -- that doesn't mean everything, but I still think it counts for something. I'd at least prefer to see Lopez reestablish some of his value rather than be a sell-low throw-in.