MNBrew

This is a better way of saying what I meant - "coveted" and not "needed". Obviously they are needed, but I meant "needed to acquire" which means "coveted". I knew you weren't trying to trash Torres, etc., and I'm in full agreement. In past years, it was the Blaine Boyer & Carlos Torres types who got moved in pretty good quantities. This year, the market on those guys was very quiet, especially compared with previous years, and also especially compared to the movement of proven, elite relievers. Hopefully the August transaction action on those types of players will be good -- partly because that's fun anyway, and also because it can positively divert a bit of the attention when needed from the on-field results during this rebuild.

Funny how cyclical baseball can be. We're not far from a several-year stretch where, in the eyes of many, closers were "highly overvalued" and very highly overpaid. Many on this board talked regularly about how closers were interchangeable and how you really didn't even need one. When the Brewers lost Francisco Cordero to CIN on a 4yr/$48M FA contract, most were glad to see him go in spite of how generally good he was because of the AAV of that contract (it didn't hurt that he, like several FA SPs the Brewers subsequently signed, stunk terribly in the last year of that deal -- the trend had been there previously for FA catchers the Brewers signed, but that's a different discussion). Anyway, by then the mantra of "closers are highly overvalued" was oft-repeated. Fast-forward to this year & look at what was most coveted and paid the highest price for at the deadline: proven, elite relievers! We're not exactly back to where we started (contracts don't match those at the start of this cycle - not yet, anyway), but all of a sudden high-quality late-inning RPs are a must-have all over again - and worth a high price if you have to acquire one or have one to deal. I don't believe the value of those guys to a team truly ever changed, only the widespread perception of their worth/value. I've said for many years that it was no accident that the original K-Rod acquisition put the Brewers over the top and into the playoffs from the time of his arrival in 2011. It helped align an already-good bullpen even better, with Saito & Hawkins for the 7th, K-Rod for the 8th, and Axford for the 9th. That bullpen shortened most Brewers games from that July onward to 6 innings before the bullpen would take over and close things out. As a side note, I tend to think the reason Jeffress on his own didn't help net a Chapman- or Miller-esque return on top of what Lucroy netted isn't that he wasn't super good this year, but that didn't have the track record that Chapman & Miller did -- he didn't have significant longevity in the role going for him. To Louis Ely's last sentence, I'd suggest that good relievers like Torres actually are quite needed, but at this year's deadline they weren't coveted like the elite relievers/top closers - who also fetched incredibly strong returns.

Lol. The Milwaukee Brewers already traded Jed Bradley to the Atlanta Braves for "cash". Without knowing the amount, I'm still not willing to trade said amount of "cash" for Yasiel Puig. Look two posts above yours and you'll see my admission of error.

I was recently checking the Brewers' minor league teams' stats and the main listings at MiLB.com don't differentiate those currently on the team vs. those not, so I brain cramped (twice) on Bradley. I still would mind trading them someone else's prospect for Puig if it really meant we didn't have to give up anything. (Granted, that's like a baseball card trade, but why not?)

A prevailing theme is that many at least within this thread wouldn't want to give up anything of real value for Puig. Someone suggested Taylor Jungmann and was quickly rebuffed. I'd agree that I wouldn't want to give up Jungmann, either. Well, if the Brewers don't want Puig -- at least not when he's far, far more of a headache than of anywhere on the positive side of "mercurial" -- then a player of Jed Bradley's caliber is about what you'd offer to signify that level of interest.

Briggs makes a good point. There will inevitably guys they like that they want to keep in the organization but who are almost assuredly not attractive enough to be Rule V fodder this winter, much in the Hernan Perez mold last winter. Rowen, Scahill, Elmore, Middlebrooks, Flores, Wilkins, Houser (only because of TJ surgery) are first names that come to mind, with Cecchini quite possibly, too. Capuano, Goforth, Nolin, and Nieuwenhuis would also seem to be on far from sure footing re: returning to the Brewers' organization next year, too, each for different reasons. Boyer is on a one-year contract, FA-eligible at season's end. Add that all up and you get potentially as many as 13 guys who may not have 40-man spots by the Winter Meetings. I think Rivera's still liked within the organization. He really should've spent all of '15 in AA (Brewers' IF injuries moved him up to AAA for 2 months) which would mean playing all of '16 in AAA is right in line. So I think he's far from a fallen star in the organization's eyes. . . . I never understood the love for Taylor. Reed seems to bring more to the table. Neither's exactly lighting it up this year, but I'd think Reed's more likely a part of the team's future than Taylor (and I wouldn't care if Taylor proves me wrong). Some of the Roache/Taylor/etc. crowd will be guys we get a little something for -- deal sweeteners if nothing else -- as guys who aren't far from being seen as high-ceiling prospects (or at least as guys having 1 or more high-ceiling tools). There will likely be ample other player movement, though who knows who that will involve.

If Matt Kemp and his uber-ugly contract can get traded, so can Garza. Garza's contract pales in comparison to Kemp's on the "stink" meter. Garza's arm is healthy and he did have a couple pretty good starts early in his return to the rotation. And there was at least one where he'd only given up 1 or 2 runs in 5+ innings, leaving with runners on, and the bullpen totally blew it to make his stat line look awful. . . . He's not great right now, but if the right team gets a little desperate, it's possible he could still represent something of an upgrade -- which of course isn't saying much, only that it's all relative. I'd say the odds of something like that actually happening are well less than 50-50, but it only takes one team.

Not Jungmann. The most I'd trade for Puig is Jed Bradley or someone who's performed similarly poorly (not otherwise of his draft pick level or the equivalent caliber of talent -- well, okay, I'd give 'em the silhouette of Chad Green or J.M. Gold).

Or it's possibly not riskier. Ultimately going either direction is a risk. - Braun could still be Braun or he could be something less. - Lucroy could still be Lucroy or he could be something less. Thinking especially of Yadier Molina, as much as catchers tend to decline more significantly in less time, a less-than-Lucroy version of Lucroy may well still be much better than so many of the clowns the Brewers have tried to pass off as MLB catchers (as noted in the Catchers WOAH SOLVDD (or whatever it's called) thread). - Any prospects acquired for one or both of those guys could be productive MLB players or never see the MLB active roster. I get why folks want them traded -- you can't spend any time reading stuff on this board over the past month and still be clueless about that! I just believe it's not the only potential way to a good result. The funny thing about your final comment is that we actually did develop players of Braun's & Lucroy's caliber -- those two themselves. Of the two, Lucroy has far exceeded what most projected for him when he came up, both offensively & defensively.

Kind words, Oxy. Thanks. One other point on the Braun/Lucroy as our season/credible vets position: One response was to go out in a couple winters & sign Votto & Archer (as random FA examples from that future offseason). The problem is, when the Brewers are at the point of needing to sign top-level FAs to put them over the top (like the Cubs started doing with Lester last year, Zobrist/etc. this past winter), history has shown that those are guys the Brewers have a really tough time attracting -- or at least closing a deal on b/c someone else comes in with bigger mega-deal. Well, Braun's already here and under contract for 4 more years, so you wouldn't have to figure out how to lure him as a FA. Lucroy, that's a whole different kettle of fish given the deadline and all that's gone on, but however small, it's technically still a possibility he's in that boat down the road, too, if the Brewers offer him the extension he wants AND the rebuilding/retooling process looks really good a whole lot sooner than initially thought (kinda like the Cubs from 2 years ago to last year & this year). Again, I get why people want to trade 'em. And while I agree the overall rebuild going on is a good thing, from the contrarian viewpoint, two things: 1) there's the bird-in-the-hand thing, which the grass-is-greener and/or change-is-necessary viewpoint tends to forget about or dismiss out of hand, and 2) no matter how many blue-chip prospects we draft/develop/acquire, there's zero guarantee we develop another bat anytime soon who's able to match Ryan Braun's usually-elite production or a catcher who's anywhere as near the complete package that Lucroy is. In the end, if the rebuild accomplishes what it needs to -- the Brewers are back to being perennial contenders centered around a strong core of young talent -- and one/both of Braun & Lucroy are still productive members of the team, then keeping them is no hindrance at all to the ultimate end goal. . . . Really, did it hurt the Red Sox at all when they struggled over the past couple years to still have David Ortiz on the team? They surely never would've traded him - perish the thought! It's not the same argument, but in a way it's the exact same argument.

If there's a 4th player in the deal, then it well could still be an arm. Stearns has gotten a pitcher in most of his deals.

Rick Manning Rick Waits (throw-in: the ghost of Tom Candiotti)

My guess: EITHER at most, one of Boyer/Torres and, less likely, one of Jeffress/Smith (I'd prefer Smith). OR more likely, no one.

I had a crazy time-warp brain cramp with those Charlie Greene references. I was thinking he was the catcher we got in the Moose Haas trade, but I figured I had to be off by a decade or so. And I was. That was Charlie O'Brien in the Moose Haas trade. Wrong Charlie.

Keith Osik was nothing special, but his one year in MIL was actually not shabby. Both he & Eddie Perez definitely exceeded expectations that year (2003).

He put a couple guys on but still got a couple outs. Thornburg let one of Smith's runners in. Not a terribly good outing, but hardly putrid. Sunday's outing was bad.

Thanks to the tweaked knee, this year Smith's pitched a whole lot less than he has by this point in previous years. Due to being used so often earlier in the season, the past couple years, he's been noticeably less reliable during August & September. As long as the return's decent, I'm all for selling high on him before the wheels fall off (or at least seem to get fairly loose) again. Sunday's outing was lousy -- everybody lays the occasional rotten egg -- but on the whole he's been darn good.

One other thing: After a very good batch of deadline moves last year and lots more solid moves over the winter, the Brewers are at a point where there's no one they really absolutely have to trade now. There are several guys that could net a very good return. That's a good thing, but it's not the same as needing to move guys (like pending FAs, primarily). There are annually replaceable guys like Boyer & Torres who could be had for a decent price, plus the 3 young/late guys attracting more attention. There's Garza whom no one should want but a Dave Stewart might actually be suckered into taking. Even Gennett's hitting LHPs better and is better now than many of the Brewers' potential replacement options, which shows the type of growth you'd hope to have seen over these couple years.... All are potential deal-able guys, but none are have-to's. Plenty of folks want to see Lucroy traded. I'd prefer to see both him & Braun be career Brewers. In the case of Lucroy, it seems that ship may have sailed after the Brewers declined his extension idea before last year. To me, that's a bummer. Even with some decline into his 30s, he'd still be one of the better catchers in the majors, and I'd have no problem paying him accordingly. Yadier Molina is rather old and has dealt with some injuries, but he remains one of the top catchers in the majors now in spite of that and Cardinal Nation's not exactly screaming for Mozeliak to trade the guy -- nor should they be. I get the whole point of the rebuild approach, and I agree with it (though not to the total tear-down extremes that some feel are the only legit/true way to guarantee success). The only thing a rebuild or general turnover ensures is change. Success is no sure thing. But during a rebuild, as someone noted Stearns has already done, one of the keys is getting guys at different stages of their development. Eventually, in that mix you also need some certainty (as in already-proven guys) and a bit of credible veteran leadership (I'm sure that just made some heads explode), and I'd prefer the certainty that guys like Lucroy & Braun would bring vs. other guys you'd hope end up close to matching what you already know Lucroy & Braun can do in both on- and off-field respects. EDIT: Mis-wrote Smith instead of Torres, fixed in bold above. Wasn't out of my mind, just tired.

I'm not fond of Jim Bowden at all, but I spent a lot of yesterday driving and listening to MLBNetwork Radio and beyond his usual noisy drivel, he made one especially good point: **When it comes to any trades, deadlines matter and RARELY is any team going to make their best offer this far ahead of the deadline.** A couple thoughts: - Before we convince ourselves that what hasn't happened yet surely won't happen at all, there's still nearly a week to go. Last year many were convinced that Melvin would prove worthless or inept at the deadline, but between July & August, he made good deals -- a lot of 'em! - I don't want Stearns to make a deal just to make a deal. - I'd rather Stearns make NO deal than make a deal for a substandard return. - Especially regarding the deals he made in the off-season and since, many of the acquisitions were about the young players' potential ceilings. But some were also to have enough depth to fill out the major league team AND field something more respectable in AAA. To me, many of the Broxton/Flores/Middlebrooks/etc. moves were far more about the latter, yet also filling out more of the depth with one-time high-ceiling guys vs. a group of middling never-were-or-never-were-going-to-be's.

I highly doubt the Dodgers would do it, but I'd far prefer to take a minimal return to take Garza and some portion of his contract off our hands & payroll. Maybe that's a dumb thing to say -- I know it's counter to the thread's premise -- but I'm sure not crazy about trading Nelson and probably also not Guerra.

I think what people are saying, and so far I agree with them, is that Doug was able to find a bunch of nobody's off the scrapheap who turned into serviceable major league players. While it's way too early to judge, Stearns scrapheap nobody's have so far just been nobody's. Thanks. That was exactly my point -- or at least that most of Stearns' pickups are still mostly nobodies. That may be the case for a while, but it's also way too early to judge given the totally different points the franchise was under Melvin over the past 5 years vs. Stearns now . . . . although judged vs. when Melvin first came on board, the organizational points weren't that drastically different (though the nature of their approaches to similar situations still reflects the differences in their approaches -- and I'd argue that each of their respective early time as GM judged in its own context does point out some of the fundamental differences between the eras as much as their approaches).

Three points & one musing following up my opener: 1) Clarifying: I wasn't being critical of anything in particular -- or necessarily even critical -- rather just noting the perspective we have now being 2 full months into the season. There were some among these fringe guys I liked & rooted for, too. 2) If 10% of waivers claims becoming MLB-viable players is a good success rate, than Melvin's far more shrewd & successful than many on this board would ever dare admit they should give him credit for. 3) Rivera was roster-fringe, sure, but not with significant red flags, especially not in this way (suggested above): Yes, you can point out his .270 OBP in AAA for the production level it was. However, that only looks at the surface. He was our best SS prospect for a reason 'til Arcia started shining a couple years ago. More to the point, though, he was really supposed to be developing at AA last year, not AAA -- and was at AA until roster needs at AAA forced him up there (a more logical choice as the greater "leave him where he is & don't risk messing him up" prospect rightly was Arcia). He was hardly the first decent prospect to struggle when bumped up a level when he really wasn't ready to be (Corey Hart was a perennial case of that after each good year in the minors saw him bumped up a level near the end of the season, only to "lose his game" and totally stink after his "reward" promotion). And the fact is, they didn't come into camp expecting him to make the team. But his play made his making the OD roster the obvious choice at the time. Now he's back to playing everyday in AAA, developing more as he probably should be. Finally, it's also interesting for how much we knew Stearns' approach to player movement would likely be more "contemporary" -- and largely we've liked much of that -- many of us still are much more used to (or grounded in) Melvin's more deliberate approach to & pace of player turnover. It's hard not to wonder if Melvin would've hung onto Walsh all year (a la Enrique Cruz & Wei-Chung Wang, for instance), but Stearns has already rolled the dice on losing his upside due to the lack of progress of his MLB-level downsides to this point. I don't think either Stearns' or Melvin's way is inherently better than the other's -- the pros & cons of both approaches are pretty apparent -- but they sure are different!

A side comment here.... Two months into the season, it's interesting to remember how there was so much advocacy for many of the waiver claims & formerly-high-ceiling talents late in the winter & through ST. So far, most of those guys haven't proven to be much more than edge-of-the-roster players. A few have trended upward (Villar, Guerra) or at least not dumpster-worthy (Nieuwenhuis), but it's interesting just how many of those potential nuggets are playing in the minors now (Walsh, Jungmann, Rivera) or aren't much above getting sent down to that level (Broxton, Flores, Goforth). Inevitably we knew this was a very possible scenario. Maybe if nothing else, after years of Doug Melvin's relative success with many of these types, even if it's not surprising, still it's a little disappointing how so few of these guys are earning loads of critical playing time.

I hate those royal/yellow BP jerseys, especially the color scheme & font of the numbers/letters. Yuck!

The current Astros cap is fine but the uniform itself is plain, ugly, & boring. It gets some props because it's retro, but retro & good aren't synonymous. It's basically what they had from the mid-'60s to mid-'70s -- the team wasn't good, the uniform wasn't good -- nothing about that era of Astros baseball was much good . . . just like the first 8 years of Brewers teams & uniforms! The Blue Jays' return to a subtly modernized version of their original got it right in a big way because it's sharp & classy in a way that's far more timeless than the curvy/swooshy '70s fonts/etc. They kept trying other things from '97 to '11 but none of the ideas were good (IMO they got worse the longer they went), and they kept changing every couple years -- overplaying the Canadian maple leaf in the logo comes to mind, as especially do the uniforms that were heavy on black & gray (because those colors are part of a blue jay -- well, yeah, but yuck!). BuckyBrewer61, of course it's fine that you dig the powder blues -- we all have a right to our opinions. Here's mine: As one who lived through the era when so many teams had powder blue uniforms (it wasn't an '80s trend but a '70s trend that gradually -- thankfully!!! -- went away in the mid/late '80s), it was SO nice to see teams finally get rid of them & go back to gray. The Royals still pull off the powder blue alternate jerseys okay (current version with navy outlining white lettering, as opposed to the previous version of navy "Royals" lettering with white outlining juxtaposed with white numerals outlined in royal). The Rays don't. The Twins never did. Nor did the Braves, Cardinals, Phillies, Blue Jays, Brewers, Rangers, Mariners, Cubs, or Expos. I don't care to see the pinstripes come back any more than they have. (I also don't get why they've taken the navy/gold stripe off the side of the pant legs this year. There goes an easy touch of character!) I liked the button-down version of the Brewers' pinstripe uniforms in the early '90s (not nearly as well as I like the current uniforms, but...) far better than the original version of those ('78-'89) -- that logo actually had a little character -- but I'd still prefer no more pinstripes at all. I think the current script "Brewers" is just fine and should be left alone -- as with all of the current primary uniform's features. For those who clamored to have "Milwaukee" brought back onto road uniforms, it ends up being more skinny lettering, and thus shorter (height) and longer (width), which lacks character IMO. I don't mind the BiG logo on the sleeve, but I'd still prefer that they'd do it in gold rather than yellow.